The Formation of the 'Book' of Psalms: Reconsidering the Transmission and Canonization of Psalmody in Light of Material Culture and the Poetics of Anthologies 316154787X, 9783161547874, 9783161549373

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Herausgegeben von Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (Princeton) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

88

David Willgren

The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms Reconsidering the Transmission and Canonization of Psalmody in Light of Material Culture and the Poetics of Anthologies

Mohr Siebeck

David Willgren, born 1983; 2009 Bachelor in Theology, Örebro School of Theology; 2016 ThD in Old Testament Exegesis, Lund University; currently lecturer at Akademi för Ledarskap och Teologi and Örebro School of Theology.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-154937-3 ISBN 978-3-16-154787-4 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2016 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

When my heart broke in two I taught both parts to sing #canonfodder

Preface This book is a slightly revised version of my PhD thesis which was defended in May 2016. I wish to express my gratitude to the faculty opponent Dr. habil. Anja Klein, as well as to the members of the assessment committee Professors Samuel Byrskog, Else Kragelund Holt, and Jesper Høgenhaven for a stimulating discussion. A special thank you also goes to the editors of FAT II for accepting this work for publication, not least Professor Hermann Spieckermann, who graciously invited me to spend a week in Göttingen in 2015 where I had the opportunity to give a lecture on the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. When I started this project, I had every intention to work within the field of Psalterexegese, acknowledging the Sitz in der Literatur of individual psalms and focusing on psalms standing in structurally significant places throughout the ‘Book’ of Psalms. In short, I was following closely in the academic footsteps of Gerald H. Wilson. However, the longer I studied this fascinating collection and the deeper I went into the ancient artifacts, the more I started to realize that something was missing. I set out searching for an appropriate way to frame these issues, and the quest started to lead me away from my original presuppositions. Indeed, after a while, I even began to question them, and an early form of a more thoroughgoing critique had seen the light of day. I became convinced that a study of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms could never focus only on the collection itself, but had to consider various aspects of its transmission and use, always properly situated in the diverse and complex, yet fascinating scribal and material milieus in which it took shape. To be sure, I am not the first to have reached such conclusions, but in my case, it lead me to a set of texts that had not previously been brought into the discussion, and to a theoretical framework that had been often overlooked. As for where I ended up, I will not reveal here, but needless to say, I have not traveled alone. My sincere gratitude goes first and foremost to my supervisor, Professor Fredrik Lindström at Lund University. Your constant support and many thought-provoking comments have made this study much better than it could ever have been without them. This goes also for my assistant supervisor, Professor Göran Eidevall at Uppsala University. I have much appreciated both of your abilities to combine words of encouragement with academically sharp and constructive criticisms.

VIII

Preface

I also wish to thank the Old Testament seminars at Lund and Uppsala for providing many opportunities to discuss various parts of this study. I have benefited greatly from intense and detailed interaction with you all. In this context I also want to mention my New Testament colleagues at Lund University. I started my exegetical journey at Örebro School of Theology, and it is with great gratitude that I look back not only to the early formative years, but also to the continuing support I have received. Besides the generous opportunity to have a study place at the library for two years I would like to thank the seminar of biblical exegesis, not least PhD student Stefan Green, Dr. Lennart Boström, Associate Professor Mikael Tellbe, and Professors Greger Andersson and Tommy Wasserman. As a PhD student in Old Testament exegesis I have had a need to interact more broadly with scholars outside of Sweden, and thanks to the formidable OTSEM network (Old Testament Studies: Epistemologies and Methods), I have had many opportunities to try my wings in the presence of great minds. A special thanks goes to those who have taken their precious time to provide detailed and engaging responses to my papers, Dr. Urmas Nõmmik, Dr. habil. Anja Klein, and Professors Gunnlaugur A. Jónsson and Corinna Körting. I am also deeply indebted to Professor Terje Stordalen, with whom I have had many stimulating discussions, not least during my visit to Oslo in 2014. A last group of scholars that I would like to thank are the ones I have shamelessly bothered with some of my texts via e-mail. They have all responded graciously and kindly to my blunt inquiries, and helpfully pointed me in the right direction. Thank you, Drs. Trine Bjørnung Hasselbalch, Alexandra Kleinerman, and Anders Mortensen, Associate Professor Angela Kim Harkins, and Professors James P. Allen, Jean-Marie Auwers, Walter Brueggemann, Jenny Strauss Clay, Susan E. Gillingham, Jean-Jacques Glassner, José B. Torres Guerra, J. Clinton McCann Jr., Norbert Lohfink, Richard B. Parkinson, Eileen M. Schuller, and William Yarchin for stimulating feedback. I am also grateful for the important input provided by Professor LarsOlov Eriksson, who served as opponent at my final seminar. Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my friends and family for continuous support and encouragement. You all know who you are, but thanks go especially to my wife, Fatima, and our two boys, Samuel and Elias. I could not have done this without you. Ultimately, I hope that this study will contribute not only to academic discussions, but also, in the long run, to the body of Christ. It is only together with all the saints that we have the possibility to comprehend what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that we may be filled with all the fullness of God. In Christ I take refuge. Lord, let me never be put to shame. Umeå, 2016-06-01 David Willgren

Table of Contents Preface ..............................................................................................................VII

Part I Framing the Task at Hand Chapter 1: The Problem ...............................................................................3 A. Wilson’s New Framework ................................................................................7 B. Sketching Major Trajectories ........................................................................11 I. Exploring Small Scale Sequences of Psalms..........................................12 II. ‘Seamingly’ Important Psalms ...............................................................16 III. Mapping the Dead Sea ‘Psalms’ Scrolls .................................................18 C. Focal Points for the Current Study ...............................................................18

Chapter 2: The Elusive String ..................................................................21 A. Anthology Defined .........................................................................................22 B. An Anthological Genre? ................................................................................26 C. Anthologies Unfold ........................................................................................27 D. Uncovering the Artificial ...............................................................................29 E. Outlining the Task at Hand ...........................................................................32

Part II Anthologies Compared Introduction ....................................................................................................37

X

Table of Contents

Chapter 3: Artifactual Diversity...............................................................39 A. Reconsidering Fixed Sequences ....................................................................39 B. Variation in Ancient Manuscripts ..................................................................41 C. Continuous Variation.....................................................................................48

Chapter 4: Paratexts ....................................................................................50 A. Prefaces .........................................................................................................50 B. Titles ..............................................................................................................54 C. Colophons, Doxologies, and Epilogues ........................................................56

Chapter 5: The How and the Why...........................................................60 A. Collections with Few Manuscript Variations ................................................60 B. Collections with Manuscript Variation .........................................................62 C. Collections without Ancient Manuscripts......................................................64 I. The Homeric Hymns ...............................................................................64 II. The Psalms of Solomon ..........................................................................68 D. The Question of Purpose Once Again ...........................................................71 I. Archival Economy ..................................................................................72 II. Scribal Curriculum .................................................................................74 III. Preservation (Canonization) ...................................................................75

Overview and Outlook ...............................................................................78 Part III The Artifacts Introduction ....................................................................................................83 Chapter 6: Overview of the Scrolls ........................................................85

Table of Contents

XI

A. Second Century BCE .....................................................................................85 B. First Century BCE .........................................................................................87 I. First Half or Middle of the Century ........................................................87 II. Second Half of the Century ....................................................................90 C. The Turn of the Era .......................................................................................92 D. First Century CE ...........................................................................................93 I. First Half of the Century.........................................................................94 II. Middle and Second Half of the Century .................................................98

Chapter 7: Evaluating the Evidence .....................................................104 A. Reconstructing a ‘Book’ of Psalms? ............................................................110 I. Preliminary Observations .....................................................................110 II. Arguments for the Stabilization of the ‘Book’ of Psalms .....................113 III. Beyond Statistics ..................................................................................117 1. A Farewell to a Two-Stage Stabilization ..........................................117 2. Possible Ways Forward ....................................................................120 B. 11Q5 as a Competing Collection?...............................................................121 I. Liturgical Clusters ................................................................................122 II. Text .......................................................................................................122 III. David and 11Q5 ....................................................................................123 IV. Structure and Purpose ...........................................................................126 V. Beyond 11Q5 ........................................................................................129

Overview and Outlook .............................................................................131 Part IV In Search of the Artificial Introduction ..................................................................................................135 Chapter 8: Psalms 1–2 as Preface .........................................................136 A. The Psalms in Question ...............................................................................137 I. Psalm 1 .................................................................................................137 1. A Brief Walkthrough ........................................................................138

XII

Table of Contents

2. Meditating on the Torah ...................................................................140 3. On What? .........................................................................................141 4. For What? .........................................................................................145 II. Psalm 2 .................................................................................................147 1. A Brief Walkthrough ........................................................................148 2. A Crux Interpretum ..........................................................................151 III. Conclusions ..........................................................................................154 B. Combining Psalms 1–2................................................................................154 I. Integrated Readings of Psalms 1–2 ......................................................154 II. Internal Evidence ..................................................................................158 III. External Evidence .................................................................................159 1. LXX .................................................................................................159 2. 4Q174 ...............................................................................................160 3. Acts 13:33 ........................................................................................162 4. Early Reception of Psalms 1–2 ........................................................163 C. Evaluating the Evidence ..............................................................................167 I. Towards a Definition ............................................................................167 II. Debunking Strict ‘Prefatorialism’ ........................................................169

Chapter 9: Superscriptions ......................................................................172 A. Overview and Analysis ................................................................................173 I. ‘Author’ Designations ..........................................................................173 II. ‘Type’ Designations ..............................................................................178 III. Musical Directions and Indications of Use ..........................................182 IV. ‘Biographical’ Notes .............................................................................184 V. Hallelujah .............................................................................................187 VI. Psalms with No Superscription ............................................................190 B. Conclusions .................................................................................................191 I. Forming Collections of Psalms ............................................................191 II. Fixation of Psalm Sequences ................................................................192 III. Exerting Interpretive Control ...............................................................193

Chapter 10: Psalm 72:20 ..........................................................................196 A. Attempted Solutions .....................................................................................196 B. Psalm 72:20 as a Frozen Colophon ............................................................198

Table of Contents

XIII

Chapter 11: ‘Book’ Dividers ...................................................................202 A. Preliminary Observations ...........................................................................202 B. Integral Parts or Later Insertions? .............................................................205 I. Psalm 41 ...............................................................................................206 II. Psalm 72 ...............................................................................................206 III. Psalm 89 ...............................................................................................208 IV. Psalm 106 .............................................................................................209 V. Conclusions ..........................................................................................211 C. A Possible Clue in 1 Chronicles 16 .............................................................211 I. Beyond a Direction of Dependence? ....................................................211 II. A Closer Look.......................................................................................212 III. Conclusions ..........................................................................................215 D. Reconstructing Contexts of Use for Amen ...................................................216 I. Amen in the Hebrew Bible ...................................................................216 II. Amen in the Dead Sea Scrolls ..............................................................219 III. Amen in the Apocrypha and the New Testament .................................221 IV. Conclusions ..........................................................................................222 1. Trajectories of Use ...........................................................................222 2. Connecting the Dots .........................................................................224 E. One Doxology Short? ..................................................................................226 I. Psalms 135–136 ....................................................................................227 1. Psalm 135 .........................................................................................228 2. Psalm 136 .........................................................................................229 3. Initial Remarks .................................................................................231 4. Stanza I: Exhortations ......................................................................232 5. Stanzas II–IV: YHWH as King and the Question of Trust ..............234 6. Stanza V: Final Doxology ................................................................237 7. Conclusions ......................................................................................238 II. Lost, but Found? ...................................................................................239 1. A ‫ ברך‬doxology in Psalms 135–136?...............................................239 2. Unexpected Implications .................................................................240 3. On the Relation Between ‫ ברך‬and ‫ הלל‬.............................................241 F. Conclusions .................................................................................................242

Chapter 12: The ‘Final Hallel’ ...............................................................244 A. The Psalms in Question ...............................................................................245 I. Psalm 145 .............................................................................................245

XIV

Table of Contents

II. Psalm 146 .............................................................................................251 III. Psalm 147 .............................................................................................254 IV. Psalm 148 .............................................................................................260 1. A Praise for All His Faithful ............................................................262 2. Evaluating the Connections .............................................................263 V. Psalm 149 .............................................................................................265 VI. Psalm 150 .............................................................................................270 B. Psalms 145.146–150 as a Composition ......................................................275 I. Psalms 145.146–150 and Artifactual Diversity ....................................276 II. Dissolving Borders of Sequential Reading...........................................276 C. The Hallelujah Frameworks Once Again ....................................................278 D. Conclusions .................................................................................................281

Overview and Outlook .............................................................................284 Part V Psalms on Repeat Introduction ..................................................................................................289 Chapter 13: Traces in the Hebrew Bible .............................................293 A. Declared Citations ......................................................................................293 I. 2 Samuel 22 ..........................................................................................293 II. 1 Chronicles 16 .....................................................................................295 III. Summary...............................................................................................296 B. Undeclared Citations ..................................................................................296 I. Possible Borrowing ..............................................................................296 II. Psalms within Psalms ...........................................................................299 III. Nascent Scripturalization......................................................................301 IV. Summary...............................................................................................304 C. Stock-Phrases ..............................................................................................305 I. A Levitical Stock-Phrase ......................................................................305 II. Further Examples of Stock-Phrases......................................................310 III. Summary...............................................................................................312 D. External Indications ....................................................................................312

Table of Contents

XV

E. Conclusions .................................................................................................313

Chapter 14: Traces in the Dead Sea Scrolls .......................................315 A. Declared Citations ......................................................................................316 I. Pesharim ...............................................................................................316 II. 1Q16 .....................................................................................................317 III. 4Q171 ...................................................................................................317 IV. 4Q173 ...................................................................................................318 V. 4Q174 and 4Q177.................................................................................319 VI. 11Q13 ...................................................................................................322 VII.Summary...............................................................................................323 B. Undeclared Citations ..................................................................................324 I. 4Q176 ...................................................................................................324 II. 4Q380–381 ...........................................................................................326 1. 4Q380 ...............................................................................................327 2. 4Q381 ...............................................................................................331 III. 4Q393 ...................................................................................................332 IV. 4Q434–438 ...........................................................................................334 V. 4Q521, 4Q525, 4Q528 .........................................................................335 VI. 4Q213a and 4Q370 ...............................................................................336 VII.Summary...............................................................................................337 C. Psalms in ‘New’ Collections ........................................................................338 I. 4Q522 ...................................................................................................338 II. 11Q11 ...................................................................................................339 D. External Indications ....................................................................................342 I. Possible References to the ‘Book’ of Psalms as a Collection...............342 II. Indications of Use .................................................................................344 E. Conclusions .................................................................................................345

Chapter 15: Prolonging Trajectories of Use.......................................347 A. Prophetic and Davidic.................................................................................348 B. Continuous Davidization .............................................................................352 C. Traces of (Scriptural) Collections of Psalms ..............................................355 D. Conclusions .................................................................................................363

XVI

Table of Contents

Overview and Outlook .............................................................................365 Part VI The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms Introduction ..................................................................................................369 Chapter 16: How? ......................................................................................371 A. Gathering the Evidence ...............................................................................371 I. Rehearsing the Artificial .......................................................................371 II. Psalms on Repeat Once Again ..............................................................374 B. Putting the Pieces Together .........................................................................376 I. Finding a Place to Start.........................................................................376 II. Psalms 1–119 ........................................................................................379 III. Psalms 1/2–135/136..............................................................................381 IV. Psalms 1–150 ........................................................................................382

Chapter 17: Why? ......................................................................................385 A. Purpose(s) of Selection................................................................................385 B. Purpose of Organization .............................................................................387 I. Interpretive Frameworks? .....................................................................387 II. A Sitz in der Schrift...............................................................................389 III. Paratexts and Interpretive Control ........................................................390 C. Conclusions .................................................................................................391

A Final Outlook ..........................................................................................393 Appendix 1: Catalogues of Incipits .................................................................395 Appendix 2: Superscriptions ............................................................................404 Appendix 3: LXX Manuscripts........................................................................412

Table of Contents

XVII

Bibliography ....................................................................................................415 Index of Passages .............................................................................................453 Index of Authors ..............................................................................................484

Part I

Framing the Task at Hand

Chapter 1

The Problem About any[thing] so great…, it is probable that we can never be right; and if we can never be right, it is better that we should from time to time change our way of being wrong.1 – T. S. Eliot

Every now and then, a study comes along that successfully challenges long standing presuppositions in a field, changes the way that some issues are approached, and perhaps even opens up entirely new lines of inquiry. If related to the study of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, it would be no overstatement to claim that the work of Gerald H. Wilson could be understood along these lines. Starting with his Yale dissertation, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, originally presented in 1981 and subsequently published by SBL Press in 1985,2 he was to somewhat reshape the way scholars approached issues of organization and editorial intent in relation to the ‘Book’ of Psalms, but as with all ground-breaking studies, Wilson’s observations were not without precursors. It is often repeated that prior to Wilson, scholars did, to a large extent, consider the ‘Book’ of Psalms as a rather haphazard collection of individual psalms, and this is certainly correct, but has to be somewhat qualified. A case in point would be Hermann Gunkel, whom Claus Westermann referred to as lacking “genuine interest”3 in the issue. In his Einleitung in die Psalmen: Die Gattungen der religiösen Lyrik Israels, Gunkel actually devoted an entire section to the compilation of the psalms (“Die Sammlung der Psalmen”),4 and two aspects were considered. First, he discussed possible principles of organization, and second, he touched upon the question of the purpose of such an organization. Having first asserted that matters of Gattung or content seemed to play little role in the arrangement of psalms,5 he then surveyed features of psalms that could in some way relate to the issue of arrangement, and concluded the following:

1 Eliot 1934, 126, stripped of Shakespearian reference. Cf. similar quotes in Becker 1975, 9, and McCann Jr. 1993a, 105. 2 Wilson 1985a. 3 Westermann 1981, 252. 4 Gunkel & Begrich 1985, 433–55 (first published in 1933). 5 “Daß die Anordnung der Psalmen nicht aus einem sachlichen Einteilungsgrunde erfolgt ist, ist leicht einzusehen” (Gunkel & Begrich 1985, 434).

4

Part I. Framing the Task at Hand

Das Ergebnis, daß sich kein einheitliches Prinzip für die überlieferte Aufeinanderfolge erkennen läßt, wohl aber verschiedene Gesichtspunkte bei der Zusammenstellung einzelner Psalmen nachweisbar sind (Ähnlichkeiten bestimmter Gedanken, Übereinstimmung in besonderen Stichworten, Gemeinsamkeit der Verfasser, Gleichheit der Überschriften), drängt zu dem Schlusse, daß das Psalmbuch seinen gegenwärtigen Zustand einem verwickelten Entstehungsvorgang verdankt, bei welchem nicht nur an Zusammenfassung verschiedener Teilsammlungen zu denken ist, sondern auch an Umstellungen, die ohne Rücksicht auf die Grenzen der alten Teilsammlungen erfolgt sind.6

In light of such a process, the issue of purpose was also deemed complex and so Gunkel suggested that a way forward could be to look at the possible purpose (or purposes) of smaller collections of psalms. He then provided a brief model of formation which was based in particular on ‘author’ designations and other features of the superscriptions, but also proceeded from the notion of an Elohistic collection. As an example, he noted a contrast between Pss 3–89 and Pss 90–150, and argued that apart from Pss 120–134, no principle(s) of organization could be found in relation to the many untitled psalms throughout Pss 90–150. In his view, Pss 90–150 were probably added to Pss 3–89, and hence never existed as a separate collection. Important for the question of purpose was, then, his suggestion that Pss 3–41 were to be understood as a distinct collection, intended as “ein Andachts- und Gebetsbuch.”7 Because the collection could have been added to the ‘Book’ of Psalms at a late stage, Gunkel proposed that the compiler (“der Sammler”) wanted to give the entire ‘Book’ of Psalms a similar, post-cultic, setting.8 Also probably intentional was the fivefold division of the collection, although he did not expand on its function in any greater detail besides noting that three of the doxologies would already have been in place as conclusions to earlier collections of psalms (Pss 41:14, 72:18–19, 89:53), while the one in Ps 106:48 was added by the compiler.9 A related approach to issues of both formation and purpose was taken by Sigmund Mowinckel, leading him to some similar conclusions. For example, while he proposed that small collections (which showed no clear principles of organization) had come into existence among temple singers, the final collection was rather to be attributed to the “the learned, ‘the scribes’, ‘the wise’.”10 In Mowinckel’s view, it was compiled to “serve as a pattern for the prayers of the pious [in the temple service], or even to be used as models for prayers in the wisdom schools and in the private devotions of the individual pious.”11 Interesting to note is that Ps 1 was to become a significant indicator of such a suggest6

Gunkel & Begrich 1985, 436. Gunkel & Begrich 1985, 455. 8 Gunkel & Begrich 1985, 455. 9 Gunkel & Begrich 1985, 455. 10 Mowinckel 1967, 2:204. 11 Mowinckel 1967, 2:204. 7

Chapter 1. The Problem

5

ed instructional focus. In fact, Mowinckel labeled the psalm a “kind of ‘motto’”12 for the aim and use of the collection, so that the ‘Book’ of Psalms “could and ought to teach a pious and righteous man the ‘way of life’,” and “point out the kind of destiny that would befall the ungodly and unrighteous, ‘who walketh in the counsel of the ungodly and sitteth in the seat of the scornful’.”13 Using Gunkel and Mowinckel as representatives of an approach to the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms that was, to a large extent, prevailing before the work of Wilson, small but significant signs of change will be seen as I now turn to the works of Westermann and Brevard S. Childs.14 Westermann raised the question of the possible existence of collections of psalms that were uniform in subject matter (thus contra Gunkel), and suggested that the “peculiar placing”15 of psalms of praise and royal psalms needed to be taken into consideration.16 Hence, he suggested, among other things, that the occurrence of the “unique” Ps 119 “just before” Pss 120–134 would indicate that Ps 119 once concluded a collection. As it had similarities in content with Ps 1, Westermann then proposed that they had provided a framework around a collection of psalms, and as such a framework, they indicated that the ‘Book’ of Psalms, “as a collection, no longer had a cultic function primarily, but rather circulated in a tradition devoted to the law. The Psalms have now become the word of God which is read, studied, and meditated upon.”17 As for previous stages of formation, he argued that a collection consisting predominantly of complaints of the individual (Pss 3–41) was juxtaposed with an Elohistic collection (Pss 42–83), and that this new collection (including Pss 84–88) was framed by two royal psalms (Pss 2 and 89).18 In fact, royal psalms were proposed to have been added or inserted secondarily into the various collections, so that their placement indicated a messianic interpretation, rather than having

12

Mowinckel 1967, 2:197. Mowinckel 1967, 2:205. 14 As for research prior to Westermann and Childs, a Dutch Groningen dissertation should also be mentioned. Written by Cornelis T. Niemeyer, the study concluded that although purposeful organization might occasionally be detected on a lesser scale, no overall systematic arrangement of psalms could be seen (see, e.g., Niemeyer 1950, 157: “Vooral moeten wij afwijzen de theorie van hen, die al te gemakkelijk spreken van een systematische rangschikking der Psalmen”). Moreover, Hengstenberg 1864 (esp. vol. 3) and Delitzsch 1867 had dealt with the issues at some length, and important contributions regarding both intentional juxtapositions of psalms and aspects of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms were made in, e.g., Zimmerli 1972; Gese 1974; Goulder 1975; Barth 1976; Reindl 1981. 15 Westermann 1981, 252. 16 The article was first published as Westermann 1962 (= Westermann 1964), and later incorporated in Westermann 1977. I will refer to the English translation found in Westermann 1981, 250–58. 17 Westermann 1981, 253 (emphasis original). 18 Westermann 1981, 255. 13

6

Part I. Framing the Task at Hand

cultic significance.19 As with Gunkel, he further remarked that the “first half” of the ‘Book’ of Psalms contained more “fixed, self-contained groups,” (identified by means of their superscriptions) while the latter featured more “individual Psalms.”20 He also observed that doxologies were regularly used to conclude collections. The clearest example of this was Ps 150, which was argued to conclude Pss 107–150.21 By focusing on the “canonical shape” of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, Childs developed further the ideas concerning possible purpose(s) of the collection.22 Ps 1 was not only a “kind of ‘motto’” (so Mowinckel), but a “preface to the psalms which are to be read, studied, and meditated upon,” so that its placement testified to transformation of Israel’s prayers to God into God’s word to Israel.23 Hence, the collection had a clear theological function, although the complex process of formation indicated that “no one doctrinaire theology was allowed to dominate.”24 Dealing with the royal psalms, Childs also suggested that their scattering could indicate a new understanding of them. The placing of Ps 2 was judged as significant, perhaps even to be seen as a “formal part” of the preface, and as such, it emphasized a “major theme” of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, namely the kingship of YHWH.25 Ultimately, Childs suggested that, when read in light of the failure of human kingship, the placement of royal psalms (as well as the “future orientation” of many of the complaint psalms) indicated that the “final form of the Psalter is highly eschatological in nature.”26 A final aspect providing a backdrop to Wilson’s work was the ongoing unrolling of ‘psalms’27 scrolls from the Judean Desert, and the most significant publication was that of the large ‘psalms’ scroll 11Q5 (11QPsa) by James A. Sanders.28 As it contained psalms in sequences differing from those of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, as well as psalms not attested in the Masoretic collection, it would quickly lead to intense discussions about its status and function, and

19

Westermann 1981, 257–58. Westermann 1981, 256, n. 17. 21 Westermann 1981, 256. 22 Childs 1979, 504–25. 23 Childs 1979, 513. 24 Childs 1979, 522. 25 Childs 1979, 516. 26 Childs 1979, 518. 27 I will use this designation to refer to scrolls that preserve (parts of) psalms that are now included in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, regardless of what other compositions might feature on the same manuscript. Hence, ‘psalm’ is to be understood primarily as a MT psalm, and the single quotation marks show that the designation is somewhat artificial, as, e.g., 4Q380 and 4Q381 should also probably be classified as psalms scrolls due to the many similarities with both MT psalms and ‘psalms’ scrolls (see also Davis 2015). For a further discussion, see pp. 326–32 below. 28 Sanders 1965; see also Sanders 1967 (the “Cornell edition”). 20

Chapter 1. The Problem

7

when taken together with the other ‘psalms’ scrolls uncovered at Qumran, it would affect the way in which the formation of the (latter parts of the) ‘Book’ of Psalms was reconstructed. Consequently, these scrolls would become an unavoidable part of scholarly discussion.29

A. Wilson’s New Framework Painted in broad strokes, the stage was now set for Wilson (a student of Childs), and proceeding from one of his first publications in 1984 – “Evidence of Editorial Divisions in the Hebrew Psalter” – he set out to provide evidence for a “continuing, purposeful editorial attempt to bring meaningful ‘shape’ to the whole Psalter.”30 Developed in length in his dissertation, and then further expanded and revised in numerous articles, Wilson provided a methodological framework on which subsequent studies would build,31 and this line of inquiry proceeded from two interrelated focal points. As demarcated in the introduction to his dissertation, he wanted first to identify and describe organizational techniques used to combine and unify earlier, originally unrelated collections of psalms. Second, he aimed to address the issue of what editorial purpose might have governed such an organizational process.32 So put, there is a degree of continuity in focus with the research sketched above, but Wilson took further steps in relation to both focal points. As for the first, he provided a new set of comparative material. In chapter 2, he introduced a collection of Sumerian temple hymns, followed by a focus on what he designated as (Mesopotamian) catalogues of hymnic incipits in chapter 3. In chapters 4–5, he dealt with the growing number of Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls mentioned above, and throughout these four chapters, he identified several possible editorial techniques which were then put into dialogue with the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms in chapters 6–7. A number of conclusions were drawn. Starting with the Mesopotamian material, Wilson suggested that an analysis of the Sumerian Temple Hymns could reveal several clues as to its arrange29

For a more thorough introduction to this research, see below, pp. 104–32. Wilson 1984, 337. 31 Wilson 1985b; Wilson 1985c; Wilson 1986; Wilson 1992; Wilson 1993a; Wilson 1993b; Wilson 1997; Wilson 2000; Wilson 2002b; Wilson 2005a; Wilson 2005b, and the early Wilson 1983. His impact on research of the “shape and shaping” of the ‘Book’ of Psalms has been monumental. Recently, a volume was dedicated to various aspects of his legacy (deClaissé-Walford 2014c, see also Mitchell 2006b), and several anthologies have been devoted to issues of composition and purpose (see, e.g., McCann Jr. 1993b; Seybold & Zenger 1994; Zenger 1998c; Flint & Miller 2005; Zenger 2010a). See also the multiple overviews by Howard Jr. (Howard Jr. 1989; Howard Jr. 1993b; Howard Jr. 1999b; Howard Jr. 2005). 32 Wilson 1985a, 5. 30

8

Part I. Framing the Task at Hand

ment.33 It was an example of a collection where individual compositions were arranged on the basis of a “larger schema,” with doxologies in concluding positions. Important was also the observed fixation of a “colophonic material as a ‘frozen’ part of a literary composition,” which was argued to provide a parallel to the superscriptions in the ‘Book’ of Psalms, and indicated that even minor adjustments to a collection could make it relevant in (later) historical contexts that had little in common with its original Sitz im Leben. Consequently, a notion of adaptability was introduced. Moving on, Wilson noted that several techniques were used to organize compositions in the “catalogues of hymnic incipits.”34 While the main concern seemed to have been genre, he also detected arrangements based on liturgical correspondences, series, deity addressed, similar phraseology, currency of usage, language of the compositions, the type of tablet on which a composition was written, and even where the tablet was stored. In Wilson’s view, this indicated an “extremely flexible system of classification” that could accommodate various purposes, and as there were overlap between catalogues, he concluded that there was an increasing standardization in the way incipits were juxtaposed, and that this could be understood as a “‘canon’ in the making.”35 As for the ‘psalms’ scrolls from the Judean Desert, Wilson was the first to relate 11Q5 more closely to not only the ‘Book’ of Psalms, but the other ‘psalms’ scrolls as well. These were analyzed with an eye to both aspects of organizational techniques and issues of intent, and provided additional insights into the issue of “shape and shaping” of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms.36 Most important were the suggestions that the ‘psalms’ scrolls, if arranged chronologically, seemed to indicate a gradual stabilization of the collection, with ‘books’ 4–5 being fluid up until the first century CE, and that 11Q5 used editorial techniques similar to those attested in Pss 90–150, as over Pss 1–89.37 Turning to the “Hebrew Psalter,” that is, the well-known Masoretic sequence of psalms that was the main focus of the study, Wilson suggested that several editorial techniques had been used, and that most of these related to various features of the psalms superscriptions.38 In line with previous studies of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, Wilson argued that some features of the superscriptions indicated earlier collections of psalms – most significantly the widespread use of ‘author’ designations throughout ‘books’ 1–3 – and he also noted

33

Wilson 1985a, 13–24. See further below, pp. 56–59. Wilson 1985a, esp. 53–60. For an introduction, see Appendix 1 below. 35 Wilson 1985a, 59. 36 See Wilson 1983; Wilson 1985a, esp. 93–138. He was to return to the issue in a number of articles, see, e.g., Wilson 1985b and Wilson 1997. 37 Wilson 1985a, 116–38. 38 For his own discussion, see Wilson 1984; Wilson 1985a; Wilson 1985c, but also the subsequent Wilson 1993a; Wilson 1993b; Wilson 2005b. 34

Chapter 1. The Problem

9

the peculiar change after Ps 89. However, in contrast to previous research, he suggested that changes in such ‘author’ designations marked strong “disjunctures,” especially around the ‘book’ divisions (e.g. ‫ לשלמה‬in Ps 72, cf. ‫ לאסף‬in Ps 73). So put, they were indications of “conscious editorial activity either to introduce such author-changes in order to indicate disjuncture between such divisions or to make use of such existing points of disjuncture in the division of the Psalter.”39 The disjunctures were labeled “seams,” and would constitute an essential focal point for further observations. As with the ‘author’ designations, Wilson argued that ‘genre’40 designations were used to demarcate segments in the collection (see, e.g., ‫ מזמור‬in Pss 3–6), implying a tendency to “juxtapose compositions whose superscripts have one, two, three or more terms in common”, although there was an obvious “failure of the editor(s) to pull together all similar superscripts.”41 Notably, they were also suggested to have a function in relation to the seams. More specifically, they were used either to soften transitions between groups that were identified by change in ‘author’ designation (‫ מזמור‬in Pss 47–51; ‫ מזמור‬and ‫ שיר‬in Pss 62– 68; ‫ מזמור‬in Pss 82–85; the double superscript in Ps 88 etc.), or to emphasize “purposeful breaks” (that is, the breaks between ‘books’ 2–3, 3–4, and 4–5 respectively).42 Consequently, the use of both ‘author’ and ‘genre’ designations seemed to overlap in significant ways, leading Wilson to conclude that “[t]he widespread and consistent nature of this phenomenon militates against any chance distribution of the psalms and supports the idea of purposeful, editorial activity behind the organizational process.”43 According to Wilson, ‘books’ 4–5 did, however, reveal quite different editorial techniques. Rather than using ‘author’ and ‘genre’ designations, Hallelujah psalms were argued to conclude segments (Pss 104–106, 111–117, 135, and 146–150), while psalms featuring a ‫ הודו‬formula opened segments. Based on a similar use of such features in 11Q5, Wilson proposed that this indicated purposeful editorial activity intended to demarcate borders of “discrete segments of the larger collection.”44 Consequently, although proceeding from observations as to concluding doxologies made by many scholars before him, he made 39

Wilson 1984, 339. Cf. what I call ‘type’ designations below (pp. 178–82). 41 Wilson 1984, 343. 42 On a lesser scale, Wilson would suggest that psalms with no superscription throughout ‘books’ 1–3 (e.g. Pss 10; 43) were used to preserve a tradition of them being combined with their immediate predecessor (Pss 9; 42, see Wilson 1985a, 173–77; cf. Wilson 1985c), and that, apart from ‘author’ designations and ‘genre’ designations, other techniques that had been discovered in the comparative material were also used (e.g., juxtaposition by similar incipit [Pss 103–104], divine name [the “Elohistic Psalter”] or the use of “catch phrases” [Pss 32– 33], Wilson 1985a, 194–97). 43 Wilson 1984, 349. 44 Wilson 1984, 350. 40

10

Part I. Framing the Task at Hand

some crucial modifications of these ideas, and apart from the ‫ הודו‬and Hallelujah psalms, he also suggested that Ps 145 had originally functioned as concluding doxology for ‘book’ 5, so that the entire final Hallel (Pss 146–150) now served as a conclusion to the ‘Book’ of Psalms. According to Wilson, the discontinuity between the two main parts of the ‘Book’ of Psalms (‘books’ 1–3 and ‘books’ 4–5) further underscored the observed “stabilization” of the collection in the ‘psalms’ scrolls, and pointed to two major stages,45 but he also related them to each other as he provided a key to the understanding of the final shape of the collection that was only hinted at in the observations made by Westermann and Childs. In picking up on both the “peculiar” scattering of royal psalms throughout the ‘Book’ of Psalms and the possible prefatorial function of Ps 1, he suggested that the solution was to be found in the seams. More specifically, he argued that the editor(s) had created two overlapping frameworks by the placement and use of specific psalms at the seams of the collection, and these revealed a final purpose that was intended to guide the reader. Hence, the last piece of the puzzle related to organizational techniques and enabled him to move to the issue of editorial intent. The first framework was called a “royal covenantal frame,”46 initially described as stretching from Ps 2, through Ps 72, and concluding with the lament of Ps 89, but later argued to extend into the fifth book by a strategic placing of Ps 144.47 This framework was then put into dialogue with a final wisdom, or “cohesive sapiental”48 framework, governing the way one should approach the theology of the first framework. Although it primarily structured the last two ‘books’ by the placement of Pss 90(–91), 106/107, and 145, it also extended into ‘books’ 1–3 through Ps 73 and Ps 1, the latter serving as an entry into the entire collection.49 The effect of these frameworks was, then, the shaping of a ‘book’ that move[s] consistently and purposefully and so joins and arranges early collections, individual pss and later groupings, that the final product speaks the message intended by the final editor(s); a message which is distinct from and which intends to supersede that of the earlier pss-collections on which it is partly based.50

Important in detecting such a message was the understanding of ‘books’ 4–5 (especially ‘book’ 4, seen as “editorial ‘center’” through its Mosaic focus alongside the ‫ יהוה מלך‬psalms)51 as an answer to the cry of Ps 89, “direct[ing] 45

For a more detailed discussion of these issues, see below, pp. 113–17. The term was introduced in Wilson 1992, 134. 47 Compare the identification of royal psalms in Wilson 1986 with the later Wilson 1992 and Wilson 1993a. 48 For this designation, see Wilson 2005b. 49 For the inclusion of Ps 106, see Wilson 1992. For Ps 107, see Wilson 1993a. 50 Wilson 1985a, 11. 51 Wilson 1985a, 214–15. 46

Chapter 1. The Problem

11

the faithful to trust in Yahweh as king rather than in fragile and failing human princes.”52 So put, the ‘Book’ of Psalms was claimed to have a message that moved from “lament to praise,” from “individual to community,” stressing YHWH’s “enthronement on the praises of his people,” all being a “matter of life and death,”53 but as the wisdom frame had the “last word,”54 there was also an important move from performance to meditation, so that the ‘Book’ of Psalms had now become the word of God.55 In sum, although some of his conclusions inevitably resembled earlier observations, the major innovation was the way in which editorial purpose was identified and interpreted, and one effect this would have on subsequent research was a distinct move away from being primarily interested in original (cultic) contexts of individual psalms, and towards an increasing focus on the arrangement of these psalms into a ‘book’. By claiming that the ‘Book’ of Psalms was carefully crafted scripture, intended to convey a specific message through its seams, Wilson had provided scholars with a new interpretive framework for the individual psalm: its Sitz in der Literatur. Such a framework would then enable further studies, both on the shape (that is, the “final” or “canonical” form) of the ‘book’ as a whole, and on smaller parts of it, and in 2006, David C. Mitchell would state that “[t]hanks to Wilson’s work, there arose a scholarly consensus that the Psalms were redacted around a purposefully developing sequence of ideas.”56

B. Sketching Major Trajectories Much of the research on issues of “shape and shaping” that followed Wilsons’ work would relate back to the two core concerns of most previous scholarship: traces of formation and questions of intent. As a methodological framework had been established, studies could now proceed to more detailed studies of the suggested psalms in the seams, but the work of Wilson also triggered the question of whether a purposeful arrangement could be detected on a lesser scale as well. Ultimately, a third line of inquiry would start to gain momentum. In reading the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms synchronically (as a book), some scholars would proceed from Wilson’s conclusions, trace themes and motives throughout the final shape of the collection, and propose new ways to understand issues related to an overall message and the Sitz in der Literatur of the individual psalms. 52

Wilson 2005a, 393. Wilson expands on these topics in Wilson 1992, 136–42. 54 Wilson 1993a, 81; cf. Wilson 1985a, 199–228. 55 In Wilson’s view, the final redaction took place in the first century CE (see Wilson 2000). 56 Mitchell 2006b, 526; cf. Miller 2003, 90. 53

12

Part I. Framing the Task at Hand

Now, this is not the place for a comprehensive overview of recent research. Important studies will instead be introduced and interacted with in relation to the various parts of this study, but some major trajectories should nevertheless be sketched here, to demarcate and clarify issues that still need some consideration. I. Exploring Small Scale Sequences of Psalms A first line of inquiry has focused on what David M. Howard Jr. calls the “microstructure” of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. In his view, “overarching patterns and themes should be capable of verification on the lower level of specific word, thematic, and/or structural and genre links between and among individual psalms,” since the latter provide the “building blocks” for the former.57 Now, one might question whether that is a necessary consequence of Wilson’s work, especially in light of the notion of previously independent collections where individual psalms might have been organized by a great variety of techniques, but several scholars have nevertheless proceeded from the basic understanding that superscriptions do in some way demarcate borders of sequential reading and have provided careful and detailed arguments in favor of such a view. Howard Jr., for one, analyzed Pss 93–100 “with an eye to its structure and to the strategic markers within the text,”58 and provided extensive discussions on the lexemes of these psalms in an attempt to identify significant links and sketch a context of interpretation.59 Similarly, both Gianni Barbiero and Egbert Ballhorn proceed from the notion of a unified collection in their studies of a demarcated section of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms (Pss 1–41 and Pss 90–150 respectively).60 Important contributions to this line of inquiry have also been made by, in particular, Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger. Having written quite extensively on these issues, both together and individually,61 their work is not primarily dependent on Wilson, but do in a sense resemble the approaches of Gunkel and Mowinckel to issues of formation since purpose is argued in relation to independent sub-collections and various stages of growth, but with a clearer focus on issues of literary context. Focusing on lesser scale arrangement of psalms identified and argued by means of, for example, lexical links (Stichwörter), similar motives and thematic concepts,62 Hossfeld and Zenger argued 57

Howard Jr. 1999b, 333. Howard Jr. 1997, 25. 59 See also Howard Jr. 1993a; Howard Jr. 1999a. 60 Barbiero 1999; Ballhorn 2004. See also Rösel 1999; Leuenberger 2004. 61 See esp. the three part commentary which is currently being translated into English as part of the Hermeneia series (vols. 2 and 3 have been completed so far as Hossfeld & Zenger 2005; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011. For the German originals, see Hossfeld & Zenger 2000; Hossfeld & Zenger 2008). See also the older Hossfeld & Zenger 1993. 62 In Zenger’s terms, the two former are understood as concatenatio, while the latter is an 58

Chapter 1. The Problem

13

that the ‘Book’ of Psalms is the end result of a diachronically growing corpus of diverse collections (some previously independent), Clusterkompositionen, Zwillingpsalmen, concentric groups, thematically arranged groups, etc., each with its own “spezifische theologische Programmatik bzw. religiöse Pragmatik.”63 As the collection grew, the existing material was often subject to “[r]edaktionelle Einfügung neuer Psalmenverse/Psalmen zur Veränderung der Sprecher eines Textzusammenhangs,”64 and such insertions would then provide the foundation on which ideas about purpose could be based. Working in this way, Hossfeld and Zenger reached some conclusions similar to Wilson’s. For example, ‘books’ 1–3 and 4–5 were seen as using distinct editorial techniques,65 Pss 2, 72, and 89 were argued to stand in structurally significant places,66 psalms superscriptions provided important clues as to the identification of previously independent collections,67 and ‘book 4’ stressed the kingship of YHWH as a “counter-concept to the Davidic kingdom.”68 However, the final purpose of the collection was not primarily to be found in psalms in the seams, but in the theological stress, or development of thought, in Pss 145.146–150. Argued to relate back to Pss 1–2, they indicated that the ‘Book’ of Psalms had a non-liturgical (and post-cultic) Sitz im Leben, so that ultimately it was itself conceived as a “Heiligtum, in dem sich der biblische Gott mitteilen will.”69 Proceeding from Wilson’s framework, Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford approaches the ‘Book’ of Psalms as “story within a canonical context,”70 and takes special interest in the community that shaped it. To her understanding, the editors (identified as Levitical scribes) shaped the (MT) ‘Book’ of Psalms with techniques detected by Wilson (but also through reworking, compiling and adaptation of individual psalms for their new position in the text) to take the reader on a constitutive journey “through the history of the nation Israel.”71 As a result, the collection had a kind of “plot,” seen as a “narrative within a poetic

example of iuxtapositio, both being judged as the most important techniques (Zenger 2010b, 31). 63 Zenger 2010b, 29–64, citation from 48. 64 Zenger 2010b, 43. For an example, see Zenger 2005, 438–39. 65 Zenger et al. 2012, 444. 66 Zenger 1994b, 149. However, Zenger disagreed with Wilson on how the two last ‘books’ were structured. On this discussion, see below, pp. 305–9. 67 See, e.g., Zenger 1994c, 175–77. 68 ! Zenger 1998a, 81; cf. Zenger 1994a. 69 Zenger 1998b, 48; cf. Zenger 1999. See also Janowski 2010. Related to these (and other) psalms, Zenger also proposed that an implicit anti-imperial critique could be observed, so that the entire collection could be read in such a way (see esp. Zenger 1997a). 70 deClaissé-Walford 1997, vii. 71 deClaissé-Walford 1997, 27–29; cf. deClaissé-Walford 2000, 99.

14

Part I. Framing the Task at Hand

text.”72 Such an approach was also explored by, for example, Robert E. Wallace, although he moved explicitly beyond any diachronic concerns and stated that “the question of ‘purposed’ arrangement is a non-issue.… Whether the arrangement is an editorial feature, or an accident of history is a secondary concern to this study.”73 So put, his focus was exclusively on the “canonical” text, on its shape rather than on issues of shaping. Although working with somewhat different methodologies, the scholars mentioned above do all proceed from the final “shape” of the ‘book’, some even reading it as a linear narrative (albeit complexly unfolding) related to parts of the history of Israel. Consequently, this field of research has been labeled a canonical approach,74 and a good summary of the basic story argued to unfold throughout the collection is provided by Hossfeld: Books 1 and 2 reflect the founding era of kings David and Solomon, followed by the decline until the Babylonian exile in Book 3. Book 4 segues from the exile to expectations of homecoming and the reunion of Israel. Book 5 concentrates on the reestablishment of Israel … [which] is yet to be concluded.… Thus, with its division into five books, the Psalter follows the history of Israel and thus responds to YHWH’s acts of salvation in history, which is yet to be completed by means of prayer.75

Even though most of these suggestions are intrinsically coherent, many reveal an inherent failure to relate properly to questions of purpose(s). As stated correctly by Roland E. Murphy, they “partake of a hypothetical character; one can associate freely between one psalm and another in the context of a book. The associations hardly justify a solid context from which to draw conclusions.”76 Put differently, various kinds of unifying patterns (be they redactional, compositional, canonical or the like) are not always kept apart, and so there is an inherent risk of conflating synchronic and diachronic concerns.77 Ultimately, the remaining question is how an observation regarding an identifiable shape relates to questions of editorial intent. Tracing back to Wilson, patterns could be judged as so unlikely that they had to be intentional, but the issue is rarely satis72

deClaissé-Walford 2006, 119. See also John H. Walton’s suggestion that the ‘Book’ of Psalms was arranged into a cantata about the Davidic covenant (Walton 1991). 73 Wallace 2007, 11–12. 74 deClaissé-Walford 2014a. See also, e.g., Zenger 1991; Grant 2004, 11–19. 75 Hossfeld 2014, 77. See also deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 29–38. 76 Murphy 1993, 23. 77 As an example, consider the use made of the ‘book’ dividing doxologies in Pss 41, 72, 89, and 106. These often provide synchronic ‘borders’ in studies on lesser scale arrangement of psalms, but this is recurrently done without any discussion of their time of addition. The problem is obvious. If they were to be regarded as quite late additions, the ‘border’ would disappear, a fact seen clearly in the way the relation between Pss 106 and 107 is treated (see, e.g., Millard 1994, 82, who argues that a leap over a ‘book’ border is quite problematic when discussing the shape of the extant text and should only be considered when all other solutions have failed).

Chapter 1. The Problem

15

factorily clarified. Furthermore, literary features such as themes, catch phrases, and recurring vocabulary cannot easily be taken as intentional, since it is well known that recurring language is an intrinsic feature to poetry.78 Although it should not be excluded that such factors might have played a part as psalms were juxtaposed, it is questionable whether the observations made provide an adequate foundation for detecting large-scale purpose(s). Consequently, while the studies above all provide important insights and interesting readings of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, leading towards a greater appreciation of its theologies, they do not necessarily say much about its formation, nor of questions of purpose. This critique applies also to the work of Hossfeld and Zenger, although some of it is evaded, as a vital part of their approach is to identify later additions to psalms.79 Hence, if reuse of language, lexical links, and so on are found primarily in such additions, it would strengthen the case for editorial intent. Furthermore, although Hossfeld and Zenger do not identify any overarching “message” for the ‘Book’ of Psalms in the same sense as, for example, Wilson and deClaissé-Walford, the relation between a suggested reading of a (part of a) collection and a suggested editorial intent is still somewhat unsettled. Consequently, other approaches have been suggested. Matthias Millard, for one, downplays the role of, for example, lexical links in favor of form critical observations. Although commonly applied only to individual psalms, Millard proceeds from notions of changes of speaker and tone, as well as from occasions where a psalm preserves a combination or doubling of forms (etc.), and argues that similar processes also occur across larger sections of psalms which are often, but not always, demarcated by means of superscriptions.80 A thematic approach has also been taken by, for example, Jerome F. D. Creach, who suggests that some clues to the shape and shaping of the collection can be found if tracing the theme of refuge.81

78

See a similar point in Gerstenberger 1994, 5. For an illustrative discussion on these issues, see the discussion between Millard, Rolf Rendtorff, Hossfeld and Zenger in BibInt 4/3, 1996 (Millard 1996; Rendtorff 1996; Hossfeld & Zenger 1996). 80 Millard 1994. 81 Creach 1996. In some later studies, he also suggests that a study of the description of the righteous could provide interesting clues (Creach 2008; Creach 2011). For other studies focusing on the way certain themes or motives play out throughout either the entire collection or some demarcated section of it, see, e.g., Mitchell 1997 (an eschatological message); Grant 2004 (Deuteronomy’s kingship law); Tucker Jr. 2014 (ideologies of power in Pss 107–145); or Gosse 2015 (messianic expectations). 79

16

Part I. Framing the Task at Hand

II. ‘Seamingly’ Important Psalms The critical remarks concerning the relation between “shape” and “shaping,” between synchronic observations and questions of editorial intent, emanate even clearer if approaching Wilson’s idea that some psalms were ‘seamingly’ important (pun intended). As introduced above, some psalms were intentionally placed throughout the seams of the collection to convey a specific message and govern the reading of the collection. However, while Wilson’s frameworks were clearly identified, he provided no clear criteria for the identification of such “seam” psalms,82 and consequently, a number of suggestions have been presented. A brief mention of four of these could serve as an illustration: 1) J. Clinton McCann Jr. focused on psalms placed at the beginning of ‘books’ 1–3 (Pss 1–2, 42–44, and 73–74) rather than on those at the end (so Wilson) in an attempt to support and “add further depth” to Wilson’s argument, and concluded that the “answer” provided by ‘book’ 4 was already anticipated in ‘book’ 3.83 2) Walter Brueggemann (and Patrick D. Miller) considered Ps 73 as a “canonical marker” due to its internal structure, dramatic theological movement, inherent juxtaposition of the themes of kingship and torah piety, and its placement near the center of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, directly after the only explicit “editorial element” in Ps 72:20.84 As such, it was seen as vital in a larger movement from obedience to praise, from Ps 1 to 150 through Ps 25 and 103.85 3) Beat Weber suggested Ps 78 as a “Mitte des Psalters,” singled out based on its length (72 verses), its position in the arithmetic center of the collection, as well as the assertion that its theological perspective was in accordance with a proposed final redaction, that is, related to Pss 1–2, 3, and 145–150.86 4) James L. Mays noted a recurrent pairing of torah psalms with psalms that were subject to eschatological rereading (Pss 1–2, 18–19, and 118–119). Seen in the light of other psalm pairs throughout the ‘Book’ of Psalms, he suggested that it could be seen as a work of theological synthesis, providing “an eschatological context for a piety based in torah.”87 As the torah psalms were all judged to be of late date, their inclusion in the ‘Book’ of Psalms was seen as belonging to the final shaping, and hence, they pointed to “a type of piety as settingin-life for the Psalms, a piety that used the entire book as prayer and praise.”88

This lack of consensus about which psalms are to be considered structurally significant, and, more importantly, of accepted criteria becomes urgent when put in direct relation to Wilson’s frameworks. If so, it becomes clear that al82

Cf. the critique in Longman III 2014, 34. McCann Jr. 1993a; cf. the comment on this particular argument in Wilson 1992, 136. 84 Brueggemann 1991, 81, see also Brueggemann & Miller 1996, 46. The idea of Ps 73 at a “pivot point” was later seen by Wilson as “appealing” (Wilson 1992, 135). Cf. Brueggemann 1993, 39. 85 Brueggemann 1991. 86 Weber 2007, 309–10; cf. Millard 2007. 87 Mays 1987, 11. See also Grant 2004, 2, who proposes that the juxtaposition of “kingship psalms alongside torah psalms” reflects the editors aims to “reflect the theology of the Deuteronomic Law of the King in the Book of Psalms.” 88 Mays 1987, 12. 83

Chapter 1. The Problem

17

though Wilson attempted to account for the scattering of royal psalms, he only succeeded in part. While it can be observed that royal psalms indeed occur throughout the seams, the scattering is in no way limited to the seams only, and some seams lack royal psalms altogether.89 Similar observations would then apply to the sapiental framework, where neither Ps 19 nor Ps 119 were given any detailed consideration, probably because they did not occur near any ‘book’ dividing seam, and psalms included in the framework did not always bear clear wisdom characteristics. Now, although the lack of consensus should not be overemphasized (there is, for example, general agreement that psalms at the beginning and end of the collection, and possibly in the middle, are important), it seems clear that the identification of ‘seamingly’ important psalms is somewhat wanting. If one would agree with the assertion that ‘book’ dividing seams were ‘places’ where editorial activity would be most explicit, suggestions of a purposed message conveyed through them would have to discuss all those psalms (Pss 1–2, 41–42 [43], 72–73, 89–90, 106–107, 144–150), but no such study has yet been carried out. Hence, it could be asserted that Wilson’s frameworks are unconvincing, effectively weakening the foundation for the idea that “the final product speaks the message intended by the final editor(s).”90 In fact, two scholars in particular (R. Norman Whybray and Erhard S. Gerstenberger) have questioned the very notion of the ‘Book’ of Psalms as a ‘book’, and although their critique has not gained any wide influence, their work indicate that there is a fairly fundamental aspect in need of further consideration, namely the presupposed notion of fixed sequences of psalms where seams can be readily detected.91 In fact, in light of the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls, such a notion can be questioned. 89

Wilson did, however, explain the latter in relation to the smoothing function of ‘genre’ designations, and in suggesting that even ‫ למנצח‬could perform such a function, he was able to exclude Pss 41–42 (43) from his frameworks. Apart from the presence or lack of royal psalms in the seams, the notion of sole kingship of YHWH in the latter parts of the ‘Book’ of Psalms has been intensely discussed, especially as to the role of David (see, e.g., the critique in Mitchell 1997, 78–81; Mitchell 2006b, 532–47; Wallace 2014; cf. also the remarks in Smith 1992; Whybray 1996, 88–99; Grant 2004, 26, 33–39; Ndoga 2014, 156), although it is generally agreed that the kingdom of God is a dominant theme throughout ‘books’ 4–5 (see, e.g., Leuenberger 2004, and the overview of research in Tucker Jr. 2014, 1–18). Wilson would later both defend and nuance his position (see Wilson 2005a). 90 Wilson 1985a, 11, as quoted above. 91 The critique formulated in Whybray 1996 (among others positing that there existed too widely divergent answers to this basic question) was judged as somewhat premature (so Howard Jr. 1998), while Gerstenberger’s argument for a liturgical synagogue setting rather than literary considerations being the driving force behind the compilation has not reached any wider support (see, e.g., Gerstenberger 1994). Worth noting is also that while many of the recent commentaries on the ‘Book’ of Psalms deal to some extent with issues of formation and literary context, Goldingay’s commentaries do not (Goldingay 2006–2008; Goldingay 2007; Goldingay 2008).

18

Part I. Framing the Task at Hand

III. Mapping the Dead Sea ‘Psalms’ Scrolls Parallel to, and sometimes overlapping with the trajectories sketched in the two previous sections was an increasing focus on the emerging body of ‘psalms’ scrolls from the Judean Desert. As knowledge was increasingly gained of both form and content of these scrolls, light was also shed on the formation of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. Seminal in these discussions has been the study of Peter W. Flint, who proceeded from Sanders’ and Wilson’s assessments of the scrolls and argued in length for a stabilization of the ‘Book’ of Psalms in two stages. Moreover, he suggested that three major editions of the ‘Book’ of Psalms were possible to detect: Pss 1–89; Pss 1–89 + Pss 90–150; and Pss 1–89 + 11Q5.92 Hence, 11Q5 continued its prime place in scholarly discussion, and its relation to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms has been heavily debated. Ulrich Dahmen, for one, has provided a detailed reconstruction and analysis of the “shape” of 11Q5 and argued that it was likely to be chronologically secondary to the MT collection.93 Although a great number of scholars would now concur to such an idea, others have argued that the ‘psalms’ scrolls should actually play a more fundamental part in the reconstruction of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. Seen as a snapshot of the history of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, it has been suggested that the various configurations of these manuscripts represent a far more organic transmission of psalms than the linear models of growth usually suggested.94 Even more, the very notion of fixed sequences seems to somewhat disintegrate in light of the scrolls, as it is clear that psalms were used and transmitted in collections of various shapes and sizes. As shown by Eva Jain in her comprehensive analysis of both material aspects and contents of all the extant ‘psalms’ scrolls, these collections need additional study, and questions of formation and purpose needs to be asked in relation to each scroll.95 Ultimately, these studies have shed light on a somewhat unwarranted primacy given to sequences now attested in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, as related to other collections of psalms.

92

Flint 1997a. For a fuller introduction, see below, pp. 113–17. Dahmen 2003. Cf. Leuenberger 2005, who proposed that it should be considered as part of the reception history of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. 94 See, e.g., Lange 2012; Mroczek 2012; Pajunen 2014b; Mroczek 2015a; Mroczek 2016. See also Fabry 1998. I will discuss these issues further below, pp. 117–21. 95 Jain 2014 (cf. Jain 2012). 93

Chapter 1. The Problem

19

C. Focal Points for the Current Study In light of the remarks made above, there is a need to revisit some of the fundamental presuppositions of research on the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. More specifically, there are (at least) three areas where there has been quite farreaching agreement, although it is not entirely warranted, at least not without some additional qualification of the arguments.96 First, it is often taken for granted that the ‘Book’ of Psalms has grown out of previously independent collections that are possible to demarcate by analyzing, among others, the psalms superscriptions. Furthermore, this process is regularly conceived as linear, with the occasional exception of demarcated sequences like Pss 3–41, which would have been added to an Elohistic collection, or individual psalms like Pss 1 and 2, which were added as part of creating frameworks around existing collections. In light of recent research on the Dead Sea Scrolls, such a process should not, however, be taken for granted. If related to the work of Wilson, Howard Jr. stated quite correctly back in 1998 that the comparative material presented by Wilson has not been very widely noticed.97 In fact, not much has changed since then, but as new insights have been gained also in relation to the Mesopotamian material, there is a need to revisit the material so that theories of formation can be more closely integrated with the material culture(s) in which the collection was compiled. Second, there is an agreement that the final form of the ‘Book’ of Psalms provides an interpretive context, a Sitz in der Literatur for the individual psalm. In this view, the collection is argued to have “a function and message greater than the sum of its parts,”98 but as seen above, the basis for such conclusions is somewhat wanting. Third, a large number of scholars (tracing back to Gunkel) have argued for a post-cultic setting for the collection. Such a conclusion is to some extent based on a suggested prefatorial function of Ps(s) 1(–2), as well as on Pss 145.146– 150 as an epilogue, and the result would be a “Tora Davids,”99 a scriptural collection intended to be studied and meditated upon, rather than performed in the temple cult.100

96 Interestingly, some of these points overlap with observations made in the recent Jacobson 2014. 97 Howard Jr. 1998. See, however, some brief critical remarks in Gerstenberger 1994, 11. 98 McCann Jr. 1993b, 7. 99 Cf. Kratz 2013. 100 There is, of course, a discussion on how these aspects relate to each other, and I will return to them recurrently throughout this study. It has, for example, been suggested that the dichotomy between “private” and “meditative” on the one hand, and “public” and “cultic” on the other hand is anachronistic (Koch 1994, 245; cf. the dual role argued by deClaisséWalford 1995, 366, or the notion of “ritualization of reflection” in Petrany 2014, 95).

20

Part I. Framing the Task at Hand

Presented in such a way, it is clear that the arguments related to the two last areas proceed from some idea of the nature of the collection of psalms that is not always spelled out. Although it could be argued as reasonable that the juxtaposing of psalms would affect their interpretation in some way, the question is only how. While not ripped of its autonomy, it would plausibly be enriched by being part of a collection, but the theoretical framework on which such assertions have to be based is lacking. Furthermore, some way of evaluating the suggested use(s) and proposed reading(s) of the collection is needed. It should perhaps be spelled out that I, by formulating these points of critique, do not necessarily imply that the conclusions drawn above are misguided, only that important pieces of the argument are lacking, and hence in need of reassessment. To contribute to this discussion, I will therefore focus on the two main issues that could be said to trace back to (at least) Gunkel. Put differently, if put in relation to the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, the aim of this study is to provide answers to two fundamental questions, namely “how?” and “why?”. The first relates to the diachronic growth of the collection (how are these processes to be reconstructed, and on what grounds?), while the second relates to questions of purpose (to what end are psalms being juxtaposed in a collection?). To be able to answer these two questions, it would be necessary to discuss how they might relate to each other, and consequently, in light of what has been said above, there is need for a theoretical framework. In other words, I have to inquire into what is designated by the term ‘book’ in relation to the ‘Book’ of Psalms. What kind of collection does it imply? Here, I would suggest that one way of understanding the ‘Book’ of Psalms that has not been given enough attention is as anthology. By stating that it is nothing more than an anthology, some scholars have concluded that it would bear no traces of intentional organization, but what if the ‘Book’ of Psalms was nothing less than an anthology?

Chapter 2

The Elusive String It might well be said of me that here I have merely made up a bunch of other people’s flowers and provided nothing of my own but the string that binds them. – Michel de Montaigne, “Of Physiognomy”

What is an anthology? The question has somewhat eluded scholars. There are “few theories of the genre,”1 as Leah Price put it, and research on the poetics of anthologies could be described as a “virtual terra incognita.”2 This may be due to the fact that anthologies are often described as a “mishmash” of pieces, assembled haphazardly, and are thus not worthy of any lengthy treatment, but such assumptions may in fact build on a false dichotomy between, on the one hand, unified compositions and, on the other hand, anthologies. Or, to use the words of David Stern, “[e]ven if it is not a monograph – that is, an original work consciously and deliberately created by a single author – an anthology of diverse works need not necessarily be, and usually isn’t, a ‘random’, let alone a ‘promiscuous’ text, a mere scrapbook of this and that.”3 Rather, the opposite might be true, and it is interesting to notice that this has been increasingly stressed in studies by modern literary scholars.4 The objects for these studies often being books belonging to a post printingpress context,5 their relevance for a study on the ‘Book’ of Psalms is perhaps not immediately clear, but as I will attempt to show below, they nevertheless give some important insights about not only anthologies as such, but also the process of anthologizing. In fact, the latter could provide some unexpected points of departure for the complex relation between issues of formation and questions of canonization. Consider, for example, Anne Ferry, who mentions that anthologies could be described as

1

Price 2004, 2. Kittel 1995, xiv. 3 Stern 2004a, 110. 4 In fact, some steps have also been taken to relate this area of research to the Hebrew Bible, seen, not least, in the issues of Prooftexts edited by Stern, followed by the publication of an anthology (see Prooftexts 17/1, 17/2, both published in 1997; 19/1 [1999]; Stern 2004b). See also Wenham 2012, 41–56 (and Wenham 2007), where the ‘Book’ of Psalms is described as an “anthology to be memorized” (cf. Lee 2011). 5 See, for example, Ferry 2001, 1, who focuses on anthologies from the mid-1550s and onwards. 2

22

Part I. Framing the Task at Hand

both a physical embodiment and a figurative representation of what poets have tended to call the tradition – the iconoclast Pound said that the “tradition is a beauty which we preserve and not a set of fetters to bind us” – but which many critics more recently and more often have called the canon.6

If somewhat to the point, it is to be suggested that the process of anthologizing does in some way overlap with canon formation. Hence, it might be that a deeper knowledge of such processes would provide some clues as to how certain anthologies not only authorize the traditions they choose to preserve, but themselves become canonical works.7 But what, then, characterizes an anthology? A good place to start would be to look at how anthologies are commonly described.

A. Anthology Defined Etymologically, the word anthology stems from ἄνθος (flower) and λέγειν (to gather). In fact, in the introduction to the anthology sometimes mentioned as the first example of this “genre,”8 the Stephanos of Meleager (dating to ca. 60 BCE and comprising the earliest part of what is often referred to as the Greek Anthology), this connection between poem and flower is made clear as each author is compared to a befitting flower.9 Thus, the disparate texts were to be seen as constituting a garland (στέφανος) of flowers, arranged alphabetically according to author, and even continuously growing, that is, expanded and revised numerous times throughout its history. As such, the metaphor can serve as a starting point in defining anthologies, but it can be no more than a starting point, for it obviously lacks the precision needed. Instead, I now turn to three somewhat overlapping descriptions of anthologies made by literary scholars. The first one is formulated by Ferry, who, in her Tradition and the Individual Poem: An Inquiry into Anthologies, sketches the evolution and impact of modern anthologies: What is recognizable as an anthology is an assemblage of pieces (usually short): written by more than one or two authors; gathered and chosen to be together in a book by someone who did not write what it contains, or not all; arranged and presented by the compiler according to any number of principles except single authorship, which the nature of the contents rules out…. Or to state the distinction [between anthologies and collections by a single poet] simply another way, in a collection made by the author of the poems in it there is no other person 6

Ferry 2001, 6 (emphases original). Cf. also the work of Guillory 1993, and discussions like the one in Srivastava 2010. 7 The formulation is borrowed from Stern 1997, 5. 8 In the eleventh edition of Encyclopædia Britannica (1910–1911), the Greek Anthology was the most prominent example given, treated at length (Garnett 1910, 94–96). 9 For text and translation, see Tueller 2014, 1:111–15.

Chapter 2. The Elusive String

23

whose controlling presence is acknowledged and whose decisions mediate between the poems and the reader.10

Although the focal point for this description is to provide a distinction between anthologies and the works of a single poet, thus working with a different notion of authorship than what can be assumed for an ancient context, the definition points to a fundamental aspect, namely that anthologies always consist of a multitude of different parts, gathered into a coherent whole according to some principles, although it is not made clear which they are. Furthermore, by introducing the notion of a controlling, mediating presence, some light is shed on the effect the anthologist might have on the collection. A similar description, although with a somewhat different stress, is provided by Paul J. Griffiths: Formally speaking, an anthology is a work all (or almost all) of whose words are taken from another work or works; it contains a number (typically quite a large number) of extracts or excerpts, each of which has been taken verbatim (or almost so) from some other work; and it uses some device to mark the boundaries of these excerpts. Any work that meets these conditions is an anthology.11

Although Griffiths’ definition is equally as broad as Ferry’s description, it makes an important stress on the link between the contents of an anthology and the tradition from where they are selected. According to Griffiths, anthologies are not primarily made up of excerpts written specifically with the anthology in mind, but rather collects and organizes earlier texts, and in doing so in fact creates something new. In his book, Griffiths would then go on to further discuss the specifics of anthologies by, for example, suggesting proportions (if less than 3/4 consists of excerpts, it is probably no anthology),12 a discussion which is rather speculative, but which sheds light on the difficulty of a precise demarcation of anthologies from other types of collections. Related to Ferry’s notion of a controlling presence, the notion of devices that “mark the boundaries” of the excerpts are worth some consideration, as they might provide an entry point into organizing principles and the question of purpose, and I will return to the issue below. A final example of a description of some characteristics of an anthology is the one by Wendy Ayres-Bennett and Catherine Volpilhac-Auger: La notion de collection est aussi ce qui permet de concevoir comme un organisme vivant et sur le mode de la continuité ce qui pourrait être lu comme un agrégat traversé de mouvements contradictoires ou purement conjoncturels.13

10

Ferry 2001, 31. Griffiths 1999, 97. 12 Griffiths 1999, 98. 13 Ayres-Bennett & Volpilhac-Auger 2011, 304. 11

24

Part I. Framing the Task at Hand

This description is intriguing as it stresses a feature only implicitly present in the two previous ones, namely that contradictions and disparate point of views are often at the very core of anthologies, but also that they, when compiled into an anthology, are combined into a “living organism” which permits them to be read together. Hence, the very fact that they are brought together seems to raise the expectation that they would have something in common. If not so before, then created by the act of compilation. Viewed through the three descriptions provided above, an anthology could, in a broad sense, be said to be a composition of compositions, and this is sometimes made clear already in the title, as it makes a distinction between the book itself and the entries in it. Consider Ferry’s notion of a paradigm for titling an anthology, exemplified by the title “Book of Songs and Sonnets”: the separation of nouns by the preposition of diagrams the case that a book does not belong exclusively to the sphere of discourse. It also occupies space in the world of physical objects, like a package, and within that class it belongs, like a package, to the subset of objects that are themselves containing spaces.14

If related to the original metaphor, it could be pointed out that there is some discrepancy between the string binding the flowers together, and the actual flowers, or, put another way, between the exterior of the package and its contents. These will always be in some tension, but one can never be fully understood without the other. In fact, they could be described as two forces, one (represented by the string) militating against isolation of the individual piece, and the other (represented by the flowers) militating against integration of the individual into the large. Now, it could be stated that this applies to any book, but it would be especially poignant when it comes to anthologies. If related specifically to the ‘Book’ of Psalms, it could thus be said that already in the Hebrew title ‫ ספר תהלים‬are the container (‫ספר‬, “scroll”) and the contained (‫תהלים‬, “praises”) both set apart and linked together.15 But what, then, constitutes this link? It could be asserted that an anthologist collects texts “according to his [or her] own preexisting taste and ideology, as representative examples of broader cultural elements,”16 but if so, how are such features detected in the anthology proper? First, it would be apt to stress the creative aspect of the anthologizing process. As noted above, the compilation of anthologies has rarely been inquired into in any greater detail, perhaps because the act is seen as a mere technical feat. But if the observations made so far are valid, this would be somewhat of an understatement. In fact, a rather dynamic process is starting to be uncovered, a process where anthologists not only carefully select and juxtapose

14

Ferry 2001, 23 (emphases original). Cf. Ferry 2001, 23–24. 16 So Yassif 1997, 157. 15

Chapter 2. The Elusive String

25

texts from a pre-existing tradition to elicit new (associative) meanings, but sometimes also rework and rearrange these texts to speak more clearly to their new, implied reader. If correct, another tension reveals itself, namely the tension between the selective and preserving tendencies of the anthologist.17 On the one hand, the anthologist is free to choose and organize the anthology as fitting with his/her overall plan, but on the other hand, s/he is controlled by a tradition, both as to which texts are to be selected, and perhaps even to some extent how they are presented. As an example of this tension, consider how Eli Yassif describes Eleazar ben-Asher Halevi, the compiler of the anthology Sefer Hazikhronot (the “Book of Memory”): Eleazar Halevi viewed all the texts, the noncanonical ones in particular, as we saw in his will, as inalienable Jewish property, and he felt obliged to copy them down for future generations regardless of their content or expressed religious stances. He did not copy the commentaries on the redemption because their ideological positions appealed to him, but because he felt it imperative that they be preserved for future generations.18

This observation is important, since it indicates that there is an aspect of “new yet old”19 in every anthology, and this leads to the second assertion, namely that the string binding the flowers together cannot be universally described, but varies from anthology to anthology. While there are some recurrent commonplaces, a discussion of such a “string” must inevitably consider the means of organization of each anthology, and so, it is connected to the question of genre. But before turning to these issues, I sum up this section by providing a possible definition of anthologies which stresses the various features brought up here: An anthology is a compilation of independent texts, actively selected and organized in relation to some present needs, inviting readers to a platform of continuous dialogue.

By this provisional definition, I want to stress two things. First, commonplaces need not exist prior to the compilation of the anthology. This relates to the first tension mentioned above – that between the container and the contents. Second, I would argue that anthologies are in fact superimposing, or rather re-presenting, the past to the present, as well as the present onto the past. Consequently, this sheds light on the second tension introduced above, namely the one be-

17 Hence, their relation would not be an either/or, which is implied in Stern’s attempt to differentiate between “implicit” and “explicit” anthologies (Stern 2004c, 5). In his view, the latter could be divided into “archive,” “collection,” and “anthology proper.” While the archive has preservation of material as its sole purpose, a collection introduces a principle of selection alongside the focus on preservation, and anthology proper shows a strong principle of selection and very little care for preservation. In my opinion, there is no need for such differentiation, although it is certainly correct that various anthologies would have different stress on the selective and preserving tendencies respectively. 18 Yassif 1997, 171. 19 The expression is borrowed from Kagan 1999, 55.

26

Part I. Framing the Task at Hand

tween the selective and the preserving tendencies respectively. In the words of Stern, an anthology can be seen as a “medium for the transmission, preservation, and creation of tradition,”20 and hence, it seems as if actualization is an intrinsic feature of anthologies.21

B. An Anthological Genre? So what about the question of genre? Do the assertions above indicate “the genre’s formal plasticity,”22 as stated by Stern, or are there other possible conclusions to be drawn? In one of the earliest monograph-length studies on Ps 119, Alfons Deißler asserts that there was in fact an anthological genre (“antologische Stilgattung”) emerging in postexilic times.23 According to Deißler, one characteristic of this genre was its use of scripture, and in his analysis of Ps 119, he attempted to show how excerpts of earlier texts were reinterpreted and integrated into a coherent whole. Such an anthological genre was, then, seen as a natural consequence of the fact that the author lived in a time when das lebendige Offenbarungswort der Prophetie soviel wie versiegt war. So wandte man sich mit Inbrunst an das überlieferte Jahwewort, um es für die Gegenwart neu auszuschöpfen und seinen Inhalt zum Gegenstand und zur Basis neuer Gedankenzüge zu machen. In dieser Situation hat das anthologische Verfahren wie die aufkommende Literaturgattung des Midrasch überhaupt seine Hauptwurzel. Im Millieu der späteren Weisheitslehre fanden diese Tendenzen einen besonders günstigen Boden. Hier ist nicht nur Ps 119, sondern sicher eine ganze Reihe der uns erhaltenen Psalmen gewachsen.24

Unfortunately, the actual analysis of Ps 119 failed to support these quite farreaching assertions, but the reference to wisdom literature is interesting, and possibly supported by an article of James Kugel focusing on a possible “anthological temper” of the sages. In this article, Kugel proposes that the sage’s “stock-in-trade consisted of timeless, collective insights of all sages everywhere. By definition, then, any sage was an anthologist, any wisdom book a bouquet de pensées gathered from here and there.”25 This is an interesting observation, well in line with the descriptions of anthologies provided above, but so put, it does become clear that Kugel and Deißler are not speaking of the same thing. While Kugel talks about an anthological predisposition of the sages, Deißler rather asserts that intertextuality (in the Genette sense) is part of 20 Stern 2004c, 7. He labels this “the most singular Jewish trait,” but it seems to be quite appropriate to apply more broadly. 21 Cf. Antonelli 1999, viii. 22 Stern 1999, 84. 23 Deißler 1955. 24 Deißler 1955, 317. 25 Kugel 1997, 18 (italics original).

Chapter 2. The Elusive String

27

an anthological genre. But even if clear quotations and allusions would be possible to detect in a text, it does not follow that their mere presence indicates a specific genre, but is rather something that features in texts regardless of genre. It does not make sense to describe a text as an anthology simply because a dependence on other texts can be established. Thus, however intriguing, Deißler does not quite contribute to an understanding of anthologies as a genre. In fact, he might instead point to the opposite. As he proceeds from the idea that an anthology consists of disparate pieces, and that there are similarities between Ps 119 and later midrashic exegesis, he actually juxtaposes two rather disparate genres and calls them both anthological. But paradoxically, it is precisely here that the solution to the “plasticity” of the genre is to be found: it is difficult to define simply because it is not a genre. An anthology is not a genre simply because an anthology is not a text, but a work. And as a work, it can consist of many genres, depending on which texts are included. If so, the anthologizing process could rather be described, as with Stern (and Kugel), as a “habit”, that is, a “tendency of gathering together discrete, sometimes conflicting retellings of stories or traditions…, and preserving them side by side as though there were no difference, conflict, or ambiguity between them.”26 This habit is then materialized in works (anthologies), but takes different shape according to the content.

C. Anthologies Unfold Part of an answer to the question of what binds together the texts which are found in an anthology is to be found in the obvious fact that they are actually in the same anthology. The mere compilation of anthologies evokes the contours of a corpus,27 so that the foremost binding string is the container. But in line with the argument above, the assembling of disparate texts into an anthology also provides new contexts from which individual pieces can be interpreted. Thus, “even such seemingly passive acts as the decision to copy several discrete texts within a single codex … may have given shape to a major moment of literary history.”28 Consequently, it would not be an overstatement to say that anthologies encourage the reader to see a multitude of connections between texts, or to inquire into various levels of meaning evoked by both the texts themselves and their relation to other texts in the same collection. If correct, it becomes clear that to change the perception of a text, one needs not necessarily change the actual text, but needs only to juxtapose it to other texts. The decisive 26

Stern 1997, 1. Cf. the notion in Reed 2009, 434, on the effect of juxtaposing texts under the category “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.” 28 Stern 2004c, 6. 27

28

Part I. Framing the Task at Hand

question would be whether there are features inherent in anthologies that indicate that some paths through it have been specifically designed. Is there a way of describing the poetics of anthologies? Here, a possible key is provided by Ferry. In line with the “controlling presence” noted in her description of anthologies above, Ferry suggests that the anthologist could in fact leave his or her imprint upon the collection by adding or changing titles, correcting or modernizing the language, even adding to, or reinterpreting the individual pieces.29 If so, there would be features in the anthologies that stand in some tension to the texts themselves, perhaps even seen as distinct from the texts, and ultimately performing different functions in guiding the reader through the collection, effecting the interpretation of the individual pieces. As a way of conceptualizing such features, I propose the following metaphor, where an anthology is understood not as a garland of flowers, but as a garden of flowers:30 Like a garden of flowers, the anthology invites you to enter into it, to look upon flowers of various kind, to linger the longest by the flowers you enjoy the most, perhaps even encouraging you to pick some into a bouquet. While some flowers would be appreciated by many, others are rarely picked. To facilitate the strolling, there would be paths guiding the visitor to various parts of the garden, and providing various ways through it. Signs would describe different kinds of flowers, and fences could sometimes be put up to protect delicate flowers from careless feet.

So described, I intend the metaphor to shed light on a distinction between what one might call organic and artificial features of an anthology.31 As the latter would be the ones primarily guiding the reading of the anthology, it would be essential to discuss how such artificial parts function in relation to the organic tradition.32 In fact, it might provide keys to answering the question of purpose, as well as traces of implied anthologists. As for the former, a feature often stressed by literary scholars dealing with anthologies is that clues are also to be found in observing what is included in the anthology, and what is not.33 It is interesting to note that the publication of modern anthologies of poems are often followed by an intense discussion about the choices made by the anthologist, especially if some representability is intended, and this sheds light upon an im-

29

Ferry 2001, 69. See also Griffiths 1999, 98–99, who contrasts single biblical verses with the ‘Book’ of Psalms and calls the former a flower, and the latter a garden. 31 Cf. a similar distinction in Hever 1997, 200. 32 It should perhaps be mentioned that a “gardener” could be more or less skilled in gardening. That is, artificial elements could be more or less skillfully crafted, and hence not always successful in guiding the reader through the anthology. Furthermore, if gardening techniques (artificial elements) once used were later forgotten, it might be that the visitors no longer recognize, for example, suggested pathways. 33 Cf. Dwight 1917, 301. 30

Chapter 2. The Elusive String

29

portant distinction between selecting and binding, that is, between the decision of which compositions to include, and the decision of how they are to be arranged within the anthology. Before moving on to the identification of artificial elements, it is, however, first necessary to briefly relate the discussion closer to the ‘Book’ of Psalms. As has hopefully become increasingly clear, the theoretical framework sketched above works quite well with the ‘Book’ of Psalms. In relation to the provided definitions, it is, for example, apparent that the ‘Book’ of Psalms is a compilation of previously independent texts which have been selected from a larger corpus of psalms and organized in relation to some present needs (cf. p. 25). Many are attributed to various ‘authors’ (as with Ferry, p. 23 above),34 and are of diverse backgrounds, dates and forms. Moreover, the ‘Book’ of Psalms accommodates psalms with quite different points of view on theological issues (cf. Ayres-Bennett and Volpilhac-Auger p. 23), so that, in sum, it seems quite appropriate to call the ‘Book’ of Psalms an anthology.35 If so, it would also be plausible to assume that the collection would have grown out of previous anthologies,36 so that an analysis would have to be sensitive to the possibility of multiple reworkings, different organizing principles, and perhaps even contrasting artificial elements. This said, I now turn more specifically to the possibility of identifying and describing the function of such artificial elements.

D. Uncovering the Artificial If artificial elements are supposed to guide the reader through the work, where are they to be found? I will here propose that the notion of paratextuality, as developed by the French literary scholar Gérard Genette, could serve as an appropriate starting point. In his Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation, originally published in French as Seuils (1987), Genette states that by paratexts, he refers to elements that surround it [i.e. the text] and extend it, precisely in order to present it, in the usual sense of this verb but also in the strongest sense: to make present, to ensure the text’s presence in the world, its “reception” and consumption in the form (nowadays, at least) of a book.… For us, accordingly, the paratext is what enables a text to become a book and to be offered as such to

34 See, however, the reservations made in relation to this criterion above (p. 23). It is also interesting to note that the ‘Book’ of Psalms would eventually be conceived as the legacy of a single person (David), although not implying authorship in the modern sense of the word. 35 Consequently, this will be the implied meaning in the various ways in which I will refer to the ‘Book’ of Psalms in this study (the most common will be “collection”). As has probably been noted, I also use inverted commas around ‘Book,’ and this is in order to further stress the importance of an appropriate approach to the notion of “books.” 36 Contra, e.g., Mitchell 1997, 66–78; Mitchell 2006b, 532.

30

Part I. Framing the Task at Hand

its readers and, more generally, to the public. More than a boundary or a sealed border, the paratext is, rather, a threshold, or … a “vestibule” that offers the world at large the possibility of either stepping inside or turning back.37

As seen in this quote, paratexts are the very elements that bring a book together.38 More specifically, they are such commonly recognized elements as, for example, titles, prefaces, intertitles, epilogues,39 and the presence of an author’s name, but also marginal notes, illustrations, book covers, etc., and these would then constitute “a fringe of the printed text which in reality controls one’s whole reading of the text.”40 If related to my discussion on anthologies, these features could be said to constitute the very “container,” a complex web of layers of “packaging” that shape the physical appearance of a work and, in so doing, also predispose the reader to an understanding of it. Hence, they relate closely to the actual work of the anthologists, provide an interesting approach to the issue of poetics, and perhaps even present a way forward as to questions of purpose. But how do paratexts effect (or control) the perception of a text? To describe their function, Genette argues that several questions have to be asked in relation to each paratext.41 Important here is the location of the paratext (“where?”), the date of its appearance or disappearance (“when?”), its mode of existence (“how?”), the characteristics of its situation of communication (“from/to whom?”), and, not least, the functions that its message aims to fulfill (“to do what?”). Related to specific paratexts, these basic questions could then be further specified. As an example, Genette suggests a general distinction between peritexts (paratexts that are found close to the text) and epitexts (paratexts that

37

Genette 1997b, 1–2, italics original. I use the term as defined in his later work (Genette 1997a, 1–7; cf. Genette 1992, 82). Here, paratexts belong to an intricate web of five somewhat overlapping transtextual (all that sets the text in a relationship, whether obvious or concealed, with other texts) relationships. Apart from paratextuality, these are intertextuality (the actual presence of one text within another, the most explicit forms being quoting, plagiarism or allusion), metatextuality (critical relationship between texts, as, e.g., a commentary), hypertextuality (any relationship uniting a text B [the hypertext] to an earlier text A [hypotext], upon which it is grafted in a manner that is not that of commentary), and architextuality (“the entire set of general or transcendent categories … from which emerges each singular text,” that is, relationships that are mostly “completely silent”). 39 Sherman 2011 has argued that Genette actually lacks a focus on the latter parts of books. This is not entirely correct, as he does speak of epilogues (“postfaces”) in his discussion of prefaces, hence assigning similar functions to both, although they are located in different places. However, Sherman does shed light on an interesting aspect that is not developed in any length by Genette, namely on “the work that paratexts might do to usher readers out of the textual worlds they enter” (65–66). 40 Genette 1997b, 2, who quotes Philippe Lejeune. 41 For the overview, see Genette 1997b, 4. 38

Chapter 2. The Elusive String

31

are distant from the text), and if related to, for example, a main title, the peritext would be its attestation on the front cover, while the epitext would be any other location or occasion where the book is referred to by this title. In introducing the notion of anthology above, I remarked that since the object of study of the scholars introduced was modern literature, it might not be directly relevant for a study of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. Evidently, this would also be the case with Genette’s understanding of paratextuality, as it is developed primarily in relation to elements found in a printed book, although he occasionally traces various paratexts back to an ancient context.42 In his focus on, for example, the notion of publishers, aspects of onymity, anonymity or pseudonymity,43 and the location and form of certain paratexts (and so on), he relates to modern literature, and consequently, these concepts have to be properly translated into an ancient Near Eastern context. However, this should not be seen as lessening the value of this approach, rather the other way around. If one is made aware of the possible pitfalls, important light is shed on the significance of material culture and scribal habits in both interpretation(s) and reconstruction(s) of the formation of anthologies. More specifically, the question to be asked is what difference it makes that the ‘Book’ of Psalms was once materialized on scrolls, and not in codices or printed books. It thus becomes clear that it is necessary to properly contextualize various paratextual elements before inquiring into the possible effect they might have on the perception of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. Ultimately, paratexts have to be identified and interpreted in light of the editorial practices in use at the time of their addition. Rather than front pages and blurbs, one would have to look at incipits, scribal colophons, doxologies, etc., and even such aspects as empty spaces between compositions. If correct, even the basic notion of the ‘Book’ of Psalms being written down on scrolls could have significant implications for both reconstructions of formation, and the understanding of its perception. Without entering into a detailed discussion, some observations would be appropriate to make here. As I have observed elsewhere, it is quite reasonable to assume that a commonplace scroll length would be within the limits of 3–15 meters, although exceptions could occur.44 If related to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, the following could then be said. First, it is to be noted that the well preserved ‘psalms’ scroll 11Q5 would have originally been around 5 meters in length, that is, well within the range of 3–15 meters.45 As the surviving parts of the scroll contain a total of (at least) 49 com-

42

See, e.g., Genette 1997b, 163–70. See Genette 1997b, 37–54. Cf. also his stress on authorial intention: “[w]hatever aesthetic intention may come into play as well, the main issue for the paratext is not to ‘look nice’ around the text but rather to ensure for the text a destiny consistent with the author’s purpose” (Genette 1997b, 407–8). 44 Willgren 2016b, 49–52. 45 If following the reconstruction of, e.g., Flint 1997a, 39–41. See below, pp. 94–96. 43

32

Part I. Framing the Task at Hand

positions, it would require a considerably longer scroll to fit the 150 psalms of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. If relating the contents of 11Q5 to the MT collection, it could be calculated that such a scroll, if laid out in a way similar to 11Q5, would have to be well over the 15 meters noted as the common upper limit above.46 Consequently, it would be reasonable to posit that the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms was regularly inscribed, not on a single, large scroll, but on two scrolls.47 The length of these two scrolls would still be in the upper part of the documented range, depending on the layout, but not large enough to motivate further division.48 As will be seen below, this observation is quite important, and will shed light on both the curious Ps 72:20, and the fivefold division of the ‘Book’ of Psalms.49 It also gives some clues as to how to understand the notion of a collection in relation to the configuration of some of the ‘psalms’ scrolls. Since a collection could apparently be split up onto several scrolls, it should not be assumed that the physical borders of a scroll necessarily overlap with the perception of the “borders” of the collection itself. Looking broader at the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, it is quite clear that while parts of some ‘books’ ended up on different scrolls, several books could also be juxtaposed on a single scroll (the ‘Book’ of the Twelve is one example). Consequently, when understood as an ancient anthology, the ‘book’ in the ‘Book’ of Psalms should not be conceived as identical to a single physical artifact (a single scroll).

E. Outlining the Task at Hand Proceeding from the aim and the focal points established in Chapter 1.C above (pp. 19–20), and the theoretical and methodological frameworks provided by the notions of anthology and paratextuality respectively, this study will deal with several different sets of material in providing answers to the two main questions. In order to properly frame the formation processes in an ancient Near Eastern context, Part II, “Anthologies Compared” (pp. 35–80), will introduce and discuss features of several ancient collections which are possible to designate as anthologies. This part aims to provide keys with which to answer

46 Cf. the argument by Pajunen 2014b, 143, that “in order to fit all 150 MT Psalms into a single scroll it would have to be a tall scroll of 30+ lines in a column, with broad columns written in prose format, and even then the resulting book of psalms would probably be close to ten meters long, i.e., comparable to the longest extant scroll from the Judean desert, viz. the Temple Scroll.” See also Mroczek 2016, 31. 47 Having said this, one should not rule out that it might occasionally have been inscribed on a single scroll, as the survey of the ‘psalms’ scrolls will show below. 48 Willgren 2016b, 52. 49 See Willgren 2016b, 55–60, and below, pp. 196–201 for a discussion on Ps 72:20. For the fivefold division, see below, pp. 202–43.

Chapter 2. The Elusive String

33

the question of what difference it makes that the ‘Book’ of Psalms was once materialized on scrolls, and not in codices or printed books. Such issues are often overlooked in studies on the ‘Book’ of Psalms, and could be seen as superfluous to the overall argument. However, as will be noted recurrently, the observations made in this part will constitute an essential framework for the discussion, since they provide the means for taking slight steps away from our current book culture and enter into material and scribal cultures that are, in many respects, quite different. Consequently, many of the conclusions drawn here will have direct impact on the way I reconstruct the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. Moving on, Part III, “The Artifacts” (pp. 81–132), and Part IV, “In Search of the Artificial” (pp. 133–286), will focus on the ‘Book’ of Psalms proper. In Part III, I provide an overview and evaluation of the ‘psalms’ scrolls from the Judean Desert, and in Part IV, I inquire into various features of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms that could be (or have been) understood as paratexts. By paying attention to the questions formulated by Genette (see p. 30 above), not least the question relating to their possible function, these parts will constitute the core of the study. Following these two parts is Part V, “Psalms on Repeat” (pp. 287–366). As I noted above, there was a need for a way of evaluating the suggested use(s) and proposed reading(s) of the collection. As the status and function of a collection cannot be properly evaluated solely by means of analyzing the work itself, especially if its formation is likely to have taken place over a long period of time, other bits of evidence are necessary. Hence, Part V will provide an overview and analysis of a wide range of texts that in some way contain epitexts, quotes, and allusions to psalms. Related to the question of purpose, this part will also have to be sensitive to possible changes in use. Last, in Part VI, “The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms” (pp. 367–92), I will sum up the observations made in earlier parts of the study and relate them to each other in a reconstruction of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. This discussion will be structured into two chapters. The first (Chapter 16) will focus on the question “how?” and the second (Chapter 17) on the question “why?” To help the reader, I will provide each part of the study with a proper introduction and a final overview and outlook.

Part II

Anthologies Compared

Introduction Before turning to the ‘Book’ of Psalms, I will attempt to contextualize both the notion of paratexts, and the processes of forming anthologies to an ancient Near Eastern context. Such a task is essential for this study, as formative processes can only be understood within the material and scribal cultures in which they have taken place. This part, then, will provide essential tools for reconstructing the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, and at the same time will challenge some of the previously mentioned presuppositions about the stability of sequences, models of linear growth, and often suggested interpretations of the functions of certain paratexts. Conclusions drawn in relation to these issues will all be brought up later in this study. As a way of inquiring into these issues, I will analyze several ancient examples of anthologies. These have been selected from a wide range of times and settings, and will be used to exemplify various features of how anthologies were formed and used. Three are from a Mesopotamian context (the Zà-mì Hymns, the Sumerian Temple Hymns, and the Decad), one is a Greek collection (the Homeric Hymns), and three are from a Jewish Second Temple context (the ‘Book’ of the Twelve, the Hodayot, and the Psalms of Solomon). They will all be properly introduced in relation to their first mention below. The fact that these possible anthologies were formed across a long period of time is quite significant, since overlaps in the way they are compiled and transmitted can provide a solid platform on which to draw conclusions related to the ‘Book’ of Psalms. Furthermore, these collections all help in some specific way to contextualize paratextual elements that are also found in the ‘Book’ of Psalms, and concequently will be important for my discussion in Part IV of this study. Ultimately, the aim is not to enter into any detailed discussion of each possible anthology, but rather to use them as a way to situate the question of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms in its proper context and attempt to take some steps away from our current, book dominated culture. To make the contribution of these analyses as clear as possible, the results are presented in three chapters. The first (Chapter 3, pp. 39–49) focuses on what I have called “artifactual diversity,” that is, the recurrent lack of fixed sequences in the surviving manuscripts. The second (Chapter 4, pp. 50–59), entitled “Paratexts,” deals specifically with ancient examples of the methodological framework introduced in the

38

Part II. Anthologies Compared

introduction. The third (Chapter 5, pp. 60–80) illustrates the way in which the observations made so far could be synthesized in relation to the two basic questions to be asked in this study, the questions of “how?” and “why?”.

Chapter 3

Artifactual Diversity A. Reconsidering Fixed Sequences One of the first observations to be made when entering the scribal cultures of the ancient Near East is that the anthologies under focus here reveal, when attested more than once, quite a lack of fixation as it comes to sequences of compositions. Put simply, the way in which compositions are juxtaposed can vary significantly. The first example of this diversity is a collection that has been identified by Steve Tinney by means of correlating incipits listed in Old Babylonian (OB) catalogues of incipits with the type of tablets where the texts referred to by the incipts were regularly inscribed. More specifically, Tinney expanded on a reconstructed “beginners level” of scribal training as proposed by Niek C. Veldhuis (the “Tetrad”) and introduced the idea of a cluster of ten compositions, referred to as the “Decad,” which would have followed next in the scribal training.1 Further strengthening this observation was the fact that these compositions were all approximately the same length, and widely copied (an average of 80 copies for each text of the Decad).2 The following compositions were included: 1) ŠA/Šulgi A: A praise poem of Šulgi (ETCSL no. 2.4.2.01). 2) LiA/Lipit-Eštar A: A praise poem of Lipit-Eštar (ETCSL no. 2.5.5.1). 3) Al: The song of the hoe (ETCSL no. 5.5.4). 4) InB/Inana B: The exaltation of Inana (ETCSL no. 4.07.2). 5) EnA: Enlil in the E-kur (ETCSL no. 4.05.1). 6) KH: The Keš temple hymn (ETCSL no. 4.80.2). 7) ErH: Enki’s journey to Nibru (ETCSL no. 1.1.4). 8) IEb: Inana and Ebiḫ (ETCSL no. 1.3.2). 9) Nu/Nungal A: A hymn to Nungal (ETCSL no. 4.28.1). 10) GH: Gilgameš and Ḫuwawa, Version A (ETCSL no. 1.8.1.5).

Evidence of this curricular group was found both in the OB catalogues, where the Decad was regularly separated from the other incipits (see especially the catalogue designated as N2, below), and in the fact that they tended to occur to-

1 2

Tinney 1999a. Though, see already Wilcke 1987, 89, with n. 1–6. For introduction and translation of these compositions, see Black et al. 2004, 299–352.

40

Part II. Anthologies Compared

gether on compilation tablets and prisms (for example, UM 89–14–1, where Decad 2–4 were inscribed in sequence, as, possibly, were also 1 and 5, or IB 1511, a collective tablet from Isin which contained Decad 5–10).3 In addition, there is evidence of a use of catch-lines to connect tablets containing these compositions. In basic terms, a catch-line would be a line that repeats the next part of the composition, or sequence, placed at the very end of a tablet, and is usually separated from the rest of the text by double dividing lines. Such a technique is used, for example, to connect the different “houses” in the Keš Temple Hymn,4 or the next composition in a series,5 and related to the Decad, there is a source for ŠA that ends with the beginning of LiA, and one source for EnA that ends with the incipit of KH. Tinney’s suggestion was soon to be generally accepted,6 and the Decad is often seen as the clearest example of a curricular grouping of Sumerian literary compositions, a fixed sequence of ten works related to each other in belonging to the same phase in the scribal training.7 Now, while the incipits of the ten compositions frequently recur juxtaposed throughout the catalogues, it is a fact that all ten are never found as a whole sequence on any series of tablets, and moreover, that none of the sequences attested in the OB catalogues of incipits overlap in full with the other: B4 (P249269) attests several Decad compositions. In a first group of six incipits, demarcated by a dividing line, two Decad compositions are found (line 2 = Decad 8; 3 = 4), and the three lines that open the next section (lines 7–10) attest Decad nos. 1–3, 5. Last, line 24 attests the composition ErH (Decad no. 7).8 L (P345372), or the Louvre catalogue, consists of a total of 68 incipits divided by dividing lines into four groups of 23, 24, 7, and 14 incipits respectively.9 The first ten incipits were probably originally overlapping with the Decad (the first four lines are broken, but incipits 5– 10 are Decad nos. 5–10).10 N2 (P255993), the Nippur Catalogue, is, together with L, one of the two main catalogues used in Tinney’s reconstruction of the Decad. It consists of 62 lines in four columns (two on each side of the tablet) divided into six groups by dividing lines. 43 of the listed incipits are identical with L.11 The first four groups contain 10 incipits each, and the last two contain 9 and 13 incipits respectively.12 All but seven of these incipits have been identified,13 and the first group of ten incipits attest the Decad in the sequence listed above.

3

Tinney 1999a, 169–70. Delnero 2006, 34. 5 Delnero 2010, 38. 6 See, e.g., Robson 2001; Veldhuis 2004; Black et al. 2004, 299–300. 7 Cf. the introduction in Black et al. 2004, 299–300. 8 Tinney 1999a, 168; Delnero 2010, 52. 9 Kramer 1942, 17; Wilson 1985a, 34; cf. Weitemeyer 1990, 382. 10 See Kramer 1942, 17, n. 25; Delnero 2010, 33. 11 Kramer 1942, 17. 12 Cf. Weitemeyer 1990, 382. 13 Black et al. 2004, 301. 4

Chapter 3. Artifactual Diversity

41

S1 has the first ten entries followed by double dividing lines (there are possible indications of groups of ten throughout), and this catalogue correspond the closest to the Nippur and Louvre catalogues.14 The overlaps with the Decad are as follows: incipit 1 = Decad 1; 2 = 2; 3 = 4; 4 = 3; 5 = 5; 6 = 6; 7 = 7; 8 = 8; 9 = 9; 10 = Farmer’s instructions. Decad no. 10 is found on line 16. U1 (P349957) lists 23 incipits in two groups separated by a dividing line, and of these, two are Decad compositions (nos. 8 and 10), although not in the same order as N2.15 U2 (P346208) lists 67 compositions on 55 lines,16 and more than 30 entries are shared with N2 and L, of which nine belong to the Decad. Only two occur in the same order (ŠA and LiA, attested on lines 4–5) and one is not extant (Al).17 Y2 (P429703) attests 13 incipits on the obverse and 11 on the reverse, and the first four refer to the first four compositions of the Decad.18 The only other Decad incipit (no. 8) occurs on line 12.

Although the Decad is not (strictly speaking) an anthology, it illustrates that the conception of a collection, or even of fixed sequences, needs to be somewhat reframed. If considering these compositions as being used at a specific stage of scribal training, they should not be understood as comprising a fixed, literary collection, but rather as constituting a looser body of text commonly used in a similar setting.19 In fact, as I will argue below, it might be better to understand these processes in the terms of canon (pp. 75–80).

B. Variation in Ancient Manuscripts An even clearer example of artifactual multiplicity, now related more directly to a collection that fits the definition of an anthology, is found in the Hodayot scrolls. The name Hodayot (or Thanksgiving Scroll, ‫ )מגילת ההודיות‬was originally the designation of a specific scroll, 1QHa, given by its editor Eliezer L. Sukenik.20 Reconstructed, it contains approximately 30 psalms21 which are

14

See Van Dijk 1989, 447–48; cf. Delnero 2006, 127, 139; Delnero 2010, 52. Delnero 2010, 52. 16 Delnero 2006, 126; see also Wilson 1985a, 33. 17 Cf. Delnero 2006, 139; Delnero 2010, 52. 18 Hallo 1982, 84; Delnero 2010, 52. 19 Black 1998, 26–27, captures the situation quite elegantly as follows: “it is rare for two or more works (except for short poems) to be juxtaposed on the same tablet, so that the term ‘corpus’ is to some extent a hopeful one – separate tablets might perhaps be juxtaposed in the same building or other archaeological context, but the implications of that are complex. It is as if, rather than a ‘body’ of literature being dug up, there were many bones found in proximity to each other which archaeologists hoped might be pieced together into a single coherent skeleton.” 20 Sukenik 1955, 39. Sukenik published initial observations in two Hebrew articles, Sukenik 1948 and Sukenik 1954, the latter translated into English as Sukenik 1955. 21 The compositions are sometimes labeled as hymns, and sometimes as psalms. I have 15

42

Part II. Anthologies Compared

quite similar to those psalms found in the ‘Book’ of Psalms, and since no title, nor any incipit to the collection as a whole has been preserved, the given title was based on the recurrent use of the phrase ‫“( אודכה אדוני‬I thank you, lord”) at the beginning of several of the compositions.22 Since the initial publication of 1QHa, additional manuscripts containing the same psalms have been analyzed, in particular from Cave 4, so that a total of eight Hodayot collections are now attested.23 Proceeding from analyses made on 1QHa, Sukenik suggested early on that there was probably a connection between the psalms and the Teacher of Righteousness of the Qumran community,24 and this idea was further developed in the works of Gert Jeremias, Jürgen Becker, and Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn (the three are sometimes referred to as “the Heidelberg School”) into a “Teacher Hymn Hypothesis.”25 Here, two main arguments often recurred. First, it was observed that these psalms all shared a similar literary style as opposed to the other compositions.26 Second, the personal experiences of the individual of the psalm as found especially in cols. 12 6–13 6 (current numbering)27 were interchosen to use the term psalm here, as with the DJD editions and a growing number of current studies (cf. Schuller 2011, 122). 22 Schuller & Newsom 2012, 1. This is true especially for the core group, often designated as “Teacher Hymns” (see below), while the other psalms use at least three different type of incipits (for the latter, see Harkins 2010, 106–7), one of the more common being ‫ברוך אתה אל‬ / ‫( ברוך אתה אדוני‬cf. Hasselbalch 2015, 5). 23 I use the term Hodayot as a broad reference to these variously configured collections. The manuscripts are published in three DJD volumes: Barthélemy & Milik 1955; Chazon et al. 1999; Stegemann, Schuller, & Newsom 2009. 24 Sukenik 1955, 39. 25 See Jeremias 1963 (esp. 168–267); Becker 1964; Kuhn 1966. 26 Silberman 1956, 96, suggested early on that the compositions resembled the individual songs of thanksgiving, as the Gunkelian Gattung, although they never address God in the third person (cf. Schuller 2011, 122). Jeremias 1963, 170, described some of the specifics of what he called the Hodayot “Danklieder,” as compared to their “biblical” ditto as the following: “Hier spricht eine sehr profilierte Persönlichkeit, die sich von allen anderen Menschen durchaus unterscheidet … in diesen Psalmen redet ein ‘Ich’, das um seiner Botschaft willen schweren Verfolgungen ausgesetzt ist, unter denen auch seine Anhänger leiden.” As for differences between the two major groups of Hodayot psalms, see esp. 171– 73. See also the earlier Morawe 1961, e.g., 108–61. 27 One of Sukenik’s main contributions was the observation that there were at least two scribal hands responsible for the scroll (Sukenik 1955, 37). Although he did not have time to make any in-depth analysis himself, this enabled subsequent scholars to relocate fragments, re-number columns, and so reconstruct the scroll. Leading in this reconstruction were Hartmut Stegemann and Émile Puech, who independently reached similar conclusions as to 1QHa (save for some differences in the placement of small fragments in the first part of the scroll, Puech 1988; Stegemann 2003). For tables converting the Sukenik numbering system to the reconstructed scroll, see Stegemann, Schuller, & Newsom 2009, 49–53; Schuller & Newsom 2012, 4–7.

Chapter 3. Artifactual Diversity

43

preted as significantly overlapping with the experiences of the Teacher of Righteousness (CD 1 11–12), as described in, for example, 1QpHab 11 4–6. The psalmist was thus perceived as a leader of a community, forced into exile,28 and the compositions found in cols. 10–17 were eventually to be called the “Teacher Hymns” (TH), in contrast to the other psalms, forming a much less coherent group throughout cols. 1–8 and 18–28, which were designated “Community Hymns” (CH).29 Although somewhat criticized in current research, especially as it comes to the question of the homogeneousness of the groups,30 as well as the question of (single) authorship,31 these ideas still have a large impact on the discussion of the Hodayot, and hence, for my purposes here, it could be concluded that it is indicated already in the text itself that the collection probably had a rather complex history of formation, likely containing psalms from several authors.32 Turning to the actual artifacts, this impression is further substantiated. 1QHa dates to 30–1 BCE and would have been approximately 4.5 meters in length, consisting of seven sheets (possibly eight) with a total of 28 columns (4 columns on each sheet).33 Although it is not considered a “deluxe edition” in Emanuel Tov’s overview,34 both 1QHa and 4QpapHf (see below) are scrolls with a very large writing block,35 a fact that, if taken together with the sheer number of copies, would indicate that the collection was held in high esteem in the community that wrote and transmitted them.36 This is perhaps strengthened even more by the observation that the vocabulary and religious ideas expressed resemble the ones found in the Rule of the Community and the War Scroll, 28

Cf. the overview of recent research in Harkins 2012. Cf. Schuller 2011, 120. The first to argue for the literary diversity of the collections was Holm-Nielsen 1960, esp. 316–31, but it was Kuhn 1966 who introduced the actual designations (although he did not consider the entire cols. 10–17 as “Teacher Hymns”). 30 For an overview, see Hasselbalch 2015, 31. 31 Harkins 2012; cf. Holm-Nielsen 1960, 329–31; Mroczek 2012, 206. There are, however, scholars arguing for single authorship. Focusing on, among others, the occurrence of what he calls a “signature phrase”: ‫“( הגבירכה בי‬when you [God] exercise your power through me”), Douglas 1999 proposes that the “Teacher Hymns” were probably an independent book, the “Teacher’s Book,” and that the author would have been the Teacher of Righteousness. Although the latter is unconvincing, the notion of a separate collection is interesting, and has also been argued on other grounds, as will be seen below (see also the arguments for single authorship in Puech 2000, 366–67). 32 Cf. a similar notion in Schuller 2011, 134. 33 Puech 2000, 365; Stegemann 2003, 193; Stegemann, Schuller, & Newsom 2009, 2; Schuller & Newsom 2012, 3. With 75 percent of the manuscript reconstructed, it also makes it one of the best preserved scrolls in the entire DSS corpus. For the date, see Schuller & Newsom 2012, 1; cf. Harkins 2010, 125. 34 See Tov 2004, 125–29. 35 See the table in Tov 2004, 88–89. 36 Schuller & Newsom 2012, 1; cf. Puech 2000, 365. 29

44

Part II. Anthologies Compared

works that are often described as the community’s “foundation documents.”37 The other scroll from Cave 1, 1QHb, consists of fragments that were first believed to belong to 1QHa, but which is now regarded as a separate manuscript.38 Six manuscripts have also been found in Cave 4. As for their probable age, they have all been dated to the first century BCE. 4QHb is probably the oldest (from the first quarter of the first century), 4QHa, c probably date to the middle of the first century, while 4QHd–f were written in the third quarter of the first century BCE.39 4QHb, c, d, f have all been identified as probable copies of the same collection of psalms as found in 1QHa.40 However, features like column height, for example, indicate that not all of these scrolls are likely to have contained all the compositions found in 1QHa.41 While 4QHc probably contained only the compositions extant in 1QHa cols. (9?)10–17,42 a suggestion also pertaining to 4QpapHf,43 4QHd has only parts of a single psalm extant.44 As for 4QHb, it might have been a large scroll, about 9 meters,45 and Angela Kim Harkins reconstructs the manuscripts without the compositions found in 1QHa cols. 1–8, while Eileen M. Schuller has argued on material grounds (the scroll would not have come to an “appropriate inner circumference” if cols. 1–8 were not extant) that it is likely that they were included.46 If these scrolls all overlap with parts of 1QHa, although not containing all the compositions found in the latter, the picture changes somewhat with 4QHa and 4QHe. Based on analyses of the remaining transitions between psalms, it was observed that psalms were placed in an order different from 1QHa in at least two instances, so that the latter cannot be used when reconstructing the scroll.47 Yet another order was observed for 4QHe, where the psalm extant would have been at the beginning of the manuscript, while it was near the end in the recon37

Puech 2000, 368. For an early discussion, see Puech 1988, 38–40. There is some discussion as if this is a copy or, for example, an excerpted text. For the latter, see Harkins 2010, 129. 39 So Puech 2000, 366. There are, of course, other suggestions. For an overview, see Schuller 2011, 127–31. 40 Schuller & Newsom 2012, 3–4. 41 Schuller & Newsom 2012, 4. 42 So Chazon et al. 1999, 178–81. Col. 9 is preserved in 4QpapHf. 43 Although it is difficult to know if 4QpapHf included more compositions (Chazon et al. 1999, 210–12). 44 Chazon et al. 1999, 195–98. 45 Schuller 2011, 129. 46 Harkins 2010, 125–30; cf. Schuller 2011, 129. 47 One of the first to indicate the varying order of some of the Cave 4 manuscripts was Strugnell 1956. For 4QHe, the problem is that only two fragments remain, and these are from a single psalm. The argument is that if the reconstructed possible length of the scroll is correct (4.25 m), and the scroll contained the “Hymns of the Community”, the order would have to differ from both 1QHa and 4QHa (for this argument, see Chazon et al. 1999, 202–3; cf. Schuller 2011, 130; Schuller & Newsom 2012, 4; Stegemann 2003, 220). 38

45

Chapter 3. Artifactual Diversity

structed 1QHa, and second in the reconstructed 4QHa. Moreover, if it was observed that some Cave 4 manuscripts possibly contained compositions from 1QHa cols. 9–17 only, it is noteworthy that the compositions extant on 4QHa all overlap with cols. 1–8 and 18–28. It has also been noted that 4QHa has some unique features as compared to 1QHa (for example, extended sections in the plural and series of blessings or doxological praises), features perhaps indicating a liturgical orientation.48 Clear from this brief description is that although the psalms featuring in the various manuscripts are the same, their configuration varies in some significant ways, pointing to a similar artifactual diversity that was observed for the Decad, although here, it is primarily clusters of psalms rather than individual psalms that are found in various sequences. The relation between the manuscripts can be illustrated as follows (column numbers are taken from 1QHa): Table 1: Hodayot scrolls 100–75

Year BCE

75–50

50–25

25–0

Scrolls, 4QH CH(?)+TH+CH 4QH TH(?) 13–14 4QpapH TH 9 13–16 10 1QH CH+TH+CH possible 1–28 1(?)–28 content 4QHa CH Alt. 4QHe CH Alt. (?) b

c

f

4QHd TH 12 15–19 (fragmentary)

a

1QHb TH 15 30–16 1 16 13–14 (fragmentary)

What is apparent from this table is that three scrolls probably contained only the “Teacher Hymns.” While there is some uncertainty as for 4QHb and 4QHc, the material reconstruction indicates that 4QHf began with col. 9,49 and since the composition featuring in this column has been argued to have had an introductory function (see below, p. 52), it has also been taken as an indication that col. 9 was likely extant also on 4QHb and 4QHc.50 Consequently, the material evidence seems to imply that there was once a collection of “Teacher Hymns” circulating independently,51 although its relation to the “Community Hymns” is not entirely clear, partly depending on whether or not 4QHb contained cols. 1–8. Taken as an example of the variation often extant throughout copies of ancient anthologies, there is yet another feature that could be illuminating. When working with the Cave 1 manuscripts, Sukenik described the condition in which they were found as the following: 48

Chazon et al. 1999, 86–87. So, e.g., Schuller & Newsom 2012, 4. 50 As for the latter, see Schuller 2011, 130. 51 Cf. the “Teacher’s Book” of Douglas 1999, 256 (see also the discussion on the contents of the scrolls above, n. 31, p. 43). 49

46

Part II. Anthologies Compared

The Thanksgiving Scroll is in two separate parts. The part which was opened first contains three sheets, each one with four columns, or a total of twelve columns.52 The sheets were not found regularly rolled up into one another, as was the case with the Sons of Light scroll. Instead, two disconnected sheets were casually rolled together,53 and into the folds of this roll a third sheet had been forced.54 Nonetheless there are clear indications that these sheets were for a long time part of a single connected roll, as will be explained above. The second part of the Thanksgiving Scroll was, by the time it reached our hands, a crumpled mass of about seventy detached fragments of leather of assorted sizes.55

To this description, Harkins makes the interesting proposal that the scribe might have added psalms to a collection by simply inserting the new text “into the existing collection without taking the time to actually attach them together physically.”56 It was only at a later stage, when a new copy of the collection was made, that decisions as to where to place the new compositions would have had to be made. Although difficult to evaluate as to the specific case of the Hodayot, it is an appealing suggestion as it comes to the formation of anthologies more generally. Seen in light of such a relation between scrolls and individual sheets, the large number of variants between two versions of the same collection is suddenly much easier to understand, as they might be the result of basic physical changes. To further illustrate this artifactual variation, consider the ‘Book’ of the Twelve. It is well known that these independent prophetic books of various length and age were often combined on a single scroll, resulting in an early notion of them as a “single book.”57 In light of what I have observed so far, it is not surprising that in the earliest manuscripts, there exist various ways in which these ‘books’ are juxtaposed. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, all of the nine manuscripts that contain some of these prophetic books correspond to the MT order (Hosea → Joel → Amos → Obadiah → Jonah → Micah → Nahum → Habbakkuk → Zephaniah → Haggai → Zechariah → Malachi), except one, 4Q12a, where Jonah is often reconstructed at a final position,58 and as for the LXX, 52

According to Stegemann, Schuller, & Newsom 2009, 13, n. 7, these would correspond to cols. 9–20 in the current system. 53 Probably (current) cols. 13–16; 17–20 (Stegemann, Schuller, & Newsom 2009, 14, n. 8). 54 Probably (current) cols. 9–12 (Stegemann, Schuller, & Newsom 2009, 14, n. 9). 55 Sukenik 1955, 37. 56 Harkins 2010, 134. 57 So Nogalski 1993a, 2–3; Nogalski 1996, 102; cf. Redditt 2000, 14. Important early traditions evoked are, e.g., Sir 49:10; 4 Ezra 14; Josephus, C. Ap. 1.40; b. B. Bat. 13b; 14b. In b. B. Bat. 13b, it is specified, for example, that only three lines should separate the individual books in the ‘Book’ of the Twelve, while four lines is the standard for separating biblical books. The text of Sirach is debatable, as it might refer only to the prophets as individual books (so, e.g., Petersen 2000, 4). 58 See, e.g., the overview in Redditt 2003, 1. This identification has, however, recently been questioned (see Pajunen & Weissenberg 2015).

Chapter 3. Artifactual Diversity

47

there are at least two well attested sequences.59 Where the first corresponds to the MT order, the second has the first six prophets in a different order (Hosea → Amos → Micah → Joel → Obadiah → Jonah).60 This variation has been important in the reconstruction of the formation of the collection, although some have concluded that the LXX sequence is “secondary” to MT.61 What this indicates, at the very least, is that it should not be presumed that the fact that these prophetic books were written on the same scroll implies that they were viewed as a literary entity. From a scribal perspective, they might have been viewed as belonging together, but this would not automatically warrant the notion of a unified ‘book’. Fundamentally, a theory of formation would have to incorporate a notion of original diversity and variation without too quickly moving to harmonizing, linear reconstructions where each variant is supposed to relate to the other. Although the emerging picture is quite clear, it should not be understood as indicating that the juxtaposing of compositions were all random processes. There are also examples where the sequences are more stable, as is the case with the Sumerian Temple Hymns. This collection, which was discovered in Nippur, is a compilation of 42 hymns reconstructed from 37 texts and fragments and dating from 2334–2279 BCE (in the Akkadian Period).62 A scribal colophon attributes the compilation to Enheduanna, who is known as the daughter of Sargon of Akkad and priestess of the moon god Nanna at Ur.63 Relevant here is that it is found in more than one copy, and that the copies more or less agree. Nonetheless, there are indications that the collection has grown. At the end of TH 9, after the line count, are the words “additional hymn.” Additions were probably made to the collection, then, and since it was not placed either at the beginning or the end, it follows that reconstructions of the formation of anthologies should not assume that earlier versions (if any) would have looked quite like the later ones as it comes to the way compositions are juxtaposed.

59

So Nogalski 1993a, 2, with n. 6. Sweeney 2000b, 1:xvii–xix; cf. Petersen 2000, 5–7. 61 See, e.g., Nogalski 1993a, 2, with n. 8. 62 It is published in Sjöberg & Bergmann 1969. Cf. Hallo 1996, 171, who dates Enheduanna to 2285–2250 BCE. A photograph and short overview of “Text A” is found online here: http://cdli.ucla.edu/P262123 (accessed 2014-10-01). 63 Sjöberg & Bergmann 1969, 49. For an easily accessible overview of questions of authorship, see Meador 2009, 24–28; cf. also Wilson 1985a, 13, n. 1; Foster 1991. Hallo 1996, 266, calls her “the first non-anonymous, non-fictitious author in world history – and a woman.” I will return to this question below, p. 58–59. For a general introduction to Enheduanna, see Hallo & Van Dijk 1968, 1–11. 60

48

Part II. Anthologies Compared

C. Continuous Variation If variation of the sequences of individual compositions or of clusters of compositions were to be expected in the scribal cultures represented by the collections introduced so far, the third example – the Homeric Hymns – indicates that such a variation can be seen even as late as the middle ages. As regularly introduced, the Homeric Hymns is a collection constituted by 33 hexameter poems attributed to Homer.64 They range from 3 to 580 lines, with the longer ones clustered at the beginning of the collection,65 and have been dated to the “Archaic” period (eighth–fourth century BCE) although some might be later (up until the second century BCE, with one hymn possibly considerably later).66 As for contents, the 33 hymns share some considerable structural overlap. Apart from being “designed to win a god’s favor by naming and celebrating his or her particular powers,”67 where one of the main differences between the shorter and the longer hymns is that the longer hymns have the more developed stories about the deities, they all attest similar opening and closing formulas. Of interest concerning the latter is that all hymns (except Hymn 12) close with a “parting salutation”68 (a farewell to the deity) and regularly also a prayer for favor and a promise of yet another song.69 Consequently, although it is quite clear that each hymn is a self-contained composition, intended to be read in its own integrity, it is not read in isolation, but rather evokes a larger context of interpretation, the most basic being myths about the Olympian pantheon.70 Here, the promise of yet another song is probably indicative of an assumed use, and I will return to the issue below (pp. 66–67). Turning to the manuscript evidence, no ancient manuscript has been preserved. The earliest manuscripts are from the fifteenth century CE, where the collection is given a title – Ὁµήρου ὕµνοι – and is often combined with the

64 One of the first, still somewhat influential studies was Allen, Halliday, & Sikes 1936, but see also Càssola 1975. Ruden 2005, 97, translates a 34th hymn (“to guest-friends”) found only in some manuscripts. The attribution of these hymns was claimed as false already in antiquity (see, e.g., Van der Valk 1976, 419; Clay 1997, 489, cf. 494; cf. Crudden 2001, xi; Faulkner 2011b, 1), but interestingly, in the Leiden codex (M), it is juxtaposed to the Iliad, hence perhaps indicating that the scribe regarded the hymns as true works of Homer (this was pointed out to me by José B. Torres-Guerra, personal correspondence). 65 Clay 1997, 489; Clay 2011, 232. For length as betraying a possible organizational rationale, see, e.g., Torres-Guerra 2003, 4; West 2003, 21. 66 See, e.g., Clay 1997, 489; West 2003, 5; Richardson 2010, 1; Clay 2011, 232; cf. Athanassakis 2004, xv, who argues that none is probably Hellenistic. 67 Murnaghan 2005, vii. 68 Crudden 2001, xiv. 69 Furley 2011, 207; cf. Murnaghan 2005, xxi–xxii. 70 Clay 2011, 250–51.

Chapter 3. Artifactual Diversity

49

Orphic Argonautica and the hymns of Proclus and Callimachus.71 Of the 29 preserved manuscripts, 28 are from the same family (Ψ). These all contain (parts of) Hymns 3–33 in the same order as the one found in modern editions of the collection, except for three manuscripts belonging to a subgroup z. In J and K, Hymns 8–18 are followed by Hymn 3:1–186, while in H, Hymns 8–18 are followed by Hymn 3:1–55. Second, a large manuscript, the Leiden codex (M), which is the only manuscript which has Hymns 1 and 2 extant (although Hymn 1 is very fragmentary), transposes Hymns 10 and 11, and breaks off after 28:4.72 Consequently, there is manuscript variation even in the fifteenth century CE, although the main part of the collection was fairly “fixed.” Trying to make sense of the variation, Martin L. West suggested that the original order of the collection was 1–7, 19–33, 9–18, with Hymn 8 accidentally transposed to the middle of the collection due to several mistakes in the binding of medieval manuscripts – mistakes caused by the decomposition of the scrolls – and proposed that Hymn 8 originally belonged to the Proclan Hymns.73 While many scholars share the suggestion that Hymn 8 is a later insertion, the overall reconstruction has been refuted as too speculative.74 Nevertheless, it points to a similar material flexibility as was suggested by Harkins in relation to the Hodayot, and hence contributes to the broader picture painted here. Furthermore, a consequence of the late date of the earliest manuscripts is that reconstructions of the formation history of the collection have to consider other aspects as well, as will be seen below (pp. 64–71).

71

Faulkner 2011a, 175–76, with n. 1–4; Richardson 2010, 1–4. The overview builds on Faulkner 2011a, 175–76; cf. Torres-Guerra 2003, 1. For a fuller description of the manuscript evidence, see Càssola 1975, 593–616. For the breaking off of the manuscript after 28:4, see, e.g., Faulkner 2011b, 2. 73 The theory is found in West 1970, 303–4; cf. West 2003, 17, 20–22. 74 See already Gelzer 1987. 72

Chapter 4

Paratexts A. Prefaces As mentioned in the introduction (Part I, pp. 29–32), a study of paratexts could provide a proper entry point when discussing both the formation and purpose(s) of anthologies, and hence, some examples of how paratexts might have looked and functioned in ancient anthologies will be provided here. First, there are some examples where parts of collections might have functioned as prefaces, and being the oldest collections introduced here, the Zà-mì Hymns could be an appropriate place to start. It is a collection attested on 21 tablets and fragments found in Tell Abū Ṣalābīkh (zà-mì is Sumerian for “praise”).1 It dates to the EDIIIa (Fara) period (ca. 2600–2450 BCE),2 and consists of 69 hymns of various length. Worth noting is that these hymns all share a similar doxological ending – “(name of deity) zà-mì” – often placed on a separate line.3 Regularly, there is also a mention of a cult city associated with the deity,4 and since many of the hymns are very short, it is not unusual that these two elements (cult city and doxology) are the only two parts of the hymn.5 In fact, most hymns (approximately 80 percent) are no longer than three lines (according to the line numbering of Robert D. Biggs).6 One of the exceptions is the first one, a hymn that has been suggested to perform prefatorial functions.7 This hymn occupies the first 14 lines, and ends with one of the very few finite verbs in the collection (zà-mì mu-du11, “spoke the praise”). The closest parallel is perhaps found

1

Rubio 2011, 102. For some notes on the possible date of the collection, see Frayne 2009, 55–61. For the critical edition, including a transliteration, see Biggs 1974, 45–56. This is also the source used for the transliterations featuring in my discussion. 3 Or case/box, as many Fara tablets are almost mechanically divided into columns and lines of equal size, so forming a grid (Krecher 1992, 288). Some versions of the collection, however, do not have this feature (Biggs 1974, 46). 4 See, e.g., Cohen 1976b, 92, who uses this observation to support an argument about a possible identification of Tell Abū Ṣalābīkh with Gišgi in the last hymn. 5 Krebernik 1994, 151–52. 6 Krecher 1992, 293 (55 of 69 hymns). Cf. the suggested designation litany over hymn due to their shortness (Rubio 2003, 205; Rubio 2011, 102). 7 See, e.g., Biggs 1974, 45; Krebernik 1994, 152. 2

Chapter 4. Paratexts

51

in the first lines of the Keš Temple Hymn,8 due to similar reference to Enlil, and Biggs suggests that its function was to place the rest of the hymns in the mouth of Enlil, a suggestion made clear by the translation of lines 11–14 provided by Wilfred G. Lambert: “Enlil, seed which the noble established, spoke praise of/ concerning the great gods (as follows).”9 As the lines are quite difficult to translate, other readings have been proposed. Manfred Krebernik, for one, reverses the act of speaking praise so that it is the gods that speak praise of Enlil: “Enlil hat (dort) die Anunna-Götter in ihre (Kult-)Orte ein-gesetzt, und die großen Götter haben ihn gepriesen.”10 So put, the first hymn would indicate that the following hymns constitute an etiology over the origins of the cultic cities and their relation to Nippur,11 but regardless of which suggestion is more plausible, both reveal a probable prefatorial function where the first hymn provides a framework from which the contents of the following hymns can be read.12 Another example of an anthology with elements which are likely to be performing prefatorial functions is the ‘Book’ of the Twelve. However, it is not the actual collection that is prefaced, but rather each of the prophetic ‘books’ that are demarcated from the rest by either a distinct superscription (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Habbakkuk, Zephaniah, and Malachi) or a more integrated narrative introduction (Jonah, Haggai, and Zechariah).13 These provide information about the texts they precede, and the most frequent feature is the naming of the prophet whose words are contained in the text. Also common is some form of a thematic notion (speaking of the contents of the text), as well as some brief mention of the historical setting.14 Consider, for example, the superscription to Micah: Mic 1:1 ‫דבר־יהוה אשר היה אל־מיכה המרשתי בימי יותם אחז יחזקיה מלכי יהודה‬ ‫אשר־חזה על־שמרון וירושלם‬ The word of YHWH that came to Micah of Moresheth [first feature] in the days of Kings Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah of Judah, [third feature] which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem [second feature].

8

For this composition, see Gragg 1969. Lambert 1976a, 430, n. 1. 10 Krebernik 1994, 154; cf. Krebernik 1998, 319. 11 See Krebernik 1994, 157. 12 This possible prefatorial function is strengthened even more as two lines of the first hymns are recapitulated in the last hymn, making it somewhat distinct from the other hymns (see below, p. 56). 13 Cf. Sweeney 2000b, 1:xv; Watts 2000, 112–13. 14 For an overview of these superscriptions, see Tucker 1977; cf. Freedman 1987. 9

52

Part II. Anthologies Compared

While it is quite reasonable that the superscriptions have a primary prefatorial function, hence guiding the perception of what follows in the text, another aspect has also caught the attention of recent scholarship, namely the similarities between many of them. In fact, such similarities have shown to be important in the overall reconstruction of the growth of the collection.15 Moving on to a somewhat different example, 1QHa does not feature a preface at the beginning of the scroll, but a psalm found in 1QHa cols. 9 1–10 4 has recurrently been interpreted as significant for the structure of the collection. It is not incorporated in any of the two larger groups as described above (TH and CH), and Schuller has suggested, based primarily on the hortatory language and the long section on creation, that it could have been a possible introductory composition to the “Teacher Hymns.”16 Proceeding from such a notion, Michael C. Douglas has also argued in length for this psalm being understood as introduction, and proposes three reasons.17 First, in col. 9 35–36, the psalmist claims (in Douglas’ reconstruction) that he is writing “to ann[ounce to the children of] your good will the judgments of my afflictions” (‫ר[צו֯ נ֯ ֯כ ֯ה‬ ֯ ‫֯ל ֯ה ֯ש]מיע לבני‬ ‫ )משפטי נגיעי‬and “all your wonders that you [God] have mightily worked through [me]” ([‫)כול נפלאותיכה אשר הנברתה ֯ב]י‬. While no such afflictions or wonders have been stressed before this psalm, they are important themes in the “Teacher Hymns.” Second, Douglas interprets the hortatory language in col. 9 36c–41 as having an explicit introductory form (as with Schuller): “Hear, O you wise, you who consider in knowledge, and you fearful, that you may receive a steadfast mind!” (‫ )שמעו חכמים ושחי ֯ד ֯עת ו֯ נ֯ ֯מהרים והיו ליצר סמוך‬and notes that 15 Watts 2000, 111; cf. the overview of research in Sweeney 2000b, 1:xxvii. Taken together with the various sequences (see above, p. 46), three other features have also been significant in various scholarly studies: the dating of the historical settings reflected in the texts, the length of the compositions, and relations between the compositions with respect to contents. Early attempts to describe the formation of the collection can be traced back to (at least) Ewald 1867 and Steuernagel 1912 (see also Schneider 1979), and important for the recent studies were the two publications by James D. Nogalski (Nogalski 1993a; Nogalski 1993b; see also Nogalski 1996), which focused primarily on the last feature and, to some extent, the superscriptions. A critique of Nogalski’s employment of catchwords to identify sequences has been formulated by, for example, Marvin A. Sweeney (see, e.g., Sweeney 2000a; Sweeney 2000b), who rathersuggests that the two major traditions (the MT and the LXX) should be studied separately, and argues that they are organized by different thematic and theological concerns (Sweeney 2000a, 62–64). However, as with the research of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, the identification and interpretation of catch-words, thematic threads and other types of intertextual connections as signs, not only of deliberate redactional processes, but as creating a literary unity to govern the interpretation of the ‘Book’ of the Twelve (cf. House 1990; Jones 2000, 70) have been criticized (see, e.g., ben Zvi 1996), although some have suggested that unified, sequential readings are possible to detect already in early reception (so Jones 2000, esp. 70–74, and Ego 2000). 16 Schuller 1994a, 145; cf. Chazon et al. 1999, 181. 17 Douglas 1998, 218–35. A good summary is found in Douglas 1999, 256–57, n. 31.

Chapter 4. Paratexts

53

nowhere else in the Hodayot is the hortatory used. Third, he identifies five direct linguistic links between this psalm and the first psalm in the “Teacher Hymns.” The interpretation of the psalm as performing prefatorial functions is currently held by many scholars,18 although the reconstruction of, for example, 1QHa col. 9 35–36 is still under discussion,19 and if related to the idea that some of the Hodayot scrolls contain a collection that might have had this psalm as the first psalm on the scroll, the suggestion perhaps gains some weight. A final example is taken from the Psalms of Solomon. This collection consists of 18 psalms attributed to Solomon in various ways, and many resemble the psalms of the ‘Book’ of Psalms or the psalms of the Hodayot.20 It was probably originally written in Hebrew, although soon translated into both Greek and Syriac,21 but unfortunately no ancient manuscripts of the collection are preserved, and the first possible attestation, Codex Alexandrinus (fifth century CE), lacks the sheets that would have contained the collection.22 However, it is included in a catalogue entry in the beginning of the manuscript, placed after the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Clementine Epistles.23 The collection is then preserved either as a whole or in part in twelve Greek and four Syriac manuscripts dating from the fifth to the sixteenth centuries CE.24 As for contents, the psalms are of various length and genres, and Kenneth Atkinson, who has published extensively on the collection, has suggested that the first and the last psalm, Pss. Sol. 1 and 18, were possibly added as introduction and conclusion respectively.25 In Atkinson’s view, Pss. Sol. 1 would be closely modeled after Pss. Sol. 8, while Pss. Sol. 18 was dependent upon Pss. Sol. 17.26 However, in contrast to many of the previous examples of prefaces, 18

See, e.g., Stegemann 2003, 223; Harkins 2010, 104; cf. a different view in Puech 2000, 366–67. 19 For an overview, see the DJD edition, where the discussed part of line 35 is rather reconstructed as ‫[ב ֯ק ֯ר ֯ב ֯ם‬ ֯ ‫וא ֯ס ֯פ ֯ר]ה תמיד‬, ֯ “[a]nd I will recit[e continually] in their midst” (Stegemann, Schuller, & Newsom 2009, 127, 131). 20 Wright 2007, 1; cf., e.g., Holm-Nielsen 1979, 180; de Jonge 1991, 5–6. The collection has also been compared with apocalyptic literature, where it has been observed that they differ from the latter by, for example, explicitly calling for rebellion (so Wright 1983, 647). As for the notion of 18 psalms, it should be noted that Ryle & James 1891, 148–53, divide Pss. Sol. 18 into two parts (vv. 1–10; 11–12). 21 Wright 2007, 11. This is the main view (see Hann 1982, as well as, e.g., Holm-Nielsen 1977, 53; Lane 1982, 132–33; de Jonge 1985, 159; Reiser 1990, 32; Winninge 1995, 9; Rappaport 2007, 766), although some have argued for a Greek original (Hilgenfeld 1868). 22 Cf. Brock 1984, 649; de Jonge 1985, 161. 23 Atkinson 1998, 98, with n. 6; cf. Wright 1983, 639; Winninge 1995, 9; Wright 2007, 1. It has also been suggested that it was probably included on the missing pages of Codex Sinaiticus (Wright 1983, 639). 24 For a critical edition, see Wright 2007. For an overview, see Winninge 1995, 9–12. 25 Atkinson 1998, 108; cf. Wright 2007, 6–7. 26 Atkinson 1998, 108, with n. 32. See a similar argument in Winninge 1995, 19–20, who

54

Part II. Anthologies Compared

Pss. Sol. 1 does not explicitly speak on the text that follows, neither does it provide guidelines as to how to read and interpret the collection.27 Hence, it would probably not be a preface in any strict way, but is nevertheless included here to paint a contrast to the other, clearer examples. Noteworthy in all of them, however, is that prefaces do not seem to be separated visually from the rest of the text.

B. Titles When searching for titles of ancient anthologies one quickly realizes that it is the incipit that performs the referential function of a title. Strictly speaking, incipits are the opening word(s) of a text, but as far as paratexts go, the incipit is the title. As an example, the Sumerian Temple Hymns did not have a title that was visually set apart from the text itself, but was referred to by means of its first word(s), é-u6-nir. This is also what is found both on line 546, after the last hymn, and in several of the catalogues of incipits where the collection is listed (see U2, N2 and L above, p. 40, as well as in Appendix 1, pp. 395–403). Although this would also have been the way to refer to individual compositions within the collection so that some collections would eventually acquire more general names, this basic observation is important, and will prove valuable in the search of, not least, external indications for a ‘Book’ of Psalms. As for attested main titles, the first example to mention is the ‘Book’ of the Twelve, which is referred to as either οἱ δῶδεκα προφήται or τον δῶδεκαπροφήτον in Christian tradition, and as ‫“( תרי עשר‬the twelve”) in Jewish tradition, although the title is rarely attested on the actual manuscripts containing these prophetic books. The latter is, however, the case for the Psalms of Solomon, where most manuscripts feature the main title Ψαλµὸι Σολοµῶντος (at least three of the oldest manuscripts have Σοφία Σολοµῶντος). Furthermore, each psalm (except for the first psalm) is also provided with a superscription, as with the psalms of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. Related in such a way to the superscriptions of the latter, they have been argued to be later insertions, even in “imitation of the biblical Psalter.”28 As indicated above, the first psalm has no separate superscription (see n. 26), except for in one manuscript (MS 336),

also observes that Pss. Sol. 1 lacks a superscription in the manuscripts (see more on this below, p. 54) and suggests that Pss. Sol. 18 reflects some of the other psalms. 27 Wright 1983, 651, even argues that Pss. Sol. 1 is a “fragmentary poem which is dependent upon PssSol 2.” 28 So Wright 2007, 32. This is based, not least, on the observation that they have very little in common with the main psalm, and that several of these superscriptions have a different spelling of the name.

Chapter 4. Paratexts

55

where Ψαλµὸς τῶ Σαλοµών πρῶτος has been supplied.29 This could be interpreted as lending support to the idea of the psalm being some kind of a preface, but Herbert E. Ryle and Montague R. James have proposed that the omission would rather have been due to the fact that the presence of a main title made an additional superscription superfluous. If correct, it could provide an interesting parallel to the lack of superscription in Ps 1 of the ‘Book’ of Psalms.30 The use of superscriptions to structure parts of the collection has also been suggested for the Hodayot, although the fragmentary nature of parts of the columns makes even the issue of the number of compositions still somewhat unsettled. Regularly, as in the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls, psalms are separated by a spacing either at the end, at the beginning, or between lines,31 but beginnings are also sometimes marked by opening formulas or superscriptions resembling those found in psalms from the ‘Book’ of Psalms (e.g. ‫למ[ש ֯כי֯ ֯ל‬ ֯ ‫]מזמור‬ in 5 12), and in at least one occasion, a scribal marginal note possibly marks a new section (1QHa 20 6).32 Looking at ‫למשכיל‬, it is attested in four superscriptions (cols. 5 12, 7 21, 20 7, and 25 34), an observation that lead Émile Puech to suggest that these indicated an intended structuring of the collection into five sections, with a now lost ‫ למשכיל‬probably featured in the first psalm. Consequently, it was reminiscent of the fivefold division of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, and lead Puech to the (somewhat surprising) suggestion that the Hodayot scroll therefore had a liturgical purpose.33 The idea of a fivefold division is also discussed by Harkins, who makes an additional distinction, observing that these superscriptions only pertain to the “Community Hymns,” while the “Teacher Hymns” could be easily removed without damaging this structure.34 Furthermore, she concurs that the psalms with these superscriptions revealed signs of editorial activity, and observes that “floating” compositions were placed just before these ‫ משכיל‬psalms. Harkins ultimately concludes that “[t]he smaller collections marked by the presence of these headings could have been transmitted independently and brought together for different purposes.”35 Such a function of the superscriptions is, however, not bereft of problems. The first has to do with the fragmentary nature of the manuscripts, which opens

29

Wright 2007, 33. Ryle & James 1891, 2. 31 Schuller & Newsom 2012, 9. Cf. the illustration of different means of division in Tov 2004, 163–64, where the divisions attested in the Hodayot would correspond to Tov’s α, β and γ. See also Wilson 1985a, 93–96. 32 Schuller & Newsom 2012, 9. 33 Puech 2000, 366–67. The fivefold division was also made part of an argument for single authorship. 34 Harkins 2005, 235–39 (esp. 236–37). 35 Harkins 2005, 255. 30

56

Part II. Anthologies Compared

up for the possibility that the original scroll might have had additional superscriptions.36 Second, the only similarity to the ‘Book’ of Psalms would be the number five, as the “editorial techniques” suggested are entirely different. Last, the analyses made by Harkins in a later article concerning the growth of the collection somewhat contradict the idea that the “Community Hymns” were once a separate collection, divided into five parts.37 Nevertheless, this example shows that a careful examination of superscriptions could provide some clues concerning the formation of ancient anthologies, but that such an investigation should not automatically proceed from an assumption that they perform the function of a title, or an intertitle.

C. Colophons, Doxologies, and Epilogues A final set of paratextual features visible in the studied collections that is worth some consideration relates to the conclusions of the collections. Consider first the Zà-mì Hymns. It was noted above that the first 14 lines could have functioned as a preface, and that there were indications that the last hymn performed a concluding function. Where each preceding hymn ends with “(name of deity) zà-mì,” the last hymn ends with dingir-gal-gal; ama dLi8-si4 zà-mì, “the great gods; (and) mother Lisi, praise!”. This variation, combined with a notion of special prominence given to the final position, and the fact that line 234 (dingir-gal-gal) is an exact repetition of line 13, makes an asserted concluding function quite reasonable.38 Its clear recapitulation of the first hymn also gives strong coherence to the collection. A concluding function of a doxology is also found in the Sumerian Temple Hymns. Of its 42 hymns, the first 41 have a similar literary structure, while the forty-second deviates from this pattern as the following (Hymn 21 [=TH 21] has been chosen to exemplify the structure of the first 41 hymns): TH 1–41 1) Address to the city and its temple:39

36

(Uruku, holy city)40 …

For a reconstruction of possible (23) and hypothetical (3) incipits, as well as at least an additional two psalms, see Stegemann 2003, 193–209. 37 Harkins 2010, see also below, pp. 62–64. 38 Cf. the similar observations in Cohen 1976b, 91. 39 This feature is the least consistent. While all hymns have some address to the temple with hymnical epithets, they are not always using the same phrasing, nor the same placement in the overall structure. Most of the hymns begin with an address to the “house” (é) or some synonym (25 of 42): TH 4, TH 5, TH 6 (so Heimpel 1972, 287), TH 9, TH 10 (“city”), TH 11, TH 12 (“shrine”), TH 13, TH 15 (“eternal place”), TH 16, TH 17, TH 18, TH 19 (“city”), TH 22, TH 23, TH 24 (combined with the name of the temple, “house of Kinirša”), TH 25, TH 26, TH 27, TH 32, TH 35, TH 36, TH 39, TH 41, and TH 42 (“shining house”). The second

Chapter 4. Paratexts 2) Introduction of the deity 3) Refrain

4) Line count TH 42 1) Address to the city and its temple: 2) Doxology45 3) Colophon

4) Line count 5) Incipit 6) Final line count

57

… your prince(ss) …41 … (Bau) has, (O Uruku house), built this house on your surrounding territory42 and established her seat upon your dais43 (8) lines for the house of (Bau) in (Uruku)44 this shining house of stars … … praise be to Nisaba … The compiler of the tablet (is) Enheduanna. My lord, that which has been created (here) no one has created (before)46 (14) lines for the house of Nisaba in Eresh é-u6-nir (cf. TH 1, line 1) The count of its lines is altogether 48047

As seen in this overview, the structure, perhaps foremost the refrains, gives clear coherence to the collection while at the same time demarcating each of the 42 hymns as hymns with their own integrity. The latter is also made clear by the line counts, whose primary function would be the securing of tradition, that is, making sure that lines would not be omitted as the tablets were copied. This said, the deviations found in TH 42 would need some further attention. Focusing first on the shared features, it can be argued that the introductory address and the line count clearly relates TH 42 to the rest of the collection. The

most common address is to the city, which then reappears in the refrain. In these cases, the temple is often addressed explicitly later on: TH 3 (Sjöberg & Bergmann 1969, 59; Heimpel 1972, 286, n. 4), TH 7, TH 8, TH 14, TH 21, TH 30, TH 31, TH 33, TH 37, and TH 38. In some hymns, there is a direct address to (the named) temple (TH 20, TH 34, TH 40) or a part of the temple (TH 1, Enuir, the name of the ziqqurat [the stepped temple tower]; so Sjöberg & Bergmann 1969, 50). In three of the hymns, the text is not possible to reconstruct: TH 2, TH 28, and TH 29. 40 The translation is taken from Meador 2009, if not stated otherwise. The wording specific for TH 21 is put within parenthesis. 41 This verbatim feature occurs in (at least) 33 of the hymns (“prince” 23 times, “princess” 10 times). The exceptions are: 1) TH 26 which has “queen”; 2) the omissions in TH 9, TH 22, TH 39, and TH 42; and 3) the damaged text of TH 27, TH 28, TH 29, and TH 32. 42 For the translation “(surrounding) territory” for muš, see Heimpel 1972, 286; cf. Zimmern 1930, 247, “Bereich”; Wilcke 1972, 36, “Glanz”; and the discussion in Sjöberg & Bergmann 1969, 55–56. 43 Deity and temple are addressed in various ways throughout the refrains. 44 As previously mentioned, TH 9 adds “additional hymn.” See further below, p. 61. 45 So also Wilson 1985a, 16. 46 Translation (including the parenthesis) from Sjöberg & Bergmann 1969, 49. 47 So Sjöberg & Bergmann 1969, 49. Meador 2009, 238, has 548. Yet another number is provided when adding up all the numbers provided in the summaries (>498, TH 28 is uncertain).

58

Part II. Anthologies Compared

presence of new parts (most notably a doxology and some colophonic material) does, however, change both its interpretation and function within the collection as a whole.48 But how could such a change of function be understood? As for the added doxology, it is to be noted that many Sumerian literary compositions end with the doxology “Praise to Nisaba.”49 Hence, a concluding function for this doxology would be quite reasonable to posit.50 As a “grand finale,” praise is directed toward the deity in a final confession, and the very name of the deity addressed – Nisaba, the patron goddess of writing – also indicates the function of the hymn as it ties the doxology more closely to the colophon. In the latter, the greatness of a compilation of this kind is described, suggesting that the whole hymn served a concluding function in that it both constituted a climax to a suggested geographical orientation of the collection, as well as focused on the actual art of compilation.51 As for the colophon, it has been noted as odd that it precedes the line count, and that the two lines of the colophon are not included in the count. TH 42 has a total of 16 lines if including the colophon and excluding the line count,52 but the line count defines the number to 14, that is, the number of lines with the colophon excluded. It thus seems as if the line count is misplaced. However, different versions of the Sumerian Temple Hymns exist, and Heinrich Zimmern, for one, reconstructs the colophon after the line count, as with text B, contra A, O, and Q.53 Now, the possible misplacement could be understood if considering TH 42 in its entirety. As noted above, the addressee is Nisaba, a fact that lead Betty De Shong Meador to suggest that “Enheduanna ends her collection of hymns with an idealized vision of all lands coming together under the roof of Nisaba’s temple to receive her strong counsel and all-embracing wisdom.”54 While a possible interpretation, the important aspect to note is that a connection is made between Enheduanna, Nisaba, and the compilation of the Sumerian Temple Hymns. Hence, B probably has the more original order, while A, O, and Q would bear witness to the interesting possibility that the colophon actually came to belong to the collection itself, transmitted as part of it, rather 48

Wilson 1985a, 17. See Michalowski 1989, 578. 50 As with Wilson 1985a, 23. 51 Focus on the art of compilation is probably further underscored by the fact that the hymns in the collection are not new. Rather, two other collections have been recognized as prototypical (the Keš Temple Hymn, see, e.g., Gragg 1969, and the Zà-mì Hymns, see Biggs 1966, e.g., 80–81), and thus, the creative contribution of Enheduanna was probably the compilation of the collection (Hallo 1976, 186–87; cf. Wilson 1985a, 19. See also Zimmern 1930, 249; Hallo & Van Dijk 1968, 3) For Mesopotamian notions of authorship, see also, e.g., Glassner 2005, 486. 52 Sjöberg & Bergmann 1969, 48–49. 53 Zimmern 1930, 275. For an overview of tablets, see Sjöberg & Bergmann 1969, 14–16. 54 Meador 2009, 236. 49

Chapter 4. Paratexts

59

than being altered as with the subsequent copying and renewal of the tablet. Even when new hymns were added, the colophonic material was not renewed.55 This could, then, indicate that the colophon had a second function, legitimizing to the text, as the mentioning of Enheduanna could be seen as warranting a certain antiquity and perhaps suggest some authoritative use. If reasonable, the addressees would no longer primarily be scribes but the ones using the anthology in the cult, and consequently, the entire TH 42 could be conceived as a kind of epilogue, and the focus would be the collection as such.56 As I will argue later, such a suggestion could provide an interesting parallell to the curious Ps 72:20 (see below, pp. 196–201).

55 See the discussion in Wilson 1985a, 17–24. The colophon is extant in all of the tablets that have lines 543–545 intact (4 of 37). 56 Wilcke 1972, 41, and Wilson 1985a, 23, both described TH 42 as an “expanded doxology,” but strictly speaking, it would rather be a hymn, including a doxology, and functioning as an epilogue.

Chapter 5

The How and the Why Apart from the observations made so far, the collections surveyed here could also provide some clues about what formation processes might have looked like, as well as give some insight into reasons why collections were compiled in the first place. So put, this relates to, and attempts to contextualize, the presuppositions behind the two main questions of this study (the questions “how?” and “why?” see above, pp. 19–20), while at the same time pointing to some relevant ways in which these issues can be approached. Due to the nature of the anthologies in focus, I have structured the discussion in three parts. First, I discuss the possibility of reconstructing the formation of collections where little manuscript variation was attested (the Zà-mì Hymns and the Sumerian Temple Hymns). Second, I inquire into an example where ancient manuscripts are available and reveal quite significant variations (the Hodayot). Third, light is shed upon the possibility of reconstructing the formation of anthologies in cases where there are no ancient artifacts remaining at all (the Homeric Hymns and the Psalms of Solomon). Framed in such a way, the conclusions drawn can be related to various aspects of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. They will provide tools relevant for analyses of various stages of formation, stages where little or no artifacts are preserved, stages where manuscript evidence is rich, and to later times when a manuscript tradition seems more stabilized.

A. Collections with Few Manuscript Variations Two of the Mesopotamian collections, the Zà-mì Hymns and the Sumerian Temple Hymns, revealed few manuscript variations, despite being attested on several tablets. How, then, have their compilations been described? Starting with the Zà-mì Hymns, Cale J. Johnson has argued that while the collection could easily be seen as a reflection of a fairly homogeneous tradition, there are some indications of internal heterogeneity, especially in lines 160– 162. Here, he identifies three different orthographies associated with different sectors of literary practice, and from this observation, he suggests that “one of the main goals of The Zami Hymns was to synthesize bits of information drawn from a wide variety of genres and scribal traditions” and designates the collec-

Chapter 5. The How and the Why

61

tion a “scholastic compendia.”1 Such a description is perhaps to be seen as similar to the suggestion that the collection has a list-like character,2 implying that an underlying rationale would be connected to the fondness of list-making of the Mesopotamian scribes. If correct, it was intended to gather information drawn from disparate traditions and contexts into a coherent scheme.3 Joachim Krecher has, furthermore, suggested that the doxology concluding each hymn (zà-mì) was a scribal abbreviation of a two-sentence formula, found in full only in the concluding lines of the preface. If so, the Zà-mì Hymns could be a “somewhat embellished scribal exercise on names of cities and deities and of their epithets,”4 an idea further developed by Gonzalo Rubio, who relates it to the suggestion by Miguel Civil that many written Sumerian texts were abbreviated versions of oral compositions. Rubio proposes that some early texts, including the Zà-mì Hymns, could represent the “score of longer literary compositions whose layout was determined by lexical lists.”5 If so, the Zà-mì Hymns would not be an anthology in any strict sense, but rather understood as somewhere between lists and fully literary compositions. Moving on to the Sumerian Temple Hymns, there are indications that some hymns were inserted later. As noted above (p. 47), TH 9 has the formulation “additional hymn”, and it has also been observed that TH 8, TH 9, TH 12, and TH 20 address either later kings or temples.6 From this it follows that even a collection that had been provided with a clear conclusion could be expanded with additional hymns, and when looking at where these hymns are located, the result is quite indicative. Relating this issue to the suggested purpose of the collection, it was observed early on that the temples and deities seemed to be arranged so that the collection moved from southeast to northwest.7 Claus Wilcke (and later Wilson) then suggested that it was compiled in order to favor and facilitate the restitu-

1

Johnson 2013, 17–18 (quote from 18). See, e.g., Krecher 1992, 292–93; Rubio 2003, 205; Brisch 2010, 159. 3 As for principles of organization, some scholars have interpreted the mentioning of cult cities as an implicit geographical concern, even though the pattern is not entirely clear (see Biggs 1974, 45, who suggests that the relationship between gods as depicted in myths and epics also played a part). For the collection as a “systematic statement of the Sumerian pantheon,” see Lambert 1980, 60. For the possibility that Uruk controlled the cities mentioned at the time of compilation, see Frayne 2009, 55–61. 4 Krecher 1992, 293. 5 Rubio 2003, 206. 6 That is, later than the historical references in the colophon (see Wilcke 1972, 48–49). 7 Zimmern 1930, 247; Wilcke 1972, 43; Wilson 1985a, 15–16; cf. the overview of cities in Sjöberg & Bergmann 1969, 13. There are, however, exceptions from this pattern, but according to Wilcke 1972, 44, most can be explained by the observation that major sites are mentioned before minor ones in different regions, regardless of the actual geographical locations. 2

62

Part II. Anthologies Compared

tion of temple worship disrupted during Sargon of Akkad’s campaign against Lugalzaggesi and the Sumerian South.8 So put, the original work was a praise of the political reforms of Sargon of Akkad. William W. Hallo, on the other hand, linked the hymn collection to the attempt of Sargon to “replace the loose alliance of Sumer and Akkad with a truly centralized imperial system.” He thus posited that the Sumerian Temple Hymns was to be seen against the background of Sargon’s attempt to provide the theological foundations for a united empire by instituting “a cultic union of their chief priestly offices in the person of his daughter Enheduanna, the devotee of Inanna,” as well as equating the Sumerian Inanna with the Akkadian Ištar.9 Related to these ideas, some scholars have suggested that the adding of hymns in fact reveals a shift in function to, for example, a commendation for later rulers to provide the maintenance and reconstruction of the holy places,10 and although possible, it is noteworthy that the later hymns are inserted to fit with the preexisting organization principle. Put differently, they are inserted in the “correct” place in the overall geographical movement from southeast to northwest. No new overall framework was provided, nor any new introduction or conclusion, and hence, a posited new purpose is not possible to evaluate by means of the inserted hymns only. If this is a valid assessment, it also follows that Wilson’s assertion that the Sumerian Temple Hymns is an example of a collection that originated in association with some particular historical events, only to be modified later on in order to be “applicable to later historical contexts,” does not quite hold up.11 As the organizing principles stayed the same, a change of use would instead have been motivated by a change in historical contexts, that is, without any adjusting of the actual text.

B. Collections with Manuscript Variation As noted above, there was some interesting variation among the Hodayot scrolls, and one of the few scholars that have proposed a model for understanding the relation between the scrolls in a diachronic perspective is Harkins. She builds her argument around five observations that could be summarized as the following: 1. Dividing the Hodayot into three major groups (CH I [cols. 1–8], TH and CH II [cols. 19 6– 28]), Harkins proposes that there are literary differences within the two collections of “Community Hymns.” Based on the unpublished PhD dissertation by Sarah Tanzer, who had identified two main categories of “Community Hymns” – the Deuteronomic Hodayot and the 8

Wilcke 1972, 48; Wilson 1985a, 19. Cf. discussion in Hallo & Van Dijk 1968, 9–10. 10 So Wilcke 1972, 49. 11 Wilson 1985a, 24. 9

Chapter 5. The How and the Why

63

Niedrigkeitsdoxologie (“references that contrast the lowliness of sinful creatureliness with the righteousness of almighty God”) – Harkins notes that while Deuteronomic Hodayot are characteristic of CH I, they are absent from both TH and CH II (apart from the latter part of the composition suggested to be a concluding framing composition to the “Teacher Hymns,” cols. 17 38–19 5), while the Niedrigkeitsdoxologien were clustered primarily in CH II, and shared some characteristics with TH.12 2. Thematic similarities were found between TH and CH II, as they both, for example, recurrently feature human communion with angels. CH I, however, featured a community of men as a distinct group, apart from angelic figures.13 3. Orthographic differences were found.14 Where CH I followed a short orthographic system, TH and CH II used an expanded one. Since the orthographic differences did not overlap with the material relating to the scribes of 1QHa, this would indicate that the latter sections were copied from a distinct source.15 4. Some terms were used only in CH I.16 5. CH I is unattested in Cave 4. Besides the suggestion that 4QHb did not contain cols. 1–8 (see above), Harkins argues that 4QHa – a scroll containing only “Community Hymns” in a very different arrangement from 1QHa – should be understood as reflecting a tradition distinct from 1QHa.17

Drawing these observations together, Harkins proposes that 4QHb (TH+CH II) was a precursor to the later, and larger, 1QHa collection, organized “purposefully as a collection of human and angelic prayers which possessed an internal progression and intensification of the human communion with angels theme, culminating in the extraordinary composition that is popularly known as the ‘Self-Glorification Hymn’.”18 1QHa would then be the result of CH I being added at a later stage, possibly by simple insertion of new sheets into the folds of the existing collection (see above, p. 46). This is not the place to enter into a discussion of the formation of the Hodayot, but rather to use the collection as an example of the formation of anthologies in an ancient context, and, hence, it will suffice to mention that more work is needed in evaluating Harkins’ suggestions. One possible problem pointed out by other scholars is the probable presence of 1QHa cols. 1–8 on 4QHb (as mentioned above), but the recognition of a fundamental diversity of the collection is surely indicative of a complex history of compilation, and renders quite plausible the idea that the Hodayot is a collection compiled from different sources, many of which possibly consist of small collections as, for example, the TH.19

12

Harkins 2010, 108–10. Harkins 2010, 110–22. 14 Harkins 2010, 122–23. 15 Harkins 2010, 122–23; cf. Chazon et al. 1999, 181. For a brief overview of the various scribal hands, see Schuller 2011, 123. 16 Harkins 2010, 123–24. 17 Harkins 2010, 125–32. 18 Harkins 2010, 133–34. 19 Cf. Holm-Nielsen 1960, 331. Besides Harkins, there are other voices on the matter. 13

64

Part II. Anthologies Compared

That there were multiple Vorlagen is also probable, as the scribes writing these scrolls seem to have refrained from standardizing (see, for example, the observed orthographic variations by the same scribe).20

C. Collections without Ancient Manuscripts Two of the collections surveyed here are not attested in any ancient manuscripts, although it is likely they have been compiled early on. Here, scholars have used quite different methods in reconstructing their formation, and this is probably due to the nature of the texts themselves. Consequently, they provide interesting points of comparison for my discussion of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. I. The Homeric Hymns Turning first to the Homeric Hymns, it is fairly agreed upon that the collection contained hymns composed in a great variety of contexts over some considerable amount of time, and one of the features leading to this suggestion is the observation that some of the hymns seemed to be short versions of longer ones. Apart from a possible connection between Hymns 2 and 13, as well as Hymns 4 and 18,21 scholars have pointed to the many parallels that exist between Hymn 2 to Demeter and Hymn 5 to Aphrodite and posited that they are best interpreted as a direct relationship, where Demeter is secondary.22 Furthermore, there has been considerable discussion around Hymn 3 to Apollo, which seems to reflect a joining of two (previously independent) compositions (to Delian Apollo, lines 1–178 and to Pythian Apollo, lines 179–546),23 although many now maintain its

Arguments for an underlying unity (a thematic meditation on God, salvation of the just, and the final doom of the godless) have been formulated by Puech 2000, 367, while Dimant 2006, 622–25, has suggested that 1QHa is rather to be seen as the oldest textual tradition, based on the view that 4QHb is identical to 1QHa. Chazon 2010, 149, has argued that the TH were inserted into the CH to create a unified theme of liturgical communion with angels. This theme then culminated with three benedictions as well as plural invitations to praise God in the last two hymns. 20 Cf. Schuller 2011, 134. 21 So Crudden 2001, xiii. Faulkner 2011a, 203, adds a possible relation between Hymns 17 and 33; 3 and 27; 2 and 30. See also Clay 1997, 496, with n. 32; Richardson 2010, 1. 22 See Faulkner 2011a, 202; Faulkner 2011b, 10. 23 See, e.g., Evelyn-White 1982, xxxvi; West 2003, 9.

Chapter 5. The How and the Why

65

original unity.24 Put simply, there seemed to be some repetition of parts of the older hymns in the younger ones, and such repetition would provide the keys to reconstruct the diachronic growth of the collection. It has long been noted that the Homeric Hymns is not often mentioned in other Greek works up until the second century, but by searching for quotes and allusions, Andrew Faulkner has recently uncovered more traces.25 Although many of these traces are limited to the individual hymns, thus not necessarily indicating anything of a collection, and although direct quotes are rare (the identified links are often verbal or thematic allusions),26 Faulkner proposes that the Hymns likely had considerable influence on other works throughout the seventh to fourth centuries BCE,27 but that the impact of the Homeric Hymns on Greek poetry was probably at its greatest in the first half of the third century BCE.28 Here, Faulkner also provides a first possible trace of the collection itself in Callimachus’ use of the Hymns by means of verbal and thematic allusion to the longer hymns. Based on connections between Callimachus’ first hymn and the beginning of Hymn 1, as well as links between Callimachus’ sixth hymn and Hymn 7,29 he suggests that a collection consisting of (at least) the longer hymns was formed in the early third century BCE, “at a time when Alexandrian scholars were collecting together the literature of the past and the Hymns’ popularity was at its greatest.”30 This conclusion would then be further supported by the dating of a fixed form of several of the longer hymns to the end of the late seventh or early sixth century,31 while many of the shorter hymns, especially those depending on the longer ones, probably date to the fifth century and onwards.32 24

See especially the argument in Clay 1989, 17–19, which convinced Richard Janko of the “unitarian” view (for his own words of this change of position, see Janko 1991, 12). 25 Faulkner 2011a; cf. Allen, Halliday, & Sikes 1936, lxiv–lxxxii. 26 Faulkner 2011a, 193–205, finds examples of such allusions in many texts. One noteworthy example is an Attic lekythos – a type of Greek pottery – from the fifth century showing a young boy holding a papyrus scroll with the first lines of Hymn 18, interpreted by Faulkner as possibly indicating a school setting for the hymn (Faulkner 2011a, 197; cf. Richardson 2010, 1). 27 Faulkner 2011a, 196. 28 Faulkner 2011a, 181. 29 In this model, the second hymn to Aphrodite would have been a later insertion (Faulkner 2011a, 181). 30 Faulkner 2011a, 205. 31 Faulkner 2011a, 196. The dating of individual hymns is very debated (see, e.g., Nünlist 2004, 35, n. 1), but there has been some general agreement concerning this broader dating, as well as to the notion of the hymn to Ares being very late, probably belonging in the Roman period (although a possible Neoplatonic setting is debated, see, e.g., Faulkner 2011a, 175–76, with n. 4; cf. Van der Valk 1976, 438, with n. 62). For an ambitious attempt to date the (major) hymns by linguistic criteria, see Janko 1982. 32 Faulkner 2011b, 6–7.

66

Part II. Anthologies Compared

A similar reconstruction is also suggested by Nicholas Richardson, who argues that the attested quotations from the longer hymns from at least the first century BCE, which are then attributed to Homer, indicate that “an edition of these at least was made by some time in the Hellenistic period.”33 Although quotes from the shorter hymns are rare, there is at least one attested quote in the Hellenistic period, and since even this is attributed to Homer (Hymn 16:1–3 is quoted as ἐν τοῖς Ὁµηρικοῖς ὕµνοις),34 Richardson believes it is possible that shorter hymns were also included in that edition.35 The scarcity of quotes is noteworthy, however, and Apostolos N. Athanassakis suggests that a possible explanation could be that Alexandrian scholars had decided that Homer had not composed them.36 However, as these scholars nevertheless seem to have gathered the Hymns, one could search here for a rationale behind the compiling. As noted above (p. 48), many of the hymns concluded with a promise of yet another song,37 and departing from an early notion by Thucydides (late fifth century BCE), who quotes Hymn 3 and describes it as a proomion (προοίµιον), Friedrich A. Wolf suggested early on that these promises indicate that the Homeric Hymns served as preludes to longer epic recitations.38 The picture painted was one where the hymns were part of the repertoire of travelling rhapsodes who honored a deity before they moved on to other topics, and the concluding promise was thus understood in line with other, more well attested formulas (e.g. µεταβήσοµαι) and known practices.39 The suggestion became widely accepted,40 and a number of performative contexts have been suggested, ranging from major festivals (as perhaps indicated in Hymn 26:12–13) where the

33

Richardson 2010, 3. Cf. Faulkner 2011a, 178. 35 Richardson 2010, 3. 36 Athanassakis 2004, xiv; cf. Richardson 2010, 1. 37 Two formulas are used. The first, αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ καὶ σεῖο καὶ ἄbης µνήσοµ᾽ἀοιδῆς (“And I will remember both you and another song,” text and translation from Faulkner 2011b, 18) is used in Hymns 2:495, 3:546, 4:580, 6:21, 10:6, 19:49, 28:18, and 30:19, and has a variant, αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν ὑµέων τε καὶ ἄbης µνήσοµ᾽ἀοιδῆς, which is used in Hymns 25:7, 27:22, 29:14, and 33:19. The second, σέο δ᾽ἐγὼ ἀρξάµενος µεταβήσοµαι ἄbον ἐς ὕµνον (“Having begun with you I will now pass on to another song”) is used in Hymns 5:293, 9:9, and 18:11. Apart from these, there are also two similar endings in Hymns 31 and 32, saying that a song to γένος ἀνδρῶν ἡµιθέων (“earthly half-gods”) will follow (both these are possibly late, Càssola 1975, 440; Gelzer 1987, 166–67). 38 So Faulkner 2011b, 3. 39 This formula is well known to indicate a “transition to another song that follows immediately” (Clay 2011, 237). See also Faulkner 2011b, 18. 40 See, e.g., Crudden 2001, xii–xiii; West 2003, 3–4; Athanassakis 2004, xiv; Murnaghan 2005, xxi; Richardson 2010, 2; Furley 2011, 207. 34

Chapter 5. The How and the Why

67

performances could have been competitive (see perhaps Hymn 6:19–20)41 to more private contexts, or court settings.42 Nevertheless, alternative suggestions have been proposed, perhaps most notably by Jenny S. Clay, who argues that the promise might rather be of a hymn to be sung to the same deity in an unspecified future.43 Furthermore, it has been noted that the preluding function does not fit well with the lengthier hymns,44 and since Thucydides used the term προοίµιον in relation to a long hymn, some have suggested that it should be understood in a more technical,45 or functional sense,46 as, for example, the first of a sequence of songs, rather than indicating a mode of performance.47 Regardless of which position is more to the point, and although an increasing amount of scholars are abandoning the prelude view (at least as an overarching model), one fundamental observation remains the same. The interpretive context for the individual hymn in the Homeric Hymns is not the collection per se, but is to be found outside it. Put differently, the alluding to the singing of yet another song never refers to the following song in the preserved sequence. Furthermore, even if the individual Hymns did at some point serve as preludes to great epics, they nevertheless maintained their independence and could be performed without these epics in other contexts.48 What, then, about the rationale behind the compiling? A final piece of the puzzle is provided by Clay, as she notes that the scope of the hymns, especially the longer ones, is Panhellenic.49 By associating major deities like Apollo and Demeter to great Panhellenic sites, while at the same time avoiding local cults, or even reworking local myths,50 the universal scope of these deities is stressed so that local traditions are reshaped “into an Olympian framework of cosmic order.”51 Consequently, the hymns could potentially have brought together Greeks from many politically distinct communities, and one could easily imagine these tendencies to be further strengthened as the hymns were gathered into

41

Cf. Athanassakis 2004, xvi; Richardson 2010, 1–2. Faulkner 2011b, 17; cf. the overview in Clay 2011, 233. Some of the shorter hymns (e.g. Hymn 22) might also have been composed for liturgical use (West 2003, 18–19). 43 Clay 2011, 236–37. 44 See already Allen, Halliday, & Sikes 1936, xciii–xcv; cf. Evelyn-White 1982, xxxiv– xxxv. Janko 1981, 15, has also noted that the standard phrases are often “omitted” in the short hymns. Some do not consider the length as a problem, however (Richardson 2010, 2). 45 See, e.g., Faulkner 2011b, 18. 46 Clay 1997, 495. 47 Clay 2011, 239–40. 48 So also Clay 2011, 252–53. 49 See esp. Clay 1989. 50 Clay 2011, 246, provides an example as she notes that in the fragmentary Hymn 1, a number of claims to a birthplace of Dionysus are explicitly rejected. 51 Clay 1997, 500, quote from Janko 1991, 12. See also Furley 2011, 208. 42

68

Part II. Anthologies Compared

collections.52 Hymns that possibly emanated from an oral, performative tradition, had now attained new functions.53 Furthermore, Richard Hunter argues that such a new function could also be understood in relation to changing dynamics of patronage resulting from the rulers having become divine, and so, the Homeric Hymns, which identified the areas of a god’s power and placed him or her within the overall scheme of the divine, seems in retrospect an obvious vehicle for describing these shifting boundaries of power. Moreover, this concern with distinctions between the praise of men and the praise of gods is to be connected not merely with the political realities of third-century monarchies, but also with the scholarly enterprise of collecting and classifying the poetic heritage.54

In sum, scholars have concluded that the Homeric Hymns is best seen as a collection that includes individual hymns with their own, independent history, and that a compiling of a first collection in the Alexandrian age was guided and motivated by the contemporary political and scribal settings.55 Up until then, the hymns bear witness to a quite diverse and complex tradition.56 It is important to note that although the hymns attained new functions as they were gathered, there were no indications of the collection being used as a whole. Neither does the notion of a compilation in the Alexandrian age warrant the notion of a “fixed” collection, as subsequent additions were still possible, even at a much later stage (cf. the Hymn to Ares). II. The Psalms of Solomon It was noted above (p. 53) that no ancient manuscripts were preserved for the Psalms of Solomon, and in reconstructing its formation, scholars have often used the psalms themselves as a kind of lens through which a historical context can be identified. As Robert B. Wright puts it, the collection “preserve[s] specific, thinly veiled allusions, sharp edges of historical reality.”57 One of the first theories about the date and purpose of the collection to gain wide support was formulated by F. K. Movers. Focusing on the vivid language in Pss. Sol. 2, 8, and 17 in particular, he suggested these psalms reflect a historical context related to a dispute between Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II, the two Hasmonean brothers.58 As is well known, this particular strife emanated from 52 Murnaghan 2005, xxiii, puts it this way: “Through their broad geographical reach, as well as through their focus on defining moments of cosmic history, the Hymns speak to a wide audience and make their appeal to the gods on behalf of all the earthbound mortals who are subject to the rule of Zeus …” 53 Clay 2011, 233–34. 54 Hunter 1996, 47. 55 For the date, see Van der Valk 1976, 419; Faulkner 2011a, 176. 56 Cf. Clay 1997, 498. 57 Wright 1983, 646. 58 Movers 1882, 1060–62.

Chapter 5. The How and the Why

69

diverging views on how to respond to the Roman threat and the approach of Pompey. While followers of Aristobulus opposed any entry of the Romans into Jerusalem, Hyrcanus’ supporters opened the gates, causing the followers of Aristobulus to take refuge in the temple, were they were subsequently defeated as the Romans entered all the way into the holy of holies (63 BCE).59 Allusions to these events were found in Pss. Sol. 8:16–19, and that Pompey was the gentile leader mentioned in Pss. Sol. 2, 8, and 17 could be seen in Pss. Sol. 2:26– 27, which was interpreted as a reference to his death in Egypt in 48 BCE.60 The two passages read as follows:61 And I did not wait long until God showed me his insolence pierced on the mountains of Egypt, more despised than the smallest thing on earth and sea. His body was carried about on the waves in much shame, and there was no one to bury (him), for he (God) had despised him with contempt. (Pss. Sol. 2:26–27) The leaders of the country met him with joy. They said to him, “May your way be blessed. Come, enter in peace.” They graded the rough roads before his coming; they opened the gates to Jerusalem, they crowned their city walls. He entered in peace as a father enters his son’s house; he set his feet securely. He captured the fortified towers and the wall of Jerusalem, for God led him in securely while they wavered. (Pss. Sol. 8:16–19)

Consequently, the Psalms of Solomon were seen as a response of a group of pious Jews (Pss. Sol. 10:7, 17:16) to the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans,62 and since the dates of these events were well established, the psalms would have been composed some time shortly after 48 BCE. Since nothing is said about the destruction of the temple, a terminus ad quem was also provided.63 Furthermore, the prominent position given to Jerusalem in many psalms has convinced scholars of a clear Jerusalem provenance,64 and as for the identity of these devout Jews, the two prominent suggestions have been Pharisees,65 or Es-

59

Cf. Atkinson 1998, 101. See also Josephus A.J. 14.4.2. Cf. Eissfeldt 1964, 829; Rappaport 2007, 766. 61 Translations from Wright 1983. 62 Cf. Wright 1983, 639. 63 See the overviews in Atkinson 1998, 98–99, and Wright 2007, 1–7. Important here was also a quote of the eleventh psalm in 1 Bar 5. 64 So, e.g., Ryle & James 1891, lviii–lix; Holm-Nielsen 1977, 59; Brock 1984, 652; de Jonge 1985, 161; Wright 1983, 641; Winninge 1995, 14; Wright 2007, 7. Cf. Atkinson 1998, 107, who mentions the following reasons for such a conclusion: 1) Jerusalem is personified in the first psalms, as in the historical events in Pss. Sol. 2, 8, 18; 2) Pss. Sol. 4 refers to the Jerusalem Sanhedrin; and 3) Pss. Sol. 11 speak of God’s promises to Jerusalem. Furthermore, many of the superscriptions place the psalms within Jerusalem precincts. 65 So Ryle & James 1891, see esp. xliv–lii; lviii–lxii. It was followed by Schürer 1973, 194–95; Schüpphaus 1977, 127–37; Holm-Nielsen 1977, 58–59; Holm-Nielsen 1979, 173; Nickelsburg 1981, 203; Lane 1982, 132; Lührmann 1989, 79; Reiser 1990, 32. Winninge 1995, 141–80, identifies the Pharisees with the Hasidim mentioned in some of the Psalms of Solomon (οἱ ὅσιοι, cf. ‫)חסידים‬. 60

70

Part II. Anthologies Compared

senes (although distinct from the ones possibly found in Qumran).66 However, due to, for example, the observation that the group responsible for the psalms seemed to have significant theological overlap with all the other known movements in Judaism during the first century BCE, and due to an increasing awareness both of the difficulty of reconstructing the views of these groups with any certainty, and the pluralistic character of Judaism in this time,67 many scholars have taken a somewhat agnostic position,68 although most would agree that the Psalms of Solomon is a work of authors who opposed the Hasmonean dynasty.69 What is seen here is, then, an extensive overlapping of psalms with historical events, and it has long been agreed that (at least) Pss. Sol. 2, 8, and 17 reflect the events identified above. If so, one consequence would be a quite narrow time frame for the composition and compilation of the collection, but more recently, Atkinson has suggested that a more complex reconstruction fits better with the material. Subscribing to the view that Pss. Sol. 2 and 8 are to be related to Pompey, he re-examines Pss. Sol. 17 and argues that vv. 5–6 likely describe the beginning of the Hasmonean dynasty. If so, Herod the Great would be a better match to the gentile ruler, who is described as “the lawless one”, (17:11) the “stranger” (17:13) and “a man alien to our race” (17:7),70 and the events alluded to in this psalm would be the siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great and general Sosius in 37 BCE, with a subsequent elimination of the Hasmonean royal family between 37 and 30 BCE.71 Furthermore, Atkinson argues that since many of the other psalms contain nothing of a Roman threat (e.g. Pss. Sol. 4 and 15), they would belong to a time prior to (at least) 67–63 BCE.72 Taking these aspects into consideration, as well as the notion of the psalms be66

Hann 1988, 170–71; cf., e.g., Dupont-Sommer 1962, 337. See, e.g., the cautions in Hann 1988, 170. 68 See, e.g., Trafton 1992, 116; Atkinson 1998, 112; although already de Jonge 1985, 160. 69 Trafton 1994, 12–13. The fact that this community seemed to be separated from the temple has been interpreted as an indication that the collection was primarily used in the synagogue. This is possibly supported by the numerous references to the “synagogues of the pious,” or the notion of a piety as a substitute for sacrifice (see, e.g., Holm-Nielsen 1977, 51; de Jonge 1985, 160; cf. also Winninge 1995, 18–19; Wright 2009, 328). Atkinson has even proposed that the collection displayed a liturgical arrangement, undertaken to facilitate reading within a synagogue setting (Atkinson 1998, 109–10, cf. Ryle & James 1891, lix–lx). 70 Atkinson 1998, 106. 71 See esp. Atkinson 1996, and Atkinson 1999, 440–44. Wright has, in his critical edition, adopted this view (Wright 2007, 1). The allusion to Herod is, however, not entirely new. It was mentioned by, e.g., Ryle & James 1891, xl; Eissfeldt 1964, 829–30; and Schürer 1973, 194, but due to their joint treatment of Pss. Sol. 2, 8, and 17, they disregarded Herod the Great as an alternative, based on features in the other psalms. 72 Atkinson 1998, 102–4; cf. Wright 2007, 6. Atkinson also includes Pss. Sol. 7 in this group, based on the notion of a Roman threat spelled out without any knowledge of the defilement of the temple. 67

Chapter 5. The How and the Why

71

ing modeled on the psalms of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, and the suggested late addition of superscriptions ascribing the psalms to Solomon, Wright would then somewhat summarize this new reconstruction and suggest that [a] redactor would have edited the collection and shaped its final form. He selected a core of “historical” psalms composed over three decades, from approximately 65 to 30 BCE, spanning the time from before Pompey through Herod. He appended the first and eighteenth Psalms of Solomon, providing an introduction and conclusion. The redactor would have added the remaining “generic” psalms, from an existing pool of cultic poetry. He arranged the psalms, added liturgical headings in emulation of the biblical Psalter, and attributed the whole to King Solomon. That Jerusalem has been attacked and desecrated, but not destroyed, suggests that the psalms reached their final form before 70 CE. Thus, the last half of the first century BCE emerges as the most suitable time for the composition and editing of the Psalms of Solomon, followed by a translation into Greek perhaps about the turn of the era, possibly in Egypt.73

Although it could be argued that these reconstructions are all based on too literal readings of poetic material, they do point to the conclusion that the Psalms of Solomon would contain compositions from a longer period of time, related to each other in reflecting a “community’s reaction to the changing political events within Jerusalem.”74 However, although the composition of many of the psalms might have been caused by the historical circumstances sketched above, the fact that many (most) of the psalms do not contain any clear historical allusions, as well as the fact that the psalms that do have these allusions are neither juxtaposed, nor chronologically ordered, should warrant against seeing a structured response to historical circumstances as a primary rationale behind the act of compilation. If the psalms were transmitted within the community for some years before ending up in a collection, it might also have been so that an early collection was formed and expanded once or several times as circumstances changed so that, ultimately, these psalms were seen as a flexible way of addressing contemporary issues in a context of prayer. As the experiences described in these psalms would have been important to the community, they were also worth remembering.

D. The Question of Purpose Once Again As has been seen in the discussion so far, there is need to discuss the specifics of the answer to the question “why?” in relation to each anthology, but in doing so, there is a risk of overlooking the fundamental question permeating the entire discussion: why compile anthologies in the first place? If looking at the various examples analyzed here, there are some similarities in the way an an73 74

Wright 2007, 6–7. Atkinson 1998, 108.

72

Part II. Anthologies Compared

swer to such a question could be formulated, and three basic driving forces could be identified. Although they overlap in some respects, I will discuss them each in turn. I. Archival Economy The first apparent motivation for compiling various compositions on a single scroll or tablet would be related to archival economy. Indications of this was seen in relation to the Zà-mì hymns, where the fondness of list-making and relation to oral performance might have contributed to its shape and shaping, and it has also been argued as a possible reason for the juxtaposing of the twelve prophets into a ‘Book’ of the Twelve.75 Consequently, the quite basic and practical aspect of a composition being too short to be inscribed on a separate tablet or scroll (and the fact that tablets or scrolls were expensive, hence a real economic factor) provided an impetus to gather such compositions into larger collections, eventually creating clusters of compositions regularly transmitted together. One illustration of this trajectory could perhaps be found in the existence of compilation tablets (Sammeltafeln).76 As argued by Theo van den Hout in relation to Hittite compilation tablets, the main rationale behind the joining of disparate compositions on a single tablet would have been “archivökonomischen,”77 and a clue to their function as related to the trajectory sketched here could be found in the way compositions are selected. In fact, it seems quite well established in contemporary scholarship that compilation tablets were “rarely, if ever, random collections of compositions,”78 but that some rationale often lay behind the way compositions were selected. Pascal Attinger, for one, has observed that the tablets could contain literary compositions with identical subscriptions, or texts addressing the same deity. Moreover, they could share thematic similarities, belonging to a singer’s repertoire, or could share the status of all being minor works, juxtaposed for didactic reasons.79 Put differently, association of compositions to one another seems to play a fundamental part in these compilations, although they need not always be on a textual level.80 Consequently, the rationale for selecting compositions would have to be inquired into in each separate case, although the two other general driving forces, scribal curricula (below, p. 74) and preservation (below, pp. 75–80), can be understood in relation to this issue. 75

See, e.g., Petersen 2000, 5. For a definition, see Worthington 2008, 625–26; or the ones provided in Van den Hout 2008, 627; Hutter 2011, 116. 77 Van den Hout 2008, 627. 78 Tinney 1999b, 34; cf. Kleinerman 2011, 58, and the observations in Hutter 2011, 124– 26. 79 Attinger 2011, 105–6. 80 Cf. Alster 2005, 223–26. 76

Chapter 5. The How and the Why

73

Keeping focus on compilation tablets or scrolls, but looking more broadly (that is, not only on Mesopotamian and Hittite tablets), there is an intriguing Egyptian papyrus, Chester Beatty I, which dates to the reign of Ramesses V (ca 1160 BCE) and contains a rather odd gathering of texts. It is both an opisthograph (it is inscribed on both sides) and a palimpsest (this applies only to the verso, the side normally uninscribed), and Alan H. Gardiner divides the manuscript into eight sections (A–H).81 The first section on the recto (A) contains an almost complete version of the composition “Contendings of Horus and Seth,” as well as a collection of seven brief love songs (LS1), including some fragments on the verso of a hymn that has not been possible to reconstruct. Section B then contains what Gardiner called an “Encomium of Ramesses V,” followed by a collection of love songs described as the “most complete, intelligible, and poetic love-songs which Ancient Egypt has bequeathed to us,” (LS2, section C) and three sections of business notes (D–F) which had been “none too skillfully erased” in several places. The two last sections contain two love poems (LS3, G) and business notes (H). Interestingly, sections E–H are inscribed upsidedown. Interesting for my purposes is that two of the collections of love songs have titles. LS1 gathers seven songs under the main title “The beginning of the sweet saying, which was found in a book container, and which the scribe Nakhtsobek from the necropolis wrote.”82 Some of the songs have some thematic similarities (Michael V. Fox argues that the first two should be understood as two stanzas of the same song),83 but the overall impression is that the compositions are independent songs with no apparent connection, and no organizing principle is uncovered.84 The second collection, LS2, is also introduced by a main title, “The Beginning of the Sayings of the Great Entertainer,”85 and consists of seven subsections, each with its own title: “the [numeral] house.”86 The fact that each poem is framed by a wordplay on the number provided by the title,87 and that a boy and a girl sing in alternating sequences, means it is best seen as a song cycle.88 The last, small collection (LS3) exhibits even more cohesiveness, the tree parts are intrinsically intertwined, not least thematically, and thus best understood as a single composition.89

81

Gardiner 1931, 2–5, the overview of the contents is based on Gardiner’s edition. Translation from Fox 1985, 68; cf. Lichtheim 1976, 2:187, “found in a text collection.” 83 Fox 1985, 72. 84 So Fox 1985, 201, 204. 85 Fox 1985, 52 calls this collection “the Stroll.” 86 Gardiner 1931, 27 has “stanza,” cf. Lichtheim 1976, 2:185. 87 Gardiner 1931, 4, 27. 88 Lichtheim 1976, 2:185; cf. Fox 1985, 51. 89 Cf. Lichtheim 1976, 2:186–87; Fox 1985, 51, 66–68. 82

74

Part II. Anthologies Compared

This manuscript is, then, an intriguing example of the use and reuse of a scroll leading to the juxtaposition of several compositions of rather disparate sorts. As Gardiner describes it, this probably resulted from a demand for papyrus as writing-material that excessed the supply, a reality well documented in the Ramesside period (hence not primarily an archival economy factor).90 According to the reconstruction by Gardiner, the scroll was first used containing only the mythological story, to which LS1, as well as the hymn on the verso, was then added. Later on, a second scribe added the two other songs (LS2 and LS3, “inspired by the love-songs at the end of the recto”), and even later still, the scroll was to be used for entirely different purposes, registering business notes.91 This scroll, then, is helpful when making some distinctions about what to designate as an anthology. While the scroll itself juxtaposes various compositions, it would not qualify as an anthology. Moreover, neither LS2, nor LS3 can be designated as such, since LS3 is probably a single composition, while LS2 is a fairly coherent song cycle. However, LS1 seems to fit the criteria for an anthology, and here, the title also gives some clues as to the binding string. These distinctions could also provide some clues as to how these various collections were used. While there is nothing indicating a linear reading of the actual manuscript, both LS2 and LS3 were likely read as a whole, and related to these two alternatives, the poems of LS1 rather approaches the former, and thus are not necessarily read in the light of one another in any linear progression. II. Scribal Curriculum As previously noted, one major impetus for compiling collections, at least in the Mesopotamian material, would have been to provide material for various stages in scribal training. The Decad was the primary example of this, and as noted above, these compositions were not only listed in similar clusters throughout the catalogues of incipits, but also found juxtaposed on compilation tablets. Hence, rather than “primary compositional or functional relationships,”92 associations between texts based on curricular criteria would have been a significant factor. Reaching a similar conclusion, but from another direction, is Herman L. J. Vanstiphout. Proceeding from a notion that compilation tablets can be taken as a material expression of a generic approach, since the compilation of such tablets would have been guided by how these texts were understood, he surveys a large amount of compilation tablets and notes that they often contained between three and ten fairly short compositions. Some of these were unica, while other were fairly fixed and existed in several (fully or partially) overlapping

90

Gardiner 1931, 2. Gardiner 1931, 6–7. 92 Tinney 2000, 23. 91

Chapter 5. The How and the Why

75

copies.93 Dividing the texts into five generic “grades,” he observes that compositions belonging to the same grade were often found together on compilation tablets.94 Texts from the first grade (proverbs, exempla, fables, short didactic pieces) were, for example, found together, although occasionally juxtaposed to some second grade compositions (“school texts,” longer didactic pieces, debates) as well. The latter also occured together on compilation tablets, given that they were short enough. Since both of these grades showed “a preponderance of exercise tablets over ‘master copies’ or complete editions,” Vanstiphout suggested that the compilation tablets had a “function in the Academy.”95 A school setting would then imply that these short compositions were studied and learned together.96 III. Preservation (Canonization) A final essential impetus for the gathering of compositions in recurrent sequences was noted in my discussion of the Decad (p. 41), namely the suggestion that it could be understood in terms of canon. If so, it would be connected to an idea that some compositions were worth preserving for coming generations.97 As I have argued in relation to the OB catalogues of incipits (see Appendix 1), most of these catalogues reflected quite practical needs related to the storage of tablets, but taken together with the observation that the catalogues included almost all of the best known (most widely spread) Sumerian literary compositions, it has been suggested that these catalogues in fact represent almost complete lists of the literary corpus of the OB period. If so, they could in some sense be viewed as “canonical” lists, or might perhaps even reflect an ongoing canonization of literature.98 While such an understanding potentially has the same problems as the curricular theory (the catalogues are still archival), it might still be that the incipits in the catalogues reveal important aspects of the notion of a literary corpus, even if they were not intended to perform such a

93

Vanstiphout 1999, 82–83; cf. Kleinerman 2011, 57. Vanstiphout 1999, 83–84. 95 Vanstiphout 1999, 83–84; cf. Kleinerman 2011, 67. None of the remaining three grades were found on compilation tablets. 96 Cf. Kleinerman 2011, 72, who then discusses practical implications of such a function. Compositions could, for example, be taught in pairs, and then written down as a student has mastered a whole set. 97 See also Hutter 2011, 125–26, on Hittite compilation tablets. 98 Vanstiphout 2003, 6–11. This was in fact suggested already by Hallo 1968; Hallo 1976, and followed by Wilson, who interpreted the overlap of several of the catalogues as evidence for “a process of classification, arrangement, standardization, with the ultimate purpose of establishing a fixed body of literature with a fixed, ‘canonical’ arrangement,” hence a canon “in the making” (Wilson 1985a, 59). 94

76

Part II. Anthologies Compared

function themselves. Put another way, the fact that there is considerable overlap between the literary catalogues (e.g. B4, L, N2, S1, U1, U2, U3,99 Y2) could indicate which compositions were most used and spread, and may point to some scribal consensus about which ones were worth preserving.100 If these observations are valid, in what way is it possible to talk about an OB literary canon? Here, Vanstiphout argues that the tablets that have survived are not just a disorderly cluster of archaeological coincidence, and proposes a distinction between two groups as an illustration of this.101 The first group contains compositions extant on a great number of tablets (with the important observation that no two copies are identical),102 while the compositions in the second are known from only a single tablet or at best a few copies. That the suggested distinction is not merely artificial is, then, supported by additional observations.103 First, in relation to the (geographical) distribution of tablets at various sites, the first group exhibits great coherence, while the distribution of compositions belonging to the second group varies heavily. This relation does not seem to change over time. Second, the compositions of the first group are attested on a number of different tablet types, and when inscribed on large tablets, the quality of the script is high. The opposite can then be said of the second group. Third, as was observed above, the three “main” catalogues of incipits, U2, N2, and L, all share a considerable number of incipits, many in sequence, and many of these have been identified as corresponding to the first group. Vanstiphout puts it this way: “the works listed in the combined major catalogues are those that were already earmarked as being the core of Standard Sumerian literature, on the basis of their distribution taken quantitatively as well as qualitatively.”104 In sum, Vanstiphout suggests that there was a canonized cultural repertoire, as opposed to a second group comprising cultic repertories, and he finds little room for doubt that there was a canonization process active in the OB period, closely tied to education.105 Moreover, he proposes three models to explain this process. The first is an ideological drive: “to reinforce the idea of the well-or99 This tablet overlaps with N2 and L, although it does not contain any incipits from compositions belonging to the Decad, and hence is not included in that overview. 100 Interestingly, the relation between curricular settings and canonization of (modern) literature is often discussed by literary critics. See, however, Guillory 1993. 101 Vanstiphout 2003, 4–7. 102 Cf. Delnero 2006. It was mentioned above (p. 39) that the average number of copies for the Decad compositions was 80, but some of the longer compositions have considerably less copies, and some are found in more than one hundred manuscripts (Vanstiphout 2003, 4, with n. 13). 103 Vanstiphout 2003, 4–11. 104 Vanstiphout 2003, 7. 105 Vanstiphout 2003, 8–11, 14–18. Cf. the distinction between literary and liturgical catalogues of incipits in Appendix 1.

Chapter 5. The How and the Why

77

dered state through lessons in history, divine and human.” The second is an intellectual objective, suggested both due to the presence of, for example, debate poems, and from the observation that many of the catalogues were dated to a time when Sumerian was no longer lingua franca. Last, he posits an aesthetic or historical motive, an “active veneration for a language long dead.”106 Ultimately, it can be suggested that the process of canonization overlaps with anthologization, as one could easily imagine some of these texts being more closely clustered, forming nascent anthologies. However, as a consequence, it should also be stressed that such a canonization would primarily relate to the selection of compositions to be included in an anthology, rather than to the arrangement of such texts within the anthology.107 Hence, and contra Wilson, it is not the arrangement that is canonical, but the selection of texts.108 Further support for such a notion is found if including the other anthologies studied in the chapters above, as they, despite various arrangements, often seem to contain the very same texts (see especially the Homeric Hymns and the ‘Book’ of the Twelve), even though it is clear that compositions would have been added over time (so the Sumerian Temple Hymns, the Psalms of Solomon, and plausibly the Hodayot).109

106

Vanstiphout 2003, 16–17. For this distinction, see the introduction, p. 28 above. 108 See n. 98 above. 109 For a short overview of insights gained from the Mesopotamian material concerning questions of formation and canonization of the Hebrew Bible, see Van der Toorn 2006. 107

Overview and Outlook Several important observations have been made throughout the previous chapters of this study, and some will be briefly rehearsed here. First, it was observed that the notion of fixed, stable collections needed to be reshaped in light of the material evidence of the collections surveyed. In all cases, there were significant variations, and even when major parts of a collection were recurrently copied in similar sequences, “updating” was always possible, as was seen in the Sumerian Temple Hymns, the Hodayot, and the Homeric Hymns. Related to the ‘Book’ of Psalms, it renders the notion of an “initial” configuration of psalms quite elusive, so that it would be reasonable to assume that there would probably have existed alternative configurations of psalms during the entire formative process (see, for example, Harkins’ interpretation of the order of psalms in 4QHa). Furthermore, it would be possible that various clusters or small collections of psalms existed independently, perhaps incorporated in the collection at various points in time and in various locations, so that ultimately, a quite different conception of the fixation of the shape is required. Ultimately, this confirms the assertion made in Chapter 1, that the linear models often suggested for the ‘Book’ of Psalms cannot be “default mode,” and suggests that any study of the formation of anthologies must be deeply rooted in the scribal and material cultures of its time. Consequently, it would always be necessary to start with a study of the artifacts, and this is also what will be the focus of the next part of this study (Part II, pp. 81–132). Furthermore, many of the observations made so far underscore the need to revisit arguments for the ‘Book’ of Psalms providing an interpretive context, a Sitz in der Literatur, since such a concept seemed quite difficult to establish in relation to any of these collections. The exception might be the Zà-mì Hymns, but here, it is probably due to the fact that it is not an anthology in any strict sense of the word (see also LS2 and LS3), but rather something between lists and fully literary compositions. Several examples of paratexts were also provided, and these will provide an important backdrop to my analyses of the possible paratexts of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. In fact, it can be concluded that, when attested, these paratexts all played a considerable role in the conception and understanding of the collection. Indeed, the preface of the Zà-mì Hymns was noted to have an effect on the perception of the entire collection, the superscriptions to the individual prophetic ‘books’ were recognized as providing important information that guided the

Overview and Outlook

79

reading of these texts, and the first composition in the “Teacher Hymns” was concluded to be of some importance for the understanding of both that collection, as well as the formation of the Hodayot. It was also concluded that in most cases, the incipit performed the referential function of a title, although some examples were found where collections had been provided with titles distinct from the main text (the Homeric Hymns, the ‘Book’ of the Twelve, and the Psalms of Solomon). Last, it was noted that the doxologies found at the end of many of the Mesopotamian texts and collections performed concluding functions, and that the last hymn in the Sumerian Temple Hymns was expanded into a possible epilogue with an interesting frozen colophon. In relation to the two basic questions “how?” and “why?”, several observations were made that will have an impact on my arguments in the remainder of this study. For one, it was observed that a change of use could be motivated by a change of historical context without any adjusting of the actual text (the Sumerian Temple Hymns). Furthermore, the sometimes loose relation between sheets and scrolls might provide some correctives when it comes to arguments used when reconstructing the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, and the search for quotes when lacking artifacts will constitute the core of Part IV (pp. 287– 366). Related to the basic question of purpose, it will also be shown that the last aspect, that of preservation, or canonization, could provide some interesting clues. Significant here is the observation that the canonization related primarily to the selection of compositions, and not to their arrangement, and ultimately, the discussion could be seen as a confirmation of the overlaps between canonization and anthologization suggested in the introduction (pp. 21–33 above).

Part III

The Artifacts

Introduction Turning more specifically to the ‘Book’ of Psalms, I have argued that an appropriate place to start would be the oldest known artifacts, namely the ‘psalms’ scrolls from the Judean Desert. As shown in the introduction, ever since the unrolling of 11Q5 (11QPsa) there has been considerable focus on these scrolls in discussions on the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, but since new manuscripts and new reconstructions continue to present themselves, a revisiting of these artifacts is necessary, as they provide important clues about the possible configuration of collections of psalms in the last centuries BCE and first century CE. Apart from these scrolls, there are no other ‘psalms’ scrolls in the late Second Temple times, but something should also be said about the oldest surviving LXX ‘psalms’ manuscripts. In a brief overview in Appendix 3, a total of 25 manuscripts are listed. These have all been dated to the first four centuries CE, thus covering the time up until the appearance of the first fully preserved LXX ‘Book’ of Psalms in Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century CE), Vaticanus (fourth century CE), and Alexandrinus (fifth century CE). Of these, 12 contain remains of a single psalm only, and eight preserve more than one psalm, but with no preserved joins. Consequently, these scrolls cannot be used to reconstruct collections of psalms, but of the remaining six manuscripts, two are worth mentioning here.1 The first, papyrus Oxyrhynchus 77.5101, is dated to the late first, or early second century CE, and is thus probably the oldest of the known LXX psalms manuscripts,2 and is only slightly later than the latest Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scroll. It preserves Ψ 26:9–14, 44:4–8, 47:13–15, 48:6–21, 49:2–16, and 63:6–64:5 in that order, thus agreeing with the sequence found in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. The second, papyrus Bodmer 24, is dated to the second–third centuries CE, and includes large parts of a collection of psalms, all in agreement with the MT sequences: Ψ 17:45–53:5, 55:8–88:10, 88:47–105:32, 106:28–118:44.3 Seen in light of the fourth-century manuscripts, it would be quite reasonable, then, to

1

For the other four manuscripts, dated to the third–fourth centuries CE, see Appendix 3. Colomo & Henry 2011, 1. 3 So Hurtado 2006, 213. Kasser & Testuz 1967, 5, 22, date it to the end of the third, or the beginning of the fourth century CE. 2

84

Part III. The Artifacts

assume a faitly stable LXX arrangement by the second century CE at the latest, and since there is clear overlap with the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, these manuscripts would provide somewhat of a terminus ante quem for the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. This said, as I turn to the ‘psalms’ scrolls from the Judean Desert, I will now structure the overview and discussion in two steps. First, in Chapter 6, I will present each manuscript in a roughly chronological order (as related to the scrolls, not their content). In all, 41 scrolls are surveyed.4 Following this overview, in Chapter 7 there is a discussion of their possible significance to the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, and three aspects will be recurrently considered. First, it will be important to bear in mind the possible length and scope of the original manuscripts. Second, and related to the first, is the question of the possible function of these manuscripts (for example, is it possible to differentiate between Psalmenhandschriften and Psalterhandschriften, as is suggested by Heinz-Josef Fabry and Jain?).5 Third, it will be important to consider preserved and reconstructed joins, since they might indicate whether some psalms were commonly juxtaposed in a certain way.

4 One of the more recent overviews of the ‘psalms’ scrolls includes 45 manuscripts (Flint 2014b; cf. Flint 2014a). As for the four not included, three are not yet published, but possibly feature only a single psalm respectively (XQPs A [Schøyen Ps], featuring Ps 9:8–13[?]; XQPs B [SwB Ps], featuring Ps 22:4–13[?]; XQPs C [Green Ps], featuring Ps 11:1–4[?], all possibly dating to Herodian times). They are briefly introduced in Flint 2014b, 239, and one of them, XQPs B, is also mentioned in Flint 2013, 12, 19, as 4Q?Psalms, an article that also lists a scroll designated 4Q98h / 4QPsy. The fourth manuscript features Ps 122 embedded into a larger narrative (4Q522). Although it is often included in overviews of ‘psalms’ scrolls (so Ulrich et al. 2000, 169–70; Flint 2014a, 217) it is probably not to be considered as such (cf. Flint 1997a, 5, n. 36; Lange 2009, 410). For this manuscript, see Part V (pp. 338–39). There are also several unidentified fragments possibly containing psalms (see, e.g., Jain 2014, 315– 20). 5 Fabry 1998, 159; Jain 2014, 299–301. The distinction is often used to demarcate “secondary” (often liturgical) collections from collections with some “authoritative” or “scriptural” status.

Chapter 6

Overview of the Scrolls A. Second Century BCE a) 4Q83 / 4QPsa The oldest of all ‘psalms’ scrolls,1 4Q83 is also one of the scrolls with the most psalms preserved. Dating to the mid-second century BCE,2 its 23 fragments are published in DJD XVI, alongside most other Cave 4 ‘psalms’ scrolls. Considering the combination of small script and large columns, it has been suggested that this scroll could originally have contained a collection of a size comparable to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms,3 although the exact contents of such a collection can no longer be reconstructed.4 Preserved are the remains of 18 (19) psalms, and some of the juxtapositions are not attested in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms: Ps 31 is followed directly by Ps 33 (Ps 32 is not attested in the scroll), and Ps 71 is likely to be interpreted as joined with Ps 38, thus comprising a single psalm.5 As Pss 64, 65, and 68 would fit nicely into the gaps, they are often reconstructed.6 Contents:7

1

Pss 5 → 6; 25; 31 → 33; 34 → 35 → 36; 38 → 71; 47; 53 → 54; 56; 62 → 63 [ → 64 → 65 → ] 66 → 67 [ → 68 → ] 69

Flint & Alvarez 1997. See, e.g., Skehan 1978, 181; Flint & Alvarez 1997, 145; Ulrich 1999, 73; Ulrich et al. 2000, 8; Jain 2014, 64. 3 In contrast to most secondary literature which would state that scrolls “could have contained the entire ‘Book’ of Psalms,” or the like, I will rather use expressions like “size comparable to.” This is done to stress the fact that the material needs to be treated without preconceived ideas about a MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, while at the same time acknowledging that the latter is still a relevant point of comparison. 4 Flint & Alvarez 1997, 145; Fabry 1998, 139; Ulrich 1999, 73; Ulrich et al. 2000, 7–8. Cf. Jain 2014, 73, who suggests that it could have contained only Pss 1–89, and Lange 2009, 377–78, who proposes that it could have formed an independent collection that is also attested in 4Q98 (see below, p. 92). 5 See, e.g., Ulrich et al. 2000, 15; Jain 2014, 66. 6 So Ulrich et al. 2000, 8, 19–20; Jain 2014, 71. 7 In these overviews, → indicates a preserved join, while [ ] denotes a reconstruction, or a partial reconstruction. Variations as compared to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms are underlined. 2

86

Part III. The Artifacts

Superscriptions:8

Pss 6 [=MT]; 33 [=MT]; 35 [=MT]; 36 = MT; 71 = MT; 54 [=MT]; 63 [=MT]; 67 =M[T]; 69 =M[T].

b) 4Q98f / 4QPsw Dating to ca. 150–130 BCE, these two fragments (previously labeled 4Q98e / 4QPsv) contain the remains of a single psalm only.9 The line length probably suggests a fairly large manuscript, although its contents can no longer be reconstructed.10 Contents: Superscriptions:

Ps 112 Ps 112 [=MT?]11

c) 4Q98g / 4QPsx This manuscript (earlier designated 4Q236 / 4QPs89)12 includes parts of only one psalm, and probably dates to somewhere between 175 and 125 BCE.13 Due to its unusual characteristics (letters are squeezed together and sometimes written above lines, there is no space between some words, and some writing is very close to holes for stitching), but also to its unusual arrangement of the verses, it quickly attracted scholarly attention and was argued by some to be the work of someone with little scribal skill.14 As one of the first to study the fragment, Jozef T. Milik argued that it would have been part of an ancient source for the MT Ps 89, a suggestion that was later adopted in DJD XVI.15 Contrary to Milik, Patrick W. Skehan argued that it was rather to be seen as a composition secondary to the MT Ps 89, possibly written down from memory on a detached blank guard sheet not “intended from the beginning to receive this specific text.”16 In a similar vein, Johannes P. M. van der Ploeg argued that the differences between the two texts indicated that the fragment was secondary and possibly belonged to a “libretto (sous forme de rouleau, évidemment) de testimonia messianiques, qu’un dévot a pu porter sur soi et où le soutien (futur) 8

For a comprehensive overview of the superscriptions, see Appendix 2. For the date, see Jain 2014, 145; cf. Flint 1998a, 456 (second century); Ulrich et al. 2000, 161 (“mid-Hasmonaean”); Lange 2009, 392–93 (“mittel- oder späthasmonäische”). 10 Jain 2014, 145–46; cf. Ulrich et al. 2000, 161. 11 ‫ הללו־יה‬was “either not present or occurred in the line above” (Ulrich et al. 2000, 162). 12 Ulrich et al. 2000, 163. 13 The date was first suggested by Milik 1966, 102, and followed by Flint 1997b, 40; Ulrich et al. 2000, 163; Lange 2009, 393; Jain 2014, 146. See, however, the argument by Van der Ploeg 1981, 475, that the script is so “vulgaire” that a date is difficult to determine. Nevertheless, he suggests a date in the second half of the first century BCE. 14 Skehan 1981, 441; Van der Ploeg 1981, 477. 15 Milik 1966, 103–4; Ulrich et al. 2000, 164; cf. Flint 1997b, 41; Fabry 1998, 139; Lange 2009, 394. 16 Skehan 1981, 441. 9

Chapter 6. Overview of the Scrolls

87

du peuple par son roi est mis plus en évidence que dans le texte canonique.”17 Thus, there seemed to be some theological reworking, and in a recent article, Mika S. Pajunen has argued that the peculiarities of the fragment are best understood as an intentional collective (re)interpretation of the MT Ps 89, written down on a handle sheet.18 As only a few verses remain, and since it seems as if this psalm was written on a scroll that it originally did not form part of, or at least to a scroll including far more compositions, it is impossible to reconstruct any more of its original contents.19 Contents:

Ps 89:20–22, 26, 23, 27–28, 31

B. First Century BCE I. First Half or Middle of the Century a) 4Q448 / 4QApocryphal Psalm & Prayer Not always being classified as a ‘psalms’ scroll, this manuscript, which dates to the first half of the first century BCE,20 contains a prayer in some way connected to “Jonathan, the king” (‫ נתן המלכ‬l‫על יו‬, 4Q448 2 2), who is probably to be identified with Alexander Jannaeus.21 The first part of this text retains several of the verses known from Ps 154, a psalm found also in 11Q5 18 1–16. Although some scholars have argued that the composition found in 4Q448 in fact quotes Ps 154,22 Hanan and Esther Eshel have made an interesting case for the opposite direction of dependence in suggesting that 4Q448 represents an “original nucleus of this hymn”23 that was “later enlarged and incorporated into the longer form of Ps 154 as it now appears in 11QPsa and in the Syriac manuscripts.”24 The argument is made on the basis of observed differences, and although they are not so extensive as to justify any definitive conclusions, they

17

Van der Ploeg 1981, 481 (emphases original). Pajunen 2014a. 19 Cf. Jain 2014, 148. 20 Eshel et al. 1998, 404–5; cf. Sanders, Charlesworth, & Rietz 1997, 156. 21 See Chazon 1998, 265. Main 1998, 113, n. 2, mentions and convincingly refutes the suggestion that it could refer to Jonathan Maccabaeus. He also suggests that the preposition ‫ על‬should be read as “against” rather than “on behalf of” Jonathan (see, e.g., 129–30). 22 See Schuller 1998, 213; Pajunen 2014b, 158. Popović 2010, 81–82, even suggests that such an act of quoting would indicate that the 11Q5 psalms could have had an authoritative status (“een gezaghebbende status”) in the Second Temple period. 23 Eshel & Eshel 2000, 648; cf. Lemaire 2000, 17. 24 Eshel & Eshel 2000, 649. 18

88

Part III. The Artifacts

could indicate that the overlaps between 4Q448 and Ps 154 are to be understood less as an act of quotation, and more as a window into the diachronic composition and subsequent growth of the psalm. Contents: Superscriptions:

Pss (?) → 154 Ps 154 + ‫ויראו מסנ֯ ]חריב ויזעקו‬ (“They were terrified of Senna[cherib and cried out”)25

b) 4Q86 / 4QPsd This manuscript, reconstructed from 14 fragments dating to the mid-first century BCE, preserves three psalms.26 While the last two are possible to reconstruct as Pss 147 and 104, the identification of the first is uncertain. Left on the manuscript are the remains of a ‫הללויה‬, as well as a final letter that extends below the line (either ‫ך‬, ‫ן‬, or ‫)ץ‬.27 Thus, it cannot be the end of Ps 146:10 (‫)ודר‬, so Flint suggests either Ps 134 (‫ )וארץ‬or Ps 106 (‫)אמן‬. Since Ps 134 is not followed by ‫הללויה‬, he then argues that the psalm preceding 147 would be Ps 106.28 The identification is uncertain, however, and has been called into doubt.29 Furthermore, the manuscript is too fragmentary to enable a reconstruction of its original scope,30 although it has been suggested that it could not have contained a collection of a size comparable to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms.31 Contents: Pss 106(?) → 147 → 104 Superscriptions: Pss 147 =M[T]; 104 =M[T] Hallelujah subscripts: Pss 106 =M[T], with the ‫ ברך‬doxology; 147 =M[T]; 104 =[MT?]

c) 4Q88 / 4QPsf This manuscript juxtaposes psalms known from the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms with previously unknown psalms. It consists of 13 fragments, and preserves the remains of at least six compositions. Interestingly, Ps 22 seems to have been written close to Ps 107, and Jain argues on material grounds that they could

25

The reconstruction is from Eshel & Eshel 2000, 646–47, where it is argued that “cols. B and C were added to 4Q448 by a scribe familiar with the pesher interpreting Isaiah’s prophecies about Sennacherib’s campaign as referring to the campaign of Ptolemy Lathyrus” (655). See also Lemaire 2000, 16. 26 Flint 1999b, 95; Ulrich et al. 2000, 64; cf. Jain 2014, 90: 100–30 BCE. 27 Cf. Lange 2009, 380. 28 Flint 1997a, 165, with n. 52; Flint 1999b, 98; Ulrich et al. 2000, 66. See, however, already Skehan 1978, 165–66, with n. 10. 29 So, e.g., Jain 2014, 90. 30 So Ulrich et al. 2000, 63; cf. also Jain 2014, 94. 31 So Lange 2009, 380.

Chapter 6. Overview of the Scrolls

89

actually have been juxtaposed.32 Furthermore, she suggests that the original scroll, although the scope is difficult to reconstruct, would not have contained a collection of a size similar to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms.33 Due to the combination of psalms, its function has been discussed, and here, Fabry proposes a liturgical setting, while Jain proposes that the scroll was “ein qumranisches Manifest der Hoffnung in Zeiten der Bedrängnis.”34 Contents: Superscriptions:

Pss 22 [ → ?] 107 [ → 108 → ]35 109 [ → ] Apostrophe to Zion [ → ]36 Eschatological Hymn [ → ] Apostrophe to Judah [ → ]37 Ps 107 [=MT]

d) 4Q91 / 4QPsj Remains of three psalms are found on nine fragments published in DJD XVI. A possible reconstruction is provided by Jain, who suggests that the scroll might have contained Pss 42–72, although the matter is inconclusive.38 Contents: Superscriptions:

Pss 48; 49; 51 Pss 48 =M[T]; 51 [=MT]

e) 4Q92 / 4QPsk Two fragments remain from this scroll, which dates to 100–30 BCE.39 The length of the lines indicate quite a large manuscript, perhaps even comparable to 11Q5,40 and from the two remaining psalms (the identification of the latter is uncertain),41 it has been concluded that they would not have been juxtaposed.42

32

Jain 2014, 294. Flint 1997a, 166, n. 56, notes the possibility that Ps 22 belongs to some other scroll written by the same hand, although this is primarily motivated by safeguarding of the notion of “overall stability of Psalms 1–89.” 33 Jain 2014, 111, 296 34 Fabry 1998, 141; Jain 2014, 296. 35 For this reconstruction, see Ulrich et al. 2000, 85. 36 So Jain 2014, 294, cf. the discussion in Ulrich et al. 2000, 99. 37 For the possibility that more material followed, see Ulrich et al. 2000, 105, where various possibilities of identifying compositions in the two last preserved columns are also discussed (esp. 102). 38 Jain 2014, 121. 39 Ulrich et al. 2000, 123; Jain 2014, 122; cf. Skehan, Ulrich, & Flint 1998, 260 (first century BCE); Lange 2009, 387 (“zweiten Hälfte des 1. Jh. v. Chr”). 40 So Jain 2014, 123. 41 The remaining words are ] ֯‫דו‬l ‫ל‬,l ‫העמים‬, l and ]‫יה‬ ֯ ‫ רממו‬on three lines. The most unusual of these is ‫רממו‬, which resembles ‫ רוממו‬in Ps 99:5 (MT). If so identified, ‫ העמים‬would belong to Ps 99:2, and consequently, Ps 99 would have a superscription not attested in the MT (‫לדוד‬ ‫מזמור‬, or some longer one, Ulrich et al. 2000, 124–25). It might also be an unknown composition. 42 See, e.g., Lange 2009, 387; Jain 2014, 125.

90

Part III. The Artifacts

Additional compositions need to be reconstructed in between, but as to which these are, there are no clues.43 Jain suggests the sequence Pss 135 [ → 136 → 137 → 138 → ] 99, but calls this only “ein erster Gedankenanstoß.”44 Fabry, not attempting any reconstruction, suggests that the scroll could be seen as a thematic collection focusing on the “Königtum Gottes.”45 Contents: Superscriptions:

Pss 135 [ → 136 → 137 → 138 → ?]46 99(?) Ps 99 + [‫)?(לדו]ד מזמר‬

II. Second Half of the Century a) 1Q10 / 1QPsa This scroll consists of 22 fragments.47 It contains the remains of six psalms, and possibly ends with Ps 119.48 Due to the fragmentary state, however, it is not possible to reconstruct the contents any further. Contents: Superscriptions:

Pss 86 [v. 7?]; 92; 94; 95 → 96; 119 Ps 96 [=MT]

b) 4Q93 / 4QPsl Dating to the second half of the first century BCE, this single fragment contains one psalm only, and it has been suggested that it was written at the beginning of a scroll that “may or may not” have included other compositions as well.49 Contents:

Ps 104

c) 4Q94 / 4QPsm These remains from a scroll contain four psalms on nine fragments and date to early Herodian times (ca. 30–1 BCE).50 If reconstructed by means of the MT, it could have contained Pss 90–106, comprising 3.4 meters in length, but since no joins are preserved, the issue cannot be settled, and other reconstructions are possible.51 Contents:

43

Pss 93; 95; 97; 98

Skehan, Ulrich, & Flint 1998, 260; Ulrich et al. 2000, 123. Jain 2014, 125. 45 Fabry 1998, 139. 46 So only Jain 2014, 123–25. 47 Lange 2009, 374, dates the manuscript to 30–1 BCE. Jain 2014, 38, suggests 50 BCE. 48 Jain 2014, 43. 49 Ulrich et al. 2000, 127; Lange 2009, 387; Jain 2014, 125–27; Davis 2015. 50 Ulrich et al. 2000, 131; Lange 2009, 388. 51 Jain 2014, 129–30; cf. the statement in Fabry 1998, 141, that a MT sequence cannot be proven from the remains of this manuscript. 44

Chapter 6. Overview of the Scrolls

91

d) 4Q95 / 4QPsn Three fragments dating toward the end of the first century BCE, contain what seems to be a single psalm composed using parts of Ps 135, and probably Ps 136.52 As commonly reconstructed, Ps 135:11–12 is followed directly by Ps 136:23–24. The transition is accomplished by first introducing the recurring phrase from Ps 136 (‫ )כי לעולם חסדו‬after both 135:12a and b, followed by a phrase very similar to 136:22a (‫ )נחלה לישראל עבדו‬in 135:12b (‫לישראל‬ ‫)נחלה [עמו‬.53 The composition probably ended with Ps 136:26.54 Contents:

Pss 135 → 136

e) 4Q96 / 4QPso Yet another scroll from the late first century BCE consists of two fragments.55 Parts of three psalms are preserved,56 but the full content of the original scroll is no longer possible to reconstruct.57 The join between Pss 114 and 115 indicates that they were copied as a single psalm, and furthermore, there is a space after Ps 116:9, indicating that vv. 10–19 were seen as a distinct psalm (cf., e.g., the LXX).58 Contents: Superscriptions:

Pss 114 → 115; 116 Ps 115 =M[T]

f) 4Q98e / 4QPsv This single fragment (previously designated 4Q98d / 4QPsu)59 dates to the end of the first century BCE.60 The original contents are not possible to reconstruct beyond a part of a verse of Ps 99,61 which could, evidently, be only a quote, hence this fragment not really qualifying as a ‘psalms’ scroll.62 Contents: Superscription:

52

Ps 99:1 Possibly Ps 99 + [‫( ]לדויד מזמור‬as 4Q92), or [=MT]63

Fabry 1998, 141; Ulrich et al. 2000, 135; Lange 2009, 388–89; Jain 2014, 130. Ulrich et al. 2000, 136. 54 So Ulrich et al. 2000, 137. 55 Ulrich et al. 2000, 139. 56 Flint 1997a, 36, is probably erroneous in describing the contents as “Parts of Psalms 116–118,” since he has the correct content on, e.g., 260. 57 Jain 2014, 134. 58 So Ulrich et al. 2000, 139. 59 Flint 2006, 253, has the old classification. 60 Ulrich et al. 2000, 159. 61 Jain 2014, 144. 62 Cf. Lange 2009, 392; Lange 2012, 299, with n. 8. 63 Ulrich et al. 2000, 159. 53

92

Part III. The Artifacts

g) Mas1f / M1103–1742 / MasPsb Dating to the last half of the first century BCE,64 these two fragments could have belonged to a scroll containing a collection of a size comparable to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms.65 The manuscript retains almost the entire Ps 150, as well as remains of two words from Ps 147:18–19, enabling a plausible reconstruction of the MT sequence Pss 147–150. Furthermore, the features of the last line, as well as the presence of a large margin to the left of Ps 150, indicates that the scroll ended with Ps 150.66 Contents: Pss 147 [ → 148 → 149 → ] 150 → End of scroll Superscriptions: Pss 147 [=MT]; 148 [=MT]; 149 [=MT]; 150 [=MT] Hallelujah Subscripts: Pss 147 [=MT]; 148 [=MT]; 149 [=MT]; 150 [=MT]

C. The Turn of the Era a) 4Q90 / 4QPsh Attesting only a single psalm, these two fragments possibly contained only Ps 119,67 although Jain has argued that since the manuscript cannot be reconstructed, it cannot be ruled out that it originally contained additional material as well.68 Contents:

Ps 119

b) 4Q97 / 4QPsp This scroll of two fragments contains remains from a single psalm, and is not possible to reconstruct any further.69 Contents:

Ps 143

c) 4Q98 / 4QPsq Dating to the late first century BCE or early first century CE, this scroll preserves the remains of three psalms.70 Probably a fairly large manuscript, perhaps even a so-called deluxe edition,71 it would not have contained a collection

64

Talmon 1999, 92; Lange 2009, 405; Jain 2014, 211. Jain 2014, 216; Lange 2009, 404–5. 66 Talmon 1999, 96; cf. Lange 2009, 404; Jain 2014, 211. 67 Skehan, Ulrich, & Flint 1995, 482–83; Fabry 1998, 146; Lange 2009, 386. 68 Jain 2014, 118; cf. Ulrich et al. 2000, 113. 69 Flint 1999a, 9; Ulrich et al. 2000, 143; Lange 2009, 390; Jain 2014, 134–35. 70 Ulrich et al. 2000, 146; cf. Jain 2014, 135. 71 Jain 2014, 137. For “deluxe editions,” see Tov 2004, 125–29. 65

Chapter 6. Overview of the Scrolls

93

of a size comparable to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, but perhaps only some part of it.72 If reconstructed on the basis of the MT sequences, Jain has suggested that a collection ending with either Ps 72, Ps 89, or Ps 106 would be possible.73 However, it could also be that the scroll originally contained an entirely different arrangement. As with 4Q83, the manuscript juxtaposes Pss 31 and 33. It also possibly divides Ps 33 into two compositions, as indicated by a space before v. 13.74 Contents: Superscriptions:

Pss 31 → 33; 35 Ps 33 + ‫לדויד שיר מזמור‬

d) 4Q98a / 4QPsr Three psalms are preserved on the four fragments of this manuscript.75 Another two psalms are perhaps to be reconstructed, but not much more can be said about the original contents of the scroll.76 Contents: Superscriptions:

Pss 26 → 27 [ → 28 → 29 → ] 30 Ps 27 =M[T]

e) 11Q9 / 11QPse This fragment, which has been difficult to date, has been discussed as potentially belonging to 11Q7,77 but is considered as a separate scroll in DJD XXIII.78 Contents:

Ps 50

D. First Century CE a) 3Q2 / 3QPs Consisting of only one fragment, it is not possible to conclude whether this scroll is to be considered a ‘psalms’ scroll or the remains of a quote.79 Contents:

72

Ps 2

So Jain 2014, 139; cf., however, Lange 2009, 390. Jain 2014, 139. 74 Ulrich et al. 2000, 146. As noted above (p. 85, n. 4), Lange 2009, 391, suggests that 4Q83 and 4Q98 could be two witnesses of an independent collection. 75 Flint 1999a, 11; Ulrich et al. 2000, 151. 76 Jain 2014, 140–41. 77 For an overview, see Jain 2014, 197. For the date, see, e.g., Lange 2009, 403. 78 García Martínez, Tigchelaar, & Van der Woude 1998, 77–78. 79 Lange 2012, 299, with n. 8; Jain 2014, 63. Editio princeps is Baillet, Milik, & de Vaux 1962, 94. 73

94

Part III. The Artifacts

b) 5Q5 / 5QPs This manuscript contains the remains of parts of a single psalm.80 Although difficult to reconstruct, it has been suggested that the original scroll contained only Ps 119.81 Contents:

Ps 119

c) pap6Q5 / pap6QPs This single fragment contains the possible remains from Ps 78:36–37, although the identification is uncertain (it has been suggested to belong to 6Q7).82 Contents:

Ps 78(?)

d) 8Q2 / 8QPs This manuscript consists of 14 fragments, and the remains of two psalms are preserved.83 Depending on the number of lines per column, the scroll could have contained only Pss 17–18, or perhaps some or all of Pss 1–41.84 Contents:

Pss 17; 18

I. First Half of the Century a) 11Q5 / 11QPsa Dating somewhere between 30 and 50 CE, 11Q5 is probably the most famous of all ‘psalms’ scrolls. As has been stated before, it was first published by Sanders, and later complemented by two additional fragments, E and F.85 Fragment E was first published by Yigael Yadin and subsequently included in Sanders’ so-called Cornell Edition of the scroll,86 while fragment F was published for the first time in DJD XXIII, together with a reprint of fragment E.87 As for material reconstructions, a large part of the scroll is continuous, begin-

80

Baillet, Milik, & de Vaux 1962, 174. Baillet, Milik, & de Vaux 1962, 174; Lange 2009, 394; Flint 2013, 13; Jain 2014, 150. 82 Baillet, Milik, & de Vaux 1962, 112. For the dating to the first century CE, see Lange 2009, 395. Jain 2014, 152, questions its classification as a ‘psalms’ scroll. 83 Baillet, Milik, & de Vaux 1962, 148. 84 So Jain 2014, 158. 85 Sanders 1965. A new and updated publication is currently being prepared (Flint Fc, read more here: http://www.deadseascrollsfoundation.com/). 86 Yadin 1966; Sanders 1967, 55–65. The ‘Cornell Edition’ was published with a more general audience in view, but did nevertheless advance the scholarly discussion on some relevant points (cf. Flint 1996, 67; Flint 2007b, 186). 87 García Martínez, Tigchelaar, & Van der Woude 1998, 29–36. 81

Chapter 6. Overview of the Scrolls

95

ning with Ps 105:25, and running up until a blank column indicating the end of the scroll. The six fragments (A–F) are then to be placed before Ps 105, and several constructions have been proposed. Skehan suggested early on that the scroll would originally have begun with Ps 101. The reasons given were firstly that it is written at the top of a column, and secondly that it was the first psalm in the last two ‘books’ of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms with a Davidic superscription.88 This has been followed by most scholars,89 and has provided the foundation to most studies of the structure and function of the scroll.90 This notion is, however, not self-evident. As noted by Jain, for example, Ps 121 is also written at the top of a column (although preceded by a vacat),91 and she has thus argued that although the beginning of the scroll is in fact impossible to reconstruct, it probably so that it did not begin with Ps 101.92 She also notes that such a conclusion, if correct, would necessitate a re-evaluation of practically all scholarly analysis of 11Q5 that has regarded it as a clearly demarcated collection, and calls for a new and more open approach to the manuscript.93 In considering 11Q6, which shows clear overlap with 11Q5, Jain attempts to provide some ways forward. In 11Q6, Pss 77–78 are preserved, and related to a larger discussion of the contents and structure of 11Q5, she suggests that these two psalms could have formed an introduction to 11Q5, directly followed by a Davidic section including Pss 101, 103, and 109.94 Now, if the beginning of the scroll cannot be unequivocally reconstructed, the number of psalms following Ps 101 is also up for discussion. While there is agreement about the sequence Pss 101 → 102 → 103, and generally also to the placement of fragment D, thus reconstructing 103 → 109 (see, however, Jain below), the part between Ps 109 and the next fragment, which includes Ps 118, has been debated. While both Skehan and Dahmen reconstruct Pss 113–117, Flint reconstructs Pss 110 and 113–117,95 Martin Leuenberger argues for Pss 110–117, and Jain notes a theoretical possibility for a sequence including Pss

88

Skehan 1973, 201, n. 24; cf. Skehan 1978, 169–70. Flint 1997a, 189; Flint 2007b, 194; Flint 2014a, 214; cf. García Martínez, Tigchelaar, & Van der Woude 1998, 30; Mroczek 2012, 23. See, however, Stegemann 1990, 212–13, n. 55, who argues for Ps 90, and Wacholder 1988, 42, who points to Ps 100. 90 So, e.g., Wilson 1985b, 124–31; Flint 1997a, 172–201; Dahmen 2003, 267–312; Leuenberger 2005, etc. 91 Jain 2014, 176; cf. García Martínez, Tigchelaar, & Van der Woude 1998, 30. 92 Jain 2014, 251. Cf. Lange 2009, 397, 441, and Puech 2005, 280–81, who both argue that it is far too speculative to speak with any certainty about the scroll beginning with Ps 101. 93 Jain 2014, 216. 94 Jain 2014, 281–84. 95 A significant aspect of his reconstruction is the idea that the scroll originally contained 52 psalms plus some prose compositions, see the discussion below, pp. 123–26. 89

96

Part III. The Artifacts

106–118.96 Common to all these is an agreement about the reconstruction of at least Pss 113–117. Contents:

Pss 101 → 102 → 103 [ → ] [or 106(?) → 107(?) → 108(?) → ] 109 [ → 110(?) → 111(?) → 112(?)] [ → 113 → 114 → 115 → 116 → 117 → ] 118 → 104 → 147 → 105 → 146 → 148 [ → 120 → ] 121 → 122 → 123 → 124 → 125 → 126 → 127 → 128 → 129 → 130 → 131 → 132 → 119 → 135 → 136 → 118:1, 15–16, 8–9, ?, 29(?)97 → 145 → 154 → Plea for Deliverance → 139 → 137 → 138 → Sir 51 → Apostrophe to Zion → 93 → 141 → 133 → 144 → 155 → 142 → 143 → 149 → 150 → Hymn to the Creator → 2 Sam 23 → David’s Compositions (henceforth DavComp) → 140 → 134 → 151A → 151B → End of scroll Superscriptions: Pss 101 [=MT]; 102 [=MT]; 103 =M[T]; 104 + ‫ ;לדויד‬147 - ‫;)?(הללויה‬ 105 =M[T] + ‫ ;הודו יהוה כי טוב כי] לעולם חסדו‬148 - ‫ ;הללויה‬121 ~MT; 122 =MT; 123 - ‫ שיר‬+ ‫ ;]ל[דויד‬125 [=MT]; 126 =MT; 127 =M[T]; 129 =M[T]; 130 =MT; 131 =[MT]; 119 =MT; 135 ~MT; 136 =MT; 145 ~MT ‫;תפלה‬98 137 =MT; 138 =MT; 93 + ‫ ;הללויה‬133 =MT; 144 - ‫ ;לדוד‬143 =MT; 150 - ‫ ;הללויה‬140 =MT Hallelujah subscripts: Pss 104 =MT; 135 =MT; 136 + ‫ ;)?(הללויה‬146 =MT; 147 [=MT]; 149 =MT; 150 =MT

b) 11Q6 / 11QPsb Yet another scroll from Cave 11 consists of nine fragments dating to the beginning of the first century CE.99 As reconstructed by Flint, its contents overlap with 11Q5, and consequently, it has been argued to be a copy of it. Although the overlaps are fairly agreed upon (11Q5 regularly serves as the basis for the reconstruction of 11Q6),100 Jain has pointed out that it does not automatically follow that 11Q6 is a copy, since other ways of relating the manuscripts are possible.101 If, however, a connection is to be made between 11Q5 and 11Q6,

96 Skehan 1973, 201; Flint 1997a, 189–92; Dahmen 2003, 38–48; Leuenberger 2005, 195; Jain 2014, 176. Wilson 1985a, 124–31, does not reconstruct any psalms at all. Both García Martínez, Tigchelaar, & Van der Woude 1998, 31, and Lange 2009, 396, reconstruct (at least) two columns, although not specifying the contents. See also Puech 2005, 280, who argues that space does not allow for all of Pss 110–117. An overview of the alternatives is provided in Jain 2014, 310–15. 97 Some scholars interpret these verses of Ps 118 as a separate composition, a “Catena,” while others regard it as belonging to Ps 136, due to, for example, the fact that there is no spacing between the two (so, e.g., Flint 1997a, 191; cf. Lange 2009, 399). 98 That is, it has ‫ תפלה‬rather than ‫( תהלה‬so MT). 99 García Martínez, Tigchelaar, & Van der Woude 1998, 38; cf. Flint 2007a, 163; Flint 2007b, 192–93; Jain 2014, 177. 100 Seen, for example, as it comes to the placement of Ps 119 (García Martínez, Tigchelaar, & Van der Woude 1998, 41). 101 Jain 2014, 185–86.

Chapter 6. Overview of the Scrolls

97

the presence of Pss 77–78 is interesting, since it indicates that an 11Q5-type collection included psalms prior to Ps 101 (for the implications of this, see below, pp. 126–29).102 Contents: Superscriptions:

Pss 77 → 78; 109(?); 119; 118:1, 15–16; Plea for Deliverance; Apostrophe to Zion; 141 → 133 → 144 Pss 78 [=MT]; 118 =M[T]; 133 =M[T]; 144 - ‫לדוד‬103

c) 11Q7 / 11QPsc Eleven fragments remain of this scroll, which dates to the first half of the first century CE.104 The remains of nine psalms are visible, and a material reconstruction indicates that three empty lines would have preceded a reconstructed Ps 1:1, possibly leaving room for some introductory notes, or perhaps even a main title.105 It could also have contained a collection of a size comparable to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, although the reconstruction is uncertain.106 Contents: Superscriptions:

Pss 2; 9; 12 → 13 → 14; 17 → 18; 19; 25 Pss 2 [=MT]; 13 [=MT]; 14 [=MT]; 18 =M[T]

d) Mas1e / M1039–160 / MasPsa This manuscript dates to either the first half of the first century CE, or the end of the last century BCE.107 It consists of two fragments, and according to Jain, this scroll could not have contained a whole MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, though possibly Pss 1–89, or something of a similar scope.108 Parts of five psalms are preserved. Contents: Superscriptions:

102

Pss 81 → 82 → 83 → 84 → 85 Pss 81 [=MT]; 82 =M[T];109 83 =MT; 84 =M[T]; 85 =M[T]

See, e.g., Flint 2007b, 92–94; cf. Lange 2009, 400–401. García Martínez, Tigchelaar, & Van der Woude 1998, 46. 104 García Martínez, Tigchelaar, & Van der Woude 1998, 51; Lange 2009, 401; cf. Jain 2014, 186 (around 50 CE). 105 Jain 2014, 189–90; cf. García Martínez, Tigchelaar, & Van der Woude 1998, 50. 106 Jain 2014, 192. 107 For the former, see Jain 2014, 206, who refers to this as the position of Talmon, although it was suggested by Yadin (see Talmon 1999, 76–77). Talmon 1999, 79, rather suggested the earlier date above (see also the overview in Lange 2009, 403–4). 108 Jain 2014, 209–11. Cf., however Lange 2009, 404, who proposes that it could in fact have contained a collection of a size comparable to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. 109 Talmon 1999, 86, notes that this superscription was probably inserted after the first line of the psalm had already been written. 103

98

Part III. The Artifacts

II. Middle and Second Half of the Century a) 1Q11 / 1QPsb This first-century scroll, reconstructed from six fragments, contains the remains of three psalms.110 As is commonly reconstructed, it would not have been possible to fit an entire MT ‘Book’ of Psalms on this scroll,111 and consequently, it has been suggested to have contained only the psalms of Ascents (Pss 120– 134).112 However, if the reconstructed column height was increased, it could have fitted a collection of a size comparable to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, or perhaps some latter part of it, or even, for example, 11Q5 Pss 120–119.113 It has also been suggested that the fragments belong together with 1Q30.114 If so, light might be shed on the obscure notion of “five scrolls” ‫ ס[פרים חומשים‬in the latter, and indicate that 1Q11 is, for example, a ‘psalms’ scroll with some kind of introduction, or perhaps a (liturgical?) scroll with various compositions, only some of which are psalms.115 Contents:

Pss 126; 127; 128

b) 1Q12 / 1QPsc Only a single psalm remains from this manuscript, which includes nine fragments. The content of the original scroll is not possible to reconstruct,116 but it has been suggested to be a copy for private use.117 Contents:

Ps 44

c) 2Q14 / 2QPs Yet another fragmentary scroll consists of two fragments. It preserves the remains of two psalms, but the original scope of the scroll is no longer possible to reconstruct.118 Notable, though, is the use of red ink (see below p. 344). Contents: Superscriptions:

110

Pss 103; 104 Ps 103 - ‫)?(לדוד‬119

Lange 2009, 374, dates the manuscript to 30–1 BCE. Jain 2014, 50–51. 112 Barthélemy & Milik 1955, 71; cf. Jain 2014, 52–54. 113 For these and other possibilities, see Jain 2014, 56. 114 Barthélemy & Milik 1955, 71, 132. For a discussion, see Jain 2014, 43–56. 115 For similar alternatives, see Jain 2014, 56. For a discussion of 1Q30, see below, p. 344. 116 Lange 2009, 375; Jain 2014, 57. 117 Barthélemy & Milik 1955, 71–72; cf. Fabry 1998, 142; Jain 2014, 57. For the first century CE dating, see Lange 2009, 375; Jain 2014, 57. 118 Jain 2014, 61. Lange 2009, 375, suggests a dating to 30–1 BCE. 119 The attestation is uncertain, cf. Baillet, Milik, & de Vaux 1962, 70. 111

Chapter 6. Overview of the Scrolls

99

d) 4Q84 / 4QPsb This scroll, dating to the middle of the first century CE,120 consists of 37 fragments containing the remains of 15 psalms. As there is at least one major variation compared to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms (the juxtaposition of Pss 103 and 112, with Pss 104–111 absent from the preserved parts of the scroll), a reconstruction of the original contents of the scroll is not possible.121 Nevertheless, Fabry suggests the scroll once began with the first extant psalm, Ps 91,122 while Skehan, Eugene C. Ulrich, and Flint argue that this column was probably not the first column of the complete scroll.123 Furthermore, Armin Lange proposes that the small column height precludes it from originally having contained a collection of a size comparable with the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms.124 Contents: Superscriptions:

Pss 91 [ → ] 92 [ → ] 93 [ → ] 94; 96; 98; 99 [ → ] 100; 102 → 103 [ → ] 112 [ → ] 113; 115; 116 [ → 117 → ] 118 Pss 94 [=MT]; 96 [=MT]; 103 =M[T]; 113 = MT; 118 =M[T]

e) 4Q85 / 4QPsc Of this scroll, some 20 fragments remain, and it has been argued on material grounds that the reconstructed original could have contained a collection of a size comparable to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms.125 As with 4Q83, it might have had Pss 31 and 33 juxtaposed,126 and the juxtaposition of Pss 42–53 in a MT order has been judged as probable, although only a few joins are preserved.127 Contents: Superscriptions:

Pss 16; 17(?); 18; 27 → 28; 35; 37; 42; 44(?); 45; 46(?); 49 [ → ] 50 → 51 [ → ] 52 → 53 Pss 17 =M[T]; 28 [=MT]; 49 =M[T]; 51 =MT; 53 =M[T]

f) 4Q87 / 4QPse Another mid-first century CE manuscript consisting of 26 identifiable fragments contains upwards of 20 psalms.128 Some of these are juxtaposed in a way different from the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, and Flint has proposed a reconstruc-

120

Ulrich et al. 2000, 24; Lange 2009, 378; Jain 2014, 74. Cf. Jain 2014, 78. 122 Fabry 1998, 140. 123 Ulrich et al. 2000, 27; cf. Lange 2009, 378. 124 Lange 2009, 378. Combined with observations of the text of the manuscript, he suggests that it was either an independent collection, or an “Exzerpthandschrift” (379). 125 Lange 2009, 379; cf. Ulrich et al. 2000, 49; Jain 2014, 89. 126 Jain 2014, 87. 127 So Jain 2014, 86. 128 Ulrich et al. 2000, 73. There are also a number of unidentified fragments (frags. 27–44), cf. Lange 2009, 381. 121

100

Part III. The Artifacts

tion overlapping with a sequence of psalms from 11Q5 in the following way.129 First, he identifies the line preceding Ps 104:1 (‫[טו֯ ב כי ֯לע]ולם חסדו‬ ֯ ‫]ליהוה כי‬ [vacat) with the last line of Ps 118, rather than some line concluding Ps 103 not found in the MT. Then, he notes that there are some 16 lines missing between Ps 104 and 105, and suggests that Ps 147 would fit perfectly. If so, there would be a sequence of psalms reconstructed as Pss 118 → 104 [ → 147 → ] 105, thus in contrast to both 4Q86 and MT, but in line with 11Q5. Furthermore, a ‫ הללויה‬follows after Ps 105, and while it could be the first ‫ הללויה‬of Ps 106, Flint opts for Ps 146, as this psalm follows Ps 105 in 11Q5. Support for this reconstruction is also found in the fact that several variant readings in this manuscript agree with 11Q5 against MT. Proceeding from this, Flint also argues for the identification of fragment 9 with 103:22 → 109:1, although this reading is uncertain,130 and reconstructs the refrain ‫ הודו ליהוה כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬before Ps 105:1, as in 11Q5. The latter has, however, been questioned on material grounds.131 Although intriguing, the quite extensive reconstructions have been questioned, and other scholars have chosen a more cautious approach, stating that the argument can be neither confirmed, nor refuted.132 Contents:

Pss 76 → 77; 78; 81; 86; 88; 89; [103(?)] → 109(?); 114; 115 → 116; [118(?)] → 104 [ → 147(?) → ] 105 → [146(?)] or [106(?)]; 120; 125 → 126[ → 127 → 128 → ] 129 → 130 Superscriptions: Pss 77 =M[T]; 81 [=MT]; 88 [=MT]; 109 =M[T](?); 116 [=MT]; 104 [+ ‫ ;]לדוד‬105 [=MT + ‫;)?(]הודו יהוה כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬ 146(?) =MT or 106(?) =MT; 126 =MT;133 130 =M[T]134 Concluding doxology: Ps 89 =M[T] Hallelujah subscripts: Pss 105 [=MT]; 115 =M[T]

129

Flint 1997a, 160–64. The arguments are repeated in Ulrich et al. 2000, 74–76. Cf. Dahmen 2003, 54; Jain 2014, 94–96. Only ‫ה‬l remains of (the possible) Ps 103:22. 131 See Jain 2014, 100–101. 132 So, e.g., Jain 2014, 104; cf. also Fabry 1998, 142. Lange 2009, 382–83, suggests that it might represent a 11Q5 sequence, without being an identical copy of it. 133 The superscription is inserted over the line after the psalm was written, possibly indicating that the scroll from which the scribe copied did not contain it (so Ulrich et al. 2000, 74). 134 Also a supralinear insertion, this superscription was perhaps originally written on two lines. Remaining is [‫עול]ות‬, so that ‫ שיר המ‬would have been placed last on line 2 (Ulrich et al. 2000, 84). 130

Chapter 6. Overview of the Scrolls

101

g) 4Q89 / 4QPsg The six fragments left of this scroll contain the remains of only Ps 119. Most probably, it contained only this psalm, and it has been argued by Fabry to have possibly had some liturgical function.135 Contents:

Ps 119

h) 4Q98b / 4QPss Attested on a single fragment dating to 50 CE or later, parts of two psalms are preserved.136 Originally thought also to include Ps 88:15–17, the fragment on which that psalm is found has since then been given a new classification (4Q98c / 4QPst).137 According to Jain, the original scroll could have contained only Pss 1–41 (if reconstructed by means of the MT sequences), although other reconstructions are possible.138 Contents: Superscriptions:

Pss 5 → 6 Ps 6 =M[T]

i) 4Q98c / 4QPst As stated above, this fragment contains one psalm only, and was previously thought to be part of 4Q98b (4QPss).139 According to Lange, it could have been a part of a quote, thus not a ‘psalms’ scroll (cf. 3Q2).140 Contents:

Ps 88:17–18

j) 4Q98d / 4QPsu This single fragment was previously designated 4Q98c / 4QPst and contains a fragment of a single verse.141 It is not possible to know whether the manuscript contained the whole psalm or if it forms part of a quote (cf. 3Q2 and 4Q98c).142 Contents:

135

Ps 42:5

Fabry 1998, 146. On the contents, see also, e.g., Skehan, Ulrich, & Flint 1995, 479; Ulrich et al. 2000, 107–8; Lange 2009, 385; Jain 2014, 115. 136 Ulrich et al. 2000, 153–54. 137 Flint 2006, 253, retains the old classification. 138 Jain 2014, 142–43. 139 Ulrich et al. 2000, 155. Flint 2006, 253, retains the old classification. 140 Lange 2009, 392; Lange 2012, 299, with n. 8. 141 See Flint 1999a, 16; Ulrich et al. 2000, 157. Flint 2006, 253, has the old classification. 142 Lange 2009, 392; Lange 2012, 299, with n. 8; Jain 2014, 144.

102

Part III. The Artifacts

k) 11Q8 /11QPsd Dating to the mid-first century CE, this manuscript, of which 16 fragments remain, forms a relatively large scroll. It could have contained a collection of a size similar to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, although entirely different (even smaller) collections are also plausible.143 A fragment previously designated as 4Q98e / 4QPsv (containing Ps 18:26–29) has been connected to this scroll.144 Psalms ranging from MT Pss 6–116 are attested, but as the placement of many fragments is tentative, the number of possible overlaps with the MT sequence is not clear. Contents: Superscriptions:

Pss 6; 9; 18, 36 → 37; 39 → 40; 43; 45; 59; 68; 78; 81; 86; 115 → 116 Pss 37 =MT; 40 =M[T]; 68 =M[T]; 116 =M[T]

l) 11Q11 / 11QPsApa This manuscript dates to the middle of the first century CE,145 and contains “at least three”146 (probably four) compositions, where only the last psalm is known from the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. The association of these compositions with some apotropaic ritual and their possible connection to four compositions mentioned in 11Q5 made it attract some significant scholarly attention, and I will return to a more detailed discussion of it in Part V below (pp. 339–41).147 Contents: Superscriptions:

Composition 1(?) [ → ] 2 → 3 → Ps 91 Ps 91 + [‫)?(]לדויד‬

m) 5/6Ḥev1b / 5/6Ḥev-Se4 Ps This manuscript is one of the better-preserved and dates to the second half of the first century CE.148 Proceeding from a material reconstruction of the 14 fragments, it seems to have been a large scroll, and could theoretically have contained a collection of a size comparable to either a complete MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, or only (although somewhat less likely), for example, Pss 1–41.149 In

143

Cf. the discussions in Lange 2009, 402–3; Jain 2014, 192–96. See Flint 1998b, 322 (Flint 2006, 253–54, retains the old classification). On the basis of similar hand and ruling, another two fragments could perhaps also be added (possibly containing Pss 60:9 and 78:36–37), although the DJD editors note the latter probably belongs to some other scroll (García Martínez, Tigchelaar, & Van der Woude 1998, 76). 145 Flint 1997a, 42; García Martínez, Tigchelaar, & Van der Woude 1998, 184; cf. Puech 1992, 65; Sanders 1997, 216 (“early decades of the first century CE”). 146 So García Martínez, Tigchelaar, & Van der Woude 1998, 183. 147 See, e.g., Puech 1990, 400–401; Puech 1992, 78–79. 148 Charlesworth et al. 2000, 143; Jain 2014, 199. 149 See Charlesworth et al. 2000, 142; cf. Lange 2009, 406; Jain 2014, 204–5. 144

Chapter 6. Overview of the Scrolls

103

the DJD publication, Flint reconstructs “the precise contents and format of every column for which at least some text is present,” that is, using the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms as a point of reference.150 Contents:

Superscriptions:

150

Pss [1 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 5 → 6 → ]151 7 → 8 [ → ] 9 → 10 → 11 [ → ] 12 → 13 [ → ] 14 [ → ] 15 → 16 [ → 17 → ] 18 [ → 19 → 20 → 21 → ] 22 [ → ] 23 → 24 [ → ] 25 [ → 26 → 27 → 28 → ] 29 [ → ] 30 [ → ] 31 Pss 8 =M[T]; 10 =M[T]; 11 =M[T]; 12 [=MT]; 13 =MT; 14 [=MT]; 15 - ‫;)?(מזמור לדוד‬152 16 =M[T]; 17 [=MT]; 23 [=MT]; 24 [=MT]; 25 [=MT]; 29 [=MT]; 30 [=MT]; 31 [=MT]

Charlesworth et al. 2000, 142. All these reconstructions are Flint’s. 152 So Charlesworth et al. 2000, 155, who argue that a superscription would not have been placed on the final line of col. vi. 151

Chapter 7

Evaluating the Evidence How, then, should these scrolls be evaluated in relation to the question of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms? Ever since the unrolling of 11Q5, scholarly discussion has largely centered on questions of the function and status of its specific arrangement of psalms, and as Sanders was the first to make some influential suggestions, his work could provide an appropriate starting point. As summarized by Flint, Sanders made four proposals that would be known as the “Qumran Psalms Hypothesis”:1 1. Since 11Q5 contained psalms from Ps 101 and onwards (plus Ps 93) in an order different from the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, while some Cave 4 manuscripts, most notably 4Q83, contained psalms from the earlier parts of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms and in an order congruent with it, Sanders suggested that the latter part of the ‘Book’ of Psalms was not stabilized in the first century BCE and early first century CE. This would also indicate that the ‘Book’ of Psalms had stabilized gradually, from beginning to end.2 2. Since the ‘psalms’ scrolls seemed to attest varying ways of arranging the last third of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, Sanders suggested that there were (at least) two ‘Psalters’ represented among the DSS, with the two main representatives being 11Q5 and the MT-150. So put, “the MT-150 collection … was not viewed at Qumran as ‘standard’ and so ‘canonical’ that it could not be added to or subtracted from.”3 3. Based on an analysis of the contents of 11Q5, Sanders suggested that it was to be understood as a ‘Qumran Psalter’, as opposed to a Jerusalem MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. While the emerging Rabbinic Judaism subsequently accepted the latter after the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE, the first was to fade away into oblivion for some 2000 years. However, Sanders later changed his opinion on the matter, instead arguing for a pre-Qumranic provenance.4

1

Flint 1997a, 8; cf. Flint 1996, 68–69; Flint 1998a, 459; Flint 1998b, 327; Flint 2006, 240–51. For a fascinating retelling of the circumstances around the unrolling of the scroll, see Sanders 2003. 2 Sanders first suggested a cutoff point after Ps 72 (“except for Psalm 32’s wandering about a bit perhaps”), but soon changed his mind and preferred to speak about a “last third” (Sanders 1967, 13; cf. Sanders 1967, 158. Note that both positions are found in the “Cornell Edition”). See also Sanders 1974, 95–99. 3 So Sanders 1974, 97, although he saw in Mas1f a “Psalter used by the Zealots in the third quarter of the first century A.D. [which] was probably very close, perhaps identical, to the Masoretic Psalter in order and content” (Sanders 1966, 91). 4 Sanders 1966, 93–94; Sanders 1967, 158; cf. Sanders 1993, 301.

Chapter 7. Evaluating the Evidence

105

4. Related to, and following from, the three preceding suggestions, as well as an analysis of the last columns of 11Q5 – columns with a clear Davidic focus – Sanders’ fourth claim was perhaps the most controversial, at least in an initial phase. Arguing that these compositions indicated that David was considered as the author of the collection, Sanders suggested that 11Q5 was to be seen as a true Davidic, scriptural ‘Psalter’, a signpost in the multifaceted history of the canonization of the ‘Psalter’ distinct from, and not secondary to, the MT-150.5

Essential to this hypothesis, developed over many years, was the notion of a multifaceted canonical process, where various communities played important parts.6 Important also was the conclusion that “there was and is no firm evidence of a truly proto-MT Psalter before second century C.E.”7 Although well argued, not all were convinced, and reaction was swift. A first wave of criticism came from Shemaryahu Talmon, Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, and Skehan. Primarily discussing 11Q5 in relation to the fourth suggestion above, they all argued for the secondary nature of the collection, suggesting a liturgical rationale behind its compilation.8 However, as the Cave 4 manuscripts were published, some of the arguments adduced by these three scholars became obsolete,9 and this material enabled both Wilson and Flint to defend and refine Sanders’ ideas.10 Indeed Flint provided a milestone publication with his The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms,11 and in the years that followed, the overall theory of the stabilization of the ‘Book’ of Psalms in two stages (first

5

Sanders 1965, 76, 92; Sanders 1966, 88–90; Sanders 1967, 12–14. Sanders 1999, 6. 7 Sanders 2003, 401. 8 Both Talmon and Goshen-Gottstein did, for example, suggest that a prose “Epilogue” (DavComp, the expression was introduced in Goshen-Gottstein 1966, 24) was “completely out of context in a copy of the canonical Book of Psalms” (Talmon 1966, 13), and while Talmon explained the insertion of compositions not present in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms (he mentions Ps 151A, 151B, 154, and 155) as examples of extra-Biblical pisqah be’ems ̣a‘ pasuq (“literary expansions of the sections in question for liturgical and homiletic purposes”) to 2 Sam, expansions that were intended to remain outside the authoritative canon (Talmon 1966, 18–21), Goshen-Gottstein 1966, 30–31, and especially Skehan identified liturgical clusters throughout the collection that would underscore its secondary nature. Combined with an interpretation of the “prose epilogue,” Skehan suggested a twofold explanation for 11Q5. It was a liturgical, as well as an all-inclusive compilation (library edition) in honor of David, dependent on an already standardized collection of 150 psalms (Skehan 1973, 195, 205; Skehan 1978, 172). Later, he would refer to it as “an instruction book for budding Levite choristers at the Jerusalem temple in the time of the Oniad high priests, c. 200 B.C.” (Skehan 1980, 42, n. 16). 9 So, e.g., with Talmon’s suggestion that no scriptural scroll used Paleo-Hebrew script for the divine name (cf. Flint 1997a, 216). 10 Both dealt in some length with the critique formulated by Talmon, Goshen-Gottstein, and Skehan (see Wilson 1985a, 63–92; Wilson 1985b; Flint 1997a, 206–217). It will not be repeated here. 11 Flint 1997a. 6

106

Part III. The Artifacts

Pss 1–89, and then Pss 90–150) gained increasing support. This was also the case with the idea that 11Q5 was a main representative of the (latter parts) of the ‘Book’ of Psalms in Qumran, but since several critical voices have been heard in recent years, some even raising quite fundamental questions, the issue needs some additional consideration.12 I will structure the discussion in two main parts. First, I will provide an overview of preserved (and reconstructed) joins (cf. p. 84 above) which will provide the basis for a discussion of the idea of gradual stabilization, and the possibility of reconstructing sequences of psalms in relation to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. Second, I will inquire into the idea of 11Q5 as a “main representative” of a ‘Book’ of Psalms in Qumran. As a way of framing the discussion, I provide a table with an overview of preserved and reconstructed joins. The table is structured into two ‘halves’ not only for practical reasons, but also proceeding from the argument that the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms was probably commonly inscribed on two scrolls (see above, pp. 29–32), although no specific cutoff point is proposed at this time. For that, see below (pp. 196–201). Key: Psalms probably standing in a sequence similar to MT-150 Psalms not standing in a sequence similar to MT-150 bold Scroll preserving psalms from both ‘halves’ of MT-150

1

The psalm is not attested in any of the ‘psalms’ scrolls

↓

Join in agreement with the MT-150 sequences

↓

Join in conflict with the MT-150 sequences

[↓] Reconstructed join (for details, see the discussions in Chapter 6) ?

12

Uncertain identification (for details, see the discussions in Chapter 6)

One of the most detailed analyses of 11Q5 is Dahmen 2003, which ultimately agrees with Skehan’s view of the dependence of 11Q5 on a MT ‘Book’ of Psalms (see, e.g., 231; cf. Leuenberger 2005). Some studies have proceeded from such a dependence without arguing the case, e.g., Wacholder 1988.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

↓

[↓]

↓

↓ ↓

?

↓

[↓] [↓] [↓] [↓] [↓] [↓] ↓ [↓] ↓ ↓ [↓] ↓ [↓] [↓] ↓ [↓] [↓] [↓] [↓] [↓] [↓] [↓] ↓ [↓]

4Q83 4Q88 4Q98 4Q98a 11Q7 4Q85 4Q98b 11Q8 5/6Ḥev1b 2nd 1st Turn of Era 1st CE

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 ?

↓

↓

↓

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

[↓]

[↓] [↓] [↓]

↓

4Q86 4Q88 4Q92 1Q10 4Q95 4Q96 Mas1f 11Q5 11Q6 Mas1e 4Q84 4Q87 11Q8 11Q11 First half 1st BCE Second half 1st BCE First half 1st CE Second half 1st CE

Table 2: Joins between psalms throughout the ‘psalms’ scrolls of the Judean Desert

Chapter 7. Evaluating the Evidence

107

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

↓

↓ ↓

↓

↓

↓ [↓] [↓] [↓]

[↓]

?

?

↓

↓

↓

[↓] [↓] [↓] [↓] [↓] [↓]

4Q83 4Q88 4Q98 4Q98a 11Q7 4Q85 4Q98b 11Q8 5/6Ḥev1b 2nd 1st Turn of Era 1st CE

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 ↓? [↓] [↓] [↓]

↓

[↓] ? [↓] ? [↓] ? [↓] ? [↓] ? [↓] ? [↓] ? [↓] ? ↓ ↓ [↓] ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

↓ ↓ [↓] ? [↓] ? [↓] ?

↓ ↓

?

[↓] [↓]

[↓]

↓?

↓

?

↓ [↓] [↓]? [↓] ↓/↓ ?

↓

4Q86 4Q88 4Q92 1Q10 4Q95 4Q96 Mas1f 11Q5 11Q6 Mas1e 4Q84 4Q87 11Q8 11Q11 First half 1st BCE Second half 1st BCE First half 1st CE Second half 1st CE

108 Part III. The Artifacts

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

↓ [↓] [↓] [↓] ↓ [↓] [↓]

↓

↓ [↓] ↓

4Q83 4Q88 4Q98 4Q98a 11Q7 4Q85 4Q98b 11Q8 5/6Ḥev1b 2nd 1st Turn of Era 1st CE

125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 ↓

[↓] [↓]? [↓]? [↓]?

↓

[↓] [↓] [↓] ↓

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

↓

? [↓]?

↓ [↓] [↓] [↓] ↓

4Q86 4Q88 4Q92 1Q10 4Q95 4Q96 Mas1f 11Q5 11Q6 Mas1e 4Q84 4Q87 11Q8 11Q11 First half 1st BCE Second half 1st BCE First half 1st CE Second half 1st CE

Chapter 7. Evaluating the Evidence

109

110

Part III. The Artifacts

A. Reconstructing a ‘Book’ of Psalms? I. Preliminary Observations Proceeding from the data gathered in Table 2, the question to be asked is whether it is possible to reconstruct collections of psalms, or to formulate ideas of a formation process. Before assessing the attempts of Wilson and Flint, some preliminary observations can be made. First, it is to be noted that joins are preserved or reconstructed in only 21 of the 41 scrolls surveyed above (1Q11, 4Q83, 4Q84, 4Q85, 4Q86, 4Q87, 4Q88, 4Q92, 4Q95, 4Q96, 4Q98, 4Q98a, 4Q98b, 11Q5, 11Q6, 11Q7, 11Q8, 11Q11, Mas1e, Mas1f, and 5/6Ḥev1b). Consequently, although they are important for analyses of individual psalms, several of the ‘psalms’ scrolls cannot be used to reconstruct sequences of psalms, and thus say little about the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms except for the fact that these psalms were known and copied.13 Furthermore, these scrolls could be divided into three groups. First are 1Q12, 3Q2, 4Q93, 4Q97, 4Q98c, 4Q98d, 4Q98e, 4Q98f, 4Q98g, pap6Q5, and 11Q9, all containing the remains of single psalms only. Second are the three scrolls 4Q89, 4Q90, and 5Q5. They all contain only Ps 119, but here, it has been argued that the original scroll contained only this psalm. Last, and third, are the six scrolls that contain more than one psalm, although with no joins preserved or reconstructed: 1Q11, 2Q14, 4Q448, 4Q91, 4Q94, and 8Q2. Worth noting here is that (except for 4Q448, which contains Ps 154, preceded by some other composition) all five contain only psalms that are also found in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, and that the fragments could theoretically be arranged in agreement with that collection. Second, as to the length of the manuscripts, it should be noted that apart from the obvious fact that no ‘complete’ collection of psalms is to be found anywhere in these scrolls, many scrolls might have originally contained collections much smaller than the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. This applies to 1Q10, 1Q11 (depending on the reconstructed column height), 4Q84, 4Q88, 4Q92, 4Q98, 4Q98b, 8Q2, 11Q5, 11Q11, and Mas1e. Seven of the scrolls could, however, have contained a collection of psalms in a size comparable to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms: 1Q11 (depending on the column height), 4Q83, 4Q85, 11Q7, 11Q8, Mas1f, and 5/6Ḥev1b, although nothing can be stated with certainty. All of these scrolls contain psalms that are also attested in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms only, and with the exception of the juxtaposition of Ps 31 with Ps 33 (4Q83,

13 In sum, 123 psalms are attested throughout the scrolls. Of the remaining 27, Pss 1–2, 3– 4, and 20–21 have been reconstructed in 5/6Ḥev1b; Ps 46 is possibly attested in 4Q85; Pss 64–65 have been reconstructed in 4Q83; and Ps 108 in 4Q88, while the rest were probably once attested somewhere on the now destroyed parts of the scrolls (Pss 32, 41, 55, 57, 58, 61, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 79, 80, 87, 90, 110, 111, and 117, cf. Flint 2014b, 242).

Chapter 7. Evaluating the Evidence

111

4Q85), and Ps 38 with Ps 71 (4Q85), no conflicting arrangement of psalms is found. Third, as for the scrolls with preserved or reconstructed joins, only two scrolls contain psalms now found in both ‘halves’14 of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms: 4Q88 and 11Q8.15 Since the former is a scroll with a sequence of psalms different from MT (Ps 22 is perhaps juxtaposed to Ps 107, and several previously unknown compositions are included), it is only the latter, retaining parts of Pss 6, 9, 18, 36–37, 39–40, 43, 45, 59, 68, 78, 81, 86, and 115–116, that could have contained a whole MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. Without disregarding the possibility of other scrolls containing a whole MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, this confirms that the ‘borders’ of a collection do not necessarily overlap with the ‘borders’ of a scroll. Put differently, it would be reasonable to assume that there might have been sequences of psalms extending over several scrolls that were still conceived as a single collection. If so, one would not need to attest, for example, a whole MT ‘Book’ of Psalms on a single scroll to be able to reconstruct such a collection. Fourth, Table 2 makes clear that some psalms were regularly transmitted in similar sequences, regardless of the type and function of the scrolls themselves, although variation is equally clear. Sometimes, such sequences filled up an entire scroll. Sometimes, they extended over several scrolls, and sometimes, they were juxtaposed to other sequences. Interestingly, the scrolls seem to agree in most cases where a sequence is attested more than once. Consequently, it would be reasonable to posit that there existed some general idea, or perhaps even shared tradition about how psalms were commonly juxtaposed. Furthermore, it is to be noted that when psalms are included in sequences that contrast with the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, they are often also found elsewhere, in an order congruent with it. To illustrate these observations, the following six categories could be tentatively suggested:16 1) Sequences attested or reconstructed more than once, always agreeing with MT: Pss [5]–6 (4Q83, 4Q98b, 5/6Ḥev1b); Pss [12]–14 (11Q7, 5/6Ḥev1b); Pss [17]–18 (11Q7, 4Q85, 5/6Ḥev1b); Pss 26–[30] (4Q98a, 5/6Ḥev1b, with [27]–28 also in 4Q85); Pss 102–103 (11Q5, 4Q84); Pss [107–108] (4Q88, 11Q5?); Pss [112]–113 (11Q5?, 4Q84); Pss [114]–115 (4Q96, 11Q5?); Pss [115]–116 (11Q5?, 4Q87, 11Q8); Pss [116–118] (11Q5?, 4Q84); Pss [125]–130 (11Q5, 4Q87); Pss [137]–138 (4Q92?, 11Q5); Pss [149]–150 (Mas1f, 11Q5)

14

Cf. the remarks above, p. 106. Flint 1997a, 48, makes a similar observation, but from a different cutoff point (Ps 89), and hence concludes that five manuscripts preserve material from both parts. 16 [ ] indicates a reconstructed join. If placed only around the last psalm of a sequence, it specifies that it has been only partially reconstructed. If placed around the first psalm, it indicates that the sequence is attested more than once, and that at least one of these is reconstructed. If two sequences are attested, the oldest is placed first. Scroll numbers are added to each sequence to clarify their possible relation. 15

112

Part III. The Artifacts

2) Sequences attested or reconstructed only once, in agreement with MT: Pss [1–5] (5/6Ḥev1b?); Pss 6–[12] (5/6Ḥev1b); Pss 14–[17] (5/6Ḥev1b); Pss 18–[22] (5/6Ḥev1b); Pss 23–[26] (5/6Ḥev1b); Pss 34–35 (4Q83); Pss 36–37 (11Q8); Pss 39–40 (11Q8); Pss 49–[53] (4Q85); Pss 53–54 (4Q83); Pss 62–[69] (4Q83); Pss 76–78 (11Q6); Pss 81–85 (Mas1e); Pss [91–93] (4Q84); Pss 95–96 (1Q10); Pss [99–100] (4Q84); Pss 101–102 (11Q5); Pss [108–109] (4Q88?); Pss [110–112] (11Q5?); Pss [113–114] (11Q5?); Pss 120– [125] (11Q5); Pss 142–143 (11Q5) 3) Psalms attested or reconstructed more than once, at least once in agreement with MT: Pss [22 → 107] (4Q88) and [22 → 23] (5/6Ḥev1b); Pss 93 → 141 (11Q5) and [93 → 94] (4Q84); Pss 106 → 147 (4Q86?) and [106 → 107] (11Q5?); Pss [135] → 136 (4Q92, 11Q5) and 135 → 136:22 (4Q95); Pss [136 → 137] (4Q92?) and 136 → 118 (11Q5); Pss 147 → 104 (4Q86), [147 → 148] (Mas1f) and [147] → 105 (11Q5, 4Q87?); Pss [148 → 149] (Mas1f) and 148 → [120] (11Q5); Pss 150 → End of Scroll (Mas1f) and 150 → Hymn to the Creator (11Q5) 4) Sequences attested or reconstructed more than once, always disagreeing with MT: Pss 31 → 33 (4Q83, 4Q98); Pss [104] → 147 (11Q5, 4Q87); Pss [105] → 146 (11Q5, 4Q87); Pss 118 → 104 (11Q5, 4Q87?); Pss 133 → 144 (11Q5, 11Q6); Pss 141 → 133 (11Q5, 11Q6) 5) Sequences attested or reconstructed only once, always disagreeing with MT: Pss 38 → 71 (4Q83); Composition 3 → Ps 91 (11Q11); Ps [109 → Apostrophe to Zion] (4Q88); Pss 119 → 135 (11Q5); Pss 132 → 119 (11Q5); Pss 134 → 151A (11Q5); Pss 139 → 137 (11Q5); Pss 140 → 134 (11Q5); Pss 143 → 149 (11Q5); Pss 144 → 155 (11Q5); Pss 145 → 154 (11Q5); Pss 146 → 148 (11Q5) 6) Psalms attested or reconstructed more than once, always disagreeing with MT: Pss [103 → 112] (4Q84) and [103 → 109] (11Q5, 4Q87?); Pss [138 → 99] (4Q92?) and 138 → Sir 51 (11Q5)

Taken together, categories 1–3 include psalms from all parts of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, while category 6 includes psalms only from the last third, and category 4–5 mainly from the last third (the two exceptions are Pss 31 → 33 and 38 → 71). More specifically, as for the psalms juxtaposed in ways conflicting with MT sequences, they seem to be clustered around Pss 103–106 (109), 118–119, and 133–150, while, for example, Pss [120]–132 is preserved several times without any conflict. As for Pss 133–150, it should also be observed that although Pss 147–150 occur in several conflicting juxtapositions, they are also attested in sequences agreeing with a MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. Consequently, most of the psalms in conflicting sequences have either a Davidic superscription (Pss 138–145) included in the last Davidic sequence in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, or a Hallelujah framework (Pss 104–106, 135, 146–150). I will return later to possible implications of this, but also worth noting is that a brief look at the presence of superscriptions indicates that clusters of psalms with the same ‘author’ designation were often joined with other such clusters, thus not transmitted separately. See, for example, the sequence of psalms attributed to Korach → Asaph → David in 4Q85 (Pss 49–53), or the sequence Asaph → Korach in Mas1e (Pss 81–85). Such a pattern could, then, perhaps warrant further (theoretical) reconstruction of psalms (e.g., Pss 42–70 for 4Q85, or Pss 73–89 for Mas1e), implying an even greater overlap with the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms.

Chapter 7. Evaluating the Evidence

113

Turning to possible overlaps between the manuscripts, the following tentative observations could be made. As for the scrolls preserving parts of the first half of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, Table 2 shows that there is significant overlap between all of them (except for 4Q88), so that a common juxtaposition of psalms ranging from Pss 1–69 could hypothetically be reconstructed (with Ps 32 not attested anywhere and Pss 33 and 71 in positions conflicting with the Masoretic order). As for the scrolls preserving parts of the second half, the picture is far messier, as several manuscripts preserve a sequence only attested once (this applies to 4Q86, 4Q88, 4Q92, 4Q95, 11Q11, and possibly 4Q87). Apart from these, the remainder of the scrolls can be divided into two rough groups. First, there is some overlap between 1Q10, 4Q84, 4Q96, 11Q8, and Mas1e, so that the sequence Pss 76–118 could (hypothetically) be reconstructed. If including Mas1f, it could possibly extend unto Ps 150 (worth noting is that Pss 104–111 are not attested in these scrolls, and that 4Q86 juxtaposes Pss 103 and 112). The second group of scrolls with overlapping sequences consist of 11Q5, 11Q6, and possibly 4Q87. The connection between these is seen clearly in relation to categories 4 and 5 above. Of the featured joins, 19 are from 11Q5, 4Q87, and 11Q6, while the remaining five are from 4Q83 (Pss 31–33, 38–71), 4Q98 (Pss 31–33), 11Q11 (Apocryphal Psalm 3–Ps 91), and 4Q88 (Ps 109–Apostrophe to Zion). The latter two likely being collections with quite specific functions, they might perhaps shed light on the understanding of this second group, but it is still too soon to draw any such conclusions. To sum up, it seems as if (at least) seven different collections of varying size are to be reconstructed. Only two of them were attested more than once: a collection with much (but in no way complete) overlap with the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, and a collection with its main representative in 11Q5. II. Arguments for the Stabilization of the ‘Book’ of Psalms As noted above, two scholars in particular developed Sanders’ idea of a gradual stabilization of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. While Wilson laid a statistical foundation, Flint somewhat refined his methodology and developed the idea with new arguments. Focusing especially on joins, Wilson first noted that older scrolls showed greater variation as compared to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms than later ones.17 Dividing the manuscripts into two categories, “supportive” or “conflicting” (with the Masoretic sequence), he then placed all manuscripts with even a single conflicting order (e.g. 4Q83) into the latter category and argued that Pss 1–89 (‘books’ 1–3) were the first to have been stabilized, prior to the Qumran period, while Pss 90–150 (‘books’ 4–5) were not ‘closed’ until the end of the first century CE, possibly following a council at Yavneh (as the first supportive manu17

For an early study, see Wilson 1983.

114

Part III. The Artifacts

script was from the first half of the first century CE, and the last conflicting manuscript in the mid-first century CE).18 Structuring his argument in a way similar to Wilson’s, Flint made some further distinctions. While agreeing on the importance of an analysis of the sequences in which psalms were juxtaposed, he argued that a sheer enumeration would perhaps be misleading, since “less of Psalms 1–89 has survived than of Psalms 90 onwards.”19 Rather, a better way would be to count the proportion of agreements and disagreements. Furthermore, he argued it necessary to include yet another set of data, namely the amount of “apocryphal” psalms.20 Last, Flint noted that it would be better to arrange the chronological overview in two columns, so that Pss 1–89 were distinguished from Pss 90–150. In sum, he presented his results in three tables as follows (the first shows agreements and disagreements as it comes to order, the second as it comes to content, and the third shows the development over time):21 Table 3: Flint’s agreements and conflicts concerning order Books (Psalms)

Consecutive Joins

Agreements with MT

1 (1–41)

19

17

2 (42–72)

13

3 (73–89)

6

4 (90–106) 5 (107–150)

Conflicts with MT

(89 %)

2

(11 %)

12

(92 %)

1

(8 %)

6

(100 %)

0

(0 %)

18

7

(39 %)

11

(61 %)

64

26

(41 %)

38

(59 %)

Table 4: Flint’s conflicts concerning content Books

“Apocryphal” Psalms

1 2 3 4 5

0 0 0 2 9

18 See the table in Wilson 1983, 387–88; cf. Wilson 1985a, 116–38. The arguments for the dating of the collection to the end of the first century CE with Yavneh as a setting are found in Wilson 2000. 19 Flint 1997a, 142. 20 Flint 1997a, 142–43. See also Flint 1994, 38, n. 20, where he criticizes Wilson for only paying attention to order. 21 The tables are from Flint 1997a, 142–45, where he argues that the numbers used are slightly updated as compared to Flint 1993 and Flint 1996, 76 (cf. also Flint 1994, 40). However, both Flint 1998a, 460–61, and Flint 2006, 241, use the numbers from 1996. A similar return to old(?) statistics is found in Table 4 (counting 9 “apocryphal” psalms).

115

Chapter 7. Evaluating the Evidence

Table 5: Flint’s chronological arrangement Manuscript

Date22

Pss 1–8923

Pss 90–150

4Q83 4Q86 4Q88 4Q84 Mas1f 4Q96 4Q87 11Q6 Mas1e

mid-2nd cent. BCE mid-1st cent. BCE ca. 50 BCE second half of 1st cent. BCE second half of 1st cent. BCE late 1st cent. BCE mid-1st cent. CE first half of 1st cent. CE first half of 1st cent. CE

Supportive — — — — — Supportive — Supportive

— Contradictory Contradictory Contradictory Supportive Supportive Contradictory Contradictory —

1Q10 4Q95 4Q98a 11Q7 11Q8 11Q5 4Q98 11Q11 4Q98b 4Q85 5/6Ḥev1b

ca. 50 BCE late 1st cent. BCE Herodian first half of 1st cent. CE mid-1st cent. CE 30–50 CE mid-1st cent. CE 50–70 CE 50 CE or later ca. 50–68 CE second half of 1st cent. CE

— — Supportive Supportive Supportive — Supportive — Supportive Supportive Supportive

Supportive Contradictory — — — Contradictory — Contradictory — — —

Having provided updated statistics, Flint essentially substantiated Wilson’s arguments, thus also Sanders’ ideas.24 The stabilization of the ‘Book’ of Psalms could be safely divided into two distinct stages, Pss 1–89 and Pss 90–150 respectively,25 although the idea that manuscripts supportive of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms did not date before the first half of the first century BCE had to be abandoned in favor of a view where the relation between fixed and fluid parts remained fairly constant during the entire Qumran period.26 Suggested as significant was an observed strong correlation between fixed order and presence of

22

The dates are the ones proposed by Flint. For my own discussion, see above, pp. 85– 103. I have no clue as to why some scrolls are chronologically misplaced (as opposed to, e.g., Flint 1996, 79). 23 Flint 1996, 79, included fewer scrolls, and did not distinguish between Pss 1–89 and Pss 90–150. 24 For his entire argument, see esp. Flint 1997a, 135–49. 25 He noted in passing that the exact “cutoff point” is not clear, and suggested it might have been Ps 72 as well (Flint 1997a, 149). 26 Flint 1997a, 146.

116

Part III. The Artifacts

superscriptions in Pss 1–89, and fluidity and lack of superscription.27 In sum, Flint concluded that Pss 1–89 had been stabilized before the Qumran period, while Pss 90–150 remained fluid “well into the first century CE.”28 Relating the manuscripts to each other, Flint argued that they reflected, not a gradual stabilization, but three main “editions” of a ‘Book’ of Psalms.29 The first edition comprised the “stable” Pss 1–89. Traces of the second were found in Mas1f, which contained the end of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms,30 and consequently, this edition consisted of Pss 1–89 and Pss 90–150 (essentially the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms). Third, Flint argued that both 4Q87 and 11Q6 were affiliated with 11Q5 – perhaps copies of it – and as both 4Q87 and 11Q6 included psalms preceding Ps 93 (the ‘earliest’ psalm in 11Q5), they all pointed to a third edition, a “11QPsa Psalter,” including Pss 1–89 plus 11Q5.31 According to Flint, this latter edition would have been compiled prior to the Qumran period, and is thus not to be regarded as sectarian, but rather as attesting to a “widespread type of Judaism which may have included the Sadducees,” in contrast to, for example, Pharisees and Rabbis.32 Consequently, both editions 2 and 3 would have been completed prior to the Qumran period,33 and so one could perhaps suggest that the issue at stake had (surprisingly) shifted away from being pri-

27 Flint 1997a, 117, 148–49. Here, he probably proceeded from Wilson’s suggestion that the “editorial techniques” used to arrange the psalms of the first three ‘books’ (mainly by means of features in the superscriptions) differed from the ones used in the last two. Consequently, it puts Flint’s suggestion somewhat at odds with the observations I made above (p. 112) where it seemed quite clear that most of the psalms that were juxtaposed in ways differing from the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms did in fact not lack a superscription. Furthermore, as I will show below, the sharp contrast between techniques used in ‘books’ 1–3 and those used in ‘books’ 4–5 needs to be nuanced (pp. 191–92). 28 Flint 1997a, 146. As for the conflicting joins in Pss 1–89, Flint provides explanations for two of them (the third, Pss 22 → 107, was not reconstructed by Flint). For Pss 31 → 33, he argued that the lack of superscription made Ps 33 easy to move (Flint 1997a, 146–47), and for Pss 38 → 71, he repeated the suggestion by Wilson 1985a, 131–32, that since Pss 38 and 70 both have the superscript ‫להזכיר‬, and since 71 is untitled, it would have been easy to relocate (Flint 1996, 81–82; Flint 1997a, 147–48; cf. Sanders 1966, 87; Ulrich 1999, 75; Jain 2014, 287–88). No similar attempts were, however, made for any of Pss 90–150. 29 See esp. Flint 1997a, 150–71, but also, for example, Flint 1994; cf. Flint 2014a, 225. 30 Flint 1997a, 157–58. 31 Flint later notes that Dahmen questioned the reconstruction of 4Q87 as representing an 11Q5 arrangement (cf. p. 100 above), a critique that made Flint recognize that “stronger evidence than 4QPse is required to affirm the existence of more than one copy of the 11QPsaPsalter,” but since 11Q6 was “undisputedly a copy,” the main argument was not seen as severely threatened (Flint 2007a, 162–66; Flint 2007b, 188–94). Apart from the three editions above, a fourth one was possibly seen in 4Q88 (Flint 1997a, 170; Flint 2006, 245). 32 Flint 1997a, 199–200. Although 11Q5 was not compiled at Qumran, it had likely been copied there (so Flint 1997a, 199–200; Flint 1998a, 469–70; Flint 2007a, 158). 33 Flint 1997a, 168–70; cf. Flint 2007b, 184–85; Flint 2013, 17.

Chapter 7. Evaluating the Evidence

117

marily focused on collections taking shape during the Qumran period towards a notion of competing editions which were already essentially finalized. If so, the notion of “fluid” parts would seem somewhat unwarranted. III. Beyond Statistics 1. A Farewell to a Two-Stage Stabilization As presented above, statistics related to agreeing and conflicting joins were at the very core of the idea of a stabilization of the ‘Book’ of Psalms in two stages. However, there are (at least) four problematic aspects in the way the calculations and the presentation of the material have been carried out. First is the use of the fivefold ‘book’ division as a framework for both the analysis and the presentation of the results. If only Pss 1–89 were stabilized, and since 11Q5 does not retain any of the characteristic ‘book’ dividers found in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, there would have been no universal notion of a fivefold division of a ‘Book’ of Psalms, and consequently (if proceeding from the idea of several ‘editions’), a categorization of the manuscripts according to such a notion would be anachronistic and possibly even misleading.34 Consequently, a better argument for a cutoff point, for example, would be necessary to provide, as well as some motivation for the division of the psalms into five sections.35 If related to my preliminary observations above, it might be suggested that such arguments could instead be based on the idea that the ‘Book’ of Psalms was commonly divided across two scrolls,36 thus pointing to a cutoff point somewhere around Ps 72.37 However, the ‘psalms’ scrolls do indicate that the very idea of a cutoff point is itself somewhat problematic. In fact, it rather seems as if certain clusters of psalms were more prone to (re?)-arrangement than others. Second (and perhaps more urgent) is the apparent failure to distinguish between different types of manuscripts, as well as to account for the fact that no manuscript contains a complete collection (many not even in their original scope).38 In the models of Wilson and Flint, all manuscripts containing joins are included in the statistics and treated as copies of an “edition” of the ‘Book’ of

34 Cf. Fabry 1998, 148. However, as I will argue later, traces of the doxology of Ps 89 in 4Q87 could indicate that such a fivefold division was in fact known. 35 A similar critique of the cutoff point was formulated by Fabry 1998, 158, who, among others, noted that the only two psalms included before Ps 101 were Pss 91 and 93, both belonging to manuscripts not necessarily “ordentlichen Psalmenrollen.” 36 Worth noting is the suggestion by Flint 2006, 238, “that some scrolls originally contained material from only the earlier part of the book of Psalms, while others presented material from the later part.” 37 See below, pp. 196–201. 38 Cf. Jain 2014, 24–25, and the discussion in Mroczek 2016, 26–33.

118

Part III. The Artifacts

Psalms, thus presupposed to bear witness to an ongoing process of stabilization. Although it is certainly true that the ways in which psalms are juxtaposed throughout the ‘psalms’ scrolls are an important piece of the puzzle, the possibility that several of these scrolls had quite different functions would imply that not all are relevant to incorporate in discussions of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. In fact, it seems as if several different types of collections emerge (cf. the discussion on 11Q11 below, pp. 339–41), as well as reworkings of individual psalms (e.g. the joining of Pss 135–136 into a new composition, or the reworking of Ps 89), so that, ultimately, the question of the function of a specific scroll needs to be better addressed. Are any of these scrolls to be regarded as “scripture”? As “authoritative”? If so, what do those terms denote? Can a collection, for example, be authoritative in relation to a specific use, although not “scriptural”? How are such distinctions to be made? Consequently, if not assuming that every scroll is a potential copy of a ‘Book’ of Psalms, the picture is likely to be more nuanced, and more research is needed in this area. This said, it is quite clear that psalms belonging to the last half of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms were regularly arranged and rearranged for various purposes. The Hallelujah psalms (psalms that are quite scattered in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms), for example, were gathered in separate collections, and Davidic psalms (psalms that are gathered in the MT collection) were scattered throughout some of the scrolls (esp. 11Q5).39 The third problematic aspect is the failure to account for the fact that some scrolls are better preserved than others. Here, even Flint’s use of proportional statistics comes up short for a number of reasons. For example, what should be made of joins that are no longer possible to reconstruct? Are they to be assumed in agreement with a MT sequence if belonging to Pss 1–89, and as contradicting if belonging to Ps 90–150?40 Furthermore, it is quite clear that the well-preserved state of 11Q5 has a massive – thus unjustifiable – impact on the statistics. As there are several manuscripts possibly containing large collections, some perhaps overlapping with the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, the impact of 11Q5 on the statistics is ultimately misleading. If, for the sake of argument, one would remove 11Q5 from the statistics, this would become quite clear, as the calculations would shift significantly in favor of a Masoretic sequence in the ‘last third’ of the ‘Book’ of Psalms.41 Finally, it has been pointed out that the very notion of “editions” does not do justice to the complex reality of the ‘psalms’ scrolls. Fabry, for one, questions Flint’s idea of stabilized viz. fluid parts of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, as well as the idea of a canonical parallel edition besides a MT-type collection, as he observes that sequences in Pss 90–150 were in fact stable, while parts of Pss 1–89 were 39

Cf. n. 27 above (p. 116). Cf. Fabry 1998, 156–59. 41 Cf. a similar argument in Fabry 1998, 160; Jain 2014, 24. 40

Chapter 7. Evaluating the Evidence

119

still fluid (thus in line with my observations above). Consequently, he suggests that the scrolls rather indicate that collections of psalms different from the LXX, the MT, and Peshitta were continuously compiled, while the collection that was later to become the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms was both still in flux and fairly extensively stabilized throughout the Qumran period. So put, the latter is understood as a collection “der aber sowohl an den Rändern, wie an einigen charakteristischen Punkten (Ps 32; Ps 104) sicher flexibel war.”42 Approaching the issue from the perspective of book history, Eva Mroczek takes this aspect a step further as she argues that the very concept of an “edition” is anachronistic and belongs primarily within modern conceptualizations of books as closed and fixed entities.43 Looking at the ‘psalms’ scrolls, Mroczek finds no ‘Book’ of Psalms at all, but rather “collections that are reminiscent of different parts and versions of the familiar collection we now know as the Masoretic Psalter.”44 She suggests that a more fruitful way forward would be to describe the formation of psalm collections as an “organic, gradual, perhaps messy process, rather than the result of a single, rigidly imposed plan,” and concludes that “stabilization” would not necessarily be a deliberate process, but rather the result of such an organic process of gradual growth.45 This is an important point, and relates to the observations concerning artifactual diversity made in Chapter 3 (pp. 39–49). A quite similar conclusion is reached by Lange, who compares the ‘psalms’ scrolls with the Hodayot manuscripts and observes that while the text of the psalms was relatively stable, the sequences in which they were found were not. According to Lange, this indicated that each composition was regarded as an “independent text which could be combined more or less randomly in the various psalms or hodayot collections.… When such random compilations of psalms and hodayot were copied they became Psalms and Hodayot collections.”46 If related to my analysis of the material, it is clear that the notion of competing editions is problematic, but it does not necessarily mean that the process of gathering psalms is therefore entirely random. Rather, if understood in light of the theoretical framework provided in the introduction to this study (see pp. 21–33), and if seeing the ‘Book’ of Psalms as an ancient anthology, conceptualized through the observations made in Part II, a new way of framing the com-

42

Fabry 1998, 159. Mroczek 2012, ii. She develops this further in Mroczek 2016, see, e.g., 9–11. 44 Mroczek 2012, 30. Essentially, these are understood as collections with “neither shores nor borders” (41); cf. Mroczek 2015a, 13–17; Mroczek 2016, 40. 45 Mroczek 2012, 59–60. Recently, she has even proposed that the ‘psalms’ scrolls indicate that the “‘book of Psalms’ did not exist as a conceptual category in the Second Temple period” (Mroczek 2016, 33). 46 Lange 2012, 307; see also Lange 2009, 434–36. 43

120

Part III. The Artifacts

plexity of the material presents itself. Related to the interplay between the two sets of “tensions” (the force militating against isolation of the individual piece and the one militating against integration of the individual in the large on the one hand, and the tension between selective and preserving tendencies on the other), it could, for example, be suggested that the dichotomies between “random” and “unified” collections, or between “closed” and “open-ended” ones need not be upheld. If understood as frozen snapshots of a complex and dynamic transmission of psalms, it would be reasonable to assume that the scribe responsible for the scroll would have made some deliberate decision about, for example, which psalms to include and which to leave out, and so clues to the function(s) and purpose(s) of these scrolls could perhaps be detected. One could posit, then, that the notion of closed and open-ended collections would relate to two different aspects of this process. On the artifactual, physical level, a specific anthology is always closed, that is, the writing process is completed, even if marginal notes, corrections, etc. are always possible. On the other hand, as such a scroll is only one visual representation of a vast stream of psalms composed and used throughout the ages, it is by no means closed. It would always be possible to create new arrangements of psalms, since their integrity as individual compositions is not threatened by their inclusion in an anthology. Consequently, it is not surprising that the ‘psalms’ scrolls show great variation in the way psalms are juxtaposed, but the fact that some psalms are in fact commonly clustered in similar sequences would indicate that there was some awareness, or at least an implicit tradition related to the way sequences of psalms were usually created. If so understood, it might perhaps indicate that the notion of a specific arrangement (or binding) of psalms was not nearly as important as the notion of selection (cf. p. 28 above). 2. Possible Ways Forward In sum, it becomes quite clear that neither the idea of a gradual stabilization, nor of a stabilization of the ‘Book’ of Psalms in two distinct stages fits neatly with the material. Furthermore, although there were sequences roughly overlapping with the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms throughout the ‘psalms’ scrolls, it is to be noted that such an observation does not alone warrant for a conclusion that there was in fact a MT ‘Book’ of Psalms in the Qumran period. Because of this, other material has to be considered as well, and an appropriate place to start would be to analyze the ‘artificial’ elements of the MT collection. In fact, I would suggest that it is when these two sets of materials are put into dialogue that a way forward is provided, and as an example, it would be important to search in the ‘psalms’ scrolls for traces of features characteristic of formative stages reconstructed from an analysis of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. The basic

Chapter 7. Evaluating the Evidence

121

idea would then be that if traces related to a specific stage of the formation of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms are found in the ‘psalms’ scrolls, it would be reasonable to conclude that such a stage preceded the Qumran period.47 However, before turning to these issues, there is need to consider the common distinction between MT sequences and other types of collections as it comes to the notion of “authoritative scripture.” While the former certainly came to be seen as such, the question is whether other collections identified throughout the ‘psalms’ scrolls should be understood along these lines as well. Here, the number of copies might give some indications, but ultimately, an overview of the scrolls alone comes up short and needs to be supplemented by other observations.48 As arguments for the status of 11Q5 have often been based on the very shape of the collection itself, it is to this I now turn.

B. 11Q5 as a Competing Collection? It would be no overstatement to claim that 11Q5 has occupied the center stage in most discussions on the ‘psalms’ scrolls. Recurrently, it is described as a “main representative”49 of the ‘Book’ of Psalms at Qumran, but although its importance can be argued by the fact that it probably existed in (at least) two copies, the observations I have made so far suggest that such a notion needs to better qualified. While it is certainly correct that 11Q5 could be described as a “main representative” by means of its state of preservation, as compared to other ‘psalms’ scrolls, it does not necessarily follow that it was conceptualized in such a way in the Qumran period. Evidently, several of the other ‘psalms’ scrolls surveyed above could have been more “influential.” Nonetheless, it would be plausible to posit that 11Q5 had quite some impact, but does it follow that the collection itself was regarded as “scripture”? To inquire into these issues, I will here focus on four aspects of 11Q5 and its relation to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms that feature recurrently in scholarly discussion: 1) the possible identification of liturgical clusters; 2) the text of the psalms, as compared to the psalms included in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms; 3) a possible ‘Davidic’ emphasis; and 4) the overall structure of the collection.50

47

This is also what Jain attempts to do, although not proceeding from an own analysis of the Masoretic collection (Jain 2014, 221–97). 48 Broken down to the level of an individual psalm, one quickly sees that the argument is not persuasive. Is it plausible, for example, to assert that Ps 119 was more authoritative due to its numerous attestations than, say, Ps 117? While repetition might indicate that Ps 119 was more popular than other psalms, it cannot be used as an argument of authority, especially not in light of the fragmentary state of the scrolls. 49 So, e.g., Flint 1997a, 158, n. 32, cf. 227. 50 For my purposes here, I will introduce only some of the main arguments. For more

122

Part III. The Artifacts

I. Liturgical Clusters As noted above,51 Goshen-Gottstein and Skehan suggested that 11Q5 was likely a secondary, liturgical collection, and this conclusion was partly based on the identification of several liturgical features. The foundation was laid by GoshenGottstein, who suggested a liturgical rationale behind the extant version of Ps 145 (among others), where a refrain was attested after each verse, but also behind the compilation of verses from Ps 118 found in col. 16 (often referred to as a “Catena”), and the unusual form of Ps 146:9–?–10 found in col. 2, a text which he argued was not Ps 146 at all, but a hymn based on themes from Psalms.52 As for Skehan, he expanded on these observations and identified larger liturgical clusters: Pss 135 → 136 → Catena → 145; Pss 104 → 147 → 105 → 146 → 148 (a “liturgical grouping for a service of praise”); Pss 113–118 (the so-called Passover Hallel); and Pss 149 → 150, with Hymn to the Creator as a “pendant,” “effectively terminat[ing]” the scroll.53 These suggestions are all interesting, potentially providing important insights into the use of psalms in the late Second Temple times, but as far as the notion of a “scriptural” collection goes, or even as to the possible status of 11Q5 as a collection, they say less. As correctly observed by Flint, any dichotomy between “liturgical” and “scriptural” is essentially false.54 II. Text A second feature relates to the text of the individual psalms, which, on a general level, has been judged as quite stable.55 As for the variations, Dahmen has argued at length that there is overwhelming evidence for the secondary nature of the text of 11Q5. Noting that nothing in the textual discrepancies suggested any coherent redactional layer, while indications of the last stages of the formation of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms were visible, he concludes that 11Q5 (and 11Q6) depended not only on proto-Masoretic versions of individual psalms, but more comprehensive overviews and discussions, I refer the reader to, e.g., Flint 1997a, 222–27, or Jain 2014, 242–51. 51 See, e.g., n. 8 on p. 105. 52 Goshen-Gottstein 1966, 30–31. Skehan 1978, 171, suggested that the expansion was based on Ps 145:9 and 12, so that their juxtaposition in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms was implied the in borrowing. This was refuted by Wilson 1985b, 637, who noted that the compositions were also based on, for example, Ps 33:8. 53 Skehan 1973; Skehan 1978, 166, 171. Furthermore, he argued that the last juxtaposition above recognized Ps 150 as a final psalm of an established and closed collection of psalms (Skehan 1978, 171). 54 Flint 1997a, 209. That the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms also contains liturgical clusters is quite reasonable, seen, not least in Skehan’s suggested sequence of Pss 113–118 (m. Pesaḥ 5:7, cf., e.g., Millard 1994, 30–32, and below, p. 359). 55 See, e.g., Flint 2013, 24.

Chapter 7. Evaluating the Evidence

123

plausibly on a proto-Masoretic collection. Consequently, 11Q5 had to be considered a secondary collection, and the suggestion by Skehan that 11Q5 presupposed an already finalized MT ‘Book’ of Psalms was “letztlich bestätigt.”56 Although well argued, the evidence presented does not, however, say much about the status and function of 11Q5. Even if concluding that a finalized MT ‘Book’ of Psalms was chronologically prior to 11Q5, it does not follow that 11Q5 must therefore be less authoritative. In fact, there is no warrant for regarding chronologically secondary collections as less scriptural, or even less authoritative. To state the obvious, it would be quite reasonable to assume that although collections of psalms which were earlier than the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms might have been regarded as authoritative, it did not preclude the latter from being received as scripture (cf. also, e.g., the Samaritan Pentateuch).57 Consequently, even if interpreted as a rearrangement of a MT-type collection, 11Q5 could still be argued to be “authoritative scripture.” III. David and 11Q5 Moving on to the suggestion that 11Q5 revealed a strong ‘Davidic’ emphasis, two aspects have been especially prominent in scholarly discussion: 1) the possible function of the compositions found at the very end of the scroll, compositions that are focusing on David in various ways (not least DavComp); and 2) the observation that psalms with Davidic superscriptions are found somewhat scattered throughout the scroll. As the latter is related to ideas about the overall structure of 11Q5, it will be dealt with in the next section (pp. 126–29), but the first will be discussed here. Attested in 11Q5 27 2–11, DavComp reads as follows:58 11Q5 27 2–11 ‫ ויהי דויד בן ישי חכם ואור כאור השמש וסופר‬2 ‫ ונבון ותמים בכול דרכיו לפני אל ואנשים ויתן‬3 ‫ לו יהוה רוח נבונה ואורה ויכתוב תהלים‬4 ‫ שלושת אלפים ושש מאות ושיר לשורר לפני המזבח על עולת‬5 ‫ התמיד לכול יום ויום לכול ימי השנה ארבעה וששים ושלוש‬6 ‫ מאות ולקורבן השבתות שנים וחמשים שיר ולקורבן ראשי‬7 ‫ החודשים ולכול ימי המועדות ולים הכפורים שלושים שיר‬8 ‫ ויהי כול השיר אשר דבר ששה ואבעים וארבע מאות ושיר‬9 ‫ לנגן על הפגו֯ עים ארבעה ויהי הכול ארבעת אלפים וחמשים‬10 ‫ כול אלה דבר בנבואה אשר נתן לו מלפני העליון‬11 2 3 4

And David, the son of Jesse, was wise, and a light like the light of the sun, and a scribe, and discerning, and perfect in all his ways before God and men. And YHWH gave him a discerning and enlightened spirit. And he wrote psalms,

56

Dahmen 2003, 231, n. 576. See a similar argument in Mroczek 2012, 47–48; cf. Mroczek 2016, 118–22. 58 Translation from Sanders 1967, 87, slightly modified. 57

124 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Part III. The Artifacts

3,600; and songs to sing before the altar over the whole-burnt perpetual offering every day, for all the days of the year, 364; and for the offering of the Sabbaths, 52 songs; and for the offering of the New Moons, and for all the Solemn Assemblies and for the Day of Atonement, 30 songs. And all the songs that he spoke were 446, and songs for making music over the stricken, 4. And the total was 4,050. All these he spoke through prophecy which was given him from before the Most High.

Apart from the early suggestions that a prose piece such as DavComp would be incompatible with “scripture,” thus indicating that 11Q5 was not regarded as such,59 much has been made of the enumerated songs, as well as the notion of David as a writer of psalms. Early on, Skehan observed that the numbers attested in DavComp were all divisible by 150 (at least the numbers 450, 3,600, and 4,050), thus indicating a dependence upon a finalized MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, which would have included 150 psalms. Furthermore, he suggested that the number 3,600 related to the 24 courses of Levitical singers in 1 Chr 25 (150 x 24 = 3,600),60 and the idea was picked up and further developed by both Roger T. Beckwith and Ben Zion Wacholder. Beckwith, for one, suggested that the four liturgical uses specified in DavComp could in fact relate to the configuration of several of the ‘psalms’ scrolls, which where understood as liturgical compilations intended to “provide a different psalm for each of the 24 courses of Levitical singers to use on each day of its week of duty.”61 Consequently, there was a direct relation between the numbers attested in DavComp and specific collections. Wacholder, on the other hand, understood the number 24 not as Levitical courses, but as the numerical value for the spelling of David (‫דויד‬, rather than ‫ )דוד‬in Qumran. It implied that “David will have composed (by the end of days) 24 books of tehillim, each containing 150 psalms,”62 and therefore 11Q5 was part of an eschatological collection of praise attributed to the eschatological David ben Jesse.63 Turning to Flint, he proceeded in part from the studies by Michael Chyutin and argued that the 52 psalms mentioned as psalms for the Sabbath offerings were to be identified with 11Q5.64 As previously noted (see above, p. 95), this identification would have an impact on his reconstruction of the scroll (which, 59

So Talmon (see above, n. 8 on p. 105). It was correctly refuted by Flint 1997a, 208. Skehan 1978, 169; cf. Millard 1994, 224, with n. 250. 61 Beckwith 1984, 524. 62 Wacholder 1988, 35. 63 Wacholder 1988, 71–72. 64 A good overview of Chyutin’s work (esp. Chyutin 1994; Chyutin 2002) in relation to Flint’s proposals is found in Flint 1997a, 182–86. Put briefly, Chyutin used DavComp in an advanced (and somewhat implausible) reconstruction of 11Q5 and suggested that 11Q5 was best seen as a sample collection of David’s songs in a calendric sequence. The overall context was understood as a ‘war of the calendars’, where 11Q5 represented a solar calendar and the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms a lunar ditto. 60

Chapter 7. Evaluating the Evidence

125

according to Flint, would have begun with Ps 101 and included Pss 110 and 113–117), as well as his understanding of its structure.65 As an example of the latter, Flint suggested that the last compositions of the scroll, from “David’s Last Words” and onwards, should not be included among the 52 compositions, since they had a distinct function as epilogue.66 The effect of DavComp (and a posited strategic placement of psalms with a Davidic superscription) would then be that David was conceptualized as the author of all the psalms included in 11Q5, both psalms without any attribution, and those attributed to someone else, either in 11Q5 or elsewhere, “however illogical this may seem” (an example of the former would be the Solomonic Ps 127, while the latter would be the inclusion of Sir 51:1–11, 23, elsewhere attributed to Ben Sira).67 These suggestions are, however, all quite problematic, since the presupposed function of DavComp is likely to be mistaken. As argued already by GoshenGottstein, the notion of David as a writer of psalms could hardly be interpreted as attributing Davidic authorship to 11Q5. Rather, the point made would have been that there was “a huge treasure of hymns credited to David,” so that ultimately, the reference was not to some specific arrangement of psalms, but to a more fundamental concept of Davidic psalm writing.68 A similar argument is made by Mroczek, who suggests that DavComp is best understood as an “idealized, imagined list of psalms and songs that a) make a point about the solar calendar, and b) add up to a symbolically significant number, 4,050, that links back to older sapiential traditions and exalts David over Solomon.”69 If so, it would not primarily be concerned with the actual scroll, nor with any collection in particular, but with David as prolific psalmist and liturgical originator.70 In fact, according to Mroczek, he is better understood as a kind of “figurehead of 65

Interestingly, Flint repeats not only the material aspect of Skehan’s argument, but also the notion that Ps 101 is the first psalm in ‘book’ 4 that has a Davidic superscription. Thus, it seems as if he is implicitly presuming that the ones responsible for 11Q5 both had knowledge of, and related specifically to, the MT arrangement (Flint 1997a, 40–41, 181–82, 189; cf. Skehan 1978, 170). 66 However, Flint had some problems with Pss 140 → 134 in this section, and argued that they were probably misplaced (so also Skehan 1973, 196, n. 9; Skehan 1978, 170; Wacholder 1988, 57). 67 Flint 1997a, 194. This is a common idea, see, e.g., Sanders 1967, 11; Wilson 1985b, 635; Wacholder 1988, 68. On Sir 51, as well as other psalms as Davidic compositions in 11Q5, see also Sanders 1964; Sanders 1965; Fabry 1986, 56; Wacholder 1988, 53, 69; Sanders, Charlesworth, & Rietz 1997, 187. Such a suggestion is not entirely unthinkable, as will be seen later in this study (esp. pp. 352–55). 68 Goshen-Gottstein 1966, 27–28. He interpreted such a conclusion as indicating that Davidic authorship was not automatically equivalent to canonicity. 69 Mroczek 2012, 122; cf. Mroczek 2016, 71–78. 70 Mroczek 2012, 141. Cf. Mroczek 2015a, 19: “It does not say that David is the author of this scroll, the Book of Psalms, or any particular, identifiable collection at all.” See also Mroczek 2011, 250–51.

126

Part III. The Artifacts

psalmic activity, used in a kind of ‘branding’ of textual tradition.”71 Although the suggestion that DavComp is not to be interpreted as a (functional) paratext (an epilogue) is very much to the point, the use of ‫ תהלים‬could nevertheless be indicative of a conceptualization of psalmody that included the notion of a specific selection of psalms, as I will argue later.72 To sum up, it seems reasonable to conclude that DavComp does not refer to 11Q5 or any other collection, but rather associates psalmody with David in a more general sense. If correct, DavComp cannot be argued to show that 11Q5 was regarded as a true, scriptural ‘Book’ of Psalms, nor can it be used to show that it was not. Nevertheless, it is still of significance for this study as it provides some clues about how psalms were understood in the late Second Temple period. If related more closely to the observation that several psalms feature Davidic ‘author’ designations, it could actually provide some important pieces to the overall puzzle, as will be seen below (Part VI, esp. pp. 326–32). IV. Structure and Purpose The final aspect to be discussed is the structure of 11Q5, as it has been argued to indicate why it was compiled. One of the first to deal with the issue was Wilson, although his primary interest was not 11Q5 itself, but the light it could shed on the editorial techniques used in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms.73 More specifically, he argued that 11Q5 was arranged with similar techniques as the fourth and fifth ‘books’ of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, and identified five subsections (“segments”) of 11Q5, each concluding with Hallelujah psalms (Pss 101– 148;74 Pss 120–145 [although not concluded by a Hallelujah psalm, but by ‫זואת‬ ‫ ;]לזכרון‬Pss 154–93; Pss 141–Hymn to the Creator; 2 Sam 23–Ps 151B).75 Furthermore, he observed that the psalms he regarded as structurally significant in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms (especially psalms in the ‘seams’ of the collection, and the ‫ יהוה מלך‬psalms from ‘book’ 4) were not included, and so a different editorial purpose was implied. Interpreting this new structure as focusing the

71

Mroczek 2012, 98. Mroczek also proposes that the concept of angelic liturgy could be important for understanding the formation of 11Q5 (262–66). 72 Cf. the observation by Lange 2009, 444, that DavComp makes a distinction between 3,600 “nicht-liturgischen Liedern” (‫ )תהלים‬and songs (‫ )שיר‬explicitly linked to liturgy. See also the discussion of ‫ שיר‬in Bayer 1982, 44. 73 Some observations related to structure had been made earlier, by, for example, Skehan 1978, 168, who, among others, argued that the presence of compositions not found in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms implied a secondary nature of 11Q5, since they were all of a later date. 74 As noted earlier, Wilson fails to reconstruct the beginning of the scroll, thus claiming that Pss 110–117 were absent (Wilson 1997, 453). 75 Wilson 1997, 458–63. There are, however, other suggestions about how Wilson structured 11Q5 (cf. the alternative overviews in Flint 1997a, 187; Jain 2014, 310).

Chapter 7. Evaluating the Evidence

127

“lamentable situation of Jerusalem and the need for divine deliverance,”76 and relating such a notion to both the assertion of authority to the compositions in 11Q5 achieved by DavComp and the observation that the proportion of psalms with a Davidic superscription was higher than in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms (31.1 percent, rather than 27.8 percent), Wilson argued that the entire scroll had a greater emphasis on the Davidic messiah, rather than the kingship of YHWH (which was the focus of the final redaction of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms).77 These ideas were to be picked up by Flint, who proposed that there was no single, overarching structure of 11Q5, but rather five different and partially overlapping “organizing principles”: 1) the solar calendar;78 2) the dispersing of psalms with Davidic superscriptions to create Davidic clusters and permeate the entire collection with a Davidic character; 3) grouping by form or genre (these overlapped with the Davidic clusters in most cases);79 4) arrangement by opening and closing formulae (e.g., the use of Hallelujah described by Wilson);80 and 5) thematic groupings (identified in a way similar to the identification of psalm groups by Zenger).81 The very fact that many of these were similar to the organizational techniques used in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms was interpreted as an indication of the scriptural status of 11Q5.82 Taken together with the posited attribution of all psalms in 11Q5 to David through DavComp, and the sheer number of ‘psalms’ scrolls, Flint concluded that 11Q5 was seen as a “true Davidic Psalter,” the main representative of the ‘Book’ of Psalms among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and thus as authoritative scripture.83 Both the use of statistics and the understanding of the function of DavComp have been called into doubt above, and in fact, the argument that similar organizational techniques would imply a scriptural status is also problematic, simply because it is unwarranted. To take but one example, it is a fact that the use of concluding doxologies is nothing new and thus cannot be linked to some specific idea about scriptural status. The same would apply to many of the other identified techniques, as they are also found in anthologies throughout the ancient Near East. But even if the connection could have been made, there would have been other problems with the suggested interpretation of the structure. 76

Wilson 1997, 463. Wilson 1985b, 635–36; Wilson 1997, 464; cf. Wilson 1985a, 228. 78 Flint 1997a, 192–93. However, this seems to be a principle affecting the selection of psalms, rather than their arrangement. 79 Flint 1997a, 194–95. 80 Flint 1997a, 195, 225–26. 81 Flint 1997a, 196–98. Remarkable here is that some of the identified groups are contradictory. As for Ps 154, for example, Flint argues on page 188 that it “obviously belongs” with Pss 135–145 on the basis of its form. However, on pages 197–98, he rather includes it in a thematic sequence (Pss 154–137). 82 Flint 1998a, 469. 83 Flint 1997a, 224, 7; cf. Flint 2000, 75; Flint 2003, 295–96; Flint 2006, 249. 77

128

Part III. The Artifacts

First, it has been noted by Jain that the beginning of the scroll cannot safely be reconstructed to Ps 101.84 Second, Flint’s idea of an “11QPsa Psalter,” including not only 11Q5 but also 11Q6 and possibly 4Q87, would imply that the collection contained psalms preceding Ps 101. Consequently, any analysis of the structure of such a ‘Psalter’ would have to take its earlier parts, as attested on these scrolls, into consideration, especially if related to the observation made above that the “borders” of a scroll do not necessarily overlap with the “borders” of a collection (see p. 111). In sum, then, although it is difficult to know the beginning of 11Q5, it is quite clear that the suggested “11QPsa Psalter” did not begin with Ps 101,85 and therefore none of the three arguments provided by Flint concerning the status of 11Q5 are sufficient. However, this should not be taken as an indication that 11Q5 was not regarded as authoritative scripture, only that it cannot be shown on these grounds. Further suggestions have been proposed by, not least, Dahmen, Leuenberger, and more recently, Jain.86 As for Jain, she has attempted to account for the unknown beginning of the scroll and reconstructs 11Q5 in five thematically structured parts (Pss x–118–148; Pss 120–145; Pss 154–93; Pss 141–150; and Hymn to the Creator–Ps 151B) with Pss 77–78 as a possible introduction, due to their attestation in 11Q6. Furthermore, she suggests that psalms that are now found juxtaposed in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms were displaced in 11Q5 to create a structural framework (esp. Pss 145–150, but also, for example, Ps 133–134),87 and that this feature, among others, indicated that 11Q5 presupposed a MT arrangement, while at the same time implying that 11Q5 was a work of a different Gattung and function.88 In fact, Jain proposes that the last section provides a hermeneutical key to the entire collection,89 so that 11Q5 can be interpreted as ein Lehr- und Gebetbuch mit allen diesbezüglichen funktionalen Implikationen: Als Lehrbuch dient es der Installation, Rechtfertigung und Reflexion der neuen Kultpraxis. Als Gebetbuch dient es der Ein- und Ausübung der neuen kultischen und liturgischen Praxis abseits des Jerusalemer Tempels, d.h. also zum Lobpreis Jhwhs, zur individuellen bzw. gemeinschaftlichen Erbauung sowie der Konsolidierung der gruppenspezifischen Identität des Jachad.90

This is an interesting proposal, but as with the assessment of Flint, there is nothing in these features that precludes the collection to have been regarded as “authoritative,” or even “scriptural,” so that ultimately, it seems as if the issue 84

See above, p. 95. Cf. Lange 2009, 397–98, who criticizes Dahmen 2003, 30–38, with a similar argument. 86 For an easily accessible overview, see Jain 2014, 310–15. 87 Jain 2014, 254–77. 88 Jain 2014, 280. As noted above, the conclusion that 11Q5 presupposes a MT arrangement are drawn by other scholars as well (see, e.g., Dahmen 2003; Leuenberger 2005, 203–4; Kratz 2012, 236–37; Pajunen 2014b, 156). 89 Jain 2014, 277. 90 Jain 2014, 280. 85

Chapter 7. Evaluating the Evidence

129

cannot be settled by means of analyzing the structure of 11Q5. Furthermore, if not presuming that the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms was finalized before the compilation of 11Q5, one might even question the often narrow focus of comparison. As was seen in the way many of the ‘psalms’ scrolls were configured, other collections are likely to have featured in the same period, and would thus be necessary to include as a backdrop for the gathering of psalms in 11Q5. Put differently, if not assuming that a MT ‘Book’ of Psalms was the primary conversation partner, reconstructions of the purpose (and to some extent also the shape) of 11Q5 would probably be quite different. However, if it could be demonstrated that a MT ‘Book’ of Psalms was in fact widely established, suggestions such as the one presented by Jain would be quite attractive. V. Beyond 11Q5 In sum, none of the four aspects discussed above were able to provide convincing indications concerning the status of 11Q5, and therefore the issue cannot be settled here. In fact, both Wilson and Flint have made similar observations. Distinguishing between the fixation of a specific collection of psalms and its “triumph” over all “competitors,” Wilson suggested that the status of a collection could only be determined by either explicit, contemporary statements, or evidence of usage “consonant with such authority.”91 Furthermore, he made the important observation that individual psalms could have been regarded as authoritative even though a specific arrangement of psalms was not.92 In a similar vein, Flint stated that “[t]he question of whether 11QPsa belongs to a true edition of the Book of Psalms, or is instead a secondary compilation, can only be resolved with recourse to further evidence and additional Psalms scrolls.”93 He then made an attempt to do just that by providing a brief survey of instances where the ‘Book’ of Psalms might have been referred to as a collection, as well as quoted from or alluded to. In this survey, he noted that psalms were regarded as authoritative scripture in Qumran, but that this was not satisfactory, since it had to be possible to somehow study the use of 11Q5 apart from the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms (and vice versa) in order to be able to draw any conclusions about its status.94 The overview left Flint empty handed, and having stated that “it has proved difficult to ascertain by means of secondary usage that this form of the Psalter was regarded as authoritative,” he returned (surprisingly so) to the idea that “any definitive decision on the status of 11QPsa should be reached via recourse to the manuscript itself.”95

91

Wilson 1985b, 639–40. Wilson 1985b, 640. 93 Flint 1997a, 216–17. 94 Flint 1997a, 222. See also, e.g., Lange 2009, 420–25, 437–39. 95 Flint 1997a, 224. 92

130

Part III. The Artifacts

As I indicated in the introduction to this study, and again in the overview of ancient anthologies, it is important to bring a different set of material to the discussion, in the way suggested here. Although Flint concluded that his survey provided insufficient results, I believe that more is to be done in this area, as a closer examination of texts bearing witness to a use of, or themselves using, a ‘Book’ of Psalms could reveal important clues about both the status of 11Q5 and the broader issue of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. Taken together with the observation that it would be important to search possible traces of formative stages, I will return to these questions in Part V (pp. 287–366), where I will give an overview of a broad set of texts from the Hebrew Bible up until the second century CE that are using psalms in various ways. Consequently, the question of the status of 11Q5 has to be postponed until then.

Overview and Outlook What, then, has this inquiry into the ‘psalms’ scrolls shown? If returning to the Qumran Psalms Hypothesis as formulated by Sanders and developed by Wilson and Flint, I have primarily discussed points 1, 2 and 4 (leaving the question of provenance aside).1 As for the first point, I argued that the statistics used by Flint and Wilson to support the idea of a gradual stabilization, alternatively a stabilization in two parts, was potentially misleading. If rather taking into account other material aspects, such as the length of the scrolls, the possible setting and function, and their state of preservation, the material indicated that sequences overlapping with all parts of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms were to be found among the ‘psalms’ scrolls, although greater variation occurred in some clusters, especially around Pss 103–106 (109), 118–119, and 133–150. Related to the second point which was developed by Flint into an idea of three main ‘editions’, I claimed that such a notion was both anachronistic and unwarranted in relation to the material. Rather, a number of various collections were found, and so, the notion that 11Q5 would have been the main representative of the ‘Book’ of Psalms in the scrolls was only correct in relation to its state of preservation, but saying less about how it was appreciated by its contemporaries. Such a conclusion also rendered the fourth point as impossible to assess based solely on the material surveyed here. Consequently, an answer had to be postponed until Part V. What this overview did show, however, was that a focus solely, or even mainly, on 11Q5 is not entirely warranted. It also showed that it is not warranted to take the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms as a “default” point of comparison when reconstructing the formation and purpose(s) of 11Q5. Ultimately, it was not possible to know whether a collection entirely overlapping with the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms was once present among the scrolls. Many of the manuscripts surely pointed in such a direction, but neither statistics, nor theoretical reconstructions were enough, although they did indicate what kind of formative process should be expected, a process quite in line with the observations made in Part II. If taking the witness of the ‘psalms’ scrolls at face value, one would have to assume that a great number of collections of psalms would have existed simultaneously during the entire process of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. These would probably have included both 1

The points are introduced above, pp. 104–5.

132

Overview and Outlook

psalms eventually preserved in the MT collection and psalms that are no longer known, and the sequences in which they are arranged would have exhibited great variation. Consequently, it is no longer possible to assume without some qualification that the configuration of psalms now found in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms is the end result of a linear process where each subsequent stage looked somewhat similar to the preceding one. Instead, a quite complex and somewhat messy process would be more reasonable, and this is also well in line with the observations made in Part II (see, esp. pp. 39–49). In fact, it seems as if the basic “authoritative” unit was the individual psalm itself, possible to juxtapose in a great number of ways, and consequently strengthening the notion of the ‘Book’ of Psalms as an anthology, as well as the possible relation between anthologization and canonization. Nonetheless, it does seem as if some psalms were regularly – and perhaps even increasingly – transmitted in similar sequences, and that these sequences would eventually be quite fixed. Consequently, the processes of formation would not have been random, and to complement these observations, it would be necessary to search for traces of possible formative stages of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms throughout the ‘psalms’ scrolls. I will now turn, then, to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms proper to search for, and analyze, its possible paratexts.

Part IV

In Search of the Artificial

Introduction In this part of the study, I will trace possible paratexts in the ‘Book’ of Psalms and discuss their function within the collection. I will proceed from the collection now known as the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, both as it is the sequence of psalms that would eventually survive through the first centuries CE alongside the LXX ‘Book’ of Psalms, and as it is one of the most attested arrangements of psalms throughout the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls. As such, it could provide important clues about the vibrant formative process(es) of which the artifacts gave several frozen snapshots. However, throughout the following chapters, I will not focus exclusively on that arrangement, but rather use it as a point of departure when relating various configurations of psalms to each other. The discussion is structured fairly straightforwardly. In each of the five consecutive chapters, I will discuss a demarcated type of paratext. Chapter 8 (pp. 136–71) deals with the suggestion that Pss 1–2 are to be understood as a preface (of sorts) to the MT and the LXX ‘Book’ of Psalms, Chapter 9 (pp. 172–95) analyses the various superscriptions (and subscriptions) in the ‘Book’ of Psalms, and Chapter 10 (pp. 196–201) focuses on Ps 72:20 as a possible colophon. The last two chapters discuss various kinds of doxologies. In Chapter 11, I inquire into the so-called ‘book’ dividers (pp. 202–43), and last, in Chapter 12 (pp. 244–86), I focus on the possible concluding function of Pss 145.146–150, the final Hallel. Conclusions drawn throughout the chapters will then be summarized in a final overview and outlook on pp. 284–86.

Chapter 8

Psalms 1–2 as Preface As the first two psalms in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, Pss 1–2 have been argued to perform paratextual functions. Proceeding from observations about their placement at the beginning of the collection, their lack of superscriptions, their peculiar characters as a torah psalm and royal psalm respectively, and, not least, their overlapping vocabulary, recent scholarship has regarded them as having the function of a preface to the ‘Book’ of Psalms (although some include only Ps 1). In such a view, they provide interpretive tools for the psalms that follow, ultimately affecting the understanding of the entire collection itself. As noted in the introduction, Mowinckel suggested early on that Ps 1 was to be seen as a “kind of ‘motto’”1 for the collection, while Westermann proposed that Pss 1 and 119 constituted a framework in which “the Psalter, as a collection, no longer had a cultic function primarily, but rather circulated in a tradition devoted to the law.” As a consequence, the ‘Book’ of Psalms had now become the “word of God” which was to be “read, studied, and meditated upon.”2 Further developed by Childs and Wilson, the placing of Ps 1 as preface was seen as significant in the “scripturalization” of the collection as “Israel’s words of response to her God have now become the Word of God to Israel.”3 Being only a snapshot of scholarly discussion, a similar understanding is shared by many, and although aspects of its specific function(s) are still being discussed (not least the relation between Pss 1 and 2), the proposed prefatorial function (of at least Ps 1) could be described as a consensus view.4 Consequently, it would be of importance to discuss this issue here, and it will be done in several steps. First, I will provide analyses of Pss 1–2 respectively, noting aspects of each psalm that have been argued to point to prefatorial functions, as well as redactional combinations of the two. These analyses will then provide the foundation for my discussion on

1

Mowinckel 1967, 2:197. Westermann 1981, 253. 3 Quote from Wilson 1985a, 206; see also Childs 1979, 513; cf. McCann Jr. 1992, 121; Auwers 2000, 128–29. 4 Such a notion, although using slightly different vocabulary, is found in, e.g., Marböck 1986, 211; Seybold 1990, 15; McCann Jr. 1992, 118–20; Mays 1993, 16; Miller 1993, 85; Zenger 1993; Millard 1994, 237–38; Wilson 1993a, 80; deClaissé-Walford 1997, 43; Weber 2006, 248–53; Hartenstein & Janowski 2012, 1–6; deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 56–57; Longman III 2014, 35, etc. 2

Chapter 8. Psalms 1–2 as Preface

137

the issues of prefatorial functions and redactional combinations. Although often treated in combination, I will discuss them as two separate issues, since indications of the latter do not necessarily serve as an argument for the former.

A. The Psalms in Question I. Psalm 1 Stanza I: The Righteous 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 3a 3b 3c 3d

Happy is the human who does not walk in the counsel of wicked, and does not stand in the way of sinners, and does not sit in the place of scoffers. But delights in the torah of YHWH and meditates in his torah day and night. He is like a tree transplanted by water streams which yields its fruit in season, and whose leaves do not wither. All that he does prospers.

‫לא־כן הרשעים‬ ‫כי אם־כמץ אשר־תדפנו רוח‬ ‫על־כן לא־יקמו רשעים במשפט‬

4a 4b 5a

‫וחטאים בעדת צדיקים‬

5b

Not so with the wicked, they are like a chaff that the wind drives away. Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgement, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous,

6a 6b

for YHWH knows the way of the righteous and the way of the wicked shall perish.

‫אשרי־האיש אשר‬ ‫לא הלך בעצת רשעים‬ ‫ובדרך חטאים לא עמד‬ ‫ובמושב לצים לא ישב‬ ‫כי אם בתורת יהוה חפצו‬ ‫ובתורתו יהגה יומם ולילה‬ ‫והיה כעץ שתול על־פלגי מים‬ ‫אשר פריו יתן בעתו‬ ‫ועלהו לא־יבול‬ ‫וכל אשר־יעשה יצליח‬

Stanza II: The Wicked

Stanza III: Summary ‫כי־יודע יהוה דרך צדיקים‬ ‫ודרך רשעים תאבד‬

As outlined here, the basic thrust of the psalm is the contrasting of the ways of the righteous and the wicked, and three parts could be demarcated.5 The first part (vv. 1–3) focuses on the characteristics of the righteous (portrayed via negativa in v. 1). Here, the wicked serve only as backdrop. The second stanza (vv. 4–5) depicts the wicked, while the righteous are bystanders. In the last verse (v. 6), both righteous and wicked are in focus in a final contrast. Understood in such a way, there is a correlation between the two first stanzas. The righteous

5

For an overview of alternative structures, see Collins 2005, who divides the psalm into vv. 1–2; 3–4; 5–6 (see also Wilson 2002a, 1:93). The view proposed here is also found in, e.g., Miller 1986, 81; Hossfeld & Zenger 1993, 45; Craigie & Tate 2004, 58–60; Goldingay 2006, 81–90; Hartenstein & Janowski 2012, 11, 16; Longman III 2014, 56.

138

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

and the wicked are both portrayed by means of a simile (v. 3a–c; cf. v. 4b), followed by a description of the outcome of their respective ways of life (v. 3d; cf. v. 5). 1. A Brief Walkthrough The psalm opens with a macarism (‫)אשרי־האיש‬. It is a common expression in the ‘Book’ of Psalms (26 of the 44 occurrences in the Hebrew Bible are found here), and its function in Ps 1 is to portray the goal and outcome of a righteous way of life.6 Put differently, the psalm suggests that happiness will be pronounced over anyone that walks the same path as the righteous one. Ultimately, it is there that “God’s beneficent support of life” is to be found.7 As it stands outside the parallelism of the following tricolon (v. 1b–d), it could be argued that this macarism is set apart, almost as a title, and McCann has suggested that it could be seen as an interpretive clue, not only for Ps 1, but for the entire ‘Book’ of Psalms.8 However, although the first line probably functioned as a title by means of being the incipit of the psalm, the use of ‫“( אשר‬who”) in v. 1a indicates that the first line is fully integral to the psalm, and is thus unlikely to have any distinct interpretive importance. It is also to be noted that although it is no acrostic, the psalm has a movement from ‫ א‬to ‫ת‬.9 Moving on to v. 1b–d, the righteous one is described as avoiding the company of the “wicked” (‫)רשעים‬, an adjective often used in the ‘Book’ of Psalms to describe the psalmist’s antagonist[s], and which is regularly used in parallel to the righteous (‫)צדיקים‬, the “sinners” (‫)חטאים‬, and the “scoffers” (‫)לצים‬. The verbs employed, “walk” (‫)הלך‬, “stand” (‫)עמד‬, and “sit” (‫ )ישב‬provide a possible parallel to Deut 6:7, where Moses exhorts the people to “recite them [the words of the torah] to your children and talk about them as you sit in your house, and as you walk on the way, and as you lie down, and as you rise” (‫ושננתם לבניך‬ ‫)ודברת בם בשבתך בביתך ובלכתך בדרך ובשכבך ובקומך‬.10 By the adversative ‫כי אם‬, vv. 2–3 characterize the righteous as someone delighting in the “torah of YHWH” (‫)תורת יהוה‬, meditating (‫ )הגה‬on it day and night. A simile further depicts him/her as a transplanted (‫ )שתול‬fruit tree, leading up to a statement of the outcome of a righteous life (v. 3d). Despite the shortness of the metaphor, these two verses have been at the very center of the discussion of the possible prefatorial function of Ps 1, and interpretation hinges 6

Cf. Kratz 2013, 283. The quote is from Mays 2011, 41. He also suggests a fundamental difference between ‫ ברך‬and ‫ אשרי‬in that while the former invokes such a support, the latter “commends the conduct and character that enjoy it” (see also Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 29, who note that ‫ ברך‬is more often used in liturgical settings). 8 McCann Jr. 1996, 683–84. 9 Cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 1993, 45; Cole 2012, 46; Hartenstein & Janowski 2012, 15. 10 Cf. Reif 1984; Zenger 1993, 41; Goldingay 2006, 82; Hartenstein & Janowski 2012, 13. 7

Chapter 8. Psalms 1–2 as Preface

139

on how to understand the three main features: the torah in v. 2a, the act of meditation in v. 2b, and the metaphor in v. 3. Consequently, I will return to these issues shortly. In the second stanza, vv. 4–5, focus is on the wicked, who are conceptualized as “a chaff” (‫)מץ‬, dispersed by the wind (v. 4). From the 8 occurrences of ‫ מץ‬in the Hebrew Bible, it can be deduced that the imagery is likely to convey the notion of judgment (cf. Isa 17:13, 29:5, 41:15, Hos 13:3, Zeph 2:2, Ps 35:5, and Job 21:18), a notion made explicit in v. 5. The verse forms a bicolon. The first line claims that the wicked (‫רשעים‬, cf. v. 1b) shall not stand (‫קום‬, cf. ‫ עמד‬in v. 1c and Nah 1:6) in judgment,11 and the second portrays the same situation, but with different terms. Here, it is the sinners (‫חטאים‬, cf. v. 1c) who shall not stand in the assembly of the righteous (‫)בעדת צדיקים‬, thus a contrast is established back to v. 1. As the righteous shall not stand among the wicked, so the wicked cannot stand among the righteous.12 That the inherent outcome of the wicked life is destruction is made clear in the last, summative verse. Here, YHWH appears as an active agent for the first time. The righteous shall prosper “for” (‫ )כי‬YHWH knows his way, but the wicked shall not stand in judgment, for YHWH shall make his way “perish” (‫)אבד‬. The latter is not explicit, but as for ‫( אבד‬qal), there are two basic meanings, to perish and to become lost, and it is most often used to speak of divine judgment.13 The nature of such a judgment has been debated. Peter C. Craigie, for one, suggests that v. 5 indicates that “the wicked hold no weight or influence in the important areas of human society,”14 while others have understood vv. 5–6 as depicting a grand, eschatological judgment.15 Although the end of the wicked is certainly pushed into the future (cf. Ps 73, esp. vv. 17–20), the basic meaning of the verses in the context of this psalm seems to be that the inherent outcome of a wicked life is destruction.

11

See also Hartenstein & Janowski 2012, 41. For Nah 1:6, see, e.g., Hossfeld & Zenger 1993, 48. 12 Cf. Miller 1986, 82. Consequently, it is not necessary to regard the appearance of the righteous as a gloss, as did some early commentators (Goldingay 2006, 85; cf., e.g., Arbez 1945, 403). 13 See, e.g., Ps 5:4–6, 21:8–12, cf. Van Dam 1997, 224; Otzen 1974, 20–22). 14 Craigie & Tate 2004, 61. 15 Cf. Cole 2012, 71–74. See also the reception of the verse in the Psalms Targum (“the wicked do not stand in the great day of judgment,” ‫לא יזכון יקומון רשיעי ביומא דינא רבא‬, possibly expanding on the definite article in the MT, so Stec 2004, 29; cf. Gillingham 2013, 73), or the notion of resurrection (from death) in the LXX (οὐκ ἀναστήσονται, cf. Hartenstein & Janowski 2012, 41).

140

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

2. Meditating on the Torah If this is a valid outline of the psalm, the first observation to be made as I now turn more directly to the features often argued as being central to the notion of a prefatorial function is that vv. 2–3 constitute an essential part of the characterization of the righteous. The verb regularly translated as “meditating” (‫ )הגה‬is difficult to translate since it might evoke a set of connotations that is plausibly quite different from those associated with the term in the ancient world. Rather than some inner, spiritual, and primarily quiet exercise, the 22 occurrences of ‫( הגה‬qal) in the Hebrew Bible indicate a far broader set of meanings, ranging from “moan,” “utter inarticulate sounds,” and “growl” to “speak,” “plot” and even “sing,”16 and it can have both human and animals as subjects. Moreover, the verb seems often to be associated with some sort of sound, thus somewhat intertwining thought and speech.17 Because of this, a common conceptualization of the verse has been as depicting a pious exercise, some kind of “subvocalized reading.”18 Consider, for example, the old commentary by Hans Schmidt: Über die Schriftrolle gebeugt, “murmelnd,” wie das sonst z. B. vom Gurren der Tauben gebrauchte Wort eigentlich heißt, also halblaut lesend, um sich einzuprägen, was Gott in der Schrift gebietet, so sieht man den hier Gegrüßten Tag für Tag, und auch des Nachts sitzt er so beim Schein seiner Öllampe.… Man lebt in dieser Zeit in seiner Frömmigkeit nicht mehr aus einer unmittelbaren Erfahrung von Gott. Die Stimme seiner lebendigen Boten, der Propheten ist verstummt. Dafür hat man das heilige Buch, das gebietet in der Religion. Es ist eine Spätzeit, eine Zeit der Epigonen.19

Although almost a cliché, it captures something of an idea of a private piety (torah piety) setting, which is regularly associated with wisdom traditions, and thus implying that the cult is no longer in view. If connected to the notion of Ps 1 as preface, such an interpretation would then illustrate the understanding of the use implied for the entire collection. In fact, this is what Wilson suggests when he proposes that Ps 1 indicates that the ‘Book’ of Psalms is now to be “read rather than to be performed; to be meditated over rather than to be recited from.”20 However, such dichotomies are not entirely warranted.21 Rather, if un16

Ringgren & Negoita 1978, 321–23; Koehler, Baumgartner, & Stamm 1995, 237; Van Pelt & Kaiser Jr. 1997, 1007; Clines 2011, 2:487. 17 For a study on ancient meditative recitation, see Stordalen 2013. 18 Weber 2006, 245; cf. Wilson 2002a, 1:96; Craigie & Tate 2004, 60; Hartenstein & Janowski 2012, 27–28. 19 Schmidt 1934, 1–2; cf. Duhm 1899, 3. 20 Wilson 1985a, 207 (emphases original). Other readings have also been proposed, see, e.g., LeFebvre 2005, who argues that it should best be understood as singing, and that psalmody in general could have performed the function of “surrogate texts for torahcontemplation” (225). Ultimately, then, Ps 1 would itself be designed for memorization and recitation through singing (see also Martin 2010, 720–24, who stresses the affective

Chapter 8. Psalms 1–2 as Preface

141

derstood as a part of the characterization of the righteous, I would argue that v. 2 does not depict a context as much as a habit. In the identified parallel in Deut 6:7, Moses encourages his audience to keep the words just recited in their hearts (‫)על־לבבך‬.22 In other words, they are to integrate them into all aspects of their lives (at home, away, lying down, rising up, binding around the hand, and so on, see vv. 6–9), and consequently, this could also be the basic thrust of Ps 1:2, especially in light of the notion of this activity taking place “day and night” (‫)יומם ולילה‬. If correct, the verse would not describe a scribe never leaving his or her desk, but rather a righteous one so impregnated with the torah of YHWH that it affects all aspects of his or her life, giving constant guiding.23 Relating Ps 1 to Deut 6:7, Hossfeld and Zenger also propose an understanding of ‫ הגה‬as recitation,24 and this is an appealing suggestion, indicating that it would not only be for personal edification, but also have others in view. Moving on, Terje Stordalen has pointed out that meditative practices were, in classical Hebrew traditions, “prompted by or focused upon written or oral/ aural texts.”25 In his study, he then argues that a trajectory could possibly be identified between classical torah piety and late wisdom poems, and hence, it could possibly give some clues about the object of meditation.26 Consequently, I now turn to this issue, followed by an inquiry into the purpose of the activity. 3. On What? While it is clear that the object of meditation is the torah of YHWH (‫)תורת יהוה‬, it is not clear what torah actually refers to in this context. Consequently, some alternatives have been proposed. Proceeding from several studies that argued that torah should not be understood in some narrow, legalistic way, McCann suggests that Ps 1 likely evokes the basic meaning of instruction.27 Related to the idea of Ps 1 being deliberately placed as preface to the ‘Book’ of Psalms, McCann then proposes that the effect would be to invite the “reader to receive all the material which follows in the Book of Psalms as a source of God’s in-

dimension of ‫)הגה‬. Although the connection between psalmody and the torah of Moses is interesting (see also more recently LeFebvre 2016), it is a fact that ‫ הגה‬is associated with singing in only two of the eleven occurrences (Pss 35:28, 71:23–24), hence rendering the suggestion quite unlikely. 21 As noted by Nasuti 2014, 15, the dichotomy falls apart even in Wilson’s own work. 22 There is also a possible connection to the ideal ruler, who should read and observe the law all the days of his life (Deut 17:19; cf. Miller 1993, 91–92). 23 Miller 1986, 83. See, however, 1QS 6 6–8 for a quite literal interpretation (cf. Millard 1994, 214). 24 Hossfeld & Zenger 1993, 47. 25 Stordalen 2013, 24. 26 Stordalen 2013, 30. 27 McCann Jr. 1992, 118–22, informed by, i.a., Mays 1987; Levenson 1987.

142

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

struction.”28 Hence, the ‘Book’ of Psalms was now to be understood as (part of) the torah of YHWH, and consequently, as “authoritative scripture.”29 Such an idea has, then, been developed in many directions, so that the prefatorial function of Ps 1 emanates even clearer.30 Taken together with Ps 2, it has been suggested that the psalms introduce basic themes of the ‘Book’ of Psalms,31 and that the status of the collection, as related to the Pentateuch, would be further emphasized. If so, the psalm would have had a primary literary function, and Mays provides a good summary of the view in suggesting that Ps 1 identifies the function of the book. The book is torah of the Lord. Torah means instruction, teaching, direction that can be given in various literary forms. The psalms provide torah that can be learned by study and meditation. It is scripture where one learns about God and God’s way with the world. This identification concerns the comprehensive use of the psalms gathered into the book. It does not deny that many are written to function as prayers and hymns of praise. In the book, the hymns and prayers are to be read as torah of the Lord.32

However, it is not clear-cut that torah should be interpreted in such a way. Whybray, Jean-Marie Auwers, and Reinhard G. Kratz, have, for instance, all argued that torah more plausibly refers to some other text, possibly even the Pentateuch (in whatever form).33 As for Kratz, he argues that torah in v. 2a and 2b both refer to the same entity (“Größe”)34 and that this entity is something else than the ‘Book’ of Psalms, although the referent is not made explicit.35 By tracing the expression through 1–2 Chronicles, he then suggests that the notion of a torah of YHWH relates to an emanating corpus of scriptures, so that Ps 1 alludes to and places the ‘Book’ of Psalms in dialogue with it.36 By extension, the ‘Book’ of Psalms would eventually be included within such a notion of scripture.

28

McCann Jr. 1992, 119. See also Seybold 1990, 15; Zenger 1993, 44; deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 59; Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 31. 30 See, e.g., Brueggemann 1991; Zenger 1993; Millard 1994, 127–28; Wilson 2002b, 105; Weber 2006; Janowski 2010, 299. 31 E.g. Miller 1993, 85; Mays 1994, 122; deClaissé-Walford 1997, 41–48; Høgenhaven 2001; Cole 2012, 57. 32 Mays 1994, 121–22. 33 Whybray 1996, 38–42; Auwers 2000, 127; Kratz 2013, 284. See also Botha 2005. 34 Some early commentators argued that the repetition was mistaken, and thus in need of emendation, but that is not necessary (for an early rebuttal, see Arbez 1945, 403). 35 Kratz 2013, 284; cf. Hartenstein & Janowski 2012, 29. For an early indication of the interpretation of the two occurrences of torah as synonymous, see b. ‘Abod. Zar. 19a (cf. Zenger 1993, 44), which reads “At the beginning [of this verse] the Torah is assigned to the Holy One, blessed be He, but at the end it is assigned to him [who studies it]” (translation from Epstein 2014, n.p.). Here, it is quite clear that torah does not refer to the ‘Book’ of Psalms. 36 Kratz 2013, 284–87. See also, e.g., Sarna 1993, 27–29. 29

Chapter 8. Psalms 1–2 as Preface

143

As for Whybray, he notes that ‫ הגה‬regularly refers to “an acknowledged written corpus,” and observes that when it does, it is never to any other “substantial written corpus except the Law of Moses.”37 Hence, Ps 1 cannot be argued to promote a specific reading of the psalms, since it would implicate that “[à] prendre le macarisme du Ps 1 au pied de la lettre, le lecteur devrait abandonner aussitôt le Psautier pour s’absorber dans la méditation des cinq livres de Moïse.”38 Basically, the verse is to be understood as referring to something other than a ‘Book’ of Psalms, and a brief recapitulation of some of the texts overlapping with Ps 1 would illustrate this further. The expression ‫ תורת יהוה‬is only used 19 times throughout the Hebrew Bible. The first two are in Exod 13:9 and 2 Kgs 10:31, where the context is the law given through Moses, although not specified as written down (at least not in the immediate literary context). Such a connection is made, however, in Jer 8:8, and in six of the ten occurrences throughout Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. Here, the torah of YHWH is described as either a “scroll” (‫ספר‬, e.g. Neh 9:3, 2 Chr 17:9, 34:14) or as “written” (‫כתוב‬, e.g., 1 Chr 16:40, 2 Chr 31:3, 35:26),39 and one passage perhaps indicates that the expression had come to relate also to historical narratives (2 Chr 35:26).40 Of the remaining six occurrences, three are in Isa 5:24, 30:9, and Am 2:4 respectively, where the referent is not quite as clear, although it is used as the basis for YHWH’s judgment of the people, and three are in the ‘Book’ of Psalms (Pss 1, 19, and 119). From this, it would perhaps be possible to argue that in the postexilic period, ‫תורת‬ ‫ יהוה‬was regularly associated with a law of Moses, and if so, it would probably be the sense of the expression in Ps 1 as well, at least by its time of addition to the collection. The similarities between v. 2b and Josh 1:8 lend even more credence to such a view: Ps 1:2b ‫ובתורתו יהגה יומם ולילה‬ and meditates in his torah day and night Josh 1:8 ‫לא־ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך והגית בו יומם ולילה‬ This torah scroll shall not depart from your mouth and you shall meditate on it day and night

As seen here, all the words from Ps 1:2b occur also in Josh 1:8, but in the latter, it is made explicit that the referent is a written text (‫ )ספר‬closely associated

37

Whybray 1996, 38–39; cf. LeFebvre 2016, 440–44. So Auwers 2000, 127, although his own position is that the psalms are now to be viewed as torah. 39 See also López & Fabry 2006, 634. 40 Cf. Kratz 2013, 285–86. 38

144

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

with Moses (see v. 7).41 The relation between the texts could imply a literary dependence, although the direction is not straightforward, but it would, at least, be reasonable to posit that both passages perform similar functions: to stress the importance of the torah of Moses. If so, it would follow that Ps 1 directs its reader, not to any collection of psalms, but to instructions given to (or through) Moses.42 The shape of such a corpus of instructions would, then, essentially depend on a possible date of Ps 1, but interesting is that torah seems to serve as a guide to a righteous life.43 Ultimately, I would argue that a fundamental problem with the idea that the referent of ‫ תורה‬would be the (a?) ‘Book’ of Psalms is that it proceeds from the presupposition that a specific arrangement of psalms, as written on a specific scroll, “prefaced” with Ps 1 was now regarded as authoritative so that all psalms belonging to this very sequence were then also scriptural. Although the ‘psalms’ scrolls could warrant a notion of psalms as being increasingly transmitted alongside other authoritative texts, and thus eventually becoming authoritative themselves, it does not necessarily imply that a specific sequence of psalms had such a status. At the very least, it would be necessary to relate every discussion of an intended prefatorial function of Ps 1 to an attempt to reconstruct the shape of the collection to which it would have been added, and it should not be assumed that it looked like (parts of) the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. Furthermore, the idea that the prefacing of a psalm would effect not only how the psalms on the scroll are read, but would ultimately partake in their transformation into the “word of God” seems a bit overstated.44

41

It should perhaps be noted that some would see Josh 1:8 as a later insertion to vv. 1–9 (see, e.g., the discussion in Butler 1983, 5–9). 42 Cf. Sheppard 1992, 153, who also argues that “the Psalms” are thereby perceived as an “illuminating commentary” on the Torah. 43 Sheppard 1980, 142. It should be noted that some have posited that the similarities between the two passages indicate some canon consciousness, that is, that the two ‘major’ sections of the Hebrew Bible are similarly introduced, and that a consequence would be that the ‘Book’ of Psalms is perceived as a continuation of the Torah (so, e.g., Auwers 2010, 89; cf. Sheppard 1980, 141–42; Seybold 1990, 15; Kratz 2013, 305). Zenger 1993, 41–43, has also suggested some connections between the third part of the canon and the two preceding ones, e.g., between Ps 1 and Mal 3 [see also Millard 1994, 128; Barbiero 1999, 34; Cole 2012, 73], and Ps 2 and Nah 1, so that the ‘Book’ of Psalms is now “als ‘autoritatives Schriftwerk’ neben Tora und Nebiim zu stellen, sondern sie zugleich als Meditationstexte über Tora und Nebiim zu kennzeichnen,” cf. Hartenstein & Janowski 2012, 45–46). Although the relating of psalmody to torah is reasonable, the notion of a tripartite division of a “fixed” canon is quite unwarranted. 44 For an alternative driving force behind such a transformation, see Willgren Fca.

Chapter 8. Psalms 1–2 as Preface

145

4. For What? Proceeding from v. 2, it would be reasonable to propose that the purpose of the “meditation” is a transformed life.45 In this verse, the torah of YHWH turns into the torah of the righteous (‫תורתו‬, v. 2b),46 and this notion is further expanded on by the simile of v. 3. As noted by most scholars, there is a possible conceptual background to v. 3 in the Instruction of Amen-em-Opet 4 1–12.47 In the latter, a contrast is set, and as in Ps 1, focus is on the outcome of the two ways. While the antagonist is uprooted and destroyed, the protagonist stands firm in the garden. This is also the case in Jer 17:(5–6)7–8. Consider the two passages below: Ps 1:1, 3 ‫ אשרי־האיש אשר‬1 ‫ והיה כעץ שתול על־פלגי מים אשר פריו יתן בעתו ועלהו לא־יבול וכל אשר־יעשה יצליח‬3 1 3

Happy is the human who … He is like a tree transplanted by water streams which yields its fruit in season, and whose leaves does not whither. All that he does prospers. Jer 17:7–8 ‫ ברוך הגבר אשר יבטח ביהוה והיה יהוה מבטחו‬7 ‫ והיה כעץ שתול על־מים ועל־יובל ישלח שרשיו ולא ירא כי־יבא חם והיה עלהו רענן ובשנת‬8 ‫בצרת לא ידאג ולא ימיש מעשות פרי‬

7 Blessed is the man who trusts in YHWH and whose trust is in YHWH. 8 He is like a tree transplanted by water sending out its roots by the stream. It shall not fear when heat comes, and its leaves shall stay green and in the year of drought, it is not anxious and it does not cease to bear fruit.

Both passages clearly make use of a similar metaphor to describe the prospering of the righteous, featuring similar notions of trees being transplanted by water streams, the bearing of fruit, and the continuous vitality of the leaves (aspects also shared with the Instruction of Amen-em-Opet).48 However, as the texts are not identical, the way one assesses their relationship could be significant. First, it is to be noted that Jer 17:7 uses ‫ברוך‬, rather than ‫( אשרי‬Ps 1:1), and that the blessedness of the man is portrayed positively, rather than via neg-

45

On this aspect of meditation, see also Stordalen 2013, 27. See also above, n. 35. 47 The passage reads as follows: “1 As for the heated man of a temple, 2 He is like a tree growing in the open. 3 In the completion of a moment (comes) its loss of foliage, 4 And its end is reached in the shipyards; 5 (Or) it is floated far from its place, 6 And the flame is its burial shroud. 7 (But) the truly silent man holds himself apart. 8 He is like a tree growing in a garden. 9 It flourishes and doubles its yield; 10 It (stands) before its lord. 11 Its fruit is sweet; its shade is pleasant; 12 And its end is reached in the garden” (translation from Pritchard 1969, 422, emphases mine). Hartenstein & Janowski 2012, 38–39, also point to Prov 11:28– 30 as an interesting parallel passage. 48 For an overview of tree metaphors in the Hebrew Bible, see Stordalen 2000, 86–92. 46

146

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

ativa. Furthermore, although both passages use the term ‫שתול‬, Ps 1:3a depicts the tree as transplanted by “water streams” (‫)פלגי מים‬, while Jer 17:8 has “water” (‫)מים‬, and “stream” (‫)יובל‬. Moreover, they differ over the description of the fruit bearing (‫ נתן‬in Ps 1, ‫ עשה‬in Jer 17:8) and the conceptualized vitality of the leaves. Taking the similarities as an indication of literary dependence, Creach has argued for the dependence of Ps 1 on Jer 17. Based on, among others, the observation that the way of structuring the metaphor indicates that Jeremiah follows the Instruction of Amen-em-Opet more closely than Ps 1 does, Creach proposes that Ps 1 uses Jer 17 by means of deliberate alterations, and suggests that Ezek 47:12 could be understood as a passage influencing the way such alterations were made.49 Although the notion of literary dependence is somewhat unconvincing, many of the observations made concerning the overlaps between the two passages are illuminating, and some should be mentioned here. First to be noted is the observation that “stream” (‫ )פלג‬regularly occurs to describe the water that flows from a holy mountain (see especially Pss 46:5 and 65:10), so that the image in Ps 1 could be understood to convey the notion of a tree “made secure by the temple stream.”50 Second, Creach suggests that such a security is not attained in Ps 1 by primarily trusting YHWH (as Jer 17:8), nor by situating oneself within the temple precincts, but by “meditation” on the torah of YHWH. This leads Creach to the conclusion that the torah of YHWH is perhaps to be seen as replacing the temple, and interestingly, this has also been argued by, for example, Zenger, but from another direction.51 By relating Ps 1 to Ps 2, especially to the seeking refuge (‫ )חסה‬in YHWH of v. 12, and by arguing that this place of refuge is now sought by “meditating” on the torah, the identification of torah with the ‘Book’ of Psalms would then imply that the very collection itself is conceptualized as a temple.52 Although both readings are elegant, it should be said that the basic function of a simile is regularly not to suggest that the topic replaces the vehicle, rather that the topic is conceptualized through the vehicle. Hence, even if relating the righteous to the tree and the torah to the water streams in a fairly strict reading, it would be a quite unnatural reading to suggest that torah has thereby superseded the temple. In fact, the opposite might be more to the point, namely that the verse brings torah and the temple more closely together. Ultimately, the simile portrays a transformation of the one meditating on torah. If so, the use of ‫“( שתול‬transplanted”), rather than ‫“( נטע‬planted”) could be indicative, as the 49

Creach 1999. For the argument on literary dependence, see esp. 37–39. Creach 1999, 43, with n. 25; cf. Goldingay 2006, 85. 51 Creach 1999, 45–46. See also the slightly different position argued by Cole 2012, 64– 68, who proposes that an eschatological sanctuary garden is envisaged, and that the “man” (‫ )האיש‬is conceptualized as an eschatological priest-king. 52 Zenger 1998b, 38. See further below, p. 169. 50

Chapter 8. Psalms 1–2 as Preface

147

result of the meditation is a life in the presence of YHWH. Furthermore, it is to be noted that if compared to Jer 17, Ps 1 in fact lacks any explicit notion of taking refuge or trusting in YHWH. In sum, there is nothing apparent in the psalm itself that would warrant the notion of it being a preface. In fact, had it not been known as the first psalm in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, it is doubtful, for example, that torah would have even been considered as alluding to a specific collection of psalms, far less functioning as a reading instruction. However, it could (reasonably) be said that a later paratextual function intended by the compilers of a collection of psalms need not necessarily overlap with the original meaning of the individual psalm, and consequently, I will have to return to the issue after the analysis of Ps 2, to which I now turn. II. Psalm 2 Stanza I: Revolt against YHWH and his king ‫למה רגשו גוים‬ ‫ולאמים יהגו־ריק‬ ‫יתיצבו מלכי־ארץ‬ ‫ורוזנים נוסדו־יחד‬

1a 1b 2a 2b

‫על־יהוה ועל־משיחו‬ ‫ננתקה את־מוסרותימו‬ ‫ונשליכה ממנו עבתימו‬

2c 3a 3b

Why are the nations in tumult, and the peoples meditate in vain? The kings of the earth take a stand, and the ones ruling establish themselves together against YHWH and his anointed: “Let us tear off their bonds and throw their ropes away from us.”

Stanza II: Response by YHWH through his king ‫יושב בשמים ישחק‬

4a

‫אדני ילעג־למו‬ ‫אז ידבר אלימו באפו‬ ‫ובחרונו יבהלמו‬ ‫ואני נסכתי מלכי‬ ‫על־ציון הר־קדשי‬

4b 5a 5b 6a 6b

The one enthroned in heaven laughs in contempt, the Lord mocks them. Then he speaks to them in his anger, and in his fury he terrifies them: “I have established my king on Zion, my holy mountain.”

Stanza III: Appointing of the king by YHWH ‫אספרה אל חק‬ ‫יהוה אמר אלי בני אתה‬ ‫אני היום ילדתיך‬ ‫שאל ממני‬ ‫ואתנה גוים נחלתך‬ ‫ואחזתך אפסי־ארץ‬ ‫תרעם בשבט ברזל‬ ‫ככלי יוצר תנפצם‬

7a 7b 7c 8a 8b 8c 9a 9b

I will recount concerning a statute: YHWH said to me “You are my son, today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I may give the nations as your heritage, and as your possession, the ends of the earth. You will break them with an iron sceptre, like a potter’s utensil you will shatter them.”

148

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

Stanza IV: Submission to YHWH and his king ‫ועתה מלכים השכילו‬ ‫הוסרו שפטי ארץ‬ ‫עבדו את־יהוה ביראה‬ ‫וגילו ברעדה‬ ‫נשקו־בר פן־יאנף‬ ‫ותאבדו דרך‬ ‫כי־יבער כמעט אפו‬ ‫אשרי כל־חוסי בו‬

10a 10b 11a 11b 12a 12b 12c 12d

And now, kings, act wisely, be instructed, judges of the earth! Serve YHWH in fear, acclaim him in trembling! Kiss the son lest he be angry, and you will perish from the way, for his wrath burns shortly. Happy are all who seek refuge in him.

Classified as royal psalm, Ps 2 shares features with psalms such as, for example, Pss 18, 20, 21, 45, 72, 101, 110, 132, and 144(:1–11) (so Gunkel),53 and as previously noted, it has been argued that the “scattering” of some of these royal psalms throughout the ‘Book’ of Psalms reveals a redactional interest. Focusing first on the structure, four main parts with three verses each could be identified (vv. 1–3; 4–6; 7–9; 10–12).54 The first stanza introduces the main agents of the psalm (the “kings of the earth” [‫]מלכי־ארץ‬, YHWH, and “his anointed” [‫)]משיחו‬, and places the kings of the earth in opposition to YHWH and his anointed. The dynamic between these agents is then expanded on in various ways throughout the remaining three stanzas. So put, they all feature in each stanza, so that stanzas I and IV could be said to relate to each other, while stanza II relates to stanza III. Where I and IV focuses on the kings of the earth, first by depicting their plans and then advising them to reconsider, stanzas II and III focus on the relation between YHWH and his king. Noteworthy also is that different names are used to describe the one enthroned on Zion. In stanza I, he is the “anointed” (‫)משיח‬, in stanza II, he is a “king” (‫)מלך‬, in stanza III, he is a “son” (‫)בן‬, and in the last stanza, he is referred to by a peculiar use of the Aramaic ‫בר‬ (“son,” see more on this verse below). 1. A Brief Walkthrough Turning to the first stanza (vv. 1–3), it starts off by portraying an incipient uprising on the part of the nations (‫ גוים‬and ‫)לאמים‬. The first bicolon (v. 1) depicts the nations as being in tumult (‫)רגש‬55 and meditating in vain (‫)יהג־ריק‬. The use of ‫ הגה‬is interesting, as it is a quite unexpected activity of the people, and con53

Gunkel & Begrich 1985, 140. Similar suggestions have been made by, e.g., Auffret 1982, 169–73; Hossfeld & Zenger 1993, 49; Wilson 2002a, 1:108; Craigie & Tate 2004, 64–65; Goldingay 2006, 96–97; Mays 2011, 45; Cole 2012, 80; Hartenstein & Janowski 2012, 64–66; deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 65–67; Longman III 2014, 60–61. 55 The term (qal) is only attested here in the Hebrew Bible, and then only later, in Sir 16:18. There, the context is the trembling of creation at YHWH’s arrival, and is thus quite different from Ps 2. In addition, the niphal and hithpael are found in the DSS. 54

Chapter 8. Psalms 1–2 as Preface

149

sequently, some scholars have suggested an intended link back to Ps 1:2.56 I will return to this below. Since the actions are introduced by a rhetorical “why” (‫)למה‬,57 and since ‫ ריק‬is probably to be understood adverbially (“meditate in vain” rather than “meditate vanity”),58 their fruitlessness is likely to be implied. This picture is further developed in v. 2, as focus is more specifically on the rulers of the nations (‫)רזן‬, the “kings of the earth” (‫)מלכי־ארץ‬. They are described as planning a joint rebellion directed against YHWH and his anointed, and the climax is reached in v. 3, where they are quoted, implying that the nations of the world are subdued (fettered and bound by means of bonds [‫ ]מוסרה‬and ropes [‫)]עבת‬.59 That the nations of the earth are said to be subdued under YHWH and his anointed is, of course, an astonishing claim, but has its simplest explanation if regarding Ps 2 as a(n old) coronation psalm. If so, use is probably made of quite stereotypical language also attested in a larger Near Eastern context,60 especially in relation to vv. 1–9. In fact, some would argue that these verses form an original core of the psalm,61 and that the additions cast the psalm in a more eschatological light, thus pushing such a dominion into the future.62 The response to this rebellion is presented in the second stanza (vv. 4–6). Here, YHWH (referred to as ‫)אדנָ י‬63 is presented as enthroned in heaven,64 and from there, he is “laughing in contempt” (‫שחק‬, cf. Pss 37:13, 59:9) and “mock-

56

See recently Cole 2012, 88. See Goldingay 2006, 96. 58 As with Clines 2011, 7:485. 59 For the tearing off of bonds as a refusal to bow under a greater authority, see, e.g., Jer 2:20; 5:5; 30:8; Nah 1:13 (cf. Goldingay 2006, 98–99; Clines 2011, 5:178; Clines 2011, 6:247). 60 See, e.g., Anderson 1972a, 64; Craigie & Tate 2004, 64–66; Mays 2011, 45–46; Hartenstein & Janowski 2012, 78–80. 61 See the arguments in Zenger 1986, 505–6 (who also sees v. 5 as a later insertion); cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 1993, 50–51; Saur 2004, 27–29. For Pss 1–2 as a coronation liturgy, see Brownlee 1971. 62 Hossfeld & Zenger 1993, 51. Cf. Goldingay 2006, 95–96, who suggests the psalm invites the reader to imagine a situation as the one painted in the psalm, or Willis 1990, who proposes a battle context: “a careful reading of the psalm as a whole shows that the author’s basic concern is not the coronation of the king on Zion, but rather, putting down an impending rebellion by nations now subject to this king, and an ensuing military encounter” (38). 63 Contra Cole 2012, esp. 99–111, who argues in length for an identification of ‫ אדנָ י‬with the human king. One problem with such a reading is that it does not quite account for the (then) surprising change of agent in v. 6. 64 For ‫ יושב‬as elliptic for ‫ ישב )ב(כסא‬see, e.g., Ps 61:8. ‫ אדנָ י‬is regularly used to depict YHWH’s supreme (royal) rule over the earth (Deut 10:17, Josh 3:13, Isa 1:24, Mic 4:13; cf. Brettler 1989, 40–44). Thus contra Cole 2012, 100–103, who argues that the subject is not YHWH, but his (eschatological) Messiah, the “man” of Ps 1, now enthroned in heaven. 57

150

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

ing” (‫ )לעג‬the ones plotting. Consequently, v. 4 stresses the superiority of YHWH over the kings of the earth, they are clearly no threat,65 and following a description of YHWH in clearly emotive, anthropomorphic language (v. 5), YHWH speaks himself in v. 6, as the reason for the fruitlessness of the rebellion is made clear: YHWH has established his king on Zion. The verb used (‫ )נסך‬is not straightforward. Mitchell Dahood emended its basic meaning, “to pour out,” to “I have been anointed” (‫)נְ ֻסכ ִֹתי‬,66 but the reading could be preserved if understood in the sense of “setting firmly in any place.”67 If so, this verse would not primarily report the anointment of an earthly king (as the conjecture would indicate), but rather his installation on Zion.68 The earthly king derives his kingship from YHWH, then, and the installation would be similarly conceptualized as the installation of vicarious rulers depicted in other texts.69 YHWH is the “high king” ultimately in power, and the human regent is made king by sharing this divine kingship, which emanates from Zion. In the third stanza (vv. 7–9), the human king raises his voice. Recounting a statute (‫חק‬, compare perhaps 1 Sam 30:25 and 2 Kgs 11:12),70 he claims authority over the plotting kings and anticipates their destruction, should they persevere in their rebellion.71 Interesting is the metaphorical concept used in v. 7, where the king is called the son of YHWH, even begotten by him (‫ילדתיך‬, cf. 2 Sam 7:14).72 Much discussed, it is probably to be understood in contrast to the ancient Near Eastern concept of divine rulers, and thus, although the verse bears witness to a shared (mythological) inheritance,73 it primarily expands on 65

Cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 1993, 53; Wilson 2002a, 1:110; Longman III 2014, 61. Dahood 1965, 10. 67 As with Delitzsch 1871, 94. See also the analysis of Prov 8:23 in Penchansky 2012, 28. 68 Cf. the similar position of, e.g., Craigie & Tate 2004, 63, 66; Hartenstein & Janowski 2015, 95–96. See also Cole 2012, 107, who proposes that it might best be understood as an anterior event, rather than as a reaction to the rebellious kings of the earth. 69 See, e.g., 2 Sam 5:12, 2 Kgs 2:24, 15:19 (cf. the discussion of the last passage in Miller & Hayes 2006, 377), 23:34, 24:17, 25:22, and Jer 40:5 (for Gedaliah as vicarious ruler, see, e.g., Miller & Hayes 2006, 482–85). Cf. also the Egyptian “Divine Nomination of Thut-Mose III” (1450 BCE, Pritchard 1969, 446–47), the Assyrian “Fight for the Throne (of Esarhaddon)” (680–669 BCE, Pritchard 1969, 289), the Babylonian “Expedition to Syria (Nebuchadnezzar II)” (605–582 BCE, Pritchard 1969, 307) or the Persian inscription from the time of Cyrus (557–529 BCE, Pritchard 1969, 315). All these texts indicate that the importance of divine legitimization (or even origin) of the king is very much a shared inheritance (see also Saur 2004, 32–34). 70 Goldingay 2006, 100; cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 1993, 53. Cole 2012, 113, claims that ‫חק‬ “undoubtedly” refers to the Davidic covenant of 2 Sam 7. 71 Cf. the view of Willis 1990, 44. 72 It is quite possible that the psalm is older than 2 Sam 7 (see Mettinger 1976, 258–59). 73 Humbert 1965, 250; Schreiner & Botterweck 1990, 80; cf. Kühlewein 1997, 546. For an example of this inheritance, see, for example, the Sumerian King List (Pritchard 1969, 265– 66). For the political use of the father-son relationship, cf. Akkadian diplomatic vocabulary 66

Chapter 8. Psalms 1–2 as Preface

151

the idea of YHWH installing a vicarious ruler, thus in line with v. 6a.74 In vv. 8– 9, the human king is invited to take part in the universal rule of YHWH (‫שאל‬ ‫)ממני‬, and is conceptualized as breaking the enemies with an iron sceptre (‫תרעם‬ ‫ )בשבט ברזל‬and shattering them like a potter’s utensil (‫)ככלי יוצר תנפצם‬.75 The first verb is an Aramaism (‫)רעע‬, and the LXX, Syr. and Jerome all read “shepherd” (‫)רעה‬,76 while the second is similar to the royal propaganda of Egypt and Mesopotamia, where the smashing of pottery is depicted as liturgical enacting (especially in Assyrian inscriptions).77 In sum, the legitimacy of the king is enforced. Moving to the last stanza (vv. 10–12), it contains some peculiar formulations, as well as Aramaisms and unexpected metaphors. In v. 10, the “kings” (‫ )מלכים‬and “judges of the earth” (‫)שפטי ארץ‬, mentioned also in v. 2ab, are directly addressed, but the nature of this exhortation – to “act wisely” (‫שכל‬, hiphil) and to “be instructed” (‫ – )יסר‬seems to contrast with the notion of destruction in the preceding verses, and relates more closely to wisdom literature.78 Furthermore, the kings are to “serve” (‫ )עבד‬YHWH in “fear” (‫ )יראה‬and “rejoice” (‫ )גיל‬in “trembling” (‫)רעדה‬. Rather than facing destruction, they are invited to serve YHWH, and the pairing of terms used is quite unusual, as is the following exhortation to “kiss the son” (‫)נשקו בר‬.79 Moreover, several of the terms (at least in v. 12bd) do not seem to fit well into the context, while at the same time overlapping with Ps 1:1, 6. In all, these verses need some consideration. 2. A Crux Interpretum An early suggestion dealing with both the problematic notion of rejoicing in trembling and the Aramaic ‫ בר‬is the one given by Alfred Bertholet. He proposed that the group of consonants found in the MT – ‫– וגילו ברעדה נשקו בר‬ should be rearranged into the following conjecture, ‫ברעדה נשקו ברגליו‬, and (Mettinger 1976, 265–67). The interpretation of this verse as an adoption formula has been advocated by no dearth of scholars, but has several problems (for a discussion, see Mettinger 1976, 266–67; Jeppesen 2002, 22). 74 Note how the word order of both utterances emphasizes YHWH as agent: ‫אני היום‬ ‫ילדתיך‬, cf. ‫אני נסכתי מלכי‬. The idea of sonship should not be taken as an indication of the king (“in fact”) partaking in the divine nature, as Cole 2012, 113, argues. 75 Cf. the description of the background for a campaign into the land of Hatti by Shalmaneser III (Pritchard 1969, 276–77). 76 Cole 2012, 124–26, argues for ‫ רעה‬in this verse. 77 Hossfeld & Zenger 1993, 54. In the Hebrew Bible, the idea of divine judgment is also often associated with the metaphor (see, e.g., Isa 30:12–14, Jer 19:1–13; cf. Wilson 2002a, 1:112, with n. 21). 78 Cf., e.g., Saur 2004, 37–39. 79 However, some have argued that the MT reading should be kept intact (see, e.g., Hartenstein & Janowski 2012, 60; deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 70).

152

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

translated as “in trembling, kiss his [YHWH’s] feet.” So put, ‫ וגילו‬of v. 11b is slightly altered and joined with ‫ בר‬in v. 12a.80 A diligent suggestion, it is nevertheless not without its problems. For one, since it disregards both the mater lectionis and the separation of words, it is difficult to account for how such a corruption could have emerged. Others have focused on ‫בר‬. Some are maintaining its genuineness by suggesting that it is used to avoid the cacophony ‫בן פן‬,81 or that it reflects a shift in addressees.82 Andrew A. Macintosh considered it a dittography,83 while others have looked at early versions, of which several understand ‫ בר‬not as an Aramaism, but as either an adjective with an (otherwise unattested) adverbial force, “kiss sincerely” (‫)בּר‬, ַ or as a noun, “purity” (‫)בֹּר‬.84 However, these readings are all quite odd. Of note is the reading of the LXX, to “grasp instruction” (δράξασθε παιδείας). As I will show later, this is probably to be understood as a deliberate change to strengthen a connection to Ps 1 (see below, p. 159). A final proposal is made by Alan Robinson, who argues that the similarity between the letters constituting ‫ פן‬and ‫ זל‬caused a haplography in a developing stage of the Aramaic-Hebrew alphabet, so that the original reading might have been ‫וגלו‬ ‫ברעדה נשק ברזל‬, which he translates “and remove with trembling weapons of iron.”85 As presented here, the suggestion by Bertholet is probably the best option, despite its problems, but it does not deal with the issue of the wisdom influences, and the possible overlaps with Ps 1, which are important for my purposes here. As noted above, Zenger has suggested that vv. 10–12 are to be considered a later addition. In his view, since vv. 6–9 provide a rather fitting end to a coronation psalm, since the kings of the earth are receiving instruction (as opposed to being destroyed) while no homage is given to the human king,86 and since several words are similar to Ps 1, vv. 10–12 would have been added to provide a closer connection to Ps 1.87 As a consequence, Ps 2 would also have been made part of the preface to the ‘Book’ of Psalms, resulting in a reinterpre80

Bertholet 1908a; Bertholet 1908b, followed early on by, e.g., Auffret 1982, 144; Ringgren 1987, 24; Gerstenberger 1988, 48; Kraus 1993, 124–25, and currently held by many. 81 So Delitzsch 1871, 98; Waltke, Houston, & Moore 2010, 177; Cole 2012, 130. The latter also suggests that ‫ בר‬is used to avoid a misidentification with a son mentioned in Ps 3. 82 So, e.g., Craigie & Tate 2004, 64. 83 Macintosh 1976. 84 Briggs & Briggs 1906, 1:23–24. See also Cazelles 1964, 44–45: “saluez le brillant/ l’éclatant.” 85 For the details of this reconstruction, see Robinson 1977, 422. 86 Thus proceeding from the emendation suggested by Bertholet. 87 Hossfeld & Zenger 1993, 50, 54. Consider also Hartenstein & Janowski 2012, 74–77, who propose that while the entire psalm is to be seen as postexilic, it reworks older material (esp. vv. 7–9; cf. Mic 4:11–13) to make it fit as introduction to Pss 2–89.

Chapter 8. Psalms 1–2 as Preface

153

tation of the king as a torah teacher. In the words of Zenger, he is now “der zu den Wegen der Tora auffordert, um die Könige und ihre Völker vor dem Untergang zu retten. Aus dem ‘Mann des Schwertes’ wird ein ‘Mann des Wortes’.”88 Although the suggestion that additions have been made in light of Ps 1 is appealing, it is not quite necessary to regard all three verses as later insertions. In fact, following the logic of the psalm, it would be quite expected that the plotting kings were urged to reconsider.89 The threats of vv. 8–9 are still in the future, as is the rebellion planned in vv. 1–3, and so one could easily understand vv. 10–12 as providing an expected warning: unless they submit to the vicarious ruler, they will experience the wrath of YHWH (v. 12ac). In fact, serving YHWH in fear is not incongruent with the psalm (cf. also, e.g., Deut 6:13; 10:12, 20; Josh 24:14; 1 Sam 12:24),90 and provides a possible parallel to the kissing of his feet (following Bertholet), or even to the odd juxtaposition of ‫גיל‬ and ‫רעדה‬. If so, v. 12ac is quite a fitting conclusion to the original psalm, while v. 12bd still seems out of place. Verse 12b is sandwiched between otherwise parallel descriptions of the anger and wrath of YHWH. Furthermore, it constitutes a strange shift of imagery, introducing the destruction (‫ )אבד‬of the way (‫ )דרך‬of the kings. As the very same wording is found in Ps 1:6, it would be reasonable to consider v. 12b as an addition. The incongruity of metaphors continues in v. 12d, where the notion of refuge is evoked.91 Starting with a macarism (cf. Ps 1:1), it is quite alien to the language of the rest of the psalm, and surprisingly conceptualizes YHWH as a protective place (by the use of ‫“ ב‬in”).92 It seems quite clear, then, that v. 12bd constitute a contrast to the prevailing notion of kingship in the rest of Ps 2, and points to their secondary nature.93 Furthermore, as Ps 1 starts with a macarism, it would be reasonable to assume that Ps 2:12bd were added with that psalm in view, probably to bring the two psalms more closely together, as the result is an inclusio.94 However, one observation might render this relation a bit more complex. In the analysis of the tree metaphor in Ps 1:3, I argued that it 88

Hossfeld & Zenger 1993, 50; cf. Zenger 1997a, 104; Zenger 1998b, 36–37; Zenger 1999, 116. 89 So also Goldingay 2006, 102. 90 For the vassals as servants, see, e.g., 2 Kgs 16:7, 17:3, 18:7, 2 Chr 12:8, and Ezra 9:9. 91 For a detailed study of this metaphor in the ‘Book’ of Psalms, see Creach 1996. 92 The suggestion by Cole 2012, 136–41, that it is in “God’s son” that they should trust is unconvincing. 93 It should be noted that some have argued that the verse(s) provides a fitting conclusion to the psalm (see, e.g., Rogerson & McKay 1977, 22; Ringgren 1987, 29; Bons 1995, 161– 64). Cf. also Gerstenberger 1988, 48, who is inconclusive, or Renaud 2004, who argues that only the last macarism in v. 12d can be seen as addition. 94 The notion of the additions creating an inclusio is common, almost consensus (Zenger 1991, 400), although the demarcation of verses added may vary, often stressing vv. 10–12 (Loretz 1974, 231; Hossfeld & Zenger 1993, 50; Rösel 1999, 89–90; Auwers 2010, 75).

154

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

differed from Jer 17 in that it did not feature any refuge theme. If correct, it could imply that that the additions made to Ps 2 were not by the same hand(s) as the one(s) responsible for Ps 1. III. Conclusions As indicated in the analyses above, Pss 1–2 are quite different psalms. Where Ps 1 contains wisdom characteristics and portrays a contrast between the righteous and the wicked, Ps 2 is rather an old coronation psalm, influenced by motives and concepts from the surrounding ancient Near Eastern cultures. Nonetheless, several aspects emanated as significant for the often intertwined issues of possible prefatorial functions and intentional combination (juxtaposition). Important was the somewhat difficult notion of “meditation” on the torah of YHWH. Here, I argued that the suggestion that v. 2 would serve as a reading instruction, thus referring to the ‘Book’ of Psalms, was quite unconvincing, at least if seen from the level of the psalm itself, but also in light of the use of ‫ תורת יהוה‬in the Second Temple period. If reasonable, it should rather be understood as referring to something else than a collection of psalms, most likely a torah of Moses. Turning to Ps 2, there were some peculiar recurrences of words, notably ‫ הגה‬in v. 1 and a cluster of words in v. 12bd, and since overlap in the latter was so clear, I suggested that it could have been added to relate Ps 2 closer to Ps 1. The implications of such a connection were not clear, however, and in what follows, I will proceed with the discussion in two steps (as mentioned in the introduction). First, I will deal with the issue of combination, and second, I will discuss possible prefatorial functions.

B. Combining Psalms 1–2 In the discussion of whether Pss 1–2 have been deliberately combined, two sets of material will be adduced. First, I will revisit the arguments proceeding from the psalms themselves (“internal indications”), and second, I will provide a brief overview of early attestations of such a use in sources outside of the ‘Book’ of Psalms (“external indications”). This overview thus includes material essentially belonging to the reception history of Pss 1–2, and will be introduced in a roughly chronological order. To frame this discussion, I will first recapitulate some readings suggested in recent scholarship. I. Integrated Readings of Psalms 1–2 Although some have argued that Pss 1–2 are far too different for a combined interpretation in terms of both subject matter, purpose, and setting,95 the wisdom aspects of Ps 1 have been understood by many as providing essential keys for such a reading. When read in light of the other, each psalms is said to “fill

Chapter 8. Psalms 1–2 as Preface

155

in the blanks” present in the other psalm, as common vocabulary and themes are re-read in terms of the other psalm, sometimes with surprising effects. Robert L. Cole, for one, has argued at length about what he calls “the long shadow cast by Gattungsgeschichte”96 which causes scholars to stress the differences to such an extent that the notion of Pss 1–2 being “thoroughly integrated” is essentially overlooked. Now, such a claim somewhat misses the point, not only because the identification of Ps 1 as a wisdom psalm and Ps 2 as a royal psalm is not primarily argued on the basis of form but with respect to contents, but also, and more importantly, because the idea of a combined reading is probably to be understood as a later use rather than related to the original context(s) and form(s) of the psalms. Nevertheless, the basic observation is valid, and proceeding from the notion of a purposeful redaction, a number of suggestions surrounding intended integrated reading have been made.97 When reading Ps 2 in the light of Ps 1, Ps 1 has been argued to set the agenda, while Ps 2 introduces the subject matter, and a number of similar features between the two have been identified.98 As Ps 1 deals with two ways for individuals, so Ps 2 deals with two ways for nations. While Ps 1 deals with the problem of the wicked in society, Ps 2 focuses on the nations of the world.99 While Ps 1 conceptualizes the psalms as torah of YHWH, Ps 2 describes its content – the reign of YHWH – and urges the reader to trust (seek refuge) in that reign, regardless of the circumstances.100 Moreover, the characters of each psalm also cast light upon each other, so that the righteous man in Ps 1 is brought together with the anointed king in Ps 2, while the kings of the earth of Ps 2 are assimilated with the council of the wicked, the sinners, and the scoffers of Ps 1.101 The wicked have become the enemies, and the anointed king can be reinterpreted in a collective direction.102 Furthermore, as Ps 1 is put first, it is argued to reshape the understanding of kingship somewhat in Ps 2. Consider Miller:

95

So, e.g., Willis 1979, 395; Seybold 1990, 126. Cole 2012, 15. He sees both psalms as individual compositions, although “[t]he remarkable harmony and resonance between them suggests they were deliberately composed for their present place and function” (19). However, the “process through which the[y …] reached their present complementary shape is mere speculation” (79). 97 For the notion of integrated reading, see, e.g., Lange 1998, 112–13; Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 32. 98 Miller 1993, 84–88; cf. deClaissé-Walford 1997, 41–48. 99 Mays 1987, 10. 100 McCann Jr. 1993c, 41–45; cf. Zenger 1993, 45; Mays 1994, 122–23; Creach 1996, 80. 101 Brown 2010, 115; cf. Brennan 1980, 29; Millard 1994, 21; Auwers 2000, 123–24. See also the combined reading provided by Barbiero 1999, 36–41. Cole 2012, 54–57, argues that ‫ האיש‬of Ps 1 denotes a specific male individual, a king, even within the context of the individual psalm. 102 Cf. Miller 1993, 88; Barbiero 1999, 43–45. 96

156

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

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.103

In this view, Pss 1–2 brings together two complementary themes, torah piety and the kingship of YHWH (through his anointed one[s]), and as such, they “anticipate the content, theology, and function of the entire Psalter.”104 The character of the righteous is an example to follow, and happiness has to do with a “fundamental orientation of the self to God, constantly delighting in God’s ‘instruction’ (Ps 1:2…); and with finding ‘refuge in’ God (Ps 2:12).”105 A third (complementary) theme, is also proposed by Susan E. Gillingham. Observing that Zion is a central concern in Ps 2, she connects it to the simile of Ps 1:3, so that the stability and security available within the temple precincts coincides with that of the torah and thus creates a similar juxtaposition to that found in texts like Mic 4:1–2 and Isa 2:1–5.106 If the reading direction is reversed, that is, if Ps 1 is read in light of Ps 2, the two psalms are often cast in a more eschatological light.107 Lange, for one, sees in the joining of the two psalms an underlying cosmic and ethical dualism within which the history of Israel is to be understood, a history that finds its ultimate goal in a grand eschatological judgment scene.108 Zenger argues similarly that Ps 2 conveys an eschatological worldview that can be learned through the study of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. As such, the ‘Book’ of Psalms is seen as a “geschichtstheologische Meditation” where each book represents a stage in the history of Israel, ultimately leading to its cosmic completion, as envisaged in Ps 2.109 Taking such a notion even further, Mitchell proposes that the joining of Pss 1–2 indicates that the ‘Book’ of Psalms is to be understood as carrying the theme of ultimate war between the anointed of YHWH and his/their antagonists. In his view, the outcome of such a struggle is both given in, and conditioned by, Pss 1–2. It is the king who meditates on the torah of YHWH who will stand victorious, and the universal dominion of YHWH will be established, centered on Zion.110

103

Miller 1993, 91–92; cf. Holt, Jeppesen, & Nielsen 2002, 46; Mays 2011, 18. McCann Jr. 1992, 123. See also Mays 1993, 16; Millard 1994, 128; Barbiero 1999, 49; Saur 2004, 46; Bellinger Jr. 2007, 114–16, 119; Gillingham 2008, 1:7; Janowski 2010, 288; Hartenstein & Janowski 2012, 4, 50–54; Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 35. 105 McCann Jr. 2005, 343; cf. Creach 2011, 53. 106 Gillingham 2013, 7–9, 16–17. 107 Barbiero 1999, 41. 108 Lange 1998, 113–14. 109 Zenger 1993, 45–46. See also the earlier Zenger 1986. 110 Mitchell 1997, 87. Eschatology is also stressed in the analysis in Cole 2012. 104

Chapter 8. Psalms 1–2 as Preface

157

Ultimately, these readings all proceed from the basic notion that the combining of Pss 1–2 is to be understood as a “theological synthesis,”111 and it is interesting that the figure of David gains a prominent position. Consider the following remarks by Gerald T. Sheppard: David is represented in Ps. 2 both as the author of the Psalms and also as one who qualifies under the injunction of Ps. 1 to interpret the Torah as a guide to righteousness. David’s prayers, therefore, are set forth as having an authority derivative from the Torah and as a guide to righteous living like that found in the wisdom traditions.112

Now, although the connection to David is certainly made in many of the other psalms now included in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, and although the ‘Book’ of Psalms is also later to be received as “belonging to” David, the fact that he is not mentioned in Ps 1, nor Ps 2 should not be underestimated. One could perhaps conclude with Sheppard, for example, that David is the implied author of Ps 2 due to the close connection to 2 Sam 7 (he is certainly understood as such by the end of the first century CE, see, for example, Acts 4:25–26),113 but as he is not mentioned, one should at least be careful with the notion of David being of primary importance. In fact, one could perhaps argue that this reveals a major flaw in these readings. When scholars are assuming that Pss 1–2 have been added to a collection that is quite similar to the collection now known as the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, and when they relate them to an idea of an emerging canon of Hebrew scriptures, or even to an idea of a Davidization of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, they in fact interpret Pss 1–2 in relation to a context that should not automatically be assumed. In fact, at times there seems to be a rather significant discrepancy between the canonical readings and the individual psalms themselves. If proceeding from the notion of the ‘Book’ of Psalms as an anthology, a new way of appreciating the relation between Pss 1–2 could perhaps be achieved. As mentioned in Chapter 2, anthologists could juxtapose compositions with conflicting points of view, enabling committed interactions, possibly resulting in quite diverse readings. In fact, if related to the additions I suggested for Ps 2, this becomes appealing, as it is clear that contrasts are not effaced. Rather, three themes are juxtaposed (the royal features of Ps 2, the wisdom theme of Ps 1, and the refuge metaphor of Ps 2:12d), each with its own theological stress. If so, the function of the inclusio would not have been to merge the two psalms into a single composition, but to create a dynamic juxtaposition where different voices are retained, inviting the user into an ongoing discussion around three main topics: righteousness, kingship, and refuge. If correct, harmonized readings should not be assumed. Furthermore, the discussion of the

111

Mays 1987, 10. Sheppard 1980, 142. 113 Sheppard 1980, 139. 112

158

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

function of Pss 1–2 would have to be complemented by a discussion of the shape of the collection to which they were added, as well as of their possible interpretation at the time of their inclusion. II. Internal Evidence Looking more specifically at arguments adduced for combined readings, it is to be noted that recurring words and phrases are often judged as significant, especially if they could be connected to some redactional activities.114 But as some see substantially more similarities than others, how should such overlaps be valued? First, it would be appropriate to repeat that literary features such as catchphrases and recurring vocabulary will not per se correspond to, or even reveal editorial intent, since it is well known that recurring language is an intrinsic feature to poetry. So for intended linkage to be identified, one would have to show that the reuse of language is to be seen as a redaction. Second, it is to be observed that while similar vocabulary might have provided a reason for juxtaposing the two psalms, it does not follow that they were therefore intended to be read together (compare, for example, the catalogues of incipits surveyed in Appendix 1). Third, one should not automatically assume a MT sequence when discussing these aspects. These considerations in mind, an evaluation of lexical and other links could perhaps be undertaken, and a place to start would be the recent, monographlength study of Pss 1–2 by Cole. Here, he not only notes every possible similarity between the vocabulary of the two psalms, he also adds what he calls “phonological links” (‫לצים לא‬, Ps 1:1 is, for example, linked to ‫ילעג למו‬, Ps 2:4), making the similarities between the psalms truly impressive.115 However, the argument that every similarity is significant is problematic in light of the considerations above, and so the suggested interpretations of these links could sometimes be judged as approaching free association. However, if keeping focus on vocabulary, four terms are commonly identified as significant for understanding the combination of the two psalms: ‫אשרי‬, ‫דרך‬, ‫הגה‬, and ‫אבד‬.116 The first, ‫הגה‬, is, on the one hand, quite uncommon, but on the other hand, it is used in quite different contexts. While Ps 1 has the righteous meditating on torah, Ps 2 uses the verb parallel to ‫( רגש‬to be in tumult), thus understood as some kind of plotting. Nevertheless, it could have been one of the reasons for the juxtaposition of the two psalms in the MT sequence.117 In fact, the great amount of 114

Cf. Zenger 1991, 400. For an overview, see Cole 2013, 186–87; cf. Cole 2002; Cole 2012, 87, but also the earlier Auffret 1982, 173–78, and Barbiero 1999, 35–36. 116 See, e.g., McCann Jr. 1993a, 103–4; Mitchell 1997, 73 (who includes ‫חק‬/‫;)תורה‬ McCann Jr. 2005, 342; Janowski 2010, 282–83; Creach 2011, 53; Hartenstein & Janowski 2012, 3–4; deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 65; cf. Zimmerli 1972, 106. 117 Cf. The notion of Zwillingpsalmen in Zimmerli 1972, 105–6. 115

Chapter 8. Psalms 1–2 as Preface

159

overlapping vocabulary would perhaps best be understood this way. As for the other three terms, they are all used in strikingly similar contexts: ‫ אבד‬and ‫דרך‬ are used in both psalms to convey the idea of a pending destruction effected by YHWH, while the structurally significant placement and similar use of ‫אשרי‬ makes it a likely candidate of intentional linking. Significant also is that they occur in the same verse, and in a part of the verse I argued to be secondary to the psalm. Consequently, the conclusion suggested above gains further weight. Apart from recurring vocabulary, it has also been mentioned that the fact that both Ps 1 and Ps 2 lack a superscription sets them apart from the following psalms, at least if related to Pss 1–89 in the MT sequence.118 Different ways of understanding this could be suggested. One way could be to understand the lack of superscriptions in line with Wilson’s suggestion for the other untitled psalms throughout Pss 1–89, namely that they preserved “alternate traditions regarding the combination or division of these pss.”119 Or, one could see the lack of superscriptions related to his suggested different editorial techniques used in the compilation of Pss 90–150.120 If so, they would rather relate to a different stage in the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, although such conclusions would have to wait until the completion of the survey of the superscriptions (see below, pp. 172–95). Yet another possibility was proposed in the survey of comparative material. More specifically, the lack of superscription of Ps 1 could be a consequence of it featuring as the first psalm in a collection, directly preceding a main title, as with the Psalms of Solomon (cf. p. 54 above). Although intriguing, especially in light of the three empty lines prior to a reconstructed Ps 1 in 11Q7, it remains a speculation. III. External Evidence 1. LXX Beginning with the Septuagint, Pss 1–2 are the only psalms without a superscription. Consequently, they stand apart from the rest of the collection, possibly indicating a prefatorial function,121 but at least implying a closer connection between the two. Looking more closely at the text of Ps 2, the impression is further enforced, especially regarding the inclusio. Consider vv. 10–12:122

118 The suggestion that Ps 2 originally had a superscription that was removed when combined with Ps 1 (so Sheppard 1980, 139–40) is interesting but impossible to assess. 119 Wilson 1985a, 176 (see also below, p. 190). 120 Wilson 1985a, 214–15. 121 So, e.g., Cole 2012, 2. 122 Translation from NETS. For a discussion of the LXX version of Ps 1, see, for example, Hartenstein & Janowski 2012, 49–50.

160

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

καὶ νῦν, βασιλεῖς, σύνετε παιδεύθητε, πάντες οἱ κρίνοντες τὴν γῆν δουλεύσατε τῷ κυρίῳ ἐν φόβῳ καὶ ἀγαbιᾶσθε αὐτῷ ἐν τρόµῳ δράξασθε παιδείας µήποτε ὀργισθῇ κύριος καὶ ἀπολεῖσθε ἐξ ὁδοῦ δικαίας ὅταν ἐκκαυθῇ ἐν τάχει ὁ θυµὸς αὐτοῦ µακάριοι πάντες οἱ πεποιθότες ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ

10a 10b 11a 11b 12a 12b 12c 12d

And now, O kings, be sensible; be instructed, all you who judge the earth. Be subject to the Lord with fear, and rejoice in him with trembling. Seize upon instruction, lest the Lord be angry, and you will perish from the righteous way, when his anger quickly blazes out. Happy are all who trust in him.

As can be seen here, the LXX differs from the MT in two interesting ways. First, instead of the difficult reading ‫נשקו־בר‬, the LXX has δράξεσθει παιδείας (“accept correction”). Consequently, the wisdom connections are enforced.123 Second, the LXX has “from the righteous way” (ἐξ ὁδοῦ δικαίας), thus creating an even closer connection to Ψ 1:6, where the LXX reads ὁδὸν δικαίων (“the way of the righteous”). The result of these two variations, as compared to the MT, is that Ps 2 is related even more closely to Ps 1. Moreover, they cast the notion of sapiential exhortation in a new light, but also indicate that the MT is not quite as explicit as the LXX. In fact, the reading of the LXX could be seen as a continuation, or extended clarification, of the connections posited above,124 although they are still treated as distinct compositions in most ancient manuscripts (in contrast to, e.g., Pss 9–10 or Pss 114–115). 2. 4Q174 A text often adduced as an early example of the combined reading of Pss 1–2 is found in a manuscript classified as 4Q174. The manuscript is poorly preserved, consists of 26 fragments, and dates to somewhere in the second half of the first century BCE.125 Due to its fragmentary state, only one column and about one third of a second column have been reconstructed,126 but clearly visible are, among others, quotations from Pss 1–2, followed by a commentary.127 Studied in particular by George J. Brooke and Annette Steudel respectively, the relevant passages are found in 4Q174 1 14 and onwards.128 The section is separated from a preceding commentary on 2 Sam 7:10–11a by a vacat, and the new exposition is introduced by ‫“( מדרש‬interpretation of …”), followed by the incipit of Ps 1 (‫)מ ֯דרש מאשרי ]ה[איש אשר לוא הלך בעצת רשעים‬. l 129 The word ‫( פשר‬roughly “the 123

παιδείας is commonly used in wisdom literature in the LXX (79 times in Prov, Job, Wis, and Sir), in Proverbs even equivalent to ‫מוסר‬. A similar reading is found in the Targum on Ps 2 (Stec 2004, 30, see also the introduction on 4–5). 124 Cf. Sheppard 1980, 141; Gillingham 2013, 27–31. 125 Brooke 2000b, 297. 126 Mason 2009, 74. 127 For an introduction to the pesharim, see below, pp. 316–17. 128 Brooke 1985; Steudel 1994. 129 Such a notion is quite in line with the observed use of incipits in the comparative

Chapter 8. Psalms 1–2 as Preface

161

meaning is …”) then introduces the commentary on lines 14–17 where two scriptural passages are quoted as supporting texts (Isa 8:11 and Ezek 37:23). Then, in line 18, the incipit of Ps 2 is found, followed by ‫פשר‬, and a commentary including Dan 12:10 as a supporting text. However, in contrast to Ps 1, it is not preceded by ‫מדרש‬, so that the latter seems to be an introduction to them both. Consequently, it has been interpreted by many psalms scholars as an indication that the two psalms were treated as a single composition. Looking briefly at the contents, Brooke has proposed that the passage aims to identify the good parties in Pss 1–2 with the Qumran community, and that the latter is understood as a remnant facing the trials of the latter days, but eventually reaching ultimate vindication.130 Noteworthy is that both ‫( האיש‬Ps 1) and ‫( משיחו‬Ps 2) are collectively interpreted as “those who turn aside” (‫סרי‬, pl.) and “the chosen of Israel” (‫בחירי ישראל‬, pl.) respectively, and while Ps 1 is used to portray the community as those who turn aside from the path of the wicked, Ps 2 is used to situate them within the trials of the latter days.131 Consequently, some connections are made between Pss 1 and 2. The comment on Ps 2 in col 2 2–3 does, for example, characterize the community as a remnant performing “the whole of the Law, [as God commanded through] Moses” (cf. Ps 1). In light of the more recently proposed integrated readings, the collective reading is perhaps surprising, and even more so if the first part of 4Q174 is taken into consideration. Here, two characters are mentioned. Line 11 introduces a “shoot of David” (‫)צמח דויד‬, while lines 11–12 speak of an “interpreter of the law” (‫)דורש התורה‬. In line with recent discussion, both figures could easily have been related to both the one(s) meditating on the law in Ps 1:2 and the one(s) established on Zion in Ps 2:6, but this is not the case.132 Proceeding from this manuscript alone, it would not have been possible to conclude whether the two psalms are commented on as a single composition or not, but as argued by Steudel, the manuscript is probably to be seen as a copy of a larger text, parts of which are also found in 4Q177.133 This larger text, designated as 4QMidrEschata.b, would, then, have included the commentaries attested in 4Q177, thus not only on Pss 1–2, but on Pss 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17 as well. Unfortunately, ‫ מדרש‬is not attested in 4Q177, but the fact that several psalms are commented upon should warrant against the idea that 4Q174

material (cf. also the use of incipits to refer to the five ‘books’ of the ‘Book’ of Psalms in the midrash on Ps 1, Braude 1959, 1:5). Brooke 1985, 147, has also suggested that the commentary implies knowledge of the whole psalm, as it refers to parts not quoted (cf. Brooke 2005a, 75–76). 130 Brooke 1985, 159. 131 See Brooke 1985, 156–58; Brooke 2000b, 298; Brooke 2005a, 266; Mason 2009, 76. 132 Thus contra Gillingham 2013, 22. 133 Steudel 1994, esp. 127–51.

162

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

considers Pss 1–2 a single psalm.134 As to the second question, that of prefatorial functions, 4QMidrEschata.b has no such understanding. Rather, all psalms (that is, in both 4Q174 and 4Q177) are appropriated as prophecies applied to the community without any qualitative distinction, and further still, the text indicates that the torah of Ps 1 is understood as a torah of Moses (4Q174 2 2–3). 3. Acts 13:33 Moving on, there is an interesting textual variant in Acts 13:33, where Ps 2:7 is introduced as “written in the second psalm” (ἐν τῷ ψαλµῷ γέγραπται τῷ δευτέρῷ). This being the case in the best witnesses to the texts, one of the five great unicals, Codex Bezae (D, a bilingual codex from the end of the fourth, or the beginning of the fifth century CE), reads “written in the first psalm” (εν τω πρωτω ψαλµω γεγραπται / in primo psalmo scriptum est).135 If not focusing on the discussion of which reading is to be preferred in Acts,136 several possible interpretations of the reading of D have been suggested: 1) Pss 1–2 were regarded as a single composition;137 2) Ps 1 was unnumbered (possibly as preface), with Ps 2 counted as the first;138 3) Ps 1 was not yet included in a ‘Book’ of Psalms;139 or 4) D is simply erroneous. As it is not possible to assess the probability of these interpretations solely on the variant itself, I will return to the issue at the end of this section, but it is noteworthy that the first and second alternatives are both attested in the configuration of Hebrew medieval manuscripts. As noted by Wilson and others, Kennicott and de Rossi mention a number of manuscripts combining Pss 1–2, as well as some manuscripts having Ps 1 unnumbered (possibly as preface), while Ps 2 is counted as nr. 1 (‫)א‬.140 In fact, the former fits quite well with recent observations made by William Yarchin, who concludes that the “configuration and quantity of discrete compositions” remained fluid throughout the medieval manuscripts, so that even the 134 Cf. my remarks in Willgren 2015. Thus also contra, e.g., Cole 2012, 3: “While evidence from Qumran does not explicitly support the unitary reading of the first two psalms, it certainly does not contradict it,” or Hartenstein & Janowski 2012, 2–3. 135 Metzger 2005, 364. The reading is also found in the Itala or Old Latin manuscripts, in the margin of Codex Philadelphiensis (twelfth century), and in Codex Gigas (thirteenth century). A third reading, devoid of numeral, is also attested (τοῖς ψαλµοῖς, é45). 136 For such a discussion, see Metzger 2005, 363–65; cf. Willis 1979, 385–86, n. 17. 137 So, e.g., Sheppard 1980, 141; Hossfeld & Zenger 1993, 45; Barbiero 1999, 32; Hartenstein & Janowski 2012, 2. 138 So, e.g., Willis 1979, 385; Kraus 1993, 113–14. 139 Or at least not in the collection used by the author (Mroczek 2016, 45). See also the alternatives presented in Millard 1994, 9–10. Interesting to note here is perhaps that Ps 1 is never quoted in the New Testament, even if Gillingham 2013, 43, suggests that it might be alluded to in instances where Ps 2 is quoted. But since such an assertion presupposes the idea that Pss 1–2 were considered in combination, it is difficult to evaluate at this point. 140 Wilson 1985a, 204–5, with n. 8.

Chapter 8. Psalms 1–2 as Preface

163

basic notion of a ‘Book’ of Psalms containing 150 psalms needs to be problematized.141 Nevertheless, the fact that some manuscripts set Ps 1 apart would indicate that it was occasionally interpreted as something of a preface in the Middle Ages. 4. Early Reception of Psalms 1–2 A set of early witnesses that could be illuminating to this issue are early Jewish and Christian texts, and I will present some examples of their treatment of the two psalms below, focusing on traces of combined reading, and of notions of prefatorial functions.142 Consider first Justin Martyr (ca. 100–165 CE). In his first Apology, he possibly assumes a tradition combining Pss 1–2 as he quotes both psalms without any break as “prophetic utterances of David” from which one might learn “how the Spirit of prophecy exhorts men to live, and how He foretold the conspiracy which was formed against Christ …” (1 Apol. 40).143 However, as the psalms are not introduced in any more detail, the use is somewhat inconclusive, and the combination of the psalms only implicit at best.144 Moving on, both Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 150–225 CE) and Cyprian of Carthage (ca. 200–258 CE) introduce Ps 2 as the first psalm, although manuscript evidence is divided,145 and Hippolytus of Rome (ca. 170–235 CE) argues that Pss 1–2 do not have superscriptions since they both point to Christ (Ps 1 indicates his birth; Ps 2 his passion), who is himself the ultimate beginning.146 So put, Pss 1–2 are understood as prophetically anticipating two (distinct) events in the life of Christ, and thus neither merged into one single composition, nor read as preface to the ‘Book’ of Psalms in any strict sense.147 The first one to explicitly address the question of the relation between Pss 1– 2 is Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185–254 CE). In his Selecta in Psalmos, he shows awareness of two different Hebrew traditions, one that combined the two psalms (ἐν τῷ Ἑβραϊκῷ συνηµµένοι), and another which separated them.148 Ultimately, he preferred the second alternative, perhaps present in his own Greek manuscripts (see, for example, Princ. 2.4.4 where he quotes Ps 2:5 as belong-

141

Yarchin 2015c, 779, 787; cf. Yarchin 2015. The overview is greatly informed by Gillingham 2013. 143 English translation from Roberts, Donaldson, & Coxe 1885a, n.p. 144 Contra Gillingham 2013, 45–46. 145 So Metzger 2005, 364, with n. 25; cf. Willis 1979, 388. 146 Gillingham 2013, 48. 147 It is to be noted, however, that the placing of the psalms at the beginning of the collection is understood as motivated by their focus on Christ (or the other way around, that the prominent position generated a relating of the psalm to Christ). 148 Delitzsch 1871, 82; cf. Willis 1979, 388; Metzger 2005, 363; Gillingham 2013, 49–50. 142

164

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

ing to the second psalm).149 Such an awareness of a double tradition, where the combination is argued as to belonging to a Hebrew tradition is also found in the works of Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 263–340 CE) and Athanasius (ca. 295–373 CE).150 Interesting is that such a tradition is attested in some Jewish texts as well. Consider first a passage from b. Ber. 9b–10a: Seeing that this verse, ‘Let the words of my mouth be acceptable etc.’ is suitable for recital either at the end or the beginning [of the tefillah], why did the Rabbis institute it at the end of the eighteen benedictions? Let it be recited at the beginning? – R. Judah the son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi said: Since David said it only after eighteen chapters [of the Psalms], the Rabbis too enacted that it should be said after eighteen blessings. But those eighteen Psalms are really nineteen? – ‘Happy is the man’ and ‘Why are the nations in an uproar’ form one chapter. For R. Judah the son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi said: David composed a hundred and three chapters [of psalms], and he did not say ‘Hallelujah’ until he saw the downfall of the wicked, as it says, Let sinners cease out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, O my soul. Hallelujah. Now are these a hundred and three? Are they not a hundred and four? You must assume therefore that ‘Happy is the man’ and ‘Why are the nations in an uproar’ form one chapter. For R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Johanan: Every chapter that was particularly dear to David he commenced with ‘Happy’ and terminated with ‘Happy’. He began with ‘Happy’, as it is written, ‘Happy is the man’, and he terminated with ‘Happy’, as it is written, ‘happy are all they that take refuge in Him’.151

An interesting passage, it makes an argument for reading Pss 1–2 as a single psalm, thus implying that by the time of the composition of the tractate, Pss 1–2 were probably not. Rather, the reference to two incipits (‫ אשרי־האיש‬and ‫למה‬ ‫ )רגשו גוים‬implies that they were in fact regarded as two distinct compositions.

149

“And on these points, when expounding the verse in the Psalms 2, ‘Then shall He speak to them in His anger, and trouble them in His fury,’ we showed, to the best of our poor ability, how such an expression ought to be understood” (translation from Roberts, Donaldson, & Coxe 1885b, n.p.). 150 Willis 1979, 388; Metzger 2005, 363; Gillingham 2013, 50, with n. 34. Later on, church fathers like, for example, Apollinaris of Laodicea (ca. 310–390 CE), Diodore of Tarsus (died ca. 392 CE), and the commentary attributed to Albertus Magnus (1208–1280 CE) would all recognize these traditions, attesting the combination of the two psalms to the “Jews” and then treating them separately themselves (Hill 2005, 10, with n. 6; Cole 2012, 2). Albertus Magnus also notes the variants in Acts 13:33 and states that the (Jewish) combination of the psalms traces back to Gamaliel (“Fuerunt autem qui dixerunt, quòd iste Psalmus & præcedens funt unus Psalmus: unde Gamaliel dicit, quòd Psalmus primus incipit à beatitudine, ibi, Beatus vir, & terminatur in beatitudinem, ibi, Beati omnes qui confidunt in Deo,” Magnus 1651, 11, emphases original). Cf. also Hilary of Poitiers (ca. 300–371 CE, Willis 1979, 388–89; cf. Høgenhaven 2001, 171–72, n. 10; Metzger 2005, 364). 151 Translation from Epstein 2012, n.p. Similar arguments are also found in y. Ber. 4.3, 8a, and y. Taʿan. 2.2.65c (cf. Millard 1994, 10).

Chapter 8. Psalms 1–2 as Preface

165

The reason for treating them as a single psalms, then, is not given beforehand, but is intended to “support the practice of reciting Psalm 19:15 at the end of the 18 benedictions.”152 Returning to church fathers, in the fourth century, Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 335–395 CE) notes that the first psalm lacks a superscription and suggests that it is “an inscription of the second,” so that the latter is understood as “appended” to “predict[s] the mystery of the gospel,” and emphasis is put on Ps 1 as the start of a journey throughout the ‘Book’ of Psalms.153 In a similar vein, Theodoret of Cyrrhus (ca. 393–460 CE) states in his commentary that “[t]he second psalm begins carrying over the theme from the end of the first psalm,”154 as to teach that the “aforementioned end of the ungodly lies in wait for both kings and rulers, Jews and Gentiles, who rage against the Savior.”155 Consequently, he provides a combined understanding of the characters in both psalms that is somewhat parallel to 4Q174. Although possibly implicit in the works of Gregory of Nyssa and Theodoret of Cyrrhus, the first explicit reference to a possible prefatorial function of Ps 1 is found in the Homilies on the Psalms by Basil of Caesarea (ca. 329–379 CE): Like the foundation in a house, the keel in a ship and the heart in a body, so is [Psalm 1 a] brief introduction to the whole structure of the Psalms. For when David intended to propose in the course of his speech to the combatants of true religion many painful tasks involving unmeasured sweats and toils, he showed first the happy end, that in the hope of the blessings reserved for us we might endure without grief the sufferings of this life.156

Basil provides an understanding of Ps 1 as introducing a fundamental perspective on the righteous which is to be kept in mind as one struggles with the life of faith, as portrayed in the psalms. Another clear understanding of a prefatorial function of Ps 1 is provided by Jerome (ca. 345–420 CE), who expands on the metaphor of the ‘Book’ of Psalms as a house in his Homily on Ps 1: The Psalter is like a stately mansion that has only one key to the main entrance. Within the mansion, however, each separate chamber has its own key. Even though the great key to the grand entrance is the Holy Spirit, still each room without exception has its own smaller key.… Similarly, the psalms are each like single cells, every one with its own proper key. The main entrance to the mansion of the Psalter is the first psalm … Some commentators think that the key to this first psalm must be the person of Christ.… [but] the psalm cannot refer to the person of the Lord, but rather refers in general to the just man.157

152

Høgenhaven 2001, 170. Cf. Gillingham 2013, 52–53. For the text, see Blaising & Hardin 2008, 12. 154 Blaising & Hardin 2008, 11. 155 Blaising & Hardin 2008, 12; cf. Gillingham 2013, 53–54. 156 Blaising & Hardin 2008, 2. 157 Ewald 2010, 3–4. 153

166

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

Although both Basil and Jerome are good examples of assigning some prefatorial functions to Ps 1 (never Ps 2), they do not necessarily perceive such a function in a literal sense, and this is perhaps seen even clearer if considering a last example. In his Explanation of the Psalms, Cassiodorus (ca. 485–580 CE) argues that the lack of superscription in Ps 1 is because nothing was to be put before our Head the Lord Saviour…. Though other psalms also say much about Him, none of them speaks in this way about His behavior on earth. Since all that is to be said refers to Him, He is rightly set at the head of the sacred work, since He is known to be Prince of all things. Whatever instruction is given concerning the past, whatever advice about the present, whatever makes us more careful about the future, all that the book has to offer refers to the instruction offered by the blessed Man. Some have said that He has the role of a heading or preface.158

Like Jerome, the prefatorial understanding of Ps 1 is not primarily rooted in some literary function, but in a christological understanding of the ‘Book’ of Psalms as a whole, with Ps 1 (Christ) as its crown. In this way, it is somewhat similar to the view of Hippolytus spelled out above, and implies that the key of reading the psalms is not in fact Ps 1, but rather the teachings of Christ (the ‫ תורה‬in v. 3). In sum, it is clear that many of the church fathers were aware of a tradition combining Pss 1–2, a tradition they claimed to be Jewish and did not follow themselves. Such a notion also overlapped with arguments noted in both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud. Furthermore, it seems to be that explicit reference to Ps 1 as a preface is not found until the fourth century, and only in Christian tradition where it is primarily understood in a Christological sense. So put, it could also shed light upon the manuscript variation in Acts 13:33, indicating that Codex Bezae, which dated to about the time of Jerome, might have been influenced by the view of Ps 1 that started to become popular at this time, and adjusted the text accordingly. As for early Jewish reception, no notion of any prefatorial function was uncovered, a fact further illustrated by a passage from the Midrash Tehillim:159 You find that whatever Moses did, David did … As Moses gave five books of laws to Israel, so David gave five Books of Psalms to Israel … Finally, as Moses blessed Israel with the words Blessed art thou, O Israel (Deut. 33:29), so David blessed Israel with the words Blessed is the man.160

158

Walsh 1990, 45. Although the current work is quite late, but some nascent collection could perhaps have been available as early as the third century CE (so Braude 1959, 1:xi, xxv–xxvi). 160 Braude 1959, 1:5 (italics original). 159

Chapter 8. Psalms 1–2 as Preface

167

Here, as well as in a more extensive passage,161 the Midrash Tehillim attempts to connect a Davidic ‘Book’ of Psalms to a Mosaic torah, and the function is probably to be conceived as a legitimization of the ‘Book’ of Psalms in the light of torah.162 Hence, Ps 1 fills a function, not primarily as preface to the ‘Book’ of Psalms, but as a link back to Moses.

C. Evaluating the Evidence I. Towards a Definition How, then, should the notion of Pss 1–2 functioning as a preface be evaluated? A last piece of the puzzle would be to provide a possible definition of these types of paratexts, and Genette puts it as the following: [T]he word preface designate[s] every type of introductory (preludial or postludial) text, authorial or allographic, consisting of a discourse produced on the subject of the text that follows or precedes it.163

Being a very broad definition incorporating the various terms often applied (introduction, proem, preamble, but also postscript etc.), it captures the essential, namely, that a preface is separated from the main text by means of being a discourse on it. The way in which prefaces are visually presented and placed within manuscripts, books, and the like, has obviously varied throughout the ages, but this basic notion indicates that some continuity between Genette’s definition and ancient Near Eastern texts could be upheld. If so, the two basic functions he provides could also be illuminating. According to Genette, a preface is directed to a reader of the text, and aims to get the book read, and to get it read properly.164 These two central functions can be described in various ways. As for the first, prefaces often attempt at getting the book read by attaching a high value to the it (by, for example, demonstrating its importance, usefulness, ancientness etc.),165 by pointing to some unifying factor (for example a basic theme or formal feature) of the texts gathered therein (that is, if related to anthologies in particular),166 or even by means of recommendation.167 Moving on to the second function, the aim to get the book read properly could likewise be achieved in 161

See Braude 1959, 1:8–10. Cf. Zenger 1993, 35. 163 Genette 1997b, 161 (italics original). 164 Genette 1997b, 197. 165 Genette 1997b, 198–200. 166 Genette 1997b, 201–6. Evidently, though, the notion of unity would only be highly valued if unity itself is highly esteemed. 167 Genette 1997b, 267–68. 162

168

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

various ways. In essence, the preface tries to equip the reader with the information necessary to situate them in a proper place.168 Such information might be the origin of the work, the stages of its formation, and the circumstances in which it was written, but also the situating of the work within the larger context of either an author’s works, a specific genre, or perhaps the literature of a historical period. A preface could also suggest different paths through a work, as well as state its intent.169 In sum, a preface is ultimately a text that “speak[s] of itself,”170 and if briefly related to the texts surveyed in Part II, it is quite clear that the two basic functions are possible to detect in the collections that had clear examples of prefaces (the beginning of the Zà-Mì hymns spoke of the hymns that followed, as did the prefaces to the various prophetic ‘books’ in the ‘Book’ of the Twelve), but also to a varying degree in the other, more implicit examples. The psalm found in 1QHa cols. 9 1–10 4 could perhaps be interpreted in such a way, if the hortatory language is interpreted as directed to the actual reader, while the first psalm in the Psalms of Solomon does not “speak of itself” in any way, and is thus probably not exhibiting any prefatorial functions. Prefaces were also lacking in the Sumerian Temple Hymns and the Homeric Hymns, indicating that one should perhaps not expect an ancient anthology to have been prefaced. To further situate the notion of preface in an ancient context, one could also refer to the first verses of Proverbs (Prov 1:1–6) which apparently perform the two basic functions of a preface, and a final, unambiguous point of comparison is found in the first lines of the Songs of Isis and Nephtys, which read as follows: Here begins the stanzas of the Festival of the Two Kites which is celebrated in the temple of Osiris, First of the Westerners, the great god, Lord of Abydos, in the fourth month of Inundation, from the twenty-second day down to the twenty-sixth day. The entire temple shall be sanctified, and there shall be brought in [two] women pure of body and virgin, with the hair of their bodies removed, their heads adorned with wigs,… tambourines in their hands, and their names inscribed on their arms, to wit Isis and Nephtys, and they shall sing from the stanzas of this book in the presence of this god.171

Even a cursory reading of this text would make clear that prefatorial functions are at play. Apart from its formal separation from the remainder of the work by the fact that it is written in prose (the main work is poetry), it explicitly has the work in view (“here begins,” “stanzas of this book”). Furthermore, it aims to equip the reader, or in this case the performer, with the right tools to be able to perform the songs in a proper way. It is also implied that the work is to be enacted from beginning to end. 168

Genette 1997b, 212. Genette 1997b, 218, 221–24. For the entire discussion, see 209–29. 170 Genette 1997b, 293. 171 Faulkner 1936, 122. 169

Chapter 8. Psalms 1–2 as Preface

169

II. Debunking Strict ‘Prefatorialism’ Turning directly to Pss 1–2, it is first to be observed that since they are psalms with their own integrity respectively, two main alternatives have been proposed by scholars ascribing to the prefatorial view: either Ps 1 alone functions as preface,172 or else Pss 1–2 function as a redactionally combined preface.173 The first alternative has been briefly introduced in my analysis of Ps 1, and the second has been argued by Zenger in particular. As with the first position, he points to the lack of explicit cultic connotations in Pss 1–2,174 and suggests a shift away from a cultic or liturgical use, and towards the ‘Book’ of Psalms being read and meditated upon as a book.175 Taken as a joint preface, Pss 1–2 would indicate that the collection belonged no more to the temple aristocracy as a songbook of the Second Temple, but gave comfort to completely different groups of people: “Im Psalter fanden jene Gruppen, die in Opposition zur saduzäischen Führung standen, und inbesondere das einfache Volk ihr geistliches Lesebuch.”176 The transition is formulated as follows: Liest man die beiden Seligpreisungen Ps 1,1–2 und Ps 2,12d als zusammengehörende Aussage (sie bilden je eine Inklusion), ergibt sich: Die sich in der Psalmenrezitation vollziehende Aneigung der Tora JHWHs ist der konkrete Vollzug von ‫חסה ביהוה‬. Diese Psalmenrezitation ist in Ps 1 nicht an den Tempel und nicht an besondere tempelkult-bezogene Gebetzeiten gebunden, sondern nur an die Psalmentexte selbst. Damit werden die Psalmen selbst zu einem Haus der Zuflucht …177

But as has been increasingly observed throughout this chapter, such a conclusion is somewhat overstated, and this can be demonstrated if relating Pss 1–2 to the two prefatorial functions introduced above. Starting with the important Ps 1, I argued that the main focus of the psalm was the way of the righteous, contrasted with the way of the wicked. While “meditation” on torah surely constituted a significant part of the characterization of the righteous, the focus was not primarily on the text meditated upon, but on the righteous. Even if focusing on the torah of YHWH, it was proposed that it did in fact not refer to a ‘Book’ of Psalms, but to some torah of Moses, and so the understanding of Ps 1:2 as depicting an advised appropriation of a ‘Book’ of Psalms must be seen as unlikely. To clarify, this implies that the text supposedly prefaced with Ps 1 (or 172

See, e.g., Wilson 1985a, 204–7; Seybold 1990, 15; Kratz 2013, 281. See, e.g., Hossfeld & Zenger 1993, 45; Barbiero 1999, 42; Howard Jr. 1999b, 337; Auwers 2000, 123; Høgenhaven 2001, 173; Saur 2004, 297; Weber 2006, 256; Brown 2010, 116–17; Hartenstein 2010, 229; Janowski 2010, 281–84; Mays 2011, 15; deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 59; Longman III 2014, 55. 174 Zenger 1997a, 105. 175 Zenger 1991, 398; Zenger 1999, 116–18; cf., e.g., Wilson 2002a, 1:99–102; Weber 2010, 741. 176 Zenger 1991, 397. 177 Zenger 1998b, 38. 173

170

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

Pss 1–2) is in fact not mentioned in Ps 1, and thus, that it cannot be understood as a text “speaking of itself.” Now, one could perhaps argue that Ps 1 still performs this function implicitly, as it introduces a fundamental dichotomy between the righteous one and his antagonists, a dichotomy permeating many of the psalms now found in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms,178 or that the connotations of ‫ תורת יהוה‬changed over time, so that it eventually included psalms as well. However, the understanding that Ps 1 directs the reader not to the ‘Book’ of Psalms, but to another text, makes such an understanding unlikely. Put differently, the basic problem would be how a psalm focusing on the happy life of a man meditating on torah could suddenly function as a reading instruction for a ‘Book’ of Psalms.179 Furthermore, the brief overview of the contexts in which ‫ תורת יהוה‬was used painted a consistent picture where a torah of Moses was the primary referent. Consequently, I would consider as unconvincing the view that Ps 1 is in some way encouraging the reader to read, study, and meditate upon a ‘Book’ of Psalms. Ps 1 simply does not provide the often-suggested new interpretive framework for the psalms included in the collection to which it was added. It does not imply that such psalms are now to be read as torah. Had v. 2 read, for example, ‫( התורה הזה‬as in Josh 1:8), the argument could perhaps have been made. If a reasonable argument, it also follows that Ps 1 does not perform the function of getting the work read properly either. Rather, it provides with characteristics of a righteous human and his or her antagonists with the aim of setting a clear example, to promote the way of life of the righteous. The context of the admonitions, then, is not that of a literary work, but that of a life. Nevertheless, if related to the discussion of the addition of Ps 2:12bd, and, for example, the notion of two psalms comprising a framework around the Psalms of Solomon, it could perhaps be suggested that these two psalms might once have formed part of frameworks around some collection(s) of psalms, and is thus somewhat indicative for the formative history of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. If so, the issue has to be related to a discussion on what such collections might have looked like by their time of addition, and will be brought up again in the concluding Part VI. In sum, I would propose that the view of Ps 1 as a preface to the ‘Book’ of Psalms is ultimately to be seen as a part of its reception history, developed in particular in a Greek, Christian tradition, and plausibly related to the book history of that particular context. The idea of a joint preface including Ps 2 is, on the other hand, not heard of until recent scholarship, and thus needs to be seen as distinct from the recurrent joining of the two psalms in Hebrew manuscripts up until the Middle Ages. Noteworthy is that the combination of the two psalms

178 179

For the use of this theme throughout the ‘Book’ of Psalms, see, e.g., Creach 2008. Cf. the argument in Whybray 1996, 40–41.

Chapter 8. Psalms 1–2 as Preface

171

was not seen in LXX manuscripts. If the analysis given here is reasonable, it also follows that the notion of psalms (or collections of psalms) as “scripture” is not primarily connected to a function of Ps 1 as preface, but would have been triggered by other factors.180

180

Cf. Willgren Fca.

Chapter 9

Superscriptions The next possible paratexts to be inquired into are the so-called superscriptions.1 Although featuring a large amount of obscure terms that have been notoriously difficult to decipher, they have recently been argued to indicate deliberate juxtaposition and reveal various redactional techniques. As noted above, they have contributed to the idea of a gradual stabilization of the ‘Book’ of Psalms (since Pss 1–89 were seen as reflecting organizational techniques different from Pss 90–150),2 and are thus vital for the understanding of the Sitz in der Literatur of the individual psalm, as well as to the reconstruction of earlier collections. That these superscriptions are to be seen as paratexts is quite straightforward. There are, in most cases, clear tensions between the psalms and their superscriptions, indicating that the superscription is not actually to be considered as part of the body of the psalm, and it has commonly been suggested that they are later additions. Although such observations enabled early form critical studies to disregard these superscriptions entirely, their identification as paratexts implies that they are no mere technicality, but rather surround the psalm to present it (or, to make present), and to guide its use and reception.3 This effect would pertain regardless of their time of addition, although later additions or changes could potentially alter the way the text is received, so that they can be used for purposes that bear little (if any) relation to the reasons for which they

1

I will use the term superscription when referring to elements that are found at the beginning of a psalm, and subscription to those found at the end. This does not necessarily mean that their current location is where they have always been placed, and I will, when necessary, discuss alternative placements. It might be that some of the psalm superscriptions originally belonged to the preceding psalm (cf. Bayer 1982, 76–111; Waltke 1991. Compare also the early Thirtle 1904, 10–16, who argued that musical directions and ‫ למנצח‬were originally placed as subscripts, while information concerning ‘type’, ‘author’ and context of use were found as superscriptions [cf. Hab 3]. See also Gevaryahu 1975), although a problem with many studies proceeding from such a line of inquiry is that they presuppose a MT sequence in the identification of the “preceding” psalm. For an early attempt to analyze superscriptions “in relation to the chronological arrangement of the smaller collections,” see Berry 1914. 2 See esp. Wilson 1984; Wilson 1985a; Wilson 1985c. 3 Genette 1997b, 1–2.

Chapter 9. Superscriptions

173

were initially added. Moreover, once added, they would be one of the first interpretive guidelines encountered by the ones using the psalms. This said, it is clear that the superscriptions cannot be categorized easily as a specific type of paratext (say, for example, as a title), simply because the various superscriptions throughout the ‘Book’ of Psalms contain elements that reasonably perform quite different functions. In my analysis below, therefore, I will treat similar elements together, and for this, I use some provisional categories. First, I will discuss the so-called ‘author’ designations. Then, I will focus on the use of ‘type’ designations, followed by an overview of musical directions and indications of use. Furthermore, I will inquire into the ‘biographical’ notes, as well as the occurrence of Hallelujah, both as superscription and subscription. Last, I will deal with the fact that some psalms have no superscriptions.4 In these analyses, a fundamental question will be whether some of these elements could be argued (to have been added) to perform organizational functions, that is, if they seem to play a part in the structural formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, or if they primarily relate to the individual psalm. Furthermore, the discussion will have to take into account various ways of arranging psalms, as found in the MT/LXX and DSS sequences.5 The analyses will be followed by a discussion of the observed functions and their implication for the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. To further assist the overview of the superscriptions, I have provided a table in Appendix 2.

A. Overview and Analysis I. ‘Author’ Designations The most common of the elements found throughout the superscriptions is what I here call ‘author’ designations. More specifically, the following ‘authors’ occur: 1) David (MT, DSS, LXX) 2) the sons of Korah (MT, DSS, LXX) 3) Asaph (MT, DSS, LXX) 4) Solomon (MT, DSS, LXX) 5) the sons of Ionadab and the first of those taken captive (LXX, together with David) 4 A roughly similar way to categorize these elements is found in Bayer 1982, 70–71 (I: ‫ ;למנצח‬II: ‫על‬-X and its “allo-forms”; III: “genre terms”; IV: “personal name”; V: “cause/ purpose of the composition”). See also Smith 2001, 246. 5 A consequence of this approach is that no single parallel to the superscriptions can be found in other ancient Near Eastern texts, although it is clear that Mesopotamian scribes generally placed information about instruments involved, the type of composition, and some aspect of their performance or the like, as a subscript, preceding the colophon (Rubio 2009, 22–23).

174

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

6) Heman the Ezrahite (MT, DSS, LXX, together with the Sons of Korah) 7) Ethan the Ezrahite (MT, DSS?, LXX) 8) Moses (MT, DSS?, LXX) 9) Jeremiah and Ezekiel (LXX) 10) Haggai and Zechariah (LXX)

Looking first at the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, similar ‘author’ designations are often found in long series of juxtaposed psalms, so that fairly distinct sections can be observed. There are four sections of psalms with a Davidic ‘author’ designation: Pss 3–41 (except for Pss 10 and 33); 51–70 (except for Pss 66–67); 108– 110 (in some Hebrew medieval manuscripts, Ps 108 features both David and Asaph); and 138–145. There is one sequence of psalms of the Sons of Korah, Pss 42–49 (except for Ps 43), and one section of psalms of Asaph, Pss 73–83. Besides these longer sequences, ‘author’ designations are also found scattered throughout the collection, and interestingly, this applies not only to ‘author’ designations only attested once, or a few times (such as Solomon, Heman, Ethan and Moses), but also to those otherwise found in the clusters mentioned above. Consequently, psalms of both David and Asaph are found disconnected from the longer sequences (Pss 50, 86, 101, 103, 122, 124, 131, 133), and more curiously, one of the Davidic superscriptions divides a possible Korahite section into two smaller parts (Pss 84–85, and 87–88 and 89[?], where the fourth psalm [Ps 88] also mentions Heman, and the fifth [Ps 89] is attributed to Ethan). Similarly, the Asaphite Ps 50 is found between two longer sequences of Korahite and Davidic psalms respectively. To explain this phenomenon, Wilson proposed the notion of an “interlocking technique” intended to bind various groups together while at the same time creating interpretive frameworks (see Figure 1 below).6 Presupposed in such a model is that every (or at least most) superscription would have been intentionally used to structure the ‘Book’ of Psalms, and so I will have to return to the plausibility of such a view once more material has been taken into consideration (see below, p. 191).

42/43 – 49

David 51 –––––––––––– 71 + 72 Asaphite Korahite Frame 50

73 – 83

84 – 85

86

87–88 + 89

Figure 1: Wilson’s interlocking techniques

A striking feature in the distribution of psalms with ‘author’ designations is the often-noticed frequency of such psalms throughout the first parts of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. Especially noteworthy is the lack of superscriptions mentioning any of the temple singer guilds after Ps 89. Generally speaking, psalms with ‘au-

6

Wilson 1993a. The illustration is found on page 77.

Chapter 9. Superscriptions

175

thor’ designations are clustered in sequences throughout Pss 3–90, but after Ps 90, there are quite a number of psalms without ‘author’ designations, and even when such designations occur, they are seldom juxtaposed. There are, however, exceptions, and the long sequence of Pss 138–145 (attributed to David) would be the clearest one. Consequently, one might provisionally posit that ‘author’ designations do not perform any organizing function for at least Pss 91–137 (the possible exception is Pss 104–105), while they could have been be used in such a way throughout Pss 3–90. The picture changes considerably when turning to the LXX ‘Book’ of Psalms (see Appendix 2). If looking first at the psalms throughout Ψ 3–89, every psalm lacking a superscription in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms is now provided with a Davidic superscription.7 This applies both to psalms within Davidic sequences (Ψ 32), and those juxtaposed to such sequences (Ψ 70, which also mentions “the sons of Ionadab and the first ones taken captive”).8 Also noteworthy is the addition to a psalm within a Korahite sequence (Ψ 42). This could indicate that the presence of a Davidic Ps 86 in the midst of a Korahite sequence in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms could be understood along similar lines, thus not necessarily providing any interlocking function. Similarly, in the psalms that follow Ψ 89, Davidic ‘author’ designations feature in many psalms without superscription in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms (Ψ 90, 92–98, 104, 136), but curiously enough, Davidic superscriptions are not found in any of Ψ 65, 66, 91, 99, or 101.9 Had this been the case, long sequences of Davidic psalms would have been formed (e.g., Ψ 90–103), but since it is not so, a possible rationale behind the additions might be discerned. In fact, it seems as if the LXX presupposes the MT sequences, so that the LXX added Davidic superscriptions to psalms that previously lacked a superscription. The rationale, then, would not have been to structure sections according to authorship, but to ensure that all psalms were provided with superscriptions, and it seems as if the LXX would have preferred David as ‘author’, although such a conclusion is somewhat nuanced by the fact that Ψ 145–148 are attributed to Haggai and Zechariah, and that some manuscripts attribute Ψ 136 to Jeremiah. As for the former, it has been argued that the attribution probably indicates that these psalms were to be associated with the period of restoration following the exile (cf. Ezr 5:1, 6:14).10 Turning to the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls, they unfortunately rarely preserve the superscriptions. However, the overall impression is that, when attested, the ‘author’ designations generally agree with the MT. However, differences are to be found in six psalms.11 First, Ps 15 lacks superscription in 5/6Ḥev1b, where it 7

MT Ps 10 is not without superscription, as it is combined with MT Ps 9 into Ψ 9. Slomovic 1979, 358–59, makes a possible connection to Jer 50–51. 9 The LXX also lacks Davidic designations in two psalms (Ψ 121 and 123). 10 See below, pp. 245–74; cf. Goldingay 2008, 708; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 616. 8

176

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

is found in a long sequence of Davidic psalms, thus disagreeing with both MT and the LXX. Second, Ps 33, a psalm always found directly after Ps 31, is reconstructed both with (4Q98) and without (4Q83) a Davidic ‘author’ designation. Consequently, the second agrees with MT, while the first partly overlaps with the LXX (except for the presence of ‫)שיר מזמור‬. Although 4Q98 cannot be sufficiently reconstructed, 4Q83 clearly has the psalm in a sequence of Davidic psalms. Furthermore, 4Q83 is older than 4Q98, perhaps indicating that the (added) designation in 4Q98 should be considered a later development. Third, a Davidic designation is possibly found in Ps 99 (4Q92 as with Ψ 98, contra MT, also perhaps in 4Q98e, both scrolls with little possibility to reconstruct any clear sequences), and Ps 104. The latter is always part of sequences different from the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms and occurs both with (4Q87) and without (4Q86, 11Q5) an ‘author’ designation. Given this, 4Q86 and 11Q5 agree with MT, while 4Q87 agrees with the LXX, and in all cases, it is found in sequences of psalms with few Davidic superscriptions. It should also be noted that 4Q86 is older than both 4Q87 and 11Q5, so that the observations made in relation to 4Q83 and 4Q98 are made plausible. A Davidic superscription is also found in Ps 123 (11Q5, contra MT and the LXX, the sequence Pss 120–132 is otherwise overlapping with both MT and the LXX), while Ps 144 lacks the ‘author’ designation altogether in a sequence of psalms with somewhat scattered Davidic ‘author’ designations (11Q5, contra MT and the LXX). In sum, the overall impression of the variants found in the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls is that no systematic organization of psalms by ‘author’ designation is to be found, save for those instances where sequences overlap with the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. In scrolls featuring compositions not included in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, it is quite clear that they are not structured by means of juxtaposing compositions with similar ‘author’ designations (so, for example, 4Q88, 11Q5, and 11Q6, although it might have been the case in 11Q11, see below, pp. 339– 41). Rather, they seem to indicate that the superscription was transmitted as part of the psalm itself, regardless of which psalm(s) it was juxtaposed to, and that over time, an increasing amount of psalms were attributed to David, as with the LXX. Turning more explicitly to possible paratextual functions of these ‘author’ designations, it is well known that the preposition ‫ ל‬is quite ambiguous, and consequently, various interpretations have been provided. As it comes to Asaph and the sons of Korah, the main view is that ‫ ל‬indicates that the psalm belonged to the repertoire of these groups of temple singers.12 If so, ‫ לאסף‬and ‫לבני קרח‬ 11

Cf. the suggestion above that Ps 91 has a Davidic superscription in 11Q11 (p. 102). Sarna 1979, 285–86; Mowinckel 1980, 357–60; Zenger 1998b, 27; Jonker 2004, 111– 13; Zenger 2011, 1:26. For the Asaphite psalms, see, e.g., Buss 1963; Illman 1976; Goulder 1982a; Nasuti 1988; Goulder 1995; Houston 1995; Weber 2001. For the psalms of the sons of Korah, see, e.g., Goulder 1982b; Zenger 1994c; Mitchell 2006a. 12

Chapter 9. Superscriptions

177

would not primarily relate the psalm to some collection of psalms, but rather would provide a conceptual affiliation of the psalms to these guilds. Moreover, there are several indications that ‫ לדוד‬would have had a similar function. Although it was later to be interpreted as indicating Davidic authorship,13 it has been suggested by Mroczek, for example, that the preposition rather indicates a looser association with David.14 Here, she points to a study by Albert Pietersma, who shows that while the Old Greek translator used the dative τῷ Δαυιδ “pertaining to David,” it was later sometimes to be replaced with the genitive τοῦ, the latter underscoring Davidic authorship.15 This would indicate that the Old Greek translator did not understand the Hebrew to convey a notion of authorship, and supports the idea that the primary function of ‫ לדוד‬was to relate the psalm to David (or, perhaps better, to relate David to the psalm)16 in some way. The double attribution of Ps 108 to both David and Asaph in some Hebrew medieval manuscripts could perhaps be indicative here as well. A possible point of comparison could also be the Ugaritic scribal comments relating compositions to Baal (see esp. lbʿl, KTU 1.6 I 1; lkrt, KTU 1.14 I 1; KTU 1.16 I 1; l’aqht, KTU 1.19 I 1). Perhaps to be understood as performative descriptions,17 two possible interpretations are that they either served as thematic titles (“concerning Baal”)18 or perhaps even as “belonging to the Baal cycle”.19 If the latter, it could indicate that ‫ לדוד‬implicitly refers to some corpus of Davidic psalms, but in contrast to the scribal comments, this need not necessarily be a literary collection, but perhaps rather a dynamic tradition to which psalms became increasingly associated. Consequently, it is quite similar to ‫ לאסף‬and ‫לבני קרח‬, and it could be suggested that as psalms were continuously written down in various constellations, and as these interpretive traditions were increasingly attached to the psalms themselves, they would eventually partake in the creation of the notion of a written corpus of Davidic psalms. In light of these observations, the ‘author’ designations would have a twofold function, once made part of a psalm. First, and foremost, they would relate David (or Solomon, Asaph etc.) to the individual psalm but in so doing, they would also evoke notions of larger corpora of psalms similarly attributed. The observations above also imply that although some MT and LXX sequences

13

See Chapter 15 below, and possibly also DavComp 11Q5 27 4. Mroczek 2015a, 17–18. Cf. Mays 2011, 12, who suggests that “[t]he earliest attributions of some psalms to David may have been based on the tradition that honored him as patron and founder of temple music.” 15 Mroczek 2015a, 18; cf. Pietersma 1980, 213–26; Pietersma 2001, 102–3; Mroczek 2016, 60, 68. 16 Cf. Mroczek 2016, 56–58. 17 So Weiser 1962, esp. 96–97. 18 Cf. Smith 1994, 4. 19 Pardee 1976, 301; Craigie & Tate 2004, 34. 14

178

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

seem to have been organized by similar ‘author’ designations, they would not necessarily indicate previously independent collections of psalms, since these designations (especially the Davidic ones) were added over time, and since Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls configured psalms in quite different ways, indicating that the contours of a collection do not need to overlap with the borders of a sequence of similarly designated psalms. II. ‘Type’ Designations The features I here call ‘type’ designations are not easily demarcated as a group. It is, in a sense, an artificial designation, and modern form critical categories rarely overlap with the features.20 Consequently, the term ‘type’ should be understood in a wide sense, basically referring to the parts of the superscriptions that could in some way be argued to perform the functions of a rhematic title.21 In other words, they would refer to the psalm by means of its form rather than its content, and apart from ‫ שיר‬and the peculiar double superscription in Ps 88, they never occur together in any psalm (MT, DSS or LXX). The terms are the following: 1) ‫( מזמור‬MT, DSS, LXX regularly translates with ψαλµός)22 2) ‫( שיר‬1x in MT, DSS, LXX translates with ᾠδή, although one time with ψαλµός) 3) ‫( מכתם‬MT, DSS, LXX translates with στηλογραφία)23 4) ‫( משכיל‬MT, DSS, LXX translates with σύνεσις) 5) ‫( תפלה‬MT, DSS, LXX translates with προσευχή) 6) ‫( שגיון‬MT, DSS, LXX, translates with ψαλµός) 7) ‫( שיר המעלות‬MT, DSS, LXX translates with ᾠδὴ τῶν ἀναβαθµῶν) 8) ‫( תהלה‬MT, LXX translates with αἴνεσις)

20

See, however, Hossfeld & Zenger 2005, 2, where some overlap is argued throughout Pss 51–100. This is not so clear, however, as the groups identified on form critical grounds only partially overlap with the attested ‘type’ designations. As for the latter, Zenger argues for a ‫ משכיל‬group in Pss 52–55, a ‫ מכתם‬group in Ps 56–59, a ‫ מזמור‬group in Pss 61–64, and a ‫שיר‬ group in Pss 65–68. However, he fails to count Ps 60 to the ‫ מכתם‬psalms, oddly counts Ps 61 as ‫ מזמור‬psalm (although the term is lacking), and breaks Pss 62–68 into two parts, although they are all ‫ מזמור‬psalms. 21 See Genette 1997b, 77–79, 86–89, 94–103. 22 As for the translation of various terms into Greek, I will not comment in length here, suffice to notice that it is not consequently executed, if presuming that the Vorlage resembles the MT. See, e.g., the translation of ‫ שיר‬in Ψ 44 (ᾠδή) and Ψ 45 (ψαλµός). 23 Many have noted the obscurity of this term, and the LXX translation is interesting (“inscription”), as it understands the term not as a ‘type’ designation, but as relating to the physical appearance of the psalm. A similar understanding was suggested by Ginsberg 1945, and further argued by Miller 2000 (esp. 212), and could perhaps explain the expression ‫“( אל־תשחת‬not to be destroyed”) featuring in three of these psalms (Pss 57–59). It could also be a musical direction (cf. Vos 2005, 45).

Chapter 9. Superscriptions

179

A brief look at the distribution of these ‘type’ designations throughout the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms shows that although psalms with similar designations are sometimes juxtaposed (there is one group of seven psalms [Pss 62–68], one group of six [Pss 19–24], and two groups of five [Pss 47–51, Pss 56–60], that is, only partially overlapping with the ‘author’ designations), they do not seem to have been important in the overall organization of psalms. This is seen clearly if related to the ‘author’ designations, since all psalms with similar ‘type’ designations are never juxtaposed within longer sequences of, say, Davidic psalms. One notable exception, however, is found in Pss 120–134. Here, fourteen consecutive psalms all share the term ‫שיר‬, further specified by ‫מעלות‬. The latter is commonly prefixed by ‫ה‬, or as in Ps 120, ‫( ל‬DSS lacks this preface in Ps 134, as well as ‫ שיר‬in Ps 123).24 Taken together with the observation that most of these psalms are juxtaposed in several manuscripts in the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls, it might be posited that the superscriptions have played a part in the organization of these psalms. Apart from the sequences mentioned here, the rest of the ‘type’ designations are quite scattered throughout the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, perhaps especially so after Ps 90. Moving on to the LXX, additional ‘type’ designations are found several times, and the emerging picture seems similar to the additions of ‘author’ designations above, namely, that the additional ‘type’ designations presuppose a MT sequence. This is seen, not least, in the fact that the LXX has the elements in the exact same order when overlapping with the MT superscriptions.25 Given this, no alteration is made to make the superscriptions more consistent, and a case in point is found in Pss 40–41 (Ψ 39–40) where Ps 40 has ‫לדוד מזמור‬, Ps 41 has ‫מזמור לדוד‬, and the LXX has the same order. This said, it is also noteworthy that in each case where the LXX adds Δαυιδ or ψαλµός, the reading is always ψαλµός τῷ Δαυιδ. Furthermore, the LXX never seems to have supplied a ‘type’ designation to a psalm with no other element in the MT superscription, although it supplied ‘author’ designations to psalms with only ‘type’ designations in the MT (cf. Ψ 97). Additional support for the suggestion that the LXX builds on the MT sequence is found in Ψ 7, 10, and 13. By supplying ψαλµός to each of these psalms, a long sequence of psalms with the same ‘type’ designation is formed (Ψ 3–14). In sum, it is quite clear that the ‘type’ designations do not perform any organizing functions in the LXX either. As with the ‘author’ designations, the ‘type’ designations attested in the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls also generally agree with MT, and curiously, when disagreeing, it is often in the same psalms that disagreed with respect to ‘author’ designations. This is the case with Ps 15 (which has no ‘type’, nor ‘author’ designation), Ps 33 (which is found both with and without ‘type’ and ‘au-

24 25

For an overview, see the excursus in Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 286–99. There are a few exceptions, as can be seen in the Appendix 2 (Ψ 4[?], 23, 47, 138, 139).

180

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

thor’ designation), and Ps 99 (which is possibly found with both ‘type’ and ‘author’ designation). Ps 123, which had an additional ‘author’ designation, lacks a ‫שיר‬, and in Ps 134, ‫ שיר המעלות‬does not feature at all (11Q5, contra both the MT and the LXX). Furthermore, the psalm is not placed together with the rest of the sequence of ‫ שיר המעלות‬psalms (Pss 120–132), nor is Ps 133. Last, Ps 145 does not read ‫ תהלה‬but ‫( תפלה‬11Q5).26 In sum, the overall impression is similar to both MT and the LXX, namely that ‘type’ designations have not been subject to any organizational concern. Nevertheless, Wilson made a great deal of them, arguing that there were several occasions where they in fact showed signs of purposeful arrangement, and consequently, a brief revisiting of his arguments are given below. First, Wilson identifies several groups of psalms with the same ‘type’ designation (eight ‫ מזמור‬groups with 3–7 psalms in each groups, one ‫ מכתם‬group, and three ‫ משכיל‬groups with 2–4 psalms in each). Second, he relates these designations to other terms possibly shared within the identified groups (notably ‘author’ designations and ‫ )למנצח‬and concludes that the “tendency to juxtapose compositions whose s/ss have one, two, three, or more terms in common is clearly established.”27 These observations are then related to the fivefold division of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, and as mentioned in Chapter 1.A, this eventually lead Wilson to suggest a purposeful redaction. Consider Pss 47–51 as an example of what he suggests is a use of ‫ מזמור‬to “soften” the “abrupt” transition between ‘author’ designations, thus binding the collections together (Figure 2):28 47 ‫לבני־קרח‬ ‫מזמור‬

48 ‫לבני־קרח‬ ‫מזמור‬

49 ‫לבני־קרח‬ ‫מזמור‬

50 ‫לאסף‬ ‫מזמור‬

51 ‫לדוד‬ ‫מזמור‬

Figure 2: Wilson’s softening techniques

Similar patterns were observed in Pss 62–68, where ‫מזמור‬, ‫שיר‬, and ‫ למנצח‬contributed to a softening of the lack of Davidic ‘author’ designations in Pss 66– 67.29 As has been seen before, the opposite was also true, namely that the lack of smoothing ‘type’ designations enforced the abruptness of the transitions between collections, notably at the seams of the ‘Book’ of Psalms (between Pss 70–72 and Ps 73, as well as between Pss 87–89 and Ps 90). To account for the

26

For Ps 145, see my analysis below, pp. 245–51. Wilson 1985a, 161. 28 Wilson 1985a, 163. As is seen here, these softening techniques somewhat contradict the idea of interlocking functions of the “orphan” ‘author’ designations that he developed later on. 29 Wilson 1985a, 163–65. See also similar softenings in Pss 82–85 and Pss 87–89 respectively. 27

Chapter 9. Superscriptions

181

reduced importance of the first seam (Pss 41–42/43) in his overall hypothesis, Wilson further suggested that a softening function could also be performed by ‫למנצח‬, thus binding Pss 39–47 together. Now, although well argued, there are several problems with this proposal. First, the idea that ‫ למנצח‬was used to soften abrupt breaks is quite problematic. In fact, Wilson is not consistent in his view, since consecutive psalms with superscriptions including the term ‫ למנצח‬are found in many places, but are never again claimed to have this function. Moreover, the lack of ‫ למנצח‬in Ps 63 (which is a part of Wilson’s smoothing Pss 62–70) would rather speak against such a conclusion. Second, while Wilson’s suggestion might work in the psalms studied, they raise a number of questions pertaining to psalms not mentioned. For example, why is Ps 61 not given any ‘type’ designation? Why is the Solomonic Ps 72 not bound into the Davidic group with ‘type’ designations? Why are the two ‫ משכיל‬psalms in the Asaph section not placed together, if the juxtaposition of psalms with the same ‘type’ designation was an organizational feature? These, and numerous similar questions, are generated by Wilson’s theory, ultimately rendering his suggestion unattractive.30 But the weakest part is perhaps the material presuppositions. 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. Redactors must then have seen a problem with “abrupt” changes of author designation, and for a coherent reading to be achieved (a notion which is in itself problematic), they added(?) ‘type’ designations to lessen the effect of the ‘author’ changes. However, Wilson claims that psalms with similar ‘type’ designations were rather brought together to this effect, but that would presuppose that the order of the psalms was in fact not fixed, and so the problem supposedly solved by ‘type’ designations would never have existed. Let me clarify this even further. According to Wilson, “author-groupings are used to mark points of disjuncture in the Psalter.”31 These points of disjuncture are then found at the end of each ‘author’ group, and had to be dealt with in some way. So, redactors either enforced these existing or fixed junctures, or softened them by the use of ‘type’ designations. But for this to work, one would have to posit that while the ‘author’ designations, as well as the placement of these psalms were fixed, the ‘type’ designations were not. And to such a claim, there is no foundation. Even more problematic is the fact that the ‘book’ divisions and the doxologies are mentioned in this context,32 implying that the redactors would have enforced ‘authorship’ junctures around these divisions, despite the likely conclusion that these ‘book’ divisions are much later than the

30

See also the critique in Koh 2010, esp. 181–82. Wilson 1985a, 163. 32 See, e.g., Wilson 1985a, 157. 31

182

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

addition of ‘type’ designations, so that, if anything, the doxologies would enforce ‘authorship’ junctures, not the other way around. These problems become even clearer when the LXX is taken into consideration. As I noted above, the LXX seems to demonstrate what the addition of superscriptions to fixed sequences of psalms might have looked like, not least in the creation of a long sequence of psalms with similar ‘type’ designations (Ψ 3–14). As this included both additions and a change of superscription (Ψ 7) it is quite unlike the model proposed by Wilson. Furthermore, in light of the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls, Wilson’s presupposed fixed sequences cannot be sustained. In sum, I would suggest that, apart from the juxtaposition of Pss 120–132 (and eventually Pss 133–134), the occurrence of ‘type’ designations can hardly be considered of any greater importance in the overall organization of psalms. They are concerned with nothing more than the individual psalms, and their paratextual function would primarily be that of a rhematic title, designating (or describing) the compositions by means of formal characteristics. III. Musical Directions and Indications of Use The third feature sometimes present in the superscriptions is what has commonly been referred to as “musical directions” or the like. This is a fairly broad category comprising many different terms, and the meaning of most of them is difficult to uncover. As seen in the Greek and Latin versions, their meaning was probably lost at an early time.33 Common to these terms is that they are regularly prefixed by the prepositions ‫על‬, ‫אל‬, or ‫ב‬, and they are distributed throughout the following (MT) psalms:34 Pss 6, 12 (‫ ;)על־השמינית‬Pss 8, 81, 84 (‫;)על־הגתית‬ Ps 22 (‫ ;)על־אילת השחר‬Pss 45, 69 (‫ ;)על־ששנים‬Ps 46 (‫ ;)על־עלמות‬Ps 53 (‫ ;)על־מחלת‬Ps 56 (‫ ;)על־יונת אלם רחקים‬Ps 60 (‫ ;)על־שושן עדות‬Ps 88 (‫על־מחלת‬ ‫ ;)לענות‬Ps 5 (‫ ;)אל־הנחילות‬Ps 80 (‫ ;)אל־ששנים עדות‬as well as Pss 4, 6, 54, 55, 61, 67, and 76 (‫)בנגינות‬. Apart from these, another three expressions probably belong here as well, although not prefixed by any of the prepositions above: ‫( עלמות לבן‬Ps 9); ‫( לידיתון‬Pss 39, 62, 77);35 and ‫( אל־תשחת‬Pss 57, 58, 59, 75).

33

Cf. perhaps the preservation and transmission of unintelligible Sumerian texts by Akkadian scribes (Sarna 1979, 290). For an overview and analysis of the meaning of these elements, see Braun 2002, esp. 37–42. Bayer 1982, 78, suggests that the meaning of these terms were lost by the time of the 1–2 Chronicles. In her view, the unusual use made of two of these terms in 1 Chr 15:20–21 was done to “furnish the convincing patina of High Antiquity.” For an overview of how the terms are translated into Greek, see Pietersma 2005. 34 Braun 2002, 39. One could perhaps mention ‫ סלה‬here as well, although it never features in the superscriptions. It seems to have once had some (now lost) paratextual function, perhaps read as some performative instruction. 35 Although this may be an ‘author’ designation (Smith 2001, 246–47; Jonker 2004, 103, with n. 6), at least in Ps 39 (cf. 1 Chr 25:3).

Chapter 9. Superscriptions

183

As the distribution and variation of these terms show, they are not to be considered as important to the organization of psalms, but their presence could nevertheless give some indications about its formation. If understanding the irretrievability of the meaning of many of these terms as caused by some change in use and historical circumstances, rather than being an indication of, say, a redactional purpose,36 there is an important observation to be made. Throughout Pss 4–88, these terms are fairly widely distributed, although clustered especially around Pss 53–62, but as for Pss 89–150, they are nowhere to be found. Since the pattern is so clear, it would reasonably reflect some change in how these psalms were perceived and used, rather than being the result of mere chance. Interesting in this context is that neither the ‘psalms’ scrolls, nor the LXX, add or subtract to these occurrences. Hence, it would be reasonable to assume that the function of these paratexts has changed from specifying some musical performance to instead provide a general notion of antiquity and status to the psalms to which they were attached. It also indicates that the overall tendency is that superscriptions are added over time, and that previous elements are seldom removed, even if unintelligible. Closely related to the musical directions are also what I have called “indications of use.” These are expressions commonly interpreted as relating the psalm to either some kind of liturgy, to a specific person supposed to perform the psalm, or to some specific time or event. Here, Pss 38, 70 (‫)להזכיר‬, Ps 60 (‫)ללמד‬, and possibly Ps 100 (‫לתודה‬, a worship service of thanksgiving?)37 all probably point to liturgies. Persons are mentioned in Pss 18, 36 (‫)לעבד יהוה‬, and Ps 102 (‫לעני כי־יעטף ולפני יהוה ישפך שיחו‬, “one afflicted, when faint and pleading before YHWH”). The latter could indicate something of a more private setting, although it does not exclude the possibility of the individual coming to a sanctuary (depending on the interpretation of ‫)לפני יהוה‬.38 A person is also likely to feature in the psalms containing ‫למנצח‬. These are distributed in a way similar to the musical directions. Of its 55 occurrences in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, 52 are throughout Pss 4–88, and then only in Pss 109, 139, and 140 respectively. Furthermore, it is only supplied once by the LXX, which translates the term with εἰς τὸ τέλος (Ψ 29), there placed at the beginning of the superscription, as with the common use in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. Specific times and events

36

Contra Wilson 1985a, 170. Bayer 1982, 78–80, suggests that the common ending (‫)ת‬ points to a northern provenance, thus indicating an origin prior to the fall of the Northern kingdom, “at any rate not late Jerusalemite” (n. 41), and possibly explaining the “misuse” in 1 Chr 15 (n. 33 above). 37 Cf. Smith 2001, 258–59; Goldingay 2008, 134. It is not clear whether it should be interpreted in such a way (a popular suggestion has been to understand the psalm as an entry hymn, Gerstenberger 2001, 205), but even if understood in the more general sense of thanksgiving (cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 2005, 495), it would still indicate some sort of use. 38 Cf. Goldingay 2008, 150.

184

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

are probably mentioned in Ps 30 (‫)חנכת הבית‬, which seems to indicate a change in use (since the psalm is a psalm of thanksgiving of the individual),39 and in Ps 92 (‫ליום השבת‬, “on the day of the Sabbath”).40 As far as the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls go, no differences are observable, but in the LXX, an interesting feature reveals itself. Here, Ψ 23 reads τῆς µιᾶς σαββάτων (“of the first day of the week”), Ψ 37 reads περὶ σαββάτου (“about Sabbath”), and Ψ Ps 47 reads δευτέρᾳ σαββάτου (“pertaining to the second day of the week”). Furthermore, Ψ 92 features εἰς τὴν ἡµέραν τοῦ προσαββάτου (“regarding the day of the pre-sabbath”), and Ψ 93 reads τετράδι σαββάτων (“pertaining to the fourth day of the week”). Together with the translation of Ps 92 (εἰς τὴν ἡµέραν τοῦ σαββάτου, “regarding the day of the sabbath”), a total of six LXX psalms relate to the various days of the week, but two days are not found (the third and fifth day respectively). However, in m. Tamid 7:4, it is said that Ps 81 (fifth day) and Ps 82 (third day) were used in a similar way.41 The relation between the MT, the LXX, and the Mishnah indicate that these superscriptions were not added in a single move. Rather, it seems as if a well-known use was noted somewhere (perhaps even in the margins), only to eventually be made part of the actual superscriptions. Furthermore, as these psalms are not juxtaposed, it could indicate that the LXX presupposes MT sequences here as well. It could be concluded, then, that the way that psalms were used would ultimately effect the text itself,42 and conversely, that such contexts of use seem quite independent of any notion of literary context. As for the paratextual functions performed by these superscriptional elements, they constitute a discourse on the subject of the individual psalm that resemble the two basic prefatorial functions described in the last chapter (Chapter 8, esp. pp. 167–68). If so, musical directions and indications of use would have been added to get the psalm read, and to get it read properly. IV. ‘Biographical’ Notes The superscriptional element I have called ‘biographical’ notes features in Pss 3, (7, 18), 34, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, and 142. With the exceptions of Pss 7 and 18, they all have an identical syntax.43 The basic form being the preposition ‫ב‬, followed by an infinitive construct placing the psalm within the context of the stories of David, Childs proposes that they reflect a conscious “scholarly

39

Cf. Zenger 2011, 1:26. Slomovic 1979, 368–69, relates the psalm to 1 Chr 21–22. According to Mowinckel 1980, 495, ‫( לענות‬Ps 88) is to be interpreted as an indication of (liturgical) use as well (cf. Sawyer 1970, 34). 41 Cf. the discussion in Schaper 1998, 177–80. See also below, pp. 355–63. 42 The additions to Ψ 28, 30, and 65 possibly belong here as well (see, e.g., the discussion on Ψ 28 in Schaper 1998, 179). 43 Cf. also Isa 38:9 (Bayer 1982, 105). 40

Chapter 9. Superscriptions

185

study of the Psalms in relation to other Old Testament passages.”44 In his view, the following connections are made: Ps 3 relates to 2 Sam 15:13ff;45 Ps 34 to 1 Sam 21:10–15 (although mentioning an Abimelech, rather than Achish); Ps 51 to 2 Sam 12:1ff; Ps 52 to 1 Sam 22:9ff; Ps 54 to 1 Sam 23:19ff; Ps 56 to 1 Sam 21:10 (although the latter does not mention any seizure of David); Ps 57 to 1 Sam 24:4ff; Ps 59 to 1 Sam 19:9ff; Ps 60 perhaps to 2 Sam 8ff (or 1 Kgs 11:15?); the general Ps 63 to 2 Sam 16:14; and Ps 142 (which is similar to Ps 57) to either 1 Sam 24:4ff or 1 Sam 22.46 As for the ‘biographical’ notes in Pss 7 and 18, the rationale behind their addition is probably similar, although the syntax is different. Both relate the psalm to some part of the stories of David, although Ps 7 does not specify any specific event, and Ps 18 is to be understood in relation to the psalm in 2 Sam 22.47 Although the basic relating of psalms and stories of David is probably to the point, it is not necessary to conclude that they are therefore the result of careful exegetical work. Put differently, it need not be assumed that the dialogue is between two texts, but rather between looser concepts of psalmody and narrative. In fact, similarities of vocabulary used are only found in the ‘biographical’ note of Ps 34, and so the differences often identified by scholars are not to be understood as conscious alterations but rather as a result of the lack of literary dependence. They would not have to presume, say, DtrH, and would not point to a “pietistic circle of Jews whose interest was particularly focused on the nurture of the spiritual life.”48 Rather, a more dynamic scenario would be reasonable, perhaps in some parts similar to the addition of indications of use, as noted above. Nevertheless, the focus on the life of David has often been argued to point to facilitate the use of these psalms as individual responses to various situations in life, and here, David would be the model: “[a]s David, so every man.”49 This

44

Childs 1971, 148. See also Slomovic 1979. See also Zenger 1991, 408, who sees numerous parallels even in the actual psalm. Slomovic 1979, 365–66, demarcates the passage to 2 Sam 15–18. 46 So Childs 1971, 143–47, who does not discuss Ps 142. It is commonly related to 1 Sam 24 (cf. Slomovic 1979, 377; Gerstenberger 2001, 418; Goldingay 2008, 665; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 565), although Anderson 1972b, 922, rather opts for 1 Sam 22. Slightly different connections of all of these psalms are sometimes made by Slomovic 1979, 365–77. 47 For a discussion of the relation between these two texts, see pp. 293–95 below. 48 Childs 1971, 149. 49 The quote is from Wilson 1985a, 173; cf., e.g., Eissfeldt 1971, 99; Zenger 1991, 407; Ballhorn 1995, 24; Kleer 1996, 126; Vos 2005, 48–49; Rendtorff 2005, 56; Zenger 2011, 1:28. For a different view, see Bayer 1982, 107–9. Suggesting that some might have been subscripts to the preceding psalm, she proposes that when reading the psalms in light of the ‘biographical’ notes, they seem to “invite accusations of disloyalty or actual incitement to rebellion” (108). In fact, it is quite curious that in most of the MT ‘biographical’ notes, David is either pursued, at the edge of being captured, or captured. See further in Willgren 2016a. 45

186

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

David is not primarily cast as king, nor as founder of a temple cult, but as the praying man in distress known from the narratives in 1–2 Sam.50 Characteristic of this view, then, is often a stress on the inner life of the reader, but although the latter is not quite necessary, the idea that the (MT) ‘biographical’ notes paint David in the colors of an ideal psalmist as a way to provide a lens through which the psalms can be appreciated is quite reasonable. This picture, however, changes slightly in the LXX (the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls agree with MT when attesting these superscriptions and will hence not be commented upon here). In several instances, the LXX has additional ‘biographical’ notes. Ψ 26 reads πρὸ τοῦ χρισθῆναι (“before he was anointed”), Ψ 95 relates the psalm to the rebuilding of the temple after the exile (Ὅτε ὁ οἶκος ᾠκοδοµεῖτο µετὰ τὴν αἰχµαλωσίαν, “when the house was being rebuilt after the captivity”), Ψ 96 connects the psalm to a more general notion of order being brought to the land (ὅτε ἡ γῆ αὐτοῦ καθίσταται “when his land is being brought to order”), Ψ 142 reads ὅτε αὐτὸν ὁ υἱὸς καταδιώκει (“when his son is pursuing him”) and Ψ 143 reads πρὸς τὸν Γολιαδ (“referring to Goliad”).51 As can be seen here, not all refer to stories associated with David, but all are added to psalms with Davidic ‘author’ designations. Also striking is that all but one (including the MT references) places the ‘biographical’ note after the ‘author’ designation, while Ψ 95 places it before. Interestingly, this is also the only note not linked to the David stories, and so its position might be understood as warranting against the association of the ‘biographical’ note with David. Consequently, most of the LXX ‘biographical’ notes would perform similar functions as their MT counterparts. In sum, these ‘biographical’ notes are probably to be seen in light of an ongoing Davidization of psalmody, placing psalms in the mouth of David (not necessarily as an author, but clearly as a model of use). As they are scattered throughout both the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms and the LXX ‘Book’ of Psalms, they reveal not so much an organizational concern as a legitimation and authorization of psalmody (it is clear, for example, that the psalms with ‘biographical’ notes are not ordered chronologically).52 If so, they do not presume or indicate a primary literary setting (even though many are clustered around Pss 51–63, eight of twelve),53 but a conceptual linking of psalmody with David. Seen in

50

Cf. Ballhorn 1995, 23. Slomovic 1979, 356–64, discusses possible connections between these superscriptions and both the David stories and other passages in a way similar to Child’s discussion of the MT psalms. For example, in Slomovic’ view, Ψ 76 and 80 are related to the war with Assyria in 2 Kgs 18–20, Ψ 96 “brings to mind” 2 Sam 7(:1), and Ψ 144 contains several allusions to 1 Sam 17. 52 Cf. the early comment in the Midrash on Ps 3 (Braude 1959, 1:49–50). 53 Hossfeld & Zenger 2005, 18–19, do, however, argue that the biographical notes are part of an intentional theological progression throughout Pss 51–72. Proceeding from the sins of 51

Chapter 9. Superscriptions

187

light of the continuous addition of ‘biographical’ notes in the LXX, it could be suggested that connections between a psalm and a part of the story of David could have been part of the transmission in various forms before being inscribed in the superscription proper.54 Similar to the “indications of use” surveyed above, the ‘biographical’ notes are to be understood as performing prefatorial functions, since their aim would have been to effect the way in which the psalm was read and used. More specifically, they give the psalm a high value (as its ancientness is stressed) and equip the reader with an interpretive framework through which various aspects of the psalm could now be read. V. Hallelujah If the ‘biographical’ notes were found throughout the entire MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, this is not the case with the use of Hallelujah (‫)הללו־יה‬. In this form, it is an exhortation to praise YAH(WEH), so that, if understood as a paratext, it could perhaps perform the function of a thematic title. However, the placement of these exhortations, together with the notion that some might originally have been part of the psalm itself (on this, see below, pp. 278–81), as well as the variation found in the LXX and the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls, gives a slightly different picture. Starting with the MT, Hallelujahs occur in 15 psalms (Pss 104–106, 111– 113, 115–117, 135, and 146–150). Of these, two are found as superscription only, five as subscripts, and eight as frames. Furthermore, all psalms featuring a Hallelujah are not juxtaposed. Rather, at first glance, there seem to be three groups of three (Pss 104–106; 111–113; and 115–117), one group of five (Pss 146–150), and a psalm standing on its own (Ps 135). This pattern changes considerably, however, if taking the LXX into account, and as a point of comparison, I have provided Table 6 below. Several features are to be noted. First, although the fragmentary state of many of the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls precludes any definitive conclusion, several differences can be observed. Starting with the composition often referred to as a “Catena,”55 it is attested in 11Q5 and consists of Ps 118:1, 15–16, 8–9, ?, 29, placed between Pss 136 and 145. If considering that the spacing between these verses and Ps 136 is only a David (Ps 51), they argue that he is rightly(!) persecuted throughout the psalms that follow, then praises YHWH (Ps 65), and suffers again (Ps 69). The series end with the reign of Solomon in Ps 72. 54 As for their time of addition, I will not enter into any discussion here. Suffice to note that these would have been made in postexilic times (Childs 1971, 148; Anderson 1972a, 51; Craigie & Tate 2004, 31–32; Hossfeld & Zenger 2005, 3). See further Willgren 2016a, where I propose that a possible setting for a core of the ‘biographical’ notes could be related to a resurfacing post-exilic Saulide-Davidic rivalry. 55 See above, n. 97, p. 96.

188

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

short interval, rather than the common way of indicating a new composition, as well as the presence of the phrase ‫ הודו יהוה כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬in both Ps 136 and v. 29, the latter followed by ‫הללו־יה‬, it might be suggested that the verses were appended as a conclusion to Ps 136. Second, turning to Pss 148 and 150, they do not feature a Hallelujah as superscription (contrary to MT), and this could possibly be understood in light of their current placement in 11Q5. Starting with Ps 148, it forms part of a sequence of psalms different from that of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, namely Pss 104 → 147 → 105 → 146 → 148, psalms that all feature a Hallelujah. Since the beginnings of Pss 146 and 147 are only reconstructed, it is possible that they did not feature a Hallelujah as a superscription either. If so, the following pattern would reveal itself: Pss 104 → Hallelujah → 147 → Hallelujah → 105 → Hallelujah → 146 → Hallelujah → 148 → Hallelujah, a pattern where the Hallelujahs are placed “between” the psalms. This could also explain the lack of Hallelujah as superscription to Ps 150, since the psalms would be juxtaposed as Hallelujah → 149 → Hallelujah → 150 → Hallelujah, and, if correct, the use of Hallelujah seems sensitive to the way psalms are juxtaposed.56 However, this is not always the case, as Ps 93 is not juxtaposed to any other psalms featuring Hallelujah in 11Q5. Turning to the LXX, the differences increase even more when compared to both the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms and the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls. In line with the distribution of elements of the superscriptions surveyed so far, the LXX implies a clear rationale behind the use of Hallelujah here as well. As seen in the table, they are understood exclusively as superscriptions (except for in Ps 150, where it occurs as a framework), and the first two sequences of the Hallelujah psalms could provide cases in point. By understanding the Hallelujah of Ps 104 not as a subscript to Ps 104 but as a superscription to Ps 105, the entire sequence of Hallelujahs is slightly shifted so that it now consists of Ψ 104–106, rather than Pss 104–106. The same pattern is to be found in the long sequence of nine consecutive Hallelujah psalms (Ψ 110–118), as compared to the MT collection: the subscript of Ps 113 is understood as superscription to Ψ 113 (Ps 113 ↗ Ψ 113); Ps 115 ↗ Ψ 114; Ps 116 ↗ Ψ 116; Ps 117 ↗ Ψ 117 (see also similarly Ps 135 ↗ Ψ 135). As with the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls, these alterations are reasonably explained by the placement of Hallelujahs between psalms. If so, it indicates that the LXX is secondary to the MT, but also that the actual alterations would have been minor, as the decision over which psalm a Hallelujah

56 As I will show later, such a suggestion might also explain the Hallelujahs throughout Pss 111–117 (see below, pp. 278–81). As for the variation in Ps 135, see below, pp. 232–34. The view of Barré 1983 is unconvincing. He argues that ‫ הללו־יה‬originally functioned as an inclusio around twelve psalms (Pss 105, 106, 111, 113, 116, 118, 135, 147–150), but that this pattern was transformed or broken in various ways.

113

114

115

Key: Ps Psalm number Features a Hallelujah ↗ Moves the Hallelujah

106 +

Ψ =

113 + ↗

LXX psalm number Same as MT Not attested

112 = ↗

114 +

115 + ↗

4Q84 11Q8 [=]• [=]•

116

116 + ↗

117

Sp Superscript [=] Reconstructed • MSS variation

111 =

112

LXX ‘Book’ of Psalms Ψ 92 103 104 105 Sp + = Sb ↗ ↗

110 =

111

4Q87 4Q98f 4Q84 4Q96 11Q8 [=?] = [=] [=]

107

4Q94 11Q5 11Q5 4Q87 4Q86 4Q88 Sp +• = [+] [=] Sb [=]• = [=] [=?] [=]

‘Psalms’ scrolls

MT ‘Book’ of Psalms Ps 93 104 105 106 Sp Sb

Table 6: Occurrences of Hallelujah 119

135

136

146

118 +

134 = ↗

135 +

145 = -

Sb Subscript + Adds ~ Different order of v. 1

117 +

4Q84 4Q87 4Q87 11Q5 11Q5 11Q5 11Q5 11Q5 [=]• [=] ~ = =?• [=] = = +? =•

118

147 + ↑

148 = -

- Removes

146 =

-• [=]•

[=]• [=]•

149 = -

150 = =

[=]• - • [=]• [=]•

11Q5 11Q5 11Q5

150

Mas1f Mas1f Mas1f

149

Mas1f

148

4Q86 11Q5

147

Chapter 9. Superscriptions

189

190

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

belonged to would depend only on the size of the blank spaces between the psalms. Some Hallelujahs would also have been removed (if present, so Pss 105, 146, 148, and 149). In line with the change of placing, the function of Hallelujah in the LXX is also altered. If it was quite unclear in the MT sequences, though some could possibly be understood as thematic titles, the LXX now understands Hallelujah as a ‘type’ designation (a rhematic title): “a Hallelujah psalm.” This is perhaps best seen in Ψ 145–148, which all have the superscription Αbηλουια Αìαιου καὶ Ζαχαριου, “a Hallelujah (psalm) of Haggai and Zechariah.” VI. Psalms with No Superscription The last feature to be mentioned is the fact that some psalms are lacking superscription altogether, especially psalms following Ps 90 in the MT arrangement. A possible explanation of this might be found in the fact that throughout time, psalms seem to have been combined in various ways. A case in point would be the combination of Pss 9–10 in the LXX, but there are numerous other examples of such combinations in manuscripts up until the Middle Ages.57 However, in contrast to the combination of Pss 38 and 71 in 4Q83, for example, these manuscripts only attest the combination of psalms with their “neighbors,” that is, with the ones they are juxtaposed to in the MT and the LXX sequences (for example, Ps 33 with Ps 32; Ps 43 with Ps 42, etc.).58 This model does not, however, explain all the cases where a psalm lacks a superscription. Looking beyond Ps 90, the number of psalms without superscriptions increases considerably. More specifically, there is a large section from (MT) Ps 91 to Ps 119 where 18 out of 31 psalms are without superscription. This seems to change, however, in (MT) Pss 120–150, where only two psalms are without superscription (Pss 136 and 137). When compared to Pss 1–89 on the one hand, and the LXX on the other, one could perhaps understand these psalms as reflecting different organizational concerns, a snapshot of a collection of psalms not yet Davidized in the LXX sense.

57

See Yarchin 2015a. Cf. Wilson 1985a, 173–81; Millard 1994, 9–15. However, contra the idea of Wilson that the lack of superscriptions could be interpreted as intended to preserve both the combining and the separating traditions, I would see this variation as unintentional, and in fact quite expected in light of the artifactual diversity sketched in Part II, pp. 35–80, so that, for example, Codex Leningradensis should be considered but a single witness to a multifaceted process of transmission. 58

Chapter 9. Superscriptions

191

B. Conclusions I. Forming Collections of Psalms Proceeding from the observations made in this chapter, would it, then, be possible to trace any formative stages? Is the emerging picture one where superscriptions have been deliberately used to create collections of psalms? Although it is often taken for granted that the answer to these questions is a clear affirmative, the picture provided above is not clear-cut. Looking first at the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls that showed little or no overlap with the MT arrangement, some general observations were made. The first is that the superscriptions generally agree with the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. The second is that there seemed to be little concern with juxtaposing psalms with similar ‘author’ or ‘type’ designation (see e.g. 4Q87, 4Q88, 4Q92). Consequently, some other concern would have laid behind the organization, leading to the conclusion that ‘author’ or ‘type’ designations had little organizational function throughout the ‘psalms’ scrolls. However, in regards to the use of Hallelujah, it was noted that new sequences of psalms were created in such a way that Hallelujah had an organizing role. All of the psalms in 4Q86 featured a Hallelujah either as subscript or superscript, and the same applied for the various sequences in 11Q5 above. Furthermore, an exception was found in the ‫שיר‬ ‫המעלות‬, of which Pss 120–132 were juxtaposed in 11Q5. In fact, the superscriptions never anticipated or related to anything other than the individual psalm itself. Consequently, they cannot be claimed to “bind collections together.” If independent collections are not primarily identified by means of similar superscriptions, it would also follow that the identification of sequences with similar ‘author’ or ‘type’ designations throughout the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms cannot be interpreted as indications of earlier collections of psalms either. Obviously, none of the collections of psalms found among the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls would have been possible to identify by means of the use of superscriptions in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. This fact is to be further emphasized in light of the continuous addition of superscription noted in the LXX. If acknowledging that superscriptions (especially Davidic ‘author’ designations) were added over a long period of time, and that even when sequences were fixed, psalms could be supplemented with a new superscription, it would not be possible to demarcate earlier collections by means of identifying sequences of similar ‘author’ or ‘type’ designations. Put differently, since it is shown that David was the preferred ‘author’ to add to psalms, the long sequences of Davidic psalms need not imply independent Davidic collections. The psalms could just as well have been juxtaposed without superscriptions for a long period of time.59 If this approach is reasonable, the occurrence of a Da59

Cf. Bayer 1982, 41: “little of any ‘original’ sequence has remained intact in MT.”

192

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

vidic psalm in the middle of a cluster of Korahite psalms (Ps 86) need not be interpreted as an “interlocking” device, but, as argued above, more simply in line with the similar addition of a Davidic superscription to Ps 43 in the LXX. Consequently, it would have been added at a time when that particular sequence of psalms was fairly fixed.60 Relating various elements in the superscriptions to each other, some clues as to possible formative stages were nevertheless found. ‘Author’ designations were primarily clustered around Pss 3–90 and 138–150, while ‘type’ designations seemed important only in Pss 120–132 (134). I also noted that musical directions only appeared throughout Pss 4–88, while ‘biographical’ notes were scattered throughout, although clustered especially around Pss 51–63. Moreover, Hallelujah psalms seemed to have some organizing function, and these were found only in Pss 104–150. Last, psalms with no superscription were especially prominent among Pss 91–119. Taken together, these observations would indicate, not the common twofold model (Pss 1–89, 90–150),61 but rather three different sections. If keeping Ps 89 as the last psalm in the sequence of psalms with large clusters of ‘author’ and ‘type’ designations, as well as musical directions,62 the next sequence of psalms would extend from Ps 90–119. Here, the psalms often lack a superscription, and ‘author’ designations are rare, but as with Ps 120 the picture changes again, and psalms with superscriptions featuring both ‘author’ and ‘type’ designations are more frequent, although the temple singer guilds attested in Pss 1–89 do not reappear. These observations are all suggestive, but have to be related to the other observations made in this study before serving as a basis for any reconstructed formation, and thus, I will return to the issue in Part VI, Chapter 16. II. Fixation of Psalm Sequences As was seen numerous times throughout the analyses, the sequences now found in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms seem to have become increasingly fixed, so that new areas of use for various psalms did not necessarily lead to rearrangement, but simply to the adding of superscriptions to the psalms in question. This was seen clearly in the LXX, whose use of superscriptions to “fill up the gaps” recurrently seemed to presuppose both MT sequences and superscriptions. These additions were accomplished in two main ways. If a psalm had no superscription at all, a Davidic ‘author’ designation was added, sometimes with an accompanying ‘type’ designation. Throughout Pss 90–119 and 120–150, psalms

60

Such a model could also explain the ‘orphan’ Asaphite Ps 50. See, e.g., Wilson 1984, 352; Wilson 1993b, 73–74; Wilson 2005a, 392–93. 62 Such a view is almost unanimously held, see, e.g., Wilson 1985a, 199–228; Koch 1994, 260–61; Creach 1996, 125; deClaissé-Walford 1997, 34; Rösel 1999, 75–81; Ballhorn 2004, 31–32; Zenger et al. 2012, 444. 61

Chapter 9. Superscriptions

193

without superscriptions were also provided with such by means of adjusting the occurrence of Hallelujahs. Apart from these main ways, ‘type’ designations, biographical notes, and indications of use have also been added, but not in any overarching, systematic manner, although some might have been motivated by organizational concerns (for example the additions of ψαλµός to Ψ 10 and 13).63 Further examples of the presupposed MT sequences are the adding of superscriptions with elements in the exact same order as found in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, and the ascribing of psalms to various days of the week. The general tendency in the LXX is that superscriptions are added, not removed, although there are some exceptions (Ψ 121 and 123), and the overall effect is that the coherence of the collection is greatly enhanced. Α final indication of the fixation of the MT sequences (not exclusive for the LXX) could be that the ‘biographical’ notes are not found in an order complying to, say, chronology. In sum, the psalm superscriptions provide a fascinating set of witnesses to long growing traditions and various readings and uses of psalms. The process cannot be understood as anything less than the result of a manifold of trajectories. Some of the features that were once alive and vibrant have become fossilized remains of a distant past, but nevertheless contribute to the authority and value of the psalms. Others reflect an ongoing use, a use that had eventually made its way into the very text of the superscriptions, while yet others point to a figure in the past that would increasingly serve as an authorizing figure, eventually emanating as the great psalmist and patron of temple music. These superscriptions were also in dialogue with other great traditions of the Hebrew Bible, and do not primarily reflect the transmission of psalms on a literary level, regarding psalms collections. Consequently, it follows that the interpretive framework provided for the individual psalms does not presuppose a canonical reading of a written collection, as is often assumed. III. Exerting Interpretive Control To conclude, then, a superscription seems to have both reflected and influenced how a psalm was received, thus ultimately asserting some interpretive control over it. These two trajectories are probably best understood as a result of a constant dialogue between the psalms and various contexts of use, so that gradually these contexts were made part of the written transmission itself. Once fixed, the superscriptions no longer only reflected a common use, but established interpretive frameworks for subsequent generations. If correct, such a model would be related to an aspect of canon processes as described by Stordalen, namely that “the production of authorized interpretation is a characteristic pertaining to all canon processes, and in the early stages of the biblical text, these interpreta63 Cf. Ψ 24, 80, and 98, but see also, for example, the additions in Ψ 42–43, and 94, where no such underlying rationale is possible to detect.

194

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

tions were continuously inscribed in the text, the latter being in a fluid canonical state.”64 If reasonable, one might suggest that the superscriptions bear witness to the intertwining of canon processes and the formation of anthologies suggested in the introduction. As superscriptions embedded traditions into the very text of the psalms, they were to become authoritative themselves, an aspect pertaining to the adding of Davidic ‘author’ designations in particular.65 Looking in the rear view mirror, it is now clear that these designations would eventually contribute to the notion of the entire MT ‘Book’ of Psalms being a Davidic collection (cf., e.g., b. Pesaḥ 117b and Chapter 15 below). However, although the LXX revealed a clear Davidization of the psalms by attributing an increasing number of psalms to David, as well as including Ps 151 as a final composition, the often assumed (intentional) Davidization among the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls needs to be somewhat nuanced.66 As far as superscriptions go, there is no Davidization at all. While the ‘psalms’ scrolls indeed featured Davidic ‘author’ designations in four psalms where MT lacked one, they also lacked one in two psalms where MT had a Davidic superscription. The increased attribution of psalms to David in the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls, then, would consist of two psalms only which is scarcely evidence enough to warrant such a conclusion. Nevertheless, it was argued as significant that in those cases where manuscript evidence both lacked and preserved a Davidic ‘author’ designation, the one lacking was older. This would point to the conclusion that such a perception of a collection of psalms was not achieved instantaneously, but over a long period of time. Having made these observations, it is also striking that a fundamental paratextual function is often missing, namely the one Genette has described as the only “obligatory” function of a title: the identifying function.67 Basically, this function distinguishes the work from others, and helps the reader to localize and identify it. In fact, the superscriptions do no such thing. As noted previously, it was rather the incipit that performed the function of a title, but interestingly, rhematic titles would eventually be supplied. This is clearly the case in the modern context, where psalms are regularly referred to by a number (Ps 1, Ps 2, etc.), and such a use is noteworthy as it proceeds from an agreement about how the psalms are ordered within the collection. In fact, the use of, for example,

64

Stordalen 2014, 124. My translation of the original Norwegian: “Produksjon av autorisert fortolkning er et kjennetegn ved all kanondannelse, og i de bibelske tekstenes tidlige periode ble tolkninger fortløpende skrevet inn i teksten, som da var i en flytende kanonisk status.” 65 However, the superscriptions would not only serve as interpretive frameworks for the individual psalms, but would also be interpreted as scripture themselves, as is seen in, for example, 4Q171, which comments on the superscription of Ps 45 (see pp. 317–18 below). 66 For such a view, see Wilson 1985a, 156. Cf. Pajunen 2014b, 152–53. 67 Genette 1997b, 76–79.

Chapter 9. Superscriptions

195

“Ps 12” as a rhematic title indicates that the arrangement itself is so widely accepted that the title is no longer a reference primarily to a “twelfth” psalm, but the title of that composition regardless of its place and position in other collections, say, ‘psalms’ scrolls from Qumran. The problems with such a habit aside (for one, it tends to obscure the way psalms are perceived in the scrolls, see, for example, the reference to a single composition in 4Q83 as Ps 38 and Ps 71), it would be significant to search for traces of similar rhematic titles in the ancient sources, as they would point to a time when a sequence of psalms would have become fairly stable, at least for the author of the text in which the title is found. As noted above, a possible example was found in Acts 13:33, and I will return to the issue in Part V (see esp. pp. 355–63).

Chapter 10

Psalm 72:20 I turn now to yet another fairly explicit paratext, Ps 72:20, which is a verse that has long puzzled scholars.1 It reads “the prayers of David, son of Jesse, are ended” (‫)כלו תפלות דוד בן־ישי‬, and raises a number of questions. First, the word ‫“( תפלות‬prayers”) is used, rather than ‫“( תהלים‬praises”). That this is a potential problem is seen in the LXX, where it is changed to ὕµνοι (“hymns”).2 Second, the claim that the prayers of David are ended is not true in a literal sense, since there are several psalms attributed to David after Ps 72 (at least in the MT and LXX collections; the psalm is not attested in any of the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls). An early solution to this problem is found in the Talmud (b. Pesaḥ 117a), where Rabbi Meir suggests that ‫ כלו‬should not be read as “are ended,” but rather as a contraction of the two words ‫“ כל אלו‬all of these (are the prayers of David).” Another solution is offered by Rabbi Yosef Kimchi, who points out that it is only David’s prayers that are ended: “David’s praises of God will never end, but his prayers were inspired by his sins, his failures and his tragedies.”3 Pre-critical understandings of the colophon similarly regarded it as having a canonical function.4 Third, Ps 72 is not attributed to David, but to Solomon. Fourth, v. 20 is placed after the doxology often argued to conclude the second ‘book’ in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. Finally, the verse is placed in the midst of a collection often identified as the “Elohistic Psalter” (Pss 42–83). In sum, it would not be an overstatement to call the occurrence of this verse an enigma, and a number of solutions have been proposed.

A. Attempted Solutions According to Wilson, the placement of the verse after the doxology implies that the doxology is in fact part of the psalm, which is itself a part of a larger collection.5 This collection is then further identified. Wilson argues that if the verse 1

A discussion of this verse has been published as Willgren 2016b. The main argument is repeated here with permission from JBL. 2 Cf. Seybold 1990, 19–20. 3 Feuer 2013, 1:906–7; cf. Braude 1959, 1:563. 4 For a good overview, see Mitchell 1997, 66–69. 5 Wilson 1985a, 185.

Chapter 10. Psalm 72:20

197

was intended to mark, say, the final group of Davidic psalms in ‘book’ 2 (Pss 51–71/72), it would have preceded the doxology. Instead, its placement reveals an intention to conclude ‘books’ 1–2 and thereby create a unified collection framed by royal psalms.6 The frequent attribution of psalms to David (607/70) would then justify the description of the collection as “prayers of David” despite Ps 72 being attributed to Solomon, Pss 42–49 belonging to the Korahites, and Ps 50 to Asaph.8 Thus, that verse 20 “has the effect of turning these first two books into a Davidic prayer book,” is, according to Wilson, a fitting description since these ‘books’ are dominated by complaint psalms.9 The view that the verse concludes ‘books’ 1–2 has many representatives, and the basic observation is formulated by Millard as the following: “Ein solcher Satz am Schluß eines Salomopsalms, der eine Sammlung von Davidpsalmen abschließt, bezieht sich offensichtlich nicht auf den Psalm, in dem er steht, sondern auf die Sammlung oder Teilsammlung, die er abschließt.”10 In line with this observation, John Day states that Ps 72:20 makes sense only if ‘books’ 1–2 had originally constituted a separate collection from ‘books’ 3–5,11 and Creach argues that the verse’s occurrence after the doxology indicates that it was not originally part of Ps 72, nor Pss 51–72, but of a larger group formed prior to the completed MT ‘Book’ of Psalms.12 An alternative would be to regard the verse as a conclusion of only the preceding Davidic collection (Pss 51–72),13 understanding the placement of the doxology as an indication that it originally belonged to Ps 72, and is thus only secondarily used as a ‘book’ divider.14 Yet another way of solving the enigma is presented by Hossfeld and Zenger. By comparing the verse to the similar statement in Job 31:40b (‫“ תמו דברי איוב‬the words of Job are ended”), they propose that 72:20 is to be seen not primarily as a conclusion, but rather as marking a

6

Wilson 1986, 88–89; Wilson 1993a, 73; Wilson 2002a, 1:76. Wilson also counts the untitled Pss 10, 33, 66–67, and 71 as Davidic. 8 Wilson 1985a, 208. 9 Wilson 2002a, 1:991–92. 10 Millard 1994, 169. 11 Day 1990, 113. 12 Creach 1996, 108. Others arguing for the colophon being intended as a conclusion to ‘books’ 1–2 are, for example, Joffe 2002, 234; Steinberg 2006, 229. Cf. Mowinckel 1967, 2:193, who states that “Ps 72.20 was once the concluding note of a separate collection of psalms with the heading ‘By (or “for”) David’.” 13 Saur 2004, 309, or ‘book’ 2 (Pss 42–72, Tate 1990, 225; Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 314. 14 For such a view, see, e.g., Gerstenberger 1988, 38; Goldingay 2007, 396; Barbiero 2007, 87; Saur 2010, 691–92; Mays 2011, 13. A slightly different idea is proposed by Seybold 2010, 129, 133, who argues that v. 20 initially concluded a more homogenous collection. Cf. also Janowski 2010, 290, n. 50. 7

198

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

division within a larger collection. It looks back to Pss 51–72 while at the same time pointing forward to Pss 73–83.15 Many scholars further argue that the inclusio formed around Ps 72 must have had a theological significance. Mays, for example, suggests that the “[s]uperscription and colophon taken together ask that the prayer be read as David’s intercession for his seed and successor, a prayer that the vocation of God’s king be realized in his son,”16 and Julius Steinberg argues that the verse would have to have had a theological function, since otherwise it would have been easy to remove. He then specifies this function as serving to mark the end of the period of the historical David and the transition of the kingdom to Solomon.17

B. Psalm 72:20 as a Frozen Colophon How then, is the verse to be understood? While it is quite clear that the verse brings David into special prominence, none of the suggestions presented above are entirely convincing. However, clues can be found when relating the notion of material culture and the length of scrolls discussed in Chapter 2.D above (pp. 29–32) to the observations made concerning paratexts in the Sumerian Temple Hymns (see pp. 56–59). More specifically, it was noted that the Sumerian Temple Hymns retained a colophon as a fixed part of the last hymn, although it was not originally counted as belonging to the hymn itself. Simply put, a colophon is “eine vom Text getrennte Notiz des Schreibers am Ende einer Tafel literarischen Inhalts, die Aussagen über diese Tafel und über Personen, die mit dieser Tafel zu tun haben, enthält,”18 and if relating TH 42 to Ps 72, the following (general) similarities can be seen:

15

TH 42

Ps 72

Main part Doxology Colophon

Main part Doxology Colophon

Hossfeld & Zenger 2005, 209 (cf. Gese 1974, 162; Levin 2004, 84). An adjacent position is taken by Brueggemann 1993, 39, who posits that Ps 72:20 indicates an important turn in the collection (see also Brueggemann & Miller 1996; deClaissé-Walford 1997, 77; Miller 2003, 92). Hossfeld 2010, 210, argues that the verse refers to both the first and the second Davidic collection. 16 Mays 1991, 5; Mays 1994, 104 (cf., e.g., Auwers 2000, 136; Tate 1990, 222–23). In a similar sense, Barbiero 2007, 87, argues that the verse actually refers to Ps 72 itself, as prayers by David for his son Solomon. 17 Steinberg 2006, 229; cf. Koorevaar 2010, 581, who argues that it cannot be just an archeological relic and proposes that the intention was to make clear that the psalms about David’s conflict had reached their end objective. 18 Hunger 1968, 1.

Chapter 10. Psalm 72:20

199

Although general, if relevant, the comparison would indicate that the placement of v. 20 after the doxology is not as puzzling as it might first have appeared. Rather, it would be quite expected, provided that it was initially placed as a colophon at the end of a scroll. But there is an obvious problem with such a suggestion, at least if related to a MT or LXX ‘Book’ of Psalms. While the Sumerian Temple Hymns ends with TH 42, the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms does not end with Ps 72. It continues with another 78 psalms. However, this problem could find a solution if related to the conclusions drawn with respect to possible scroll length, namely, that it was likely that the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms was divided into two scrolls. If so, the suggestion suddenly becomes attractive. Ps 72 is at the very center of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, so the two scrolls would roughly be of comparable length (the second scroll slightly longer). If correct, the colophon would not initially have had any greater theological significance than to mark the end of the first scroll of a collection of psalms by ascribing it to David. As noted by Harry Y. Gamble, “the title and the name of the author typically appeared not at the beginning but at the end [of a scroll], beneath or to the right of the last column of the text,”19 and this is also the pattern revealed by the comparative material.20 Consequently, a neat solution to the enigma is provided. Verse 20 is placed after the doxology, not to conclude a collection, but as a colophon “closing” a scroll. If so, it is no longer a problem that it divides an Elohistic collection into two parts, since the conception of such a collection would not have been altered by the fact that it is split across two scrolls. Neither is it a problem that Davidic psalms occur after Ps 72, nor that Ps 72 is attributed to Solomon, since the colophon refers to the contents of the first scroll. Here, one might ask if such a colophon is at all plausible? A brief look at some examples gathered by Hermann Hunger might be illuminating at this point. In the introduction, Hunger mentions the fact that many colophons use the expression (or an expression similar to) qati (“finished,” see, for example, colophons 19, 83, 91, 228, etc.) to mark that the tablet is the last in a series.21 Other tablets belonging to the same series would then occasionally be marked ul qati (“not finished,” see, for example, nos. 82, 90, 126, 128, 129, etc.). This seems to oppose the idea that Ps 72:20 was a colophon at the end of the first scroll in a series of two scrolls, but as Hunger shows for the colophons from the library of Tiglath-Pileser, the sign equivalent to qati (BE) is attested several times at the end of tablets belonging to a series (see, e.g., nos. 172, 179; cf. nos. 143, 184), thus not only on the very last tablet.22 Consequently, the presence of

19

Gamble 1995, 48. Although, cf. Tov 2004, 118. 21 Hunger 1968, 2. For the colophons, see 25–145. 22 Hunger 1968, 2, 5. 20

200

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

‫( כלו‬as in Ps 72:20) in a colophon would not be unheard of. Rather, it could strengthen the idea that the scroll was part of a series. What, then, about the reference to the prayers of David, son of Jesse? Interpreted as an ‘author’ designation, it is clear that it is quite unusual as an element of a colophon, at least if related to the ones gathered by Hunger. Frequently, it is the scribe that is named, not the ‘author’ of the work. Nevertheless, there is at least one example of a colophon including the name of the writer in the examples gathered by Hunger (no. 28).23 Furthermore, the scarcity of author designations pertains only to Mesopotamian colophons; they are far more common in Hittite colophons, for example.24 Consequently, it seems as if the features present in Ps 72:20 are all attested in colophons throughout the ancient Near East.25 If such an understanding of the placement of the colophon has some merit to it, it would also explain some of the early interpretations of Ps 72:20. A scenario similar to the one posited for the Sumerian Temple Hymns could be suggested here as well, namely that the fixation of the colophon indicates that the colophon attained a new, secondary function – to legitimize the text. Consequently, the mentioning of David was eventually to be seen as warranting a certain antiquity, as well as to suggest an authoritative use. Thus, when fixed to Ps 72, the addressees were no longer scribes but the ones using the collection, and this is also how it was interpreted. The LXX connected the now fixed colophon to the collection as a whole, changing the presumed inappropriate ‫ תפלות‬to ὕµνοι, and, in so doing, anticipated the canonical understanding of the colophon by, for example, early Jewish traditions and pre-critical discussions. In sum, then, it seems as if all five questions presented above find a neat solution if Ps 72:20 is understood as a frozen colophon. Taking a step back, it should be noted that the suggested function for Ps 72:20 does not in itself say much about the contours of the collection to which it was added, other than the possibility that it would have been long enough to be divided across two scrolls. Although the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms provided a 23 The actual reading of this colophon, and its translation into German is given as the following: “awāt(?, KA) dŠamaš-mu-ba-lí-it ̣ mār Ìr-dNanna (oder: Warad-Sîn) – Wort des Šamaš-muballiṭ, des Sohnes des Ir-Nanna (oder: Warad-Sîn)” (Hunger 1968, 28). 24 Hunger 1968, 9, 22. 25 See also Hunger 1968, 21. One might note that colophons seem to be very rarely attested in the DSS, a fact possibly casting doubt to the understanding of Ps 72:20 presented here. But (at least) two aspects could be worth noting. First, Tov 2004, 9, suggests that there is a possibility that the isolated ‫“( אמר‬word”) at the end of 1QIsaa is the remains of a colophon. It is written in the last column, three lines below the end of the main text. This would be interesting, especially since the only example provided by Hunger of a colophon with author designation began by awāt (“word,” see n. 23 above). Second, the fact that only 3.1 percent of all scroll-ends from Qumran have been preserved (so Tov 2004, 111) should warrant against any firm conclusions concerning the presence of colophons.

Chapter 10. Psalm 72:20

201

convenient point of comparison in the discussion above, it is probably not a good candidate for the collection at the point of the addition of Ps 72:20, since the idea of a fixed colophon would likely presume that it was added some time before a collection like the MT (or LXX) ‘Book’ of Psalms was compiled. Consequently, I will return to the issue in Chapter 16, when more material has been taken into consideration.

Chapter 11

‘Book’ Dividers A. Preliminary Observations The paratexts to be discussed in this chapter are those commonly referred to as the ‘book’ dividers of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, namely the last verse(s) of four psalms: Ps 41:14, Ps 72:18–19,1 Ps 89:53, and Ps 106:48. These verses show some remarkable similarities, and as they divide the current MT ‘Book’ of Psalms into five parts, their function and time of composition have been intensely discussed: Ps 41:14 ‫ברוך יהוה אלהי ישראל מהעולם ועד העולם אמן ואמן‬ Blessed be YHWH, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting. Amen and Amen. Ps 72:18–19 ‫ ברוך יהוה אלהים אלהי ישראל עשה נפלאות לבדו‬18 ‫ וברוך שם כבודו לעולם וימלא כבודו את־כל הארץ אמן ואמן‬19 18 Blessed be YHWH, the God of Israel, who alone does wondrous things. 19 Blessed be his glorious name forever; may his glory fill the whole earth. Amen and Amen. Ps 89:53 ‫ברוך יהוה לעולם אמן ואמן‬ Blessed be YHWH forever. Amen and Amen. Ps 106:48 ‫ברוך־יהוה אלהי ישראל מן־העולם ועד העולם ואמר כל־העם אמן הללו־יה‬ Blessed be YHWH, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting. And let all the people say, “Amen.” Hallelujah.

From this overview, three elements are found to be in common. They all 1) share a ‫ ברוך‬formula; 2) have some variation of ‫ ;עולם‬and 3) conclude with (at least one) ‫אמן‬. Apart from these similarities, where only the introducing formula is identical in all four psalms, it can be observed that the doxology of Ps 72 is the longest, followed by the one in Ps 106, while Ps 89:53 includes nothing

1

Proceeding from the conclusions of the last chapter, I do not include v. 20 here.

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

203

more than the three shared elements. Furthermore, there are some similarities concerning, for example, the ‫ עולם‬formula between, on the one hand, Pss 41:14 and 106:48, and, on the other hand, Pss 72:18–19 and 89:53. While the differences could indicate that all of these doxologies do not come from the same hand, the similarities have to be explained in some way, and four additional observations are relevant here. First, it is to be noted that the four doxologies do not divide the (MT) ‘Book’ of Psalms in five proportionate parts, although ‘books’ 1 and 5 are roughly of comparable size, as are ‘books’ 3 and 4 (however, it is likely that the collection of psalms looked quite different when the doxologies were added). Second, it has been noted that some of the doxologies occur at quite unexpected places (given that they would have been late insertions, intended to divide a collection of psalms into five ‘books’). The case in point would be the doxology of Ps 106, since it features in a psalm which is placed between the very similar 105 and 107 (that is, in the MT sequence), and Ps 72 is similarly located in the middle of the Elohistic collection, although at the end of a Davidic sequence of psalms. On the other hand, both doxologies of Pss 41 and 89 are placed at the end of clear sequences in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. Ps 41 is the last psalm in a series of psalms attributed to David (Pss 3–41) and Ps 89 stands in what has been argued to be the most decisive juncture of the ‘Book’ of Psalms.2 Third, Ps 106 includes a final Hallelujah, placed after the concluding Amen, rendering this doxology somewhat different from the other three. A Hallelujah is also found at the beginning of Ps 106, and therefore it would be important to inquire into the relation between such frameworks and the four doxologies, especially since the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms ends not with a doxology similar to the four studied here, but with five psalms with Hallelujah frameworks. To aid such a discussion, I will distinguish the Hallelujah frameworks from the four ‘book’dividing doxologies by designating the latter as ‫ ברך‬doxologies. Fourth, although the ‫ ברך‬doxologies are regularly interpreted as ‘book’ dividers, dividing the ‘Book’ of Psalms into five parts, as far as possible, the discussion of this chapter should proceed without any preconceived idea about their function. If one would approach the issue from the perspective of early reception, it would be noted that it is not univocal. Many church fathers do show awareness of the interpretation of the doxologies as ‘book’ dividers, for example, but regard it as distinctly Jewish and instead prefer a (trinitarian) threefold division.3 Possibly indicative here is also that the doxologies are not visually separated in the early manuscripts of the Peshitta and the LXX, but only later, in Codex Aleppo and Leningradensis, for example.4 Midrash Tehillim, on the 2

See Wilson 1985a, 166, 212–14. For an overview, see Ballhorn 2004, 44–47; cf. Gese 1974, 59–60; Sanders 2010, 683. 4 Sanders 2010, 683–84. 3

204

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

other hand, mentions the fivefold division in a passage dealing with Ps 1: “[a]s Moses gave five books of laws to Israel, so David gave five Books of Psalms to Israel”5 (cf. above, p. 166). Coming at it rather from an ancient Near Eastern context, I noted in my discussion on the comparative anthologies that doxologies were commonly used to conclude collections. There are also numerous examples of single compositions concluded in such a way, be it a myth, a love song, a hymn, or the like, regularly including the expression zà-mì (“Praise be to …”). Some examples could serve as an illustration. In the composition designated as “A šir-namursag̃ a to Inana for Iddin-Dagan,” which is structured into 10 parts, several of the latter sections are concluded with doxologies.6 Different vocabulary is used. While sections 6–9 conclude with a doxology using the noun me-teš2 (“praise,” lines 86–87, 109–110, 125–126, and 166–167 read ki-sikil dinana me-teš2 mu-e-i-i, “I praise the young lady, Inana!”), the very last section 10 concludes with the common zà-mì in an extended doxology (lines 221–228, which feature dinana … za3-mi2-zu dug3-gaam3, “Inana … it is sweet to praise you!”). It thus seems as if the latter parts of the composition anticipate the final doxology in praising the same goddess, but for the grand finale itself, zà-mì is used. Consequently, the fact that doxologies could be used to conclude both collections and individual compositions should be considered in my discussion of the psalms below. Was a doxology added to conclude a psalm or to conclude a collection? If the latter, what did such a collection look like? Looking more broadly, the material seems to attest a varied use of zà-mì. Whereas a basic performative function is probably to be detected in most cases, that is, an exhortation to praise, the expression seems to have attained a more paratextual function in some compositions. A case in point would be the ending of the composition “The Building of Ninĝ irsu’s temple.” After a final doxology, d nin-g̃ ir2-su za3-mi2 (“Praise be to Ninĝ irsu!”), a line follows that has been interpreted as a genre designation (or, perhaps better, a designation of a group of genres),7 including the very same zà-mì, but here translated as “a Zami-song.”8 Consequently, it seems as if zà-mì has acquired a literary function related to the composition itself in its inscribed form, and not only to its performance (although the latter has not been superseded). In fact, Rubio argues that this use could be seen as belonging to a later stage of the use of zà-mì, where it could be

5

Braude 1959, 1:5. For the possibility that 1Q30 refers to a fivefold division, see below, p.

344. 6

For a translation, see Black et al. 2004, 262–69. See also http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. So Hallo 2004, 167, who compares such a “supergenre” to the notion of “wisdom literature.” 8 Cf. Brisch 2010, 163, or http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.1.7 (2016-02-18). 7

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

205

understood as “true rubric.”9 Consequently, while zà-mì might originally have been an integral part of compositions, it eventually acquired an additional literary function as a concluding formula, ultimately demarcating a specific genre, and even referring to a musical instrument.10 Such a development is intriguing, as a similar development was noted for the use of Hallelujah in the LXX ‘Book’ of Psalms, where it was understood as a ‘type’ designation, rather than a doxology. Possibly relevant here is also 11Q5 28 3, which features a “Hallelujah psalm of David, son of Jesse” (‫)הללויה לדויד בן ישי‬. A final example is from the Hittite “Daily Prayer of the King,” where the ending reads “And the congregation shouts: ‘Let it be so!’.”11 The prayer is addressed to the god Telepinus on behalf of the royal family, and preceding the concluding shout is a section with blessings and curses. As I will show later, the association to blessings and curses is found also in the use of Amen in both the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example (see below, pp. 216–25). Proceeding from these preliminary remarks, the chapter is structured in five parts. Following this first section, the second will focus on the four psalms, inquiring into the question of whether some (or all) of the ‫ ברך‬doxologies are to be considered integral parts of, or later additions to, the psalms they are transmitted as part of. Third, I discuss the relation between Ps 106:48 and 1 Chr 16 before providing a brief survey of the use of Amen, with special focus on the double Amen in Pss 41, 72, and 89. Last, I briefly address the relation between the ‫ ברך‬doxologies and the Hallelujah frameworks.

B. Integral Parts or Later Insertions? As stated above, I will now focus on the question of whether the ‫ ברך‬doxologies are best seen as integral parts or later insertions, since the answer to such a question is necessary to achieve an informed opinion about function and use of the doxologies in relation to a larger collection of psalms. To evaluate the relationship between the doxology and the psalm proper, I will proceed in two basic steps. First, I will identify possible lexical links between the ‫ ברך‬doxology and the rest of the psalm, that is, the possibility that words from the doxology recur in the psalm. Second, I will evaluate the possible lexical links on a conceptual, as well as contextual, level, that is, relating the use to the immediate context. Taken together, these two steps will hopefully provide some clues for the main question.

9

Rubio 2009, 69. He also mentions a balbale of Dumuzi and Enkimdu here. Rubio 2009, 69; cf. Brisch 2010, 159. 11 Pritchard 1969, 396–97. See also Sanders 2010, 684–85. 10

206

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

I. Psalm 41 Both the MT and the LXX have Ps 41 as the last of a series of psalms attributed to David (Pss 3–41, it is not found in the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls). It is the shortest of all four psalms featuring a ‫ ברך‬doxology, and has the second shortest doxology. Starting with lexical links, of the words of the doxology none occurs in the remainder of the psalm except for YHWH and ‫עולם‬, the latter as the last word in v. 13. This might possibly indicate a connection, but the immediate context of ‫ עולם‬would speak against it. In v. 13, ‫ עולם‬is used as temporal determination of YHWH’s placing of the psalmist in his presence, linked to the preceding declaration of innocence, while the ‫ עולם‬of the doxology defines the temporal scope of the blessedness of YHWH. Furthermore, the psalm is essentially an individual complaint psalm,12 and is thus in tension with the communal aspect of the doxology (‫)אלהי ישראל‬. However, it could be argued that the superscription ‫למנצח‬, taken in its traditional sense as “to the choirmaster,” or the like, would imply that the psalm had at some point been used in some communal setting. But as it is most likely a later addition, it would be reasonable to conclude, as with most scholars, that the doxology is a later addition to Ps 41 as well.13 II. Psalm 72 Moving on to Ps 72, it is clear that vv. 18–19, constituting the longest of the four ‫ ברך‬doxologies, have some possible lexical connections to the rest of the psalm. First to be noted, however, is that the doxology of Ps 72, if compared to the other ‫ ברך‬doxologies, has the expression ‫יהוה אלהים‬, as over ‫יהוה‬. This has been explained by some as an appropriate adaption to the Elohistic collection,14 but as ‫ יהוה‬is nevertheless retained, this need not be the case. Furthermore, it has been argued that since the doxology is followed by v. 20 (“the prayers of David, son of Jesse, are ended”), it is best seen as being integral to the psalm. However, such an argument is insufficient if related to my suggestion that v. 20

12

For a discussion, see Lindström 1994, 302–5. See, e.g., Kraus 1993, 433; Terrien 2003a, 346; Craigie & Tate 2004, 320; Goldingay 2006, 590; Alter 2007, 147; Brown 2010, 110. See also Wilson 2002a, 1:655–66, who possibly modified his position slightly. Compare the statement in his commentary that “[t]he concern with the God of the community betrays the secondary nature of this doxology in relation to Psalm 41” with the statement in his dissertation that the ‫ ברך‬doxologies are “integral parts of the pss they accompany and have their origin in the liturgical milieu of the cult” (Wilson 1985a, 185–86). An alternative view is to speak of the five-fold division making use of doxologies that were originally concluding earlier collections (see Seybold 1990, 17). 14 Cf. Kratz 2013, 294–95, who also sees indications of the doxology in Ps 72 relating to other psalms in the Elohistic collection. 13

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

207

is a frozen colophon. If the conclusions drawn in the last chapter are reasonable, it would not be possible to use the verse as an argument for the integrality of vv. 18–19. Turning to lexical links, it is to be observed that the words repeated in the core psalm are those which are specific to the doxology of Ps 72, as compared to the other three. Consider first ‫ארץ‬, which is found in vv. 6, 8, and twice in v. 16. In v. 6, it forms part of a section of desires and petitions focusing on the cosmic dimensions of a righteous king – he is to be like “showers that water the earth” (‫)כרביבים זרזיף ארץ‬. In v. 8, it forms part of a description of the king’s universal dominion (‫ומנהר עד־אפסי־ארץ‬, “from the river to the ends of the earth”), and in v. 16, it refers to the unprecedented fertility and beauty of the land, depicted as the result of the rule of a righteous king. So put, the term is used to conceptualize different parts of human (righteous) kingship. Second, ‫ ברך‬and ‫ שם‬occur together in v. 17, and ‫ ברך‬alone in v. 15. Beginning with v. 15, it contains a cry of homage probably belonging to enthronement rituals (‫יחי‬ ִ ִ‫)ו‬,15 followed by three petitions, where the last includes a continuous blessing (“he shall bless him every day,” ‫)כל־היום יברכנהו‬. There is some uncertainty about who is being referred to in this verse. Hossfeld and Zenger argue that the recipients of the gold of Sheba, the prayers, and the blessings are the poor, while a more common interpretation is to have the king as recipient.16 In light of v. 17, the latter seems more reasonable, and thus, the readers/hearers of the psalm are exhorted to bless the king continuously, an exhortation expanded in v. 17, where it is wished that the name of the king endures forever (‫ )יהי שמו לעולם‬so that all nations shall be blessed in him and will pronounce him happy (‫)ויתברכו בו כל־גוים יאשרוהו‬.17 Apart from these, no other lexical links are found, but from these a contrast can be detected between the doxology and the core psalm.18 In the doxology, it is no longer the king who is the recipient of the people’s blessings, but YHWH. It is not the king’s name that shall last forever, but the name of YHWH. It is not the dominion of the king that extends to the ends of the earth, but the glory of YHWH. Given this, it would be reasonable to assume that the composition of the doxology was made with Ps 72 in view, but plausibly as a later addition, a corrective, thus not original to the core psalm.

15

Cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 2005, 216–17; cf. 1 Sam 10:24; 2 Sam 16:16; 1 Kgs 1:25, 34–39. Hossfeld & Zenger 2005, 203–4; cf., e.g., Goldingay 2007, 391. 17 Cf. the promise to Abraham in Gen 12:1–3, 22:18, and 28:14. 18 Cf. Koch 1994, 249; Saur 2004, 137–38. See also perhaps McCann Jr. 1996, 964. 16

208

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

III. Psalm 89 Turning to the complex Ps 89, it contains the shortest of all four ‫ ברך‬doxologies and consequently, there is not much basis for either lexical or conceptual links. Being an impressive lamentation on the failure of the Davidic covenant, it ends quite unexpectedly with a doxology, leading most commentators to note only in passing that it should be considered a late addition, even though the supporting evidence for such a conclusion is rarely presented.19 As for its structure, Gunkel observed that it falls apart into three main sections: vv. 2–19 (a hymn); vv. 20– 38 (a prophetic oracle); and vv. 39–52 (complaint). These have been subject to some discussion, as well as being the basis for the reconstruction of the possible growth of the psalm. Although many would now treat the psalm as a unity, they do not include the doxology of v. 53 in such a notion.20 As for lexical links, ‫ עולם‬occurs no less than six times outside the doxology, constituting one of the prominent concepts of the psalm (“endurance,” aside, for example, “steadfast love” and “fidelity”).21 It is used in connection to the continuous singing (‫ )שיר‬of YHWH’s steadfast love (‫חסד‬, v. 2), in connection to the steadfast love (‫ )חסד‬of YHWH (v. 3), and to the endurance of the line (‫ )זרע‬of David (vv. 5, 29, 37–38), and thus gives the entire psalm an “eternal” perspective. But while the occurrences outside the doxology are used to constitute a basis for the complaint in vv. 47–52 (this pertains to vv. 5, 29, 37–38), the ‫ עלום‬of the doxology does no such thing. At best, it recapitulates the statement of intent from the opening verses, but even here the connection would only be implicit. While ‫ אמן‬never occurs in adverbial form in the body of the psalm, the root is attested twice in the niphal participle, in both cases connected to the endurance of the Davidic covenant, rooted in the steadfast love of YHWH (vv. 28, 37). So put, the strong emphasis on covenant in the psalm might indicate that the doxology is quite appropriate as an ending. As will be seen below, covenant is often a prominent feature in texts where a (double) Amen is used, but while the covenant in view in these texts was regularly Mosaic, in Ps 89 it is Davidic. Furthermore, the use of Amen in connection to a complaint psalm is unusual, so it would perhaps still be appropriate to draw the tentative conclusion that the doxology is secondary to the psalm, not added with (only) the psalm in view.22

19

See, e.g., Hossfeld & Zenger 2005, 413. For an overview of the discussion, see Willgren Fca. 21 So, e.g., Hossfeld & Zenger 2005, 402. 22 Cf. deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 683. 20

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

209

IV. Psalm 106 When it comes to Ps 106, it has been noticed that it is a psalm of mixed genre.23 The main part is a historical narrative, as seen, for example, in the frequent use of the imperfect consecutive,24 evoking the designation Geschichtspsalm,25 and focus is on the history of the people’s sins.26 Comprising vv. 7–46, it is framed by vv. 1–6 and 47.48, and scholars have discussed the relation between these three sections.27 I will not recapitulate the entire discussion here, but will focus on the aspects relevant for the understanding of the possible function of the doxology. As for v. 47, its recapitulation of the exhortation to thank YHWH in v. 1 (‫להדות לשם קדשך‬, cf. ‫ )הודו ליהוה‬forms somewhat of an inclusio around the psalm, and is thus probably to be seen as original.28 It has also been suggested that this exhortation is not brought to completion until the doxology of v. 48, and so perhaps indicates a close connection between the doxology and the rest of the psalm as well,29 although it is commonly regarded as a later insertion, modeled upon the other three ‫ ברך‬doxologies.30 As for lexical links, the reference to the “whole people” (‫ )כל־העם‬in v. 48 is firmly rooted in the psalm, which is collective. Furthermore, the ‫ עם‬is used in vv. 4 and 40, and apart from ‫עם‬, which is also used in v. 34, v. 5 uses ‫גוי‬.31 ‫עולם‬ is also found both in v. 1, where it is used to conceptualize the everlasting steadfast love (‫ )חסד‬of YHWH, thus similar to the use in v. 48,32 and v. 31, where it describes the righteousness of Moses. Last, the divine designation ‫יהוה‬ ‫ אלהי ישראל‬is anticipated in v. 47, which reads ‫יהוה אלהינו‬. Thus, there are both conceptual and contextual similarities between the doxology and the psalm, and this probably indicates that v. 48 was composed with Ps 106 in view, or even that it is original to the psalm. Some additional observations could strengthen this view. First, the doxology ends in an unusual way when compared to the other three ‫ ברך‬doxologies. The exhortation of the people is not only placing the doxology (more specifically, the Amen) in the mouth of the people, but in so doing, also

23

See, e.g., Beyerlin 1974, 50–51; Allen 2002, 65; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 82–38. Cf. Beyerlin 1974, 51. 25 For recent treatments of these psalms, see, e.g., Gärtner 2012; Klein 2014. 26 Ballhorn 2004, 133. For the structure of the psalm, see, e.g., Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 84–87. 27 For an overview of the main positions, see Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 82–83. 28 Cf. Ballhorn 2004, 133. 29 Ballhorn 2004, 133; Saur 2004, 310, n. 123. 30 So, e.g., Kraus 1989, 316; Allen 2002, 66; Goldingay 2008, 241–42; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 85; deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 806; Klein 2014, 213. 31 Cf. Ballhorn 2004, 133. 32 For a discussion on lexical links, see also Fokkelman 2000, 2:269–78. 24

210

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

aligns the doxology to the narrative style of the psalm (‫)ואמר כל־העם‬. Furthermore, the doxology features a single Amen, rather than the usual double Amen. Second, it has been noted that the psalm is related to a possible liturgy of confession,33 and Friedrich Baumgärtel has made an interesting comparison between the psalm and the liturgy of the renewal of the covenant, as found in 1QS.34 As will be seen below, such a context would strengthen the idea that the doxological response on the part of the people is quite appropriate in view of the psalm. If correct, the genre variance between the doxology and the rest of Ps 106 need not be an insurmountable obstacle, but rather interpreted as an expected feature.35 The third feature is the presence of Hallelujah after Amen. As I mentioned above, it would have to be discussed in relation to the Hallelujah of v. 1, and if conceived as part of a secondary framework, it could indicate that the doxology was perceived as integral to the psalm,36 but such a conclusion would have to be postponed until a more comprehensive discussion of these frameworks has been undertaken. Last, there is an interesting parallel in 1 Chr 16, overlapping with Ps 106:1, 47–48. If regarded as a quote, it could indicate that the doxology was conceived as part of the psalm, but the matter is somewhat elusive. I will return to the issue in the next section (pp. 211–16). In sum, if relating the four points to the discussion of possible lexical links, it seems as if the context of the composition (or inclusion) of the doxology is Ps 106. In this sense, then, it would be reasonable to call it an integral part of the psalm,37 indicating that the historical overview in vv. 7–46 aims to prepare for, and evoke, a communal response and confession of sin.38 If so, the Amen uttered by the people is to be understood as an affirmation of the whole psalm, and it would also follow that the doxology was not composed primarily as a “literary response to the fourth book of the Psalms,”39 nor that it was used primarily as a literary device (paratext) of some other kind. This does not mean, however, that the doxology was not to be interpreted as such at a later date, only that it was not originally intended to perform such a function.

33

Allen 2002, 67; cf., e.g., Crüsemann 1969, 77, with n. 4; Kraus 1989, 316–18. Baumgärtel 1953. 35 Anderson 1972b, 748, however, argues that v. 47 alone does fulfill such a function. 36 Cf. Ballhorn 2004, 135. This is also how the earliest manuscript witnesses understand the relation between the ‫ ברך‬doxology and the Hallelujah framework (Sanders 2010). 37 Cf. Koenen 1995, 95; Saur 2004, 310, with n. 123; Ballhorn 2004, 133–35; Sanders 2010, 686. 38 Cf. Gerstenberger 2001, 244; Goldingay 2008, 222; Cf. Gärtner 2012, 236, who calls it an “Abschluss der Erkenntnisweges der Beter.” 39 The expression is from Allen 2002, 74. 34

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

211

V. Conclusions As has become clear from this overview, there is no easy answer to the question of whether the doxologies are integral parts or later insertions to the psalms they now belong to. Nevertheless, some tentative conclusions could be drawn. While it seemed as if the doxologies were later insertions in Pss 41 and 89, having little to do with the actual psalms respectively, I suggested that the doxology in Ps 72 could be both, if the idea of a later insertion was qualified as being made with the actual psalm in view. This was also the case with the doxology in Ps 106, where many observations indicated that it was best seen as belonging closely to the psalm, although possibly as a later addition. Consequently, an intended paratextual function would only be plausible for the doxologies in Pss 41 and 89, but before drawing any conclusion, further material has to be analyzed.

C. A Possible Clue in 1 Chronicles 16 I. Beyond a Direction of Dependence? One possible clue to the understanding of the ‫ ברך‬doxologies is the composite psalm in 1 Chr 16:8–36, which features parts of three psalms now included in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms: Pss 105, 96, and 106 (in that order). Extensive overlap is attested for Pss 105 and 96, while the possible overlap with Ps 106 extends to three verses only. As such, the passage has evoked a number of questions. Although overlooked in many early commentaries on 1 Chr 16 (the reader was instead referred to the analyses provided in psalm commentaries), there has been a growing tendency to focus on the relation between the composition and its surrounding narrative context. Here, it has been suggested that the composition is carefully crafted from three well-known psalms, with small but nevertheless theologically significant alterations made.40 As related to the surrounding context, it is furthermore observed that these posited alterations are well in line with not only the Ark Narrative in the surrounding chapters, but with 1–2 Chronicles as a whole.41 Hans-Peter Mathys, for one, calls the composition “eine ausgezeichnete Zusammenfassung der Theologie der Chronikbücher”!42 Regularly, it is presupposed that 1 Chr 16 depends on the three psalms, and some even argue that the use implies the existence of a collection quite close, or 40 See, e.g., Williamson 1982, 128; Japhet 1993, 316–20; Mathys 1994, 204; cf. Auffret 1995, 307. 41 See, e.g., Butler 1978, 149; Williamson 1982, 128; Mathys 1994, 203; Klein 2006, 361– 63. 42 Mathys 1994, 207–8.

212

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

perhaps identical, to the ‘Book’ of Psalms,43 but as it comes to the verses overlapping with Ps 106, the relation is not clear. If related to the discussion of Ps 106 above, the argument that the inclusion of a doxology similar to Ps 106:48 would indicate a (MT) ‘Book’ of Psalms becomes unconvincing (even more so in light of the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls),44 although it might be posited that the extensive verbatim overlaps would indicate some kind of relationship to the psalm proper. Nonetheless, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the use of these three psalms indicates that they were all part of an established transmission of psalms. If related to their context in 1 Chr, the quotation of psalms has been argued to have as a primary function to unite the (contemporary) Second Temple cult with David, and the Asaphites with psalmody.45 For such an aim to be successful, the psalms included would have to be well established and used, and the narrative context would, then, presumably indicate that these psalms were (to be?) transmitted alongside other psalms attributed to both David and Asaph. Moreover, it seems as if the selection of the three psalms is not random. R. Mark Shipp, for one, has argued that the terms used in the introduction (v. 4), to “cause to remember” (‫)הזכיר‬, “give thanks” (‫ )ידה‬and “praise” (‫ )הלל‬YHWH, the “God of Israel” (‫)אלהי ישראל‬, are fundamental to the structure of the psalm.46 At least, it seems as if the terms reveal something of the rationale behind both the choice of the psalms and their combination.47 II. A Closer Look This said, there has been a lot of discussion about a possible direction of dependence between 1 Chr 16 and Ps 106, and this will be kept in mind as I now turn to a closer analysis of 1 Chr 16:34–36, focusing both on the differences as compared to Ps 106:1, 47–48, and on the peculiarities of this doxology as compared to the three other ‫ ברך‬doxologies in the ‘Book’ of Psalms.48 The passages read as the following: Ps 106:1, 47–48 ‫ הללויה הודו ליהוה כי־טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬1

43

So, e.g., Skehan 1978, 167–68; Miller 1986, 15. For a critique, see Flint 1997a, 213–14. Ps 106 is not unambiguously preserved in the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls, although possibly extant in 4Q86, a scroll with a sequence of psalms conflicting with the MT, and probably quoted in 4Q380 (see below, pp. 327–31). 45 Cf. Butler 1978, 145; Watts 1993, 357–58; Klein 2006, 363–64, 370. 46 Shipp 1993, 34. 47 Cf. also Slomovic 1979, 378; Mathys 1994, 208. 48 For an overview, see also Gärtner 2012, 236–38. Scholars arguing for the dependence of 1 Chr 16 on Ps 106 include Watts 1992, 167–68; Koch 1994, 246; Zenger 1998b, 28, n. 65; Schnocks 2002, 250; Levin 2004, 86–88; Leuenberger 2011, 76. The dependence of Ps 106 on 1 Chr 16 is argued by, e.g., Wilson 1985a, 185. For a more complex view, where both passages might have influenced each other, see Kratz 2013, 293–94. 44

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

213

‫ הושיענו יהוה אלהינו וקבצנו מן־הגוים להדות לשם קדשך להשתבח בתהלתך‬47 ‫ ברוך־יהוה אלהי ישראל מן־העולם ועד העולם ואמר כל־העם אמן הללו־יה‬48 1 Hallelujah. Give thanks to YHWH, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever. 47 Save us, YHWH our God, and gather us from among the nations, that we may give thanks to your holy name and glory in your praise. 48 Blessed be YHWH, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting. And let all the people say, “Amen.” Hallelujah. 1 Chr 16:34–36 ‫ הודו ליהוה כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬34 ‫ ואמרו הושיענו אלהי ישענו וקבצנו והצילנו מן־הגוים להדות לשם קדשך להשתבח בתהלתך‬35 ‫ ברוך יהוה אלהי ישראל מן־העולם ועד העלם ויאמרו כל־העם אמן והלל ליהוה‬36 34 Give thanks to YHWH, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever. 35 Say also: “Save us, God of our salvation, and gather and rescue us from among the nations, that we may give thanks to your holy name, and glory in your praise. 36 Blessed be YHWH, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting.” And all the people said “Amen!” and praised YHWH.

The first phrase showing overlap with Ps 106 is found in v. 34, and follows after several verses corresponding to Ps 96. The transition is accomplished by means of recapitulating one of the main themes of the composition, introduced already in its first verse, v. 8: “Give thanks to the Lord” (‫)הודו ליהוה‬.49 The extended phrase, ‫הודו ליהוה כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬, which overlaps with Ps 106:1, is found recurrently in Second Temple literature, and thus renders the idea of a literary dependence somewhat unnecessary.50 As argued by Kratz, for example, the phrase is best understood as belonging to the repertoire of the temple singers, thus fully compatible with the context in 1 Chr 16,51 perhaps indicating a similar liturgical practice behind both passages.52 If so, this verse alone cannot be argued to provide any firm clues about the relation between Ps 106 and 1 Chr 16 other than that they probably both relate to a similar Second Temple context. Moving on to v. 35, there are three points of difference, if compared to Ps 106:47. First, 1 Chr 16 has an imperative not attested in Ps 106 (“say also,” ‫)ואמרו‬. Second, the designation used for God differs, and third, yet another imperative, now directed at YHWH, is found in 1 Chr 16 only: ‫“( והצילנו‬and deliver us”). Starting with ‫ואמרו‬, it clearly ties the composition to its surrounding liturgical context.53 By addressing the people, it anticipates their final response (v. 36), and introduces the communal plea for salvation as the concluding part

49

Cf. Klein 2006, 367. For a more detailed discussion of this phrase, see pp. 305–9 below. 51 Kratz 2013, 293; cf. Mathys 1994, 209. 52 So, e.g., Gese 1974, 166. 53 Cf. Leuenberger 2011, 175. 50

214

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

of the composition in 1 Chr 16.54 Such a notion of salvation, then, would probably explain the different descriptions of God as well, as 1 Chr 16 has ‫אלהי ישענו‬ (“the God of our salvation”), rather than ‫“( יהוה אלהינו‬YHWH our God”), as in Ps 106. As noted above, the latter was quite in line with Ps 106, pointing to the conclusion that both are fitting in their contexts respectively.55 If these differences are perhaps to be considered as minor, the third is more conspicuous. Ps 106 speaks of a gathering of the exiles, a notion that seems to go somewhat beyond the presupposed historical context of 1 Chr 16.56 As pointed out by Sara Japhet, the concept of the gathering of the exiles is quite uncommon to 1–2 Chr as a whole, in fact mentioned only once, but with different phraseology, referring to the people of the north (2 Chr 30:9).57 The presence of ‫“( והצילנו‬and rescue us”) could thus be understood as an adaption of an earlier text to make it more appropriate to its new context,58 and if so, it could be suggested that it depends on Ps 106, but this does not solve problem with ‫וקבצנו‬. Consequently, some scholars have seen here an implicit criticism of the Persians,59 or at least understood it as appropriate in light of the “Chronicler’s” own context,60 but a better solution is found when considering the LXX, which reads καὶ ἐξελοῦ ἡµᾶς ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν (“and rescue us from among the nations”). As pointed out by Japhet, there is no equivalent for the gathering here, and since the passage has a more balanced parallelism, it is possible that 1 Chr 16:34–36 is an adaptation of a psalm similar to the LXX, rather than the MT. If so, it would have featured ‫ והצילנו‬rather than ‫( וקבצנו‬Ps 106), although the history of use would eventually have the latter sneak back into the text at a later stage, plausibly by a scribe influenced by MT Ps 106. In sum, it might be tentatively posited that the differences between 1 Chr 16:35 and Ps 106:47 are satisfactory explained if assumed that the former adapts a version of the latter. The changes are well aligned with the theology of 1–2 Chr, but the natural context of the verse is probably Ps 106.61 The last verse (v. 36) contains the ‫ ברך‬doxology, and two main differences are found (apart from ‫ העולם‬/ ‫)חעלם‬: the verb ‫ אמר‬is found in two different aspects, and where Ps 106:48 has ‫( הללו־יה‬Hallelujah), 1 Chr 16:36 has ‫והלל ליהוה‬ (“and praised YHWH”). If the argument made above about the relation between the doxology and Ps 106 is valid, and if the observations about v. 35 are reason-

54

Cf. Watts 1992, 156; Gärtner 2012, 237. Cf. Mathys 1994, 207. 56 See, e.g., Williamson 1982, 130, who observes that it is far more appropriate to the “Chronicler’s” own age than to David’s; cf. Thompson 1994, 142. 57 Japhet 1993, 319. 58 Cf. Watts 1992, 159. 59 See Klein 2006, 367. 60 Mathys 1994, 207. 61 So also Kratz 2013, 293. 55

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

215

able, it is plausible that v. 36 is an adaption of the doxology of Ps 106 into a kind of “bridge passage,” leading back to the narrative.62 If so, it follows that the last Hallelujah of Ps 106:48 was likely present, although the matter is somewhat elusive. III. Conclusions How, then, could these observations be evaluated? As it is plausible that 1 Chr 16 adapted some version of Pss 105 and 96 into a new composition, my analysis indicated that it would not be unreasonable to suggest that a version of Ps 106 was also incorporated. If so, that version would have included the doxology. Such a conclusion would, then, gain further support if related to the larger context of 1 Chr 16 and the possible function of the new composition.63 As noted above, one of the aims of the narrative was to connect the Second Temple cult to David, as well as to legitimize the current temple personnel (the Asaphites). In order to do this, 1 Chr 16 used three well-known psalms, and reworked them into a composition well suited to its surrounding narrative.64 The fact that versions of Pss 105 and 96 are incorporated in some great length, while only three verses from a version of Ps 106 are attested, could be interpreted as indicating that the psalm overlapping with Ps 106 looked quite different from the version now found in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. A more appealing suggestion, however, would be that 1 Chr 16 incorporated only those parts of Ps 106 that were seen as constituting a fitting conclusion in line with the overall function of the composition.65 Possibly, it could nevertheless have evoked the rest of the psalm to the assumed readers (if known well enough), so that the two historical contexts (pre- and postexilic) are addressed at the same time.66 If these arguments are valid, they would also provide clues about the function of the doxology in Ps 106 (which, of course, is my main concern here), and even about issues of formation of collections of psalms. First, it should be noted that there is no Hallelujah framework in 1 Chr 16. That is, the Hallelujah in Ps 106:1 is not present, although it would have been quite fitting in the context. Consequently, it could indicate that it either was not yet part of the psalm, or that it was not regarded as integral to it. In contrast, 1 Chr 16 plausibly related 62 Levin 2004, 88; Klein 2006, 368; Gärtner 2012, 237–38, with n. 302. Contra Kratz 2013, 293–95, who argues that 1 Chr 16 has borrowed from Ps 106:1 and 47, while the doxology is original, and later inserted in Ps 106. 63 Cf. also the observation of Butler 1978, 142, n. 1. 64 Cf. Klein 2006, 361–63; Weitzman 1997, 103. It is probably not a secondary insertion (cf. Watts 1992, 162–64, contra Kratz 2013, 293). The argument by Mathys 1994, 203–4, n. 9, that the text of the psalm in 1 Chr 16 is later than the three psalms from the ‘Book’ of Psalms is interesting, but the evidence he presents is inconclusive. 65 Cf. Shipp 1993, 37. 66 See a similar observation in Braun 1986, 193.

216

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

to the Hallelujah of Ps 106:48. This might indicate that the addition of Hallelujah frameworks was quite a complex endeavor, extended over time, and that the final Hallelujah of Ps 106 was originally integral to its doxology. Second, 1 Chr 16 shows that a doxology of this kind can be used as a conclusion to a (single) psalm so that the conclusions drawn about the doxologies of both Ps 72 and Ps 106 gain some additional weight, as does the conclusion that a fivefold division of the ‘Book’ of Psalms cannot be argued as presupposed in 1 Chr 16. Ps 106 was certainly known, but not as a ‘book’ divider, although the use made of the three psalms indicated that they were likely transmitted together at this time, plausibly alongside other psalms attributed to David and Asaph. Last, the use of ‫ ברך‬doxologies seemed to be related to the Second Temple period, and this will be further inquired into as I now turn to a survey of the use of Amen, with special focus on the double Amen.

D. Reconstructing Contexts of Use for Amen A prominent feature of the ‫ ברך‬doxologies in focus is, as noted above, the concluding Amen. Sometimes mentioned only in passing, I believe that an inquiry into the contexts in which the formula occurs can shed some light upon the question of the possible function of the doxologies. I structure the survey in three parts. First, I provide an overview of the use of Amen in the Hebrew Bible, then, I turn to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and last, I focus on the so-called Apocrypha, and the New Testament. I. Amen in the Hebrew Bible Starting with the single Amen, the Hebrew root basically means “certainly,” “truly,” “may it be so,” or the like,67 and intends, according to TLOT, to “indicate that something which has been said stands firm, is ‘true’. But at the same time this truth is recognized as ‘valid’ and therefore also as obligatory for the speaker of the Amen.”68 Apart from the occurrence in Ps 106 and 1 Chr 16:36 analyzed above, the single Amen is used 18 times in the Hebrew Bible, of which twelve are in Deut 27:15–26, two in Isa 65:16, and one in 1 Kgs 1:36, Jer 11:5, 28:6, and Neh 5:13 respectively. In the first passage, Deut 27:15–26, the setting is liturgical, and the backdrop is a covenant renewal.69 A cultic assembly is gathered, Levites are pronouncing

67

Moberly 1997, 428; Clines 2011, 1:317–18; Brown, Driver, & Briggs 2005, 53; Van der Woude 1997, 146; Seybold 2004, 106–8. 68 Van der Woude 1997, 146. 69 Craigie 1976, 330; cf. Phillips 1973, 181, who considers the passage a late insertion.

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

217

a number of curses, and following each curse is a formulaic expression similar to 1 Chr 16 and Ps 106: “All the people shall say, Amen!” (‫)ואמר כל־העם אמן‬. Amen is thus used to express (public) assent, and implies that the people accept both the covenant and the validity of the curses.70 Moving on to 1 Kgs 1:36(–37), Amen is used as an individual’s (Benaiah’s) response to another person’s (David’s) statement. As in Deut 27, it functions as a kind of endorsement,71 but the subject is a royal appointment. As with Hans Wildberger, and in line with the observation made in TLOT above, the Amen could be understood as a “verpflichtendes Ja,”72 and is thus, as in Deut 27, basically an affirmative of the words of David. The two occurrences in Jeremiah are interesting. First up, Jer 11:5 has been seen as having a Deuteronomistic style.73 It is suggestive, for example, that there is a pronouncing of a curse (v. 3) in a context focusing on a covenant (e.g. vv. 3, 6) as in Deut 27. Thus, the use of Amen is likely to be understood in a way similar to Deut 27, the difference being that it is uttered by an individual as a direct response to YHWH. Moving on, the occurrence in Jer 28:6 has often been understood as ironic,74 or at least dubious,75 but the fundamental affirmative function remains. The passage in Neh 5:13 is part of a pericope extending throughout vv. 1–13, recounting Nehemiah’s dealings with some internal disputes centered around hunger, debts, and taxes.76 After a description of the people’s complaint, the narrative continues with Nehemiah assembling a great crowd (‫ )קהלה גדולה‬to deal with the nobles and officials. The encounter leads up to the swearing of an oath (lead by the priests), followed by Nehemiah pronouncing a curse over those not upholding the oath. To this, the gathered assembly responds by saying “Amen,” and then praising YHWH (‫)ויאמרו כל־הקהל אמן ויהללו את־יהוה‬. Thus, as in the examples above, Amen has an approving, or acclaiming function,77 rather than a literary one, since the concluding function of the pericope is performed by the sentence following the public enaction (‫ויעש העם כדבר הזה‬, “And the people did as they had promised”). The fact that the acclamation is followed by an act of praise is also noteworthy, since it parallels 1 Chr 16, and thus plausibly relates to the use of Hallelujah in Ps 106:48 as well.

70

Phillips 1973, 182; Craigie 1976, 331; Miller 1990, 196; cf. McConville 2002, 392. Gray 1963, 90; Jones 1984, 1:102; Seybold 2004, 108. 72 The quote is found in Mulder 1998, 69. 73 See, e.g., Bright 1965, 88; Carroll 1986, 267; Holladay 1986, 350; Seybold 2004, 110, n. 71

25. 74

See, e.g., Beardslee 2014, n.p. So Holladay 1989, 128. For an alternative view, see Thompson 1980, 539. 76 Myers 1965, 129. 77 See also the notion of strengthening the potency of the curse suggested by Clines 1984, 170. 75

218

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

Finally, in Isa 65:16, Amen is used as a noun in the designation “the God of Amen” (‫)אלהי אמן‬. From the context, a connection to oaths, curses, and blessings can again be inferred, and the swearing by the name of ‫ אלהי אמן‬is implied to give strong (divine) affirmation to the oath,78 thus in line with the other passages surveyed above. In sum, when used in its single form, Amen seems to have an affirmative function where the ones uttering Amen commit themselves to “abhor and avoid those courses of action to which the curse is attached.”79 Although a curse is not present in all contexts above (1 Kgs 1:35 and Jer 28 being the exceptions), it is nevertheless clear that the term was often associated with liturgical practice, not seldom functioning as public assent in cultic events lead by priests or Levites. The fact that Amen is used as a response gives it, in several cases, a concluding function, although not in any literary (paratextual) sense (cf. Neh 5). What about occurrences of a double Amen, then? Notably, it is only found twice outside the ‫ ברך‬doxologies of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, and always without the conjunctive ‫ו‬. The first passage is Num 5:22, where a woman is prescribed to utter “Amen, Amen” as a response to a curse spelled out by the priest. The verse is part of a passage starting in v. 11 that deals with women suspected of having been unfaithful to their husbands. In vv. 19–23, the priest makes a woman take an oath, and vv. 22–23 prescribe a dual affirmation, putting curses into play.80 First, the woman is to put herself under the curses by the affirmative, responsive double Amen, and second, she is to drink the curses, as the priest will write them down and dissolve them (‫ )מחה‬into the “water of bitterness” (‫)אל־מי המרים‬. So put, the basic meaning is congruent with the use of the single Amen as it is used to assent and comply with the directives of the priest.81 The second occurrence outside the ‘Book’ of Psalms is in Neh 8:6. Here, it is voiced by the people as the first part of a response to Ezra’s reading of the law. The passage extends from 7:73b–8:12, and the relevant verse reads as follows: Neh 8:6 ‫ויברך עזרא את־יהוה האלהים הגדול ויענו כל־העם אמן אמן‬ ‫במעל ידיהם ויקדו וישתחו ליהוה אפים ארצה‬

78 Cf. Herbert 1975, 186. Seybold 2004, 114, rather reads ‫ א ֶֹמן‬and translates “Gott der Treue.” 79 Moberly 1997, 428. 80 Cf. the notion in Seybold 2004, 110, that Amen “fungiert hier anstelle des eigenen Sprechens der Selbstverfluchung.” 81 Jeremias 1978, 387, suggests that the duplication is perhaps to be understood as distributive, so that the woman says Amen to each of the two curses respectively.

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

219

Then Ezra blessed YHWH, the great God, and all the people answered, “Amen, Amen,” lifing up their hands. Then they bowed their heads and worshiped YHWH with their faces to the ground.

The usual understanding of the use of the double Amen in this passage is that of public assent to the law just read, and that the duplication is having a strengthening function.82 Also relevant is that ‫ ברך‬is present, as in the doxologies, and that scholars have argued that the context is that of a liturgical event.83 In fact, in both of these two passages, the double Amen is used in a liturgical context, so that Neh 8 has it as a direct response to the reading of the law, and that neither of them reveal any paratextual function for Amen. II. Amen in the Dead Sea Scrolls Apart from the Hebrew Bible, there are some interesting examples of the use of Amen in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Here, it occurs only in its double form (although the state of preservation of the scrolls should warrant against any definitive conclusion on the matter), and a short overview of the passages will reveal several similarities concerning contexts of use sketched so far.84 A first example is 1QS 1 19–20; 2 10, 18, where Amen is found once again in the context of covenant renewal. On line 19, the priests and Levites are instructed to bless (‫ )ברך‬the “God of salvation” (‫)אל ישועות‬, and the congregation is to respond (literally “say after them,” ‫ )אומרים אחריהם‬with “Amen, Amen.” Then follows two sections with blessings and curses, and after each, the congregation is exhorted to respond with “Amen, Amen.” Consequently, the implied function is likely that of public assent, similar to the use of Amen in the Hebrew Bible. In the composition designated as 4QBerakhot, a double Amen occurs 17 times (4Q286 1 i 8; 5 a–c 8; 7 i 7; 7 ii 1, 5, 6, 10; 9 3; 4Q287 1 4; 4 3; 5 11; 6 1, 4, 6, 9; 7 2; 4Q289 2 4; 4Q290 1 1),85 regularly followed by a vacat. These fragments all contain blessings and curses, and Bilhah Nitzan has suggested that they probably had a liturgical function similar to 1QS.86 Two examples could be of particular interest. Consider first 4Q286 7 i 5–7:87

82

Clines 1984, 184; cf. Myers 1965, 153–54; Blenkinsopp 1988, 287–8. See the discussion in Blenkinsopp 1988, 285–86. Cf. Gerstenberger 1988, 174, who proposes a connection between the ‫ ברך‬doxologies and synagogue worship. 84 Cf. Nitzan 1994, 239, n. 50. As for the Hebrew Bible texts surveyed above, only Isa 65:16 is preserved in the DSS. 85 In 4Q290, only a single Amen is visible, but the text probably had a double Amen. 86 Eshel et al. 1998, 25–26; cf. Vermes 2004, 391. 87 Text and translation from Eshel et al. 1998, 1. 83

220

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

4Q286 7 i 5–7 ‫]מי[ם‬ ֯ ‫[כה והנשא מלכותכה בתוך ֯ע‬ l 5 [‫הל]ל‬ ֯ ‫ל‬l ‫ס[ו֯ ֯ד אלי טוהר עם כול ידעי עולמים‬ 6 vacat ‫עו[ל]מים[ אמן אמן‬ l ‫ ולבר[ך את שם כבודכה בכול ]קצי‬7 5 6 7

]kh and Your kingdom shall be exalted among n[ation]s the c]ouncil of elim of purification with all those who have eternal knowledge, to prai[se and to ble]ss Your glorious name in all [ever]la[sting ages]. Amen. Amen. vacat

As can be seen here, all three features of the ‫ ברך‬doxologies of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms are present (7 i 7), and furthermore, the object of the blessing is “Your glorious name” (‫)את שם כבודכה‬, similar to the doxology in Ps 72:18–19 (“his glorious name,” ‫)שם כבודו‬. Furthermore, although the doxology has somewhat of a concluding function (indicated by a vacat after the double Amen), it is primarily understood as a part of the composition, although possibly revealing an implicit paratextual function. The second passage is from 4Q286 7 ii 1, where the double Amen is used as a response by the congregation, and the exhortation is similar to the ones in 1QS. Apart from these examples, double Amens are attested in a work containing prayers (4Q292 2 5, 4Q293 2 2), in three fragmentary manuscripts containing prayers for the days of the week (4Q504 1–2 i 7; vii 2, 9; 3 ii 3; 4 15; 17 ii 5),88 as well as in three manuscripts with prayers for festivals (4Q507 3 2; 4Q508 20 1; 4Q509 4 5; 49 ii 1; 131–132 ii 3).89 The latter has the phrase ‫“( לעולמי עד‬forever and ever”) extant in at least two fragments, as well as one use of the phrase ‫דו[רו֯ ֯ת עולם‬ ֯ (“throughout the generations”), thus including (at least) two of the three parts of the ‫ ברך‬doxologies. Since the text is broken before the phrase ‫ לעולמי עד‬in all cases, it is not possible to know if some variant of ‫ברך‬ had also been present, but from the observations made so far, it would not be surprising if it was. Similarly, 4Q504 1–2 vii 9, a hymn for the Sabbath day, includes all three parts of the ‫ ברך‬doxology.90 Last, the double Amen occurs in 4Q221 4 2 (=Jubilees 33:13), where it is used in a longer narrative as a response of the “holy ones of the Lord” (‫כול‬ ‫ )קדושי יהוה‬to a pronounced curse (cf. perhaps Num 5). It also features in two highly fragmented manuscripts with various psalms and poems (4Q511 63 iv 3; 111 9, the phrase ‫ וברוך שמכה לעולמי עד‬is also present in the first fragment),91 and in the ‘psalms’ scroll 11Q11 (5 3; 6 3, 14; each time followed by ‫)סלה‬. As noted above (p. 102), the latter features Ps 91, and here, the double Amen is used at the end of each psalm, with the last one extended into [‫ויע]נו אמן אמן‬ ‫“( סלה‬and they shall an[swer ‘Amen, Amen’] Selah”). Taken together with the

88

Baillet 1982, 139, 150, 152, 155, 165. Baillet 1982, 176, 182, 187, 195, 201. 90 Interestingly, this hymn is quite similar to Ps 148 (Nitzan 1994, 195–66). 91 Baillet 1982, 249, 255. 89

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

221

suggestion that 11Q11 contains an apotropaic ritual (see more below, pp. 339– 41), it has been argued that the variation provides a conclusion to the liturgy, and so it could perhaps have an implicit paratextual function, although the performative use is clearly in the forefront. To sum up, the overview of the occurrences of Amen in the Dead Sea Scrolls has painted a picture quite consistent with the use in the Hebrew Bible although some slight differences were observed. For one, they were regularly placed last in the compositions (except for in 4Q221 4 2), thus having somewhat of a concluding function, perhaps approaching the notion of a paratext. Nevertheless, their function would still primarily have been performative, fitting responses uttered by praying congregations or individuals as a way of assenting the words just spoken (be it the renewal of a covenant, as in 1QS or 4QBerakhot, a festival, as in 4Q507–509, or an exorcism[?], as in 11Q11). So put, the double Amen would also contribute to the demarcation of prayers, psalms, or even sections with blessings or curses. III. Amen in the Apocrypha and the New Testament Turning to other texts from the late Second Temple period, two passages in Judith emanate as relevant. First, Jdt 13:20 describes the people’s response to Judith’s success, and throughout vv. 17–20 the people first bless their God (Εὐλογητὸς εἶ, ὁ θεὸς ἡµῶν), followed by a blessing on the part of Uzziah to which the people respond with a double Amen (Γένοιτο γένοιτο). In the second passage, Jdt 15:10, a victory is celebrated, and here, a doxology very similar to the ‫ ברך‬doxologies is used to bless Judith. The passage reads εὐλογηµένη γίνου παρὰ τῷ παντοκράτορι κυρίῳ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα χρόνον. καὶ εἶπεν πᾶς ὁ λαός Γένοιτο (“‘May the Almighty Lord bless you forever!’ And all the people said, ‘Amen’”). Evidently, all three constituting parts of the ‫ ברך‬doxologies are present in a context of public response. However, the assenting function of the Amen is not related to the victory just witnessed, but to the doxology itself, that is, to the pronouncing of the blessedness of Judith. Consequently, it seems as if the doxology has become a fairly self-contained expression, here integrated into a narrative context. Moving on, Tob 8:8 uses Amen to conclude a prayer that starts in v. 5, and whose opening part reads as follows: Εὐλογητὸς εἶ, ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡµῶν, καὶ εὐλογητὸν τὸ ὄνοµά σου τὸ ἅγιον καὶ ἔνδοξον εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας (“Blessed are you, O God of our ancestors, and blessed is your name in all generations forever”). Taken together with the concluding Amen, all of the three parts of a ‫ברך‬ doxology are present, structured as a frame around the prayer, and in Tob 14:15, a paratextual function emanates clearly as a ‫ ברך‬doxology is used to conclude an epilogue to the entire work: καὶ εὐλόγησεν κύριον τὸν θεὸν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων Αµην (“and he blessed the Lord God forever and ever Amen”). Similar to Jdt 15:10, it seems as if the doxology is used as a self-con-

222

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

tained formula, and as part of the epilogue, it is a clear example of a use of a ‫ ברך‬doxology as a literary device to conclude a larger composition. Looking more broadly, similar uses can also be found in Rom 16:27, as well as in 3 Macc 7:23, and 4 Macc 18:24. Furthermore, in the Prayer of Manasseh, a single Amen forms part of an extended doxology concluding the entire prayer (v. 15), and all three parts of the ‫ ברך‬doxologies are found, although it has αἰνέω (“praise,” cf. ‫ )?הלל‬and ὑµνέω (“sing a hymn”) rather than εὐλογέω (“bless,” cf. ‫)?ברך‬. These quite formulaic uses of Amen in concluding doxologies are probably to be traced back to the communal responses depicted in passages like Neh 8, but other passages indicate that another trajectory of use can also be identified. More specifically, New Testament texts are witness to the fact that Amen could be used to substantiate or validate one’s own utterances (see, for example, John, who, in contrast to the Synoptic Gospels, uses the double Amen; cf. 1 Cor 14:16, 2 Cor 1:20).92 While Victor Hasler describes the development as moving from responsive to affirmative, or, as he puts it, from “persönlichen Engagements” to “Versicherung der objektiven Tatsächlichkeit,”93 I believe the overview of texts above rather indicates that these two functions developed simultaneously so that one never superseded the other. IV. Conclusions 1. Trajectories of Use How, then, should these observations be interpreted? As has been seen above, both the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls showed some significant agreement over the liturgical use of Amen, but other material revealed other functions. Placing these texts in some rough chronological order, it would be possible to sketch some general trajectories of use. In the Hebrew Bible, Amen was used as: A) (public) performative responses in contexts including features belonging to an intricate web of blessings, curses, public reading of the law, and covenant. When recounted as public occasions, priests and/or Levites were commonly present as leaders of the liturgy. Passages belonging here are 1 Chr 16, Deut 27, Jer 11, Neh 5, Isa 65:16 (single Amen), Num 5, and Neh 8 (double Amen). B) performative, affirmative responses, but without the features mentioned under the previous conclusion. Passages belonging here are 1 Kgs 1 and Jer 28.

92

There is a discussion about the (new) placement of the Amen in the New Testament, that is, introducing a statement rather than concluding it (see Hasler 1969; Berger 1970; Strugnell 1974; Jeremias 1978, 388–90; Seybold 2004, 113–14). 93 Hasler 1969, 172–73.

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

223

Proceeding from these basic functions, the following four functions were detected in texts outside of the Hebrew Bible, all in some way relating to one of the two uses above. Here, it could be used as: A) (public) performative responses in contexts including features belonging to an intricate web of blessings, curses, public reading of the law, and covenant. When leaders of the liturgy were mentioned, they included priests and Levites. Here belongs the following:94 1QS, 4QBerakhot, 4Q292–293, 4Q504, 4Q507–509, 4Q221, 4Q511, 11Q11, Jdt 13, and Jdt 15. A’) a fixed element to conclude prayers. This was the function in Tob 8, Pr Man 15, and 1 Cor 14:16 (and possibly some of the prayers in the DSS).95 A’’) part of a doxology concluding a larger work: Tob 14, 3 Macc 7, 4 Macc 18, Rom 16:27.96 B’) an affirmative introduction to specific utterances: often in the Synoptics (single Amen)97 and in John (double Amen),98 see also 2 Cor 1:20.

The correspondences between the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (A) show that although some uses are attested in texts chronologically later than the Hebrew Bible, their relation should not be understood by means of linear development, but rather as indications of a dynamic and variegated use over time. Consequently, it is not possible to draw clear lines between the use as dynamic response and the use as literary device, but the general distinction is nevertheless valuable, since it shows that paratextual functions are only attested fairly late. Making a distinction between A and B above, with A representing a more performative, liturgical function, the ‫ ברך‬doxologies in Pss 41, 72, 89, and 106 are best understood as related to the first trajectory of use (A, A’, A’’), and it could be described as follows. Although earlier uses were not superseded by later ones,99 the performative responses (A) seem to have attained new 94 Chazon 2011, 164–69, relates these (and other) doxologies to a development ultimately leading up to the rabbinic liturgical benediction, thus pointing to an emerging practice of fixed communal prayer (see esp. 169, 171). 95 Cf. also Eph 3:21, Rev 5:14, 7:12, 19:4, and possibly Rom 15:33; 1 Thess 3:13. 96 Cf. also Gal 6:18, 2 Pet 3:18, Jude 1:25, as well as Phil 4:20, 2 Tim 4:18, Hebr 13:21, 1 Pet 5:11, and Rev 22:20, although the latter are followed by some final remarks. Cf. perhaps the shorter ending of Mark, as in the Old Latin, although it is not part of a doxology. Amen could also be part of an extended doxology (Rom 11:36, Gal 1:5, 1 Tim 1:17, 6:16, 1 Pet 4:11, Rev 1:6), sometimes containing all three parts known from the ‫ ברך‬doxologies (Rom 1:25, 9:5). Compare also Rev 3:14 with Isa 65:16. 97 Matt 5:18, 26; 6:2, 5, 16; 8:10; 10:15, 23, 42; 11:11; 13:17; 16:28; 17:20; 18:3, 13, 18– 19; 19:23, 28; 21:21, 31; 23:36; 24:2, 34, 47; 25:12, 40, 45; 26:13, 21, 34; Mark 3:28; 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23; 12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30; Luke 4:24; 12:37; 18:17, 29; 21:32; 23:43; cf. also Rev 1:7. 98 John 1:51; 3:3, 5, 11; 5:19, 24–25; 6:26, 32, 47, 53; 8:34, 51, 58; 10:1, 7; 12:24; 13:16, 20–21, 38; 14:12; 16:20, 23; 21:18. 99 Hence, there is no need for considering the use of ‫ ברך‬doxologies as mainly post-cultic (contra Millard 1994, 161).

224

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

meanings and were applied to new areas of use over time. As repeatedly used performatively in concluding parts of liturgical events, readings of the law, and prayer (A), Amen would increasingly be made part of conclusions of prayers (A’), and eventually to larger works, narratives, and texts of various genres (A’’). But although A’ and A’’ approached the notion of literary devices, they never lost their performative aspect. 2. Connecting the Dots How, then, can this be related to the ‫ ברך‬doxologies in Pss 41, 72, 89, and 106? Noteworthy is that the double Amen (which is attested in Pss 41, 72 and 89) is found only in relation to categories A and B’, and that the latter is probably irrelevant here. Although not entirely conclusive, this at least indicates that suggestions about the doxologies being literary ‘book’ dividers need some qualification. Klaus Koch, for one, has argued that the texts I have placed under A’’ form no real parallel to the ‫ ברך‬doxologies in the four psalms, but that the function of Amen in Qumran is far more to the point.100 If so, these doxologies are put in the mouths of priests and Levites, with the people responding with the Amen. According to Koch, the doxologies are also to be seen as a fixed part of a recurring liturgy, which leads him to the conclusion that the fivefold division of the ‘Book’ of Psalms also belongs in such a context.101 However, if related to my discussion on the relation between the ‫ ברך‬doxologies and the psalms to which they are now attached, and to the discussion of the relation between Ps 106 and 1 Chr 16, it follows that conclusions should not be drawn on a general level, but have to be sensitive to the distinctive features of each psalm. Consequently, I suggest the following interpretation, below. The clearest example of a doxology related to the performative category A would be Ps 106:48. Seen both in light of its probable connection to the body of the psalm and in light of the overlaps with 1 Chr 16, it would originally have had no literary function. This also emanates as reasonable for Ps 72, since the doxology was apparently added with only the psalm in view. It could perhaps also be seen in light of A’, although it does not have the standardized form of the texts gathered there. As for the two remaining doxologies (in Pss 41 and 89), they both include a double Amen, but they did not seem to belong to the actual psalms respectively. Furthermore, since the psalms themselves do not fit into category A, it would be more plausible to suggest that the doxology belongs to either A’ or A’’, thus indicating a shift towards including a literary function. If related to the similarities observed above (p. 203), I would, then, suggest that the doxologies of Pss 72 and 106 are probably to be considered as the old100 101

Koch 1994, 260, n. 38; cf. also Seidel 1993. Koch 1994, 260.

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

225

est, and that the one(s) responsible for adding the doxologies in Pss 41 and 89 modeled them upon the first two, so that Ps 41:14 was composed with Ps 106:48 in view, while Ps 89:53 builds on Ps 72:18–19. In both cases, the doxologies are rendered more formulaic and considerably shorter (especially so for Ps 89).102 If correct, it seems as if the addition of ‫ ברך‬doxologies to Ps 41 and Ps 89 was in fact made with more than the two psalms in view, although the contours of such a collection cannot be uncovered by means of analyzing these doxologies only. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in the MT and LXX sequences, Ps 41 is the last psalm of a large sequence of Davidic psalms, and that in MT, Ps 89 is the penultimate psalm of a long series of psalms with ‘authorship’ designations. An effect of adding doxologies to Pss 41 and 89 would have been that the two earlier doxologies in Pss 72 and 106 acquired functions in line with the ones added, indicating that the collection to which they belonged was now divided into five parts, and thus, it would not only be a feature of later reception, but rather in line with the doxologies found throughout the ancient Near East. Furthermore, this reconstructed process of adding ‫ ברך‬doxologies implies that the notion of a collection of psalms growing “bookwise” does not hold up. Put differently, the ‘book’ divisions would not have any greater effect on the way psalms were arranged, and the sequences demarcated by, for example, Pss 41 and 89 should not necessarily be taken as coherent or intentional, neither should these doxologies be used as significant borders for sequential reading in discussions of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. Is it possible to say something more about the purpose of such a fivefold division? Here, I would concur with much of recent scholarship and argue that a fundamental aspect would have been to create a conceptual similarity with the Pentateuch.103 If so, it also indicates that such a division would have been done at a time when the Torah was in fact divided into five parts, and the aim of creating such a connection would possibly be to relate the extant collection of psalms closer to the Pentateuch, either to derive some authoritative status, or motivated by some joint use. In sum, I suggest that the fivefold division is not of structural significance in the sense that it was intended to affect the interpretation of individual psalms or sequences of psalms, but rather in the sense of creating a thin, conceptual layer that related psalmody to torah.

102

Kratz 2013, 294–95, argues that the omission of ‫ אלהי ישראל‬in Ps 89 is motivated by the use of the phrase only in the ‘book’ 2 of the ‘Book’ of Psalms (Pss 59:6, 68:9 [35], 69:7). 103 Cf. Gese 1974, 167; Seybold 1990, 18; Koch 1994, 247–48; Levin 2004, 83; Kratz 2013, 295; Seybold 2013, 179; Longman III 2014, 36.

226

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

E. One Doxology Short? According to the observations made so far, it seems reasonable to posit that ‫ברך‬ doxologies were both used and added to divide a collection of psalms into five parts. Consequently, it would have been expected to find a similar doxology also at the very end of such a collection, so that each ‘book’ would conclude with something similar. If related to the MT and LXX ‘Books’ of Psalms, this is, however, not the case. Looking at Ps 150, the last psalm in the MT collection, it features none of the three elements attested in the other four ‫ ברך‬doxologies (‫ברך‬, ‫עולם‬, and ‫)אמן‬.104 The psalm is rather framed by Hallelujah, and provides a contrast to Pss 41, 72, and 89. In sum, there seems to be a ‫ ברך‬doxology missing, and I will now attempt to identify the possible remains of such a doxology. Here, some basic premises could be helpful. First, it would be reasonable to assume that if such a doxology once concluded a collection, and if it remains in some form, the Amen would probably have been removed, since the result would otherwise have been a sixfold division of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, destroying the aim of the original division. If reasonable, the remains of a concluding ‫ ברך‬doxology would include only ‫( ברך‬in qal passive participle) and ‫עולם‬. Second, the traces of the doxology would be expected at the end of a psalm, unless it can be shown that the psalm has subsequently been expanded upon. Third, a MT arrangement of psalms should not be assumed, and consequently, the search would have to include psalms regardless of their current placing in the collection. Although it is possible that a psalm featuring an original fifth ‫ברך‬ doxology has been removed entirely, I will, for the sake of the argument, proceed from the presupposition that it was not. Having spelled out these premises, several psalms conclude with a doxology including ‫ ברך‬and ‫עולם‬, but only two have ‫ ברך‬in the qal passive participle: Pss 28 and 135. But while the former is unlikely due to the fact that it urges YHWH to bless the people and not the other way around, Ps 135 lacks ‫עולם‬. However, if considering the latter together with Ps 136, a psalm to which it is juxtaposed in both the MT, the LXX, and several Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls, and which is often considered as its “twin,”105 permeated with ‫עולם‬, they form an attractive alternative.

104

Cf. also Gese 1974, 167; Zenger 1998b, 29–30. See, e.g., Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 493. Goulder 1998, 221, even suggests that the same author has written both psalms. They are also possibly part of the so-called great Hallel, although it is not clear whether this designation refers only to Ps 136, to both psalms, or to a longer sequence of psalms (Millard 1994, 32–34; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 491). 105

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

227

I. Psalms 135–136 The idea that Pss 135–136 (or only Ps 136) could have been placed last in a collection of psalms at some point is not new,106 but the possible connection of these psalms to the ‫ ברך‬doxologies has not been expanded on at any great length. In fact, this aspect is almost never addressed, since scholarly discussion has rather focused on two different ways of interpretation. The first is formulated by Christoph Levin. According to this view, similarities between Ps 118:1–3 and Ps 136 indicate that they once stood together, before the inclusion of Pss 120–134 and Ps 135. So put, Ps 136 was a concluding doxology, although to a slightly different collection.107 Due to verbatim overlaps with Pss 113, 115, and 136, the addition of Ps 135 is then suggested to provide a redactional link to Pss 113–118.108 This idea is later picked up by Judith Gärtner, who agrees with the function of Ps 135, which is argued to have been composed specifically for its place in the ‘Book’ of Psalms, but identifies more psalms connected by Ps 135, so that structural links are formed between the ‫ הודו‬formula in Pss 135:3; 136:1; 107:1; and Ps 118:1, 29, even stretching back to Pss 100–101, as well as between the Hallelujahs in Ps 135 and Pss 111–118, 146–150. In this view, Hallelujah is interpreted as integral to Ps 135, and the effect of the addition of Ps 135 to the collection of psalms is that Ps 136 loses its function as final psalm.109 A second suggestion is made by Hossfeld and Zenger, who agree with both the notion of Ps 135 being a redactional product creating structural links between significant parts of the last ‘book’ of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, as well as with many of the suggested overlaps (e.g. with Pss 120–134 and 136),110 but argue that in their current location, Ps 136 is rather to be seen as a “continuation” of Ps 135, so that a hymnic triad is created that includes Pss 134–136.111 Related to ‘book’ 5, they then suggest that the sequence of Pss 106–136 is shaped as a (fictional) thanksgiving liturgy with Ps 136 as a conclusion, both to this sequence of psalms, and to the entire collection, which would have included

106 One of the first to make such a suggestion was Riedel 1899; cf. Leuenberger 2004, 299–320, 369–72; Ballhorn 2004, 252–62; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 5–6. 107 A somewhat similar suggestion is made by Allen 2002, 288, who includes Ps 135 in such an early collection as well, due to overlaps with Ps 115. 108 Levin 2000, 23–27. 109 Gärtner 2012, 324–25, 347–48, 362–72. For a discussion of the ‫ הודו‬formula, see below, pp. 305–9). The view that Ps 135 is modeled upon Ps 136 is shared by many. See, e.g., Klein 2014, 342–56, who argues that Ps 136 once concluded a collection which also included Pss 120–134, and that the insertion of Ps 135 gave Ps 136 a new function as “Kopfstück” of the psalms that follow. 110 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 495, 500. See also Kratz 2004, 631–32, for a similar view of Ps 136. 111 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 5; cf. Ballhorn 2004, 262.

228

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

Pss 2–136, a “Psalter of Zion” created around 400 BCE by Levitical temple singers.112 To these suggestions could be added the one by Wilhelm Riedel, who related redactional processes to material considerations and suggested that the doxology in Ps 106 was added in the middle of a scroll beginning with Ps 90, and that Ps 135:21 would have filled the part of the concluding doxology. A count of verses of these psalms further showed that the same numbers of verses were attested throughout Pss 90–106 as throughout Pss 107–136 (excluding Ps 119).113 Although the overall argument is unconvincing, it is included here both to point to the basic observation that all theories of formation should be put more explicitly in dialogue with the materiality of the collection, and also to confirm the general idea that Ps 135 (especially v. 21) has the qualities necessary for a concluding psalm. This said, I now turn to close readings of the two psalms. First, I provide brief outlines of the two psalms, and these outlines then provide a framework to my discussion, which will pay attention to possible traces of a ‫ ברך‬doxology. 1. Psalm 135 Stanza I: Hymnic Exhortation ‫הללו יה‬ ‫הללו את־שם יהוה‬ ‫הללו עבדי יהוה‬ ‫שעמדים בבית יהוה‬ ‫בחצרות בית אלהינו‬ ‫הללו־יה כי־טוב יהוה‬ ‫זמרו לשמו כי נעים‬ ‫כי־יעקב בחר לו יה‬ ‫ישראל לסגלתו‬ ‫כי אני ידעתי כי־גדול יהוה‬ ‫ואדנינו מכל־אלהים‬

1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b 5a 5b

Hallelujah! Praise the name of YHWH, give praise, O servants of YHWH, you that stand in the house of YHWH, in the courts of the house of our God. Hallelujah, for YHWH is good, sing to his name for he is gracious. For YHWH has chosen Jacob for himself, Israel as his own possession. For I know that YHWH is great, our Lord is above all gods.

Stanza II: YHWH’s Great Acts in Creation

112 113

‫כל אשר־חפץ יהוה עשה‬ ‫בשמים ובארץ‬ ‫בימים וכל־תהומות‬ ‫מעלה נשאים מקצה הארץ‬

6a 6b 6c 7a

‫ברקים למטר עשה‬ ‫מוצא־רוח מאוצרותיו‬

7b 7c

Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 505–6. Riedel 1899, 171–72.

Whatever YHWH pleases he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps. He it is who makes the clouds rise at the end of the earth, he makes lightnings for the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses.

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

229

Stanza III: YHWH’s Great Acts in History ‫שהכה בכורי מצרים‬

8a

‫מאדם עד־בהמה‬ ‫שלח אתות ומפתים בתוככי מצרים‬

8b 9a

‫בפרעה ובכל־עבדיו‬ ‫שהכה גוים רבים‬ ‫והרג מלכים עצומים‬ ‫לסיחון מלך האמרי‬ ‫ולעוג מלך הבשן‬ ‫ולכל ממלכות כנען‬ ‫ונתן ארצם נחלה‬ ‫נחלה לישראל עמו‬ ‫יהוה שמך לעולם‬ ‫יהוה זכרך לדר־ודר‬ ‫כי־ידין יהוה עמו‬ ‫ועל־עבדיו יתנחם‬

9b 10a 10b 11a 11b 11c 12a 12b 13a 13b 14a 14b

He it was who struck down the firstborn of Egypt, both human beings and animals, he sent signs and wonders into your midst, O Egypt, against Pharaoh and all his servants. He struck down many nations and killed mighty kings – Sihon, king of the Amorites, and Og, king of Bashan, and all the kingdoms of Canaan – and gave their land as a heritage, a heritage to his people Israel. Your name, YHWH, endures forever, your renown, YHWH, throughout all ages. For YHWH will vindicate his people, and have compassion on his servants.

Stanza IV: The Powerlessness of Idols ‫עצבי הגוים כסף וזהב‬ ‫מעשה ידי אדם‬ ‫פה־להם ולא ידברו‬ ‫עינים להם ולא יראו‬ ‫אזנים להם ולא יאזינו‬ ‫אף אין־יש־רוח בפיהם‬ ‫כמוהם יהיו עשיהם‬ ‫כל אשר־בטח בהם‬

15a 15b 16a 16b 17a 17b 18a 18b

The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the work of human hands. They have mouths, but they do not speak, they have eyes, but they do not see, they have ears, but they do not hear, and there is no breath in their mouths. Those who make them shall become like them, all who trust them.

19a 19b 20a 20b 21a 21b 21c

O house of Israel, bless YHWH! O house of Aaron, bless YHWH! O house of Levi, bless YHWH! You that fear the Lord, bless YHWH! Blessed be YHWH from Zion, he who resides in Jerusalem. Hallelujah!

Stanza V: Final Doxology ‫בית ישראל ברכו את־יהוה‬ ‫בית אהרן ברכו את־יהוה‬ ‫בית הלוי ברכו את־יהוה‬ ‫יראי יהוה ברכו את־יהוה‬ ‫ברוך יהוה מציון‬ ‫שכן ירושלם‬ ‫הללו־יה‬

2. Psalm 136 Stanza I: Exhortation to Give Thanks ‫הודו ליהוה כי־טוב‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫הודו לאלהי האלהים‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬

1a 1b 2a 2b

O give thanks to YHWH, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever. O give thanks to the God of gods, for his steadfast love endures forever.

230

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial ‫הודו לאדני האדנים‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬

3a 3b

O give thanks to the Lord of lords, for his steadfast love endures forever,

Stanza II: YHWH’s Great Wonders in Nature ‫לעשה נפלאות גדלות לבדו‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫לעשה השמים בתבונה‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫לרקע הארץ על־המים‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫לעשה אורים גדלים‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫את־השמש לממשלת ביום‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫את־הירח וכוכבים לממשלות בלילה‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬

4a 4b 5a 5b 6a 6b 7a 7b 8a 8b 9a 9b

who alone does great wonders, for his steadfast love endures forever, who by understanding made the heavens, for his steadfast love endures forever, who spread out the earth on the waters, for his steadfast love endures forever, who made the great lights, for his steadfast love endures forever, the sun to rule over the day, for his steadfast love endures forever, the moon and stars to rule over the night, for his steadfast love endures forever,

Stanza III: YHWH’s Great Wonders in History ‫למכה מצרים בבכוריהם‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫ויוצא ישראל מתוכם‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫ביד חזקה ובזרוע נטויה‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫לגזר ים־סוף לגזרים‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫והעביר ישראל בתוכו‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫ונער פרעה וחילו בים־סוף‬

10a 10b 11a 11b 12a 12b 13a 13b 14a 14b 15a

‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫למוליך עמו במדבר‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫למכה מלכים גדלים‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫ויהרג מלכים אדירים‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫לסיחון מלך האמרי‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫ולעוג מלך הבשן‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫ונתן ארצם לנחלה‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫נחלה לישראל עבדו‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬

15b 16a 16b 17a 17b 18a 18b 19a 19b 20a 20b 21a 21b 22a 22b

who struck Egypt through their firstborn, for his steadfast love endures forever, and brought Israel out from among them, for his steadfast love endures forever, with a strong hand and an outstretched arm, for his steadfast love endures forever, who divided the Red Sea in two, for his steadfast love endures forever, and made Israel pass through the midst of it, for his steadfast love endures forever, but overthrew Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea, for his steadfast love endures forever, who led his people through the wilderness, for his steadfast love endures forever, who struck down great kings, for his steadfast love endures forever, and killed famous kings, for his steadfast love endures forever, Sihon, king of the Amorites, for his steadfast love endures forever, and Og, king of Bashan, for his steadfast love endures forever, and gave their land as a heritage, for his steadfast love endures forever, a heritage to his servant Israel, for his steadfast love endures forever.

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

231

Stanza IV: Reflection on YHWH’s Great Wonders ‫שבשפלנו זכר לנו‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫ויפרקנו מצרינו‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫נתן לחם לכל־בשר‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬

23a 23b 24a 24b 25a 25b

It is he who remembered us in our low estate, for his steadfast love endures forever, and rescued us from our foes, for his steadfast love endures forever, who gives food to all flesh, for his steadfast love endures forever.

Stanza V: Exhortation to Give Thanks ‫ הודו לאל השמים‬26a O give thanks to the God of heaven, ‫ כי לעולם חסדו‬26b for his steadfast love endures forever.

3. Initial Remarks As laid out here, the main structure of Ps 135 is understood as fairly straightforward.114 The first five verses are taken as an introductory exhortation, and there is an obvious connection to stanza V. Furthermore, while v. 4 relates to vv. 1–3 in motivating the exhortation, v. 5 could be seen almost as a thematic introduction to the main part, so that stanzas II and III will expand on v. 5a and stanza IV on v. 5b. Furthermore, a contrast is to be noted between stanzas II and III on the one hand, and stanza IV on the other. Where the former focus on the great acts of YHWH, the latter deals with the powerless idols. Understood in such a way, there is also a fundamental issue of trust at play throughout the psalm, and it reaches a climax in the negative statement in v. 18, a verse that, in turn, leads up to the final doxology. As for vv. 13–14, they are understood as part of stanza III, rather than as a stanza (or sub-section) of their own.115 Although v. 13 can be understood as distinct from the retelling of YHWH’s great acts in history, v. 14 is well in line with the theme, so that both verses can be seen as a summation of the stanza, recapitulating and confirming the initial praise of vv. 1, 3 (both ‫ עבדי‬and ‫ שם‬are repeated). In all, it is a fairly coherent psalm, and has been understood as a liturgical hymn in the context of some temple celebration.116 However, as will be noted

114

The structure overlaps with Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 493–94, with the exception of the inclusion of v. 5 into stanza I, rather than stanza II, and the fact that my stanzas II–IV are seen as subdivisions of one and the same stanza (so also Gärtner 2012, 320–22; Klein 2014, 312– 17, although with slightly different subdivisions). Cf. also, e.g., Anderson 1972b, 889; Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 563 (both as vv. 1–4, 5–12, 13–14, 15–18, 19–21); Allen 2002, 290 (vv. 1–4, 5–7, 8–14, 15–18, 19–21). 115 Cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 493–94; Allen 2002, 290; in contrast to, e.g., Gärtner 2012, 320–21; Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 563. 116 Often suggested are Passover, and Tabernacles (Anderson 1972b, 888; Kraus 1989, 492; Terrien 2003b, 858–59; cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 500, who rather understands this as imaginary).

232

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

below, there are some considerable overlaps with other Hebrew Bible passages, even evoking the notion of it being a mosaic of quotations,117 and these will be important to look into in the analyses below. Turning to Ps 136, a psalm “[a]sserting line by line the steadfast loyalty of Yahweh with his people,”118 it is also quite coherent,119 and can be divided into five stanzas.120 Understood in such a way, there is some overlap with Ps 135, most notably in the first three stanzas, although with some important differences, as will be clear below. 4. Stanza I: Exhortations The first stanza of Ps 135 features five imperatives related to a single addressee, the servants of YHWH, standing in his house (‫הללו‬, ‫הללו‬, ‫הללו‬, ‫הללו‬, ‫)זמרו‬. As such, there are some possible overlaps with stanza V, but also with Pss 134 and 136, as well as with Ps 113. Consider the table below, which also includes the version of Ps 135 attested in 11Q5: Table 7: Overlaps with Ps 135:1–3 Ps 135:1 ‫הללו יה‬ ‫הללו את־שם יהוה‬ ‫הללו עבדי יהוה‬ v. 2 ‫שעמדים בבית יהוה‬ ‫בחצרות בית אלהינו‬ v. 3 ‫הללו־יה כי־טוב יהוה‬ ‫זמרו לשמו כי נעים‬

117

11Q5 Ps 135:1 ‫הללו עבדי יהוה‬ ‫הללו את שם יהוה‬ ‫הללו יה‬ v. 2 [ ] ‫ורוממו יה שעומדים‬ ‫בבית ] [ יהוה‬ ‫בחצרות בית אלוהינו‬ ‫ובתוכך ירושלים‬ v. 3 ‫הללו את יהוה כי טוב‬ ‫זמרו שמו כי נעים‬

Ps 134:1 ‫הנה ברכו את־יהוה‬ ‫כל־עבדי יהוה‬

Ps 113:1 ‫הללו יה‬ ‫הללו עבדי יהוה‬ ‫הללו את־שם יהוה‬

‫העמדים‬ ‫בבית־יהוה‬ ‫בלילות‬ Ps 136:1 ‫הודו ליהוה כי־טוב‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬

Cf. Allen 2002, 287 (“conglomeration of snatches”); Ballhorn 2004, 252. So Gerstenberger 2001, 388. For the date, see, e.g., Anderson 1972b, 894; Allen 2002, 295; Terrien 2003b, 863; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 505–6. 119 So most scholars (cf. Gärtner 2012, 297), although it has been argued that the psalm exhibits clear ‘growth rings’ surrounding some core verses (Seybold 1990, 54; Spieckermann 1989, 162, n. 10). 120 The structure proposed overlaps with Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 504–5; Gärtner 2012, 294–95; Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 570–71). Some understand vv. 10–26 somewhat differently (Anderson 1972b, 893; Allen 2002, 297; cf. Klein 2014, 318–25), while Gerstenberger 2001, 384–88, and Ballhorn 2004, 256, both divide the psalm into six sections. 118

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

233

Although quite clear overlaps, noted by most scholars, none is easily argued to indicate literary dependence, as they could also reflect shared liturgical traditions.121 Starting with the first verse, the most striking similarities are with Ps 113:1, although the latter has v. 1bc in a reverse order. Interestingly, 11Q5 also has the verses reversed, and the Hallelujah of v. 1a placed last, thus fully integrated in the psalm, perhaps suggesting that the Hallelujah in v. 1a is to be regarded as integral to Ps 135:1 as well. As for the exhortation to praise the name of YHWH, the phrase is, apart from Ps 135, found only in Pss 113 and 148 in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, but in Ps 148, the addressees are not the servants of YHWH, but the entire creation (see below, pp. 260–65). In Ps 113, however, it forms part of a focus on the name of YHWH that permeates the first three verses. Despite the use of an unusual exhortation, it is not self-evident that a literary dependence between Pss 113 and 135 is to be established. The terms are all quite common, and the order of the phrases reversed, so a shared background could be equally plausible.122 Turning to the last exhortation of v. 1 which explicitly identifies its addressees as the servants of YHWH, an identification continuing in v. 2, overlaps are found with Ps 134, although with a significant difference. In Ps 134, it is preceded by ‫“( כל‬all”), and since the psalm has “by night” (‫ )בלילות‬where Ps 135 has “in the courts of the house of our God” (‫)בחצרות בית אלהינו‬, it could be proposed that while Ps 134 addresses priests only, Ps 135 exhorts the entire people (cf. vv. 19–20b below).123 Seen in light of Ps 135:21, it would also be possible to suggest that the repetition is conscious on the part of the psalmist.124 As for the last verse, the overlaps between Ps 135 and 136 are not so extensive, especially in light of popular use of the phrase found in Ps 136 in other Second Temple period texts (see below, pp. 305–9). However, as will be shown below, other parts of Ps 135 also show resemblance to Ps 136, so that their possible relation is likely here as well. Concluding the first stanza, then, are two motivations (v. 3 also features two motivations, although related only to that verse). First, YHWH is to be praised for choosing Jacob and Israel as his possession, a statement with a historicaltheological perspective that will be further expanded on in stanza III. The close connection between YHWH and his people also introduces the theme of trust, as it implies that YHWH, by this election, is obligated to care for his people (cf., e.g., the use of ‫ סגלה‬in Exod 19:5, Deut 7:6, 14:2, 26:18, Mal 3:17–18).125

121 For these similarities, see also, e.g., Allen 2002, 287–88; Ballhorn 2004, 252–53; Goldingay 2008, 577–79; Mays 2011, 415. 122 Cf. Gerstenberger 2001, 378. 123 Cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 495. 124 Miller 1998, 109–10, n. 5, suggests that all verses but 134:2a are repeated in some way in Ps 135. 125 Cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 497.

234

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

Second, YHWH is to be praised for his greatness and uniqueness in comparison to all other gods. The latter will be picked up in stanza IV. 5. Stanzas II–IV: YHWH as King and the Question of Trust Stanza II focuses on YHWH’s acts in creation, painting him in colors of incomparability, as having universal dominion. Reading v. 7 in light of Jer 10:13, this could be interpreted as referring to primeval creation, but the ability to govern lightning and winds is more plausibly used as an example of the power of YHWH in all parts of creation (so 6bc, cf. Ps 115:3).126 Compared to the second stanza of Ps 136, this is seen clearly since Ps 136 is more explicitly concerned with primeval creation (cf. vv. 7–9 with Gen 1:14–18).127 In Ps 136, these acts are understood as “great wonders” (‫לעשה נפלאות גדלות לבדו‬, v. 4a), hence similar to Ps 72:18 (‫)עשה נפלאות לבדו‬.128 As suggested above, the doxology of Ps 72 could be understood as a later addition, a correction to the psalm, and so put, it is the corrected sense that is found in Ps 136, where YHWH is contrasted to other gods (e.g. in vv. 1–3). A second set of examples of YHWH’s ability to do whatever he pleases is found in the third stanza in Ps 135, and the psalm now turns to YHWH’s acts in history. First, he strikes the firstborn of Egypt and performs (unnamed) mighty acts against Pharaoh (vv. 8–9), and then, he strikes many nations (vv. 10–12). Spelled out in such a way, the psalm follows a general narrative progression also found in the Pentateuch,129 and clear contrasts are visible, if compared to Ps 136. Focusing first on vv. 8–9, which parallel Ps 136:10–16, it is quite clear that while both psalms mention the striking of the firstborn, Ps 135 refers only in general to “signs and wonders” performed against Pharaoh, while Ps 136 recounts the entire Exodus narrative, including the passing through the sea. However, although both psalms seem to be dependent on the narrative also found in the Pentateuch, the greatest verbatim overlaps are with each other, especially so between Ps 135:10–12 and Ps 136:17–22. Likely to be interpreted as a literary dependence, one of the major differences is the featuring of “all the kingdoms of Caanan” in Ps 135:11, evoking the notion of the possession of the entire land (that is, incorporating the kingdoms west of the Jordan), as compared to Ps 136, which only refers to the east of Jordan (although possibly representing the gift 126

Cf. Gärtner 2012, 329–30, 351; Klein 2014, 337. For a discussion on the relation between Jer 10:13 and Ps 135, see also pp. 296–305 below. 127 Goldingay 2008, 592; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 507; Gärtner 2012, 301–4; Klein 2014, 328–30. 128 Cf. Goldingay 2008, 591, although this similarity alone does not warrant the notion of an intentional (redactional) link back to ‘book’ 2, as suggested by Gärtner 2012, 366. 129 Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 570–71; cf. Goldingay 2008, 578; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 498. Klein 2014, 336, suggests that Ps 135 has made an eclectic selection of significant historical events.

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

235

of land as such, since it is given to the entire Israel, and not only to specific tribes).130 Related to the Pentateuch, scholars have, then, argued for a more strict focus on the Pentateuch by Ps 136, while Ps 135 expands the narrative to Joshua, and thus perhaps presupposes the “historical concept of the Hexateuch.”131 Common to both is also that they have YHWH as the sole agent in their historical overviews. If compared with the Pentateuchal narrative, where Moses and Joshua play significant parts in the wilderness and the conquest of the land, the psalms portray these events as the salvific acts of YHWH alone.132 Israel does not partake, but is rather passive and silent. Nonetheless, these acts are for Israel’s benefit (v. 12), and somewhat paradigmatic of both the starting-point and the goal of YHWH’s acts in history.133 Ultimately, this god needs no support from any human agents.134 The acts described not only illustrate that YHWH does whatever he pleases (Ps 135:6), but also reveal his providence for his people. Consider, for example, the kings mentioned in the psalm, Sihon and Og. These were not attacked, but they attacked Israel when the latter wanted to pass over their land (Num 21:21– 35, see also Deut 2–3).135 In so doing, they were defeated, almost as “the firtstfruits of victory over the peoples of the land,”136 and consequently, the act of YHWH is conceptualized as providing protection and refuge for Israel. Ultimately, the picture emerging is one where YHWH is king not only over Israel, but over the entire world.137 He will vindicate Israel (Ps 135:14), his people (‫עמו‬, Ps 135:12), and servant (‫עבדו‬, Pss 135:14 and 136:22), even when enemies surround them, and the warrant for this is claimed to be the enduring name of YHWH (v. 13). A clear contrast to a god who does whatever he pleases (Ps 135:6) is provided in the fourth stanza of Ps 135 (which has no parallel in Ps 136), four verses with so much overlap with Ps 115:4–8 as to warrant the notion of literary dependence:

130

Gärtner 2012, 310, 333. As for the direction of dependence, Ps 136 is probably oldest. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 498–99. See also Tucker Jr. 2014, 116. 132 Gärtner 2012, 333. 133 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 499; Gärtner 2012, 350; cf. von Rad 1975, 281; Klein 2014, 333–35. 134 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 493; although, see also Goldingay 2008, 586. 135 Goldingay 2008, 597. 136 Goldingay 2008, 594. 137 Cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 507; Tucker Jr. 2014, 115. 131

236

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

Ps 135:15–18 ‫ עצבי הגוים כסף וזהב מעשה ידי אדם‬15 ‫ פה־להם ולא ידברו עינים להם ולא יראו‬16 ‫ אזנים להם ולא יאזינו אף אין־יש־רוח בפיהם‬17 ‫ כמוהם יהיו עשיהם כל אשר־בטח בהם‬18 15 16 17 18

The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the work of human hands. They have mouths, but they do not speak, they have eyes, but they do not see, they have ears, but they do not hear, and there is no breath in their mouths. Those who make them and all who trust them shall become like them. Ps 115:4–8 ‫ עצביהם כסף וזהב מעשה ידי אדם‬4 ‫ פה־להם ולא ידברו עינים להם ולא יראו‬5 ‫ אזנים להם ולא ישמעו אף להם ולא יריחון‬6 ‫ ידיהם ולא ימישון רגליהם ולא יהלכו לא־יהגו בגרונם‬7 ‫ כמוהם יהיו עשיהם כל אשר־בטח בהם‬8

4 5 6 7 8

Their idols are silver and gold, the work of human hands. They have mouths, but they do not speak, they have eyes, but they do not see. They have ears, but do not hear, noses, but do not smell. They have hands, but do not feel, feet, but do not walk, they make no sound in their throats. Those who make them and all who trust them shall become like them.

If YHWH has been the one acting in the preceding stanzas, the dominant word of stanza IV – “not” (‫לא‬, repeated three times) – intends to reveal the powerlessness of man-made (v. 15b) idols.138 This is also the case made in Ps 115, and both passages lead up to a significant statement of trust, which, seen in light of the analysis of Ps 135 above (e.g. v. 4, as well as vv. 8–14), is quite appropriate. As for the question of literary dependence, much indicates that Ps 135 repeats Ps 115, and a case in point would be 135:17, where the ‫“( אף‬nose”) of Ps 115 has been retained, although now as the conjunction ‫“( אף‬also”).139 Understood as a quote, there is only one major difference. In Ps 115, the description of the characteristics of the idols includes nose, hands, feet, and throat, but in Ps 135, a more powerful and thorough judgment is proclaimed as they are described as being without breath, that is, lacking the one thing needed in order to live. This also constitutes the severe background to v. 18b, “all who trust them shall become like them.” Put differently, they will face death, as life is ultimately provided by YHWH alone.140 The question of trust, then, is of utmost importance. In contrast to Ps 135, there are no idols featuring in the fourth stanza of Ps 136 (vv. 23–25). Rather, it contains a reflection of the great wonders of YHWH just told, especially the wonders in history, and possibly relates to the postexilic 138

Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 566. Cf. Allen 2002, 288; Klein 2014, 340–41. 140 Cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 499. 139

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

237

times of the psalmist him/herself.141 Focus is on YHWH’s salvation, and v. 24a goes beyond the narrative in stanza III as it now includes Israel’s military defeat.142 Then follows a provision of food to “all flesh,” which possibly implies not only Israel, but all living beings.143 6. Stanza V: Final Doxology The final stanza of Ps 135 is the most significant to the present chapter, as it contains what could be the remains of a ‫ ברך‬doxology. As it stands, it is a response to the futility of the idols of the preceding stanza – rather than trusting in these idols, bless YHWH – but it also forms an inclusio with the first stanza, as the psalm now returns to the house of YHWH, to Zion.144 Blessing shall go forth from Zion unto the world, and the servants of v. 1 are now defined as four groups: the house of Israel, Aaron (priests), Levi (temple singers), and those who fear YHWH. As such, there are again similarities with Ps 115:(9–11)12–13, as well as with Ps 118:2–4, although they differ on some points. In Ps 135, YHWH is the recipient of the blessing, in Ps 115 YHWH is the agent of the blessing, and in Ps 118 three groups are exhorted to speak the refrain that also features in Ps 136: “for his steadfast love endures forever” (‫)כי לעולם חסדו‬. Consequently, rather than a literary borrowing, one could propose a similar conceptual pairing of the groups, although with a noteworthy difference. While Pss 115 and 118 include the house of Israel and Aaron, as well as the ones fearing YHWH, they do not mention any Levites. It seems, then, as if Ps 135 is intentionally putting emphasis on the Levites, and if this is reasonable, it would indicate that the one(s) responsible for the psalm had a pro-Levitical perspective, if not being Levites themselves.145 Following the four ‫( ברכו‬imperatives) is a last ‫ברך‬, this time in qal passive participle (as with the other four ‫ ברך‬doxologies in the ‘Book’ of Psalms), and the specification “from Zion” (‫מציון‬, v. 21a).146 The latter conceptualizes Zion as

141 McCann Jr. 1996, 1225; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 5–6, 504–6. The latter note the possibility that vv. 23–25 belong to a redaction that linked Pss 135–136 to the psalms of Ascents and intended them as a conclusion to Pss 107–136, or the “Zion Psalter” (Pss 2–136). See also Tucker Jr. 2014, 118–19, who proposes that the shift in person and number indicates that the story just retold should serve as an operative lens through which the people could now view their own history: their present deliverance stands in line with God’s mighty acts in the past. 142 Cf. Terrien 2003b, 861. 143 Goldingay 2008, 598; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 508; Gärtner 2012, 312–13; Klein 2014, 323. 144 Cf. Gärtner 2012, 340. 145 See, e.g., Smith 1991, 260, with n. 5; Gärtner 2012, 339; Klein 2014, 316. 146 Ballhorn 2004, 295, considers it a doxology concluding the individual psalm only.

238

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

a “Kristallisationspunkt [der] universalen Herrschaft Jhwhs.”147 It is from here that the provision and protection of YHWH emanates, and this could be understood as the ultimate goal of his great acts in history, thus extending the narrative of stanza III. It did not end with the gift of the land, but with the residing of YHWH on Zion.148 The notion of YHWH blessing from Zion is also related to Pss 128:5 and 134:3, although the recipients of the blessings differ. Both have “YHWH bless you from Zion” (‫יברכך יהוה מציון‬, a similar perspective as Ps 115:12–13), while Ps 135 has “blessed be YHWH from Zion” (‫)ברוך יהוה מציון‬.149 As for the final Hallelujah, it seems a bit misplaced since the stanza has a five-fold use of ‫ברך‬. But if the Hallelujah of v. 1a might be understood as integral, this could be the case with v. 21c also (although the matter is somewhat inconclusive), and should be put in relation to the possible addition of other Hallelujahs throughout the ‘Book’ of Psalms.150 Moving on to the last stanza of Ps 136, it has no reference to any sanctuary, but rather enforces the universality of the kingship of YHWH with the use of “God of heaven” (‫)לאל השמים‬, a designation found only here in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, but which is typical of late Hebrew Bible times (see Ezra 1:2, 5:12, 6:9, Neh 1:4, 2:4, Dan 2:18, etc.). In these texts, it usually implies that God is not merely a local deity, but the God of the entire world.151 7. Conclusions Several observations have been made concerning Pss 135 and 136. They both shared a fivefold structure, which was further elaborated in Ps 135 by the five imperatives in stanza I and the five blessings in stanza V. The last one of these featured ‫ ברך‬in the qal passive participle. As for the content, there was some overlap between the first three stanzas of both psalms, although differences occurred. Common to both was the permeat-

147

Gärtner 2012, 352; cf. Terrien 2003b, 858–59; Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 566. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 500, relate this idea to the “overall concept of Psalms 107– 136, which project the restoration of Israel within the horizon of the world of the nations.” 149 Cf. the similarities noted by, e.g., Wilson 1985a, 225; Allen 2002, 287–88; Terrien 2003b, 858; Goldingay 2008, 578 (11Q5 15 4–5 has “may YHWH bless you,” ‫יברככה‬, in Ps 135). The contrast should not be overemphasized, however, as both aspects are probably implicit in all three psalms. 150 In 11Q5, it is placed on the same line as “Jerusalem” of v. 21, while Ps 136 begins on the next line. The Masoretic scribal tradition detaches it from the body of the psalm (Gerstenberger 2001, 382; Sanders 2010, 681–84), and the LXX relocates it as a superscription to Ps 136. Zenger’s observation that vv. 19–21 use the divine name seven times, if counting the final Hallelujah, might also be relevant (Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 494). 151 Allen 2002, 299; Goldingay 2008, 596; Gärtner 2012, 314–15; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 509. 148

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

239

ing theme of trust in YHWH, whose reign was described as universal and incomparable, especially in relation to other gods (idols, Ps 135). Furthermore, he performed his acts with no help from any human agents, and so YHWH provided protection from surrounding hostile foes, and a true place of refuge for all God-fearers.152 An example of this protection, emanating from Zion, was provided in the retelling of the defeat of Sihon and Og, kings that attacked Israel without cause. Moreover, the core stanzas of both psalms showed knowledge of the Pentateuchal narratives, and although Ps 135 also referred to events now found in Joshua, it would not be far-fetched to see a correspondence between this relation and the fivefold pattern of both psalms, as well as the fivefold doxology in Ps 135:19–21. Furthermore, the inclusion of Levites among the four addressed groups is probably significant for the understanding of the composition (and function) of the psalm. A final observation made above concerned the overlaps between various texts in the Hebrew Bible. Here, I suggested that a literary dependence was plausible to posit between Ps 115 and Ps 135, so that the latter had borrowed from the former. If this is the case, the significance of the inclusion of Levites would perhaps be further strengthened. Possible dependence was also suggested with Ps 134, although the overlaps with Ps 113 were somewhat inconclusive. Last, a similarity between Ps 136 and the ‫ ברך‬doxology of Ps 72 was noted in the use of ‫נפלאות‬. The most significant overlaps were, however, between Pss 135–136 themselves, so that the idea of them being “twins” is well founded. Clearly not a single composition, their similarities in both vocabulary and themes would likely have played a part in their juxtaposition. But what about their possible function as a ‫ ברך‬doxology, concluding a collection of psalms? Enough clues have now been gathered to be able to answer such a question. II. Lost, but Found? 1. A ‫ ברך‬doxology in Psalms 135–136? Related to the first premise outlined on p. 226 above, Pss 135–136 feature both ‫ ברך‬in qal passive participle, which was juxtaposed to four imperatives of the same root, and (a repeated use of a phrase including) ‫עולם‬. In line with the second premise, the fivefold doxology is found at the end of Ps 135. Moreover, although I emphasized that a MT sequence should not be the default mode, it is possibly significant that Pss 135–136 follows Ps 106, while preceding Pss 146– 150 in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. Put differently, it is found after the “last” ‫ברך‬ doxology, but prior to the final Hallelujah psalms. 152

Gerstenberger 2001, 383, proposes that the “[p]reservation of land, temple, and community over against pressures from other gods and aligned nations is the goal of this hymn.”

240

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

Moreover, in the survey of the various trajectories of use for Amen, I observed that in the Hebrew Bible it was regularly attested as a (public) performative response in contexts including features belonging to an intricate web of blessings, curses, public reading of the law, and covenant. Here, priests and/or Levites were often leaders of the liturgy, so that they performed the doxologies, while the people responded with Amen. If related to Pss 135–136, it becomes quite clear that many of these features are found, most notably the inclusion of the Levites in the concluding doxology and the implicit reference to the Pentateuch. Both psalms also showed traces of the Second Temple cult, not least in the phrase repeated throughout Ps 136, a phrase also found in Ps 106 and 1 Chr 16, for example.153 In sum, both psalms seem to belong to the same theological milieu as the other four ‫ ברך‬doxologies, and the fivefold structure of both psalms combined with the fivefold doxology in Ps 135:19–21 makes it plausible that they were part of the dividing of a collection of psalms into five parts. The overall focus on the Pentateuchal narrative in both psalms would also fit quite neatly with the suggested function of the fivefold division. If reasonable, it would also be possible to suggest that the placement of these two psalms as a final ‫ ברך‬doxology was done at the same time as the addition of the doxologies to Pss 41 and 89.154 2. Unexpected Implications If it is reasonable to suggest that Pss 135–136 once included the last of five ‫ברך‬ doxologies which divided a ‘Book’ of Psalms into five parts in emulation of the Pentateuch, it could also shed some light upon the peculiar ending of Ps 2, as discussed above (see pp. 151–54). As I argued in the analysis of Ps 2, there was a prevailing notion of kingship. YHWH was conceptualized as a high king with universal dominion, and this dominion was put into dialogue with the rebellious kings of the earth, who threatened the rule of the vicarious ruler installed on Zion, but ultimately failed in that task. So put, Zion was understood as the place where the sphere of YHWH’s heavenly rule touched earth, and was thus the place where his rule emanated into the human world. A fairly consistent picture, it has some overlaps with Pss 135–136. In all three psalms, YHWH is portrayed as a high king with universal dominion. In all three, this dominion is seemingly threatened by kings of the earth. And in all three, YHWH is warranting the safety of his elected, a safety emanating from Zion and resulting in the

153

See further below, pp. 305–9. If proceeding from the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, the result of such a fivefold division would be that ‘book’ 1 contains 41 psalms (ca. 637 verses), ‘book’ 2 has 31 psalms (ca. 495 verses), ‘book’ 3 has 17 psalms (ca. 368 verses), ‘book’ 4 has 17 psalms (ca. 323 verses), and ‘book’ 5 has 30 psalms (ca. 524 verses). Thus, although quite speculative, there would be a rough similarity between ‘books’ 2 and 5, as well as between ‘books’ 3 and 4. 154

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

241

possession of land. To avoid destruction, the kings of the earth of Ps 2 had to “serve” (‫ )עבד‬in “fear” (‫ )יראה‬of YHWH, a notion somewhat similar to the one in Ps 135, although the latter rather uses the terms to refer to God’s people (vv. 1, 20). This said, there are some notable differences. Whereas Ps 2 features a human vicarious ruler as an active agent in the subduing of the kings, Pss 135– 136 portray YHWH as acting alone. Furthermore, the theme of trust is not prominent in Ps 2. This picture changes, however, if turning to the two lines argued to be later additions to Ps 2, v. 12bd. Both of these were argued to have been added to bring Ps 2 closer to Ps 1, but while v. 12b reused language from Ps 1, the second introduced a metaphor not found in either Ps 1, or Ps 2. In this colon, YHWH is rather conceptualized as the ultimate place of refuge, as providing protection to all those who trust in him, and so a new perspective from which the psalm could be read was provided, and it is a perspective congruent with Pss 135–136. Consequently, it would not be far-fetched to conclude that v. 12bd might have been added to bring Ps 2 closer to Ps 1 at the same time as the collection was divided into five parts by adding ‫ ברך‬doxologies to Pss 41 and 89, and placing Pss 135–136 as a final, fivefold doxology. 3. On the Relation Between ‫ ברך‬and ‫הלל‬ If the observations made above concerning the ‘book’ dividing function of the ‫ ברך‬doxologies and the role of Pss 135–136 as a concluding doxology of a collection of psalms are of sound judgement, it would follow that the Hallelujah psalms (e.g., Pss 145.146–150), belong to a different stage of formation. Different principles seem to be at play, and before turning to these psalms, something should be said about the presence of Hallelujahs in Pss 106 and 135 respectively. First, it is to be noted that they are the only psalms outside MT Pss 146–150 that feature a Hallelujah framework (on Ps 113, see below, pp. 278–81).155 Second, I proposed that the Hallelujahs in Ps 106:1 and Ps 135:21 were not quite appropriate in their respective contexts, and were thus perhaps later additions. If related to the inclusion of Pss 146–150 in the collection, a rationale could perhaps be uncovered. In fact, the addition of these Hallelujahs could have solved two potential problems. While the addition of a Hallelujah to Ps 106 would set it further apart from Ps 107, thus creating a somewhat more distinct ‘book’ division, the addition to Ps 135 would have an almost opposite effect as it would push Ps 135 further away from Ps 136. Together with the removal of an Amen, the traces of their function as a final doxology would have been almost erased, resulting in the ‫ ברך‬doxologies being somewhat superseded in

155

Cf. Wilson 1985a, 182–90, who notes that ‘book’ four combines the concluding ‫ברך‬ doxology with a series of Hallelujah psalms, but sees the ‫ הללו־יה‬of Ps 106 as integral to the psalm.

242

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

favor of a new ending consisting of an extended ‫ הלל‬doxology (Pss 146–150). Being only hypothetical at this time, I will return to this issue in Part VI, after I have taken a closer look at Pss 146–50.

F. Conclusions In this chapter, I made several suggestions that will have an impact on the way the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms can be reconstructed, and the most important ones will be summarized here. First, I discussed the relation between the ‫ ברך‬doxologies and the psalms they were attached to, and proposed that they were likely to be later additions to Pss 41 and 89, having little to do with the actual psalm preceding them. In contrast, the doxology of Ps 72 could be both, although if a later insertion, it would have been made with the actual psalm in view, and the same was concluded concerning the doxology in Ps 106. Relating these suggestions to 1 Chr 16 and the use of Amen in the Hebrew Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other texts, I suggested that paratextual ‘book’ dividing functions could be argued for the addition of ‫ ברך‬doxologies to Pss 41 and 89, and that such an addition generated a new understanding of the doxologies in Pss 72 and 106. The former two were also probably modeled on the latter, and the result was a collection divided into five parts in an attempt to create a conceptual link to the Pentateuch, perhaps either deriving authority, or implying some combined use. Consequently, they were not to be seen as borders of sequential reading. Furthermore, the analysis indicated that they were related to the Second Temple cult in general, and the Levites in particular. Seen in light of the quite different Hallelujah frameworks, I then searched for a ‫ ברך‬doxology that would have concluded the collection of psalms divided into five parts, and here, Pss 135–136 turned out to be an attractive alternative. Both had a fivefold structure, Ps 135 concluded with a fivefold doxology, with the last verse featuring ‫ ברך‬in qal passive participle, and both related to narratives now found in the Pentateuch. Furthermore, they revealed a theme of trust, as well as a Levitical stance, and taken together I suggested that they were plausible candidates for having once concluded a fivefold collection of psalms. They would have been added to such a collection at the same time as the addition of the doxologies to Pss 41 and 89. Given this, it is deemed possible that they could also shed light on Ps 2:12bd. Finally, I briefly discussed the relation of such a formative stage to the presence of Hallelujah frameworks and suggested that a possible addition of Hallelujahs to the two psalms featuring such frameworks outside Pss 146–150 – Ps 106 and Ps 135 – could tentatively be understood as intentional. While a Hallelujah was added to Ps 106:1 to create a somewhat more distinct juncture after the fourth ‫ ברך‬doxology, the addition of a Hallelujah to Ps 135:21 would have

Chapter 11. ‘Book’ Dividers

243

somewhat erased the function of Pss 135–136 as a previous, final doxology. Ultimately, these ‫ ברך‬doxologies seemed to have been slightly superseded in favor of a new ending consisting of an extended ‫ הלל‬doxology (Pss 146–150). If so, it also follows that the suggestion of Pss 135–136 and the fivefold division representing a formative stage in the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms cannot be evaluated prior to an investigation of the final doxological sequence in the ‘Book’ of Psalms. It is to Pss 146–150, then, I now turn.

Chapter 12

The ‘Final Hallel’ It is a long held view that the last five psalms of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms constitute somewhat of a concluding doxology, intended to close the entire collection.1 Designated as the “little Hallel,” or sometimes the “concluding Hallel,” it consists of five distinct psalms brought together by, not least, shared Hallelujah frameworks. The question is, however, how such a shared framework, together with the fact that the psalms are found last in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, should be understood, and it has often been suggested not only that their placement is intentional, but that a progression of thought can be observed in the use of themes and shared vocabulary.2 Generally identified are both a theme of praise of YHWH as king, and a progression from the single individual in Ps 146 to the entire creation (or perhaps even cosmos) in Ps 150. According to Hossfeld and Zenger, an “impressive dramaturgy” is uncovered as “each succeeding psalm takes up and develops a motif or theme addressed at the end of the preceding psalm.”3 These psalms are recurrently argued to have been placed in the mouth of David, as he is the one mentioned in the superscription of Ps 145.4 Consequently, Ps 145 constitutes an important psalm argued to both conclude the Davidic sequence Pss 138–145, perhaps even Pss 1–145, and in some way introduce the final doxology (Pss 146–150). Consequently, these six psalms (Pss 145–150) will be the focus of this section, and the main question to be asked is if and in what way these psalms could be understood as a final doxology. This will be done in three steps. First, I will provide close readings of each psalm. Second, and proceeding from the conclusions drawn in the close readings, I will inquire into the arguments proposed for reading Pss 145.146–150 as a joint

1

See the discussions in Wilson 1985a, 226–28; Wilson 1992, 132–33; Wilson 1993a, 74; Millard 1994, 145; Zenger 1997c, 14–21; Zenger 1997a, 99–104; deClaissé-Walford 1997, 99–103; Zenger 1998a; Zenger 1998b, 31–32; Miller 1998, 107–10; Zenger 1999, 118–20; Zenger 2003; Kratz 2013, 309, etc. 2 Several of these suggestions trace back to Wilson 1985a, see, e.g., deClaissé-Walford 1997, 99, but prominent in the discussion is also Zenger (e.g. Zenger 1997c). 3 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 605. The ideas are first presented in Zenger 1997c, 14–21. See also Zenger 1997b, 189; Zenger 1998b, 39–40; Zenger 1999, 118–20; cf. Ballhorn 2004, 355–56. 4 Zenger 1998b, 40; Zenger 1999, 119; cf. Wilson 1993a, 74; deClaissé-Walford 1997, 98; Ballhorn 2004, 288–89.

Chapter 12. The ‘Final Hallel’

245

composition. Last, I revisit the use of Hallelujah superscriptions, subscriptions, and frameworks throughout the ‘Book’ of Psalms in an attempt to sketch the contours of the process in which they were added.

A. The Psalms in Question I. Psalm 145 Starting with the superscription, Ps 145 reads ‫“( תהלה לדוד‬A Tehillah of David”).5 As such, it is somewhat unusual. Although ‫ לדוד‬is attested in numerous psalms, and although ‫ תהלה‬occurs some 30 times in the ‘Book’ of Psalms,6 the latter is attested only here as superscription. Moreover, it also occurs in v. 21 (‫)תהלת‬, thus creating somewhat of an inclusio.7 In fact, there are several similarities between vv. 1–2 and v. 21, not least in the use of the root ‫הלל‬, so that the superscription seems quite fitting to the actual psalm.8 Understood as a paratext, the superscription primarily relates Ps 145 to David,9 but by extension, also to a larger corpus of Davidic psalms (compare the discussion of these ‘author’ designations above, pp. 173–78). As noted above, it has also been argued that (in its current setting in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms) Ps 145 creates a connection both to the preceding sequence of Davidic psalms of which it is the last (Pss 138–145), and to the following five psalms, all framed by Hallelujah.10 Proceeding from such a placement, some have argued that the psalm itself also relates both to the preceding and following psalms by means of verbatim repetition and thematic similarities.11 I will return to these below.

5

For a notion of the date of the psalm, see Kratz 2004, 634. Pss 9:15; 22:4, 26; 33:1; 34:2; 35:28; 40:4; 48:11; 51:17; 65:2; 66:2, 8; 71:6, 8, 14; 78:4; 79:13; 100:4; 102:22; 106:2, 12, 47; 109:1; 111:10; 119:171; 145:1, 21; 147:1; 148:14; 149:1. 7 Cf. Berlin 1985, 18; Goldingay 2008, 698. 8 Booij 2008b, 634, suggests that it was given by the “author” of the psalm. 9 Regularly interpreted as placing the psalm in the mouth of David (see above, n. 4). 10 Cf. Zenger 1997c, 11–12, 14; Kratz 2004, 633. 11 Kratz 2004, 629, as one example, also interprets the superscription as an indication that it does not primarily belong to the Davidic collection, but to the final Hallel, although Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 600–602, suggest several possible connections to Pss 138–145, especially between the two “framing” psalms, Pss 138 and 145 (see also Zenger 1998a, 93– 96). 6

246

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

The psalm forms an acrostic (the Masoretic text lacks the ‫ נ‬phrase),12 thus indicating that the superscription is not part of the psalm proper, and centers on the kingship of YHWH,13 a theme introduced already in v. 1, as the psalmist sings “I will exalt you, my God the king, and bless your name forever and ever” (‫)ארוממך אלוהי המלך ואברכה שמך לעולם ועד‬. Stressing YHWH as “the king” (‫)המלך‬,14 the verse has been interpreted as downplaying Davidic kingship in favor of the kingship of YHWH. Ballhorn even claims that David gives up his kingdom in this, the last Davidic psalm, but such a conclusion is not entirely warranted,15 as focus on the kingship of YHWH need not imply that no Davidic king could be conceptualized. Nevertheless, the fact that no human king is mentioned throughout the psalm, and the fact that royal characteristics are ascribed to YHWH alone in vv. 14–20 is noteworthy. As for the structure of the psalm, several suggestions have been made. Early on, Barnabas Lindars proposed a chiastic structure that included the ‫ נ‬phrase and read v. 1 as introduction (v. 2 corresponds to v. 21, vv. 3–6 to vv. 17–20, and vv. 7–9 to vv. 14–16).16 The latter was argued on the basis of its likeness to v. 2 (see below) and its use of ‫מלך‬, a term that is not found in v. 2 or v. 21. In this view, vv. 10–13‫נ‬, five verses with a clear focus on the kingship of YHWH, would constitute the core of the psalm, and this was argued as further stressed by the fact that the initial letters of the three verses at its center – ‫– מ ל כ‬ formed the word ‫( מלך‬if inverted), indicating a scribal emphasis on these lines.17 Another proposal is that of Reuven Kimelman, who suggests four stanzas (vv. 3–6, 7–9, 11–13, 14–20), as well as a prelude (vv. 1–2), an interlude (v. 10), and a postlude (v. 21, the ‫ נ‬phrase is excluded).18 Such an understanding highlights the use made of the root ‫ברך‬, so that three “stages” are identified, 12

However, a ‫ נ‬phrase is extant in 11Q5, the LXX, the Vulgate, and the Peshitta, and scholars have taken different positions over its originality. It could, for example, be argued to be an intentional omission, as all other Davidic acrostics are missing a letter or two (see, e.g., Kimelman 1994, 49–51), and the ‫ נ‬phrase is very similar to v. 17. But again, such similarities could be intentional, indicating that the verse is original (for a discussion see, e.g., Kratz 2004, 624–25, or Pearl 1991a, the latter focusing primarily on the discussion in Rabbinic literature). The function of the acrostic is probably to express the complete praise of God’s kingly rule (cf. Berlin 1985, 18; Kimelman 1994, 49; Zenger 1997c, 9; Kratz 2004, 625). 13 Lindars 1989, 26; Ballhorn 2004, 285; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 593–96; deClaisséWalford 2012, 65–66. 14 Referring to God as the king is otherwise only found in Ps 98:6, cf. deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 992. 15 Ballhorn 2004, 288–89, cf. deClaissé-Walford 1997, 98. 16 Lindars 1989, 25. 17 Lindars 1989, 28; cf. Berlin 1985, 19–20. This was first noted by Watson 1981, 101–2, and later repeated in Kimelman 1994, 45; Zenger 1997c, 10; Kratz 2004, 625; deClaisséWalford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 993, although many have shown some caution concerning its significance (see, e.g., Berlin 1985, 19, n. 4; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 594). 18 Kimelman 1994, 38–40.

Chapter 12. The ‘Final Hallel’

247

each one “marked by the word ‘bless’” in an escalation of praise.19 Without entering into any detailed discussion, these two suggestions reveal three aspects that are important for my purposes here. First, that there is a strong connection between (some or all of) vv. 1–3 and v. 21, confirming the notion of an inclusio.20 Second, that the root ‫ ברך‬seems to occur at structurally significant places, most notably in these framing verses. Last, that the theme of kingship permeates the entire psalm. I will return to these features after a short recapitulation of the psalm, but also worth mentioning here is the fact that 11Q5 features a line not extant in the Masoretic text: ‫“( ברוך יהוה וברוך שמו לעולם ועד‬Blessed be the Lord and blessed be his name forever and ever”). Similar to MT Ps 136, this line is repeated after each verse, and its general similarities to v. 1b (‫ואברכה‬ ‫שמך לעולם ועד‬, “and I will bless your name forever and ever,” cf. also v. 21) might indicate that the line actually expands on the latter.21 The 11Q5 version of the psalm also concludes with the somewhat obscure expression ‫זואת לזכרון‬. Kimelman, for one, suggests the translation “this is for recitation” as it would be congruent with an occasional use of ‫ זכר‬in late biblical Hebrew.22 If so, one could understand the version of Ps 145 as found in 11Q5 as a reworking of the Masoretic psalm to fit some new purpose, possibly also reflected in the change of superscription from ‫ תהלה‬to ‫תפלה‬. The matter is somewhat inconclusive, however.23 Also worth noting is that it is not juxtaposed to Pss 144 and 146, but to Pss 136 (including some verses from Ps 118), and Ps 154 (cf. p. 95 above). If briefly describing the contents of the psalm, the first three verses, as stated above, establish the theme of kingship of YHWH, and direct both blessings (‫ )ואברכה‬and praise (‫ )ואהללה‬to him. This praise is enduring (‫)לעולם ועד‬, to be heard every day (‫)כל־יום‬.24 Furthermore, in v. 3, YHWH is described as great

19 Kimelman 1994, 40–41. A similar structure, although with a different understanding of the progression is provided by Goldingay 2008, 696. Here, vv. 1–2, 10, and 21 provide commitment to worship, while the other sections provide reasons for worship (although without the use of ‫)כי‬. deClaissé-Walford 2012, 65, suggests a mix of the proposals of Lindars and Kimelman in an attempt to highlight both the kingship of YHWH and the prominent use of ‫ברך‬. See also the discussions in Ballhorn 2004, 286–88; Kratz 2004, 624–66; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 593–97. 20 Cf. Wyckoff 2006, 486, who calls it a “relatively clear example of an inclusio because the overlap is significant.” 21 Cf. Kimelman 1994, 56–57. 22 Kimelman 1994, 56. 23 Kratz 2012, 235–36, argues that the psalm is transformed into a “personal prayer that echoes the style of a liturgical litany,” and thus “has some liturgy in mind” (242), although not necessarily being one itself. See also Bayer 1982, 40, who suggests that the 11Q5 version would be a fixing in writing of a performance practice. If so, the subscript could be understood as “This is pro memoria for the sung response.” 24 Interestingly, this psalm would eventually be suggested to be prayed three times a day (b. Ber. 4b, cf. Pearl 1991b, 3–4; deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 990).

248

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

(‫)גדול‬, and this greatness is depicted as “unsearchable” (‫)חקר‬, a term commonly used in wisdom literature.25 The psalm then proceeds by developing the theme throughout verses 4–13, where there is an alternation between “they” (vv. 4, 7, 10–13) and “I” (vv. 5–6). In v. 4, the psalmist is associated with a witness given by several generations (‫)דור לדור ישבח מעשיך‬, and the works of which they are to speak (and “meditate,” ‫ )אשיחה‬are further described in v. 5 as “your wondrous works” (‫)נפלאותיך‬, that is, his work in history.26 This description is then interrupted somewhat in vv. 8–9 by a slightly reworked use of a stock-phrase known as the formula of grace of Exod 34:6.27 The verbatim overlap is found in v. 8, while v. 9 expands it into a universal statement: “YHWH is good to all, his compassion is over all that he has made.” Here, ‫ כל‬features twice, and in the remainder of the psalm, it will occur an additional 14 times (vv. 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, see also v. 2), so that it is to be understood as central to the understanding of the scope of the kingship of YHWH and the inclusion of all people in the call for praise.28 However, v. 10 makes clear that although all the works of YHWH shall give thanks (‫)ידוך‬, it is the faithful ones (‫ )חסידים‬that are to bless (‫)יברכוכה‬. The theme of kingship then moves to the fore in vv. 11–13, the ‫ מ ל כ‬lines, where ‫ מלכות‬is used four times (and nowhere else in the psalm). The task given is again to bear witness, to speak (‫יאמרו‬, v. 11) and make known (‫להודיע‬, v. 12),29 and the kingdom is proclaimed as everlasting, enduring throughout all generations (v. 13).30

25

Of its 12 occurrences in the Hebrew Bible, seven are in Job, and two in Proverbs. In addition, Judg 5:16, Isa 40:28, and Ps 145 each have one occurrence. Tucker Jr. 2014, 159– 60, proposes that the notion of greatness is not to be seen as an abstract characterization, but related to YHWH’s rule. 26 Cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 598. The verb (niphal participle) is used several times in the Hebrew Bible, not least in the ‘Book’ of Psalms. Regularly pointed out is its use in Ps 107 (five times) and in the ‫ ברך‬doxology in Ps 72:18. But it is also used in Pss 9:2; 26:7; 40:6; 71:17; 75:2; 78:4, 11, 32; 86:10; 96:3; 98:1; 105:2, 5; 106:7, 22; 107:8, 15, 21, 24, 31; 111:4; 119:18, 27; 131:1; 136:4; 139:14; 145:5 (as well as 18 times outside the ‘Book’ of Psalms), indicating that a connection cannot be made between Ps 145 and either Ps 107 or Ps 72 based on this verb alone. 27 Cf. ‫( יהוה יהוה אל רחום וחנון ארך אפים ורב־חסד ואמת‬Exod 34:6) with ‫חנון ורחום יהוה ארך‬ ‫( אפים וגדל־חסד‬Ps 145:8). According to Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 598, these are to be seen as alterations on the part of Ps 145 to make it more fitting of its new context (it is shortened, the beginning is altered to fit the acrostic pattern, and ‫ רב‬is replaced by the “keyword” ‫)גדל‬. For this stock-phrase, see also below, pp. 310–11. 28 Cf. Kimelman 1994, 52; Zenger 1997c, 9; Ballhorn 2004, 290–91. 29 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 599. Cf. the confessions of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius in Dan 3:33, 4:31, and 6:27. See also Ballhorn 2004, 293, n. 765; Tucker Jr. 2014, 158–59. 30 The resemblance between Ps 145 and the so-called ‫ יהוה מלך‬psalms has been pointed out by, e.g., Wilson 1985a, 225–26 (cf. Ps 145:1, 11–13 with Pss 93:1–3; 99:1–5; 102:12; and Ps 145:4–7 with Pss 92:5–9; 96:3–4).

Chapter 12. The ‘Final Hallel’

249

Following the missing ‫ נ‬phrase is a long section expanding on the royal duties of YHWH, especially on his care and provision for the downtrodden (vv. 14–20).31 Several overlaps with other psalms can be observed here, for example, the combination of ‫ זקף‬and ‫( כפף‬cf. Ps 146:8) or the similarities between vv. 15–16 and Ps 104:27.32 Interestingly, the section concludes by contrasting “all who love him” (‫ )אוהביו‬with the “wicked” (‫)רשעים‬. While YHWH will “watch over” (‫ )שומר‬the former, the latter will be destroyed (‫ )ישמיד‬by him. This contrast is notable, and although ‫ רשעים‬is more often contrasted with ‫צדיקים‬, many scholars have suggested a general similarity with both Ps 1:6 and Ps 107:42–43. In fact, vv. 19–20 belonged to what Wilson identified as a final “wisdom frame,” intended to both structure ‘book’ 5 and relate it to the other four ‘books’.33 However, these supposed connections are quite weak as the argument is primarily based on their current placement in their Masoretic sequence.34 Last comes v. 21, where the first verses are again recapitulated, and the “I” of v. 1 is widened to include “all flesh” (‫ )כל־בשר‬in a final call to praise the holy name of YHWH (‫)שם קדשו‬. Proceeding from this brief overview, I now return to the three aspects noted above. Interestingly, the juxtaposition of the roots ‫ הלל‬and ‫ ברך‬overlaps significantly with the identified inclusio, most notably in vv. 1–3 and 21, as to evoke the following pattern: ‫תהלה לדוד‬

1a

A Tehillah of David

‫ארוממך אלוהי המלך‬ ‫ואברכה שמך לעולם ועד‬ ‫בכל־יום אברכך‬ ‫ואהללה שמך לעולם ועד‬ ‫גדול יהוה ומהלל מאד‬ ‫ולגדלתו אין חקר‬

1b 1c 2a 2b 3a 3b

I will exalt you, my God the king, and bless your name forever and ever. Every day I will bless you, and praise your name forever and ever. Great is YHWH, and greatly to be praised, his greatness is unsearchable.

‫ תהלת יהוה ידבר־פי‬21a My mouth will speak the praise of YHWH, ‫ ויברך כל־בשר שם קדשו לעולם ועד‬21b and all flesh will bless his holy name forever and ever.

Laid out in this way, the juxtaposition of terms seems quite deliberate, especially in light of the verbatim repetition of 1c in 2b where 1c features ‫ברך‬, and 2b features ‫הלל‬. Furthermore, the root ‫ הלל‬is found in both v. 1a and 21a, and ‫ברך‬

31

Cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 599–600. Cf. Kratz 2004, 629; Booij 2008b, 633. 33 Wilson 1993b, 80–82; see also Zenger 1998a, 88–89. 34 Miller 1998, 105–6, suggests Ps 145 has a double ending (v. 20 and v. 21 respectively) since v. 21 forms part of the inclusio. 32

250

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

is attested in the final colon in 21b. Both roots are also used four times respectively (‫ ברך‬is found in vv. 1c, 2a, 10b, and 21b, while ‫ הלל‬is found in vv. 1a, 2b, 3a, 21a). Looking more broadly at these terms throughout the Hebrew Bible, it is to be seen that they are rarely juxtaposed in the same verse. In fact, they are only found together in a total of 14 verses, and if excluding the two verses where ‫ הלל‬is used in the sense of “boasting” (Jer 4:2, Ps 10:3), and those instances where ‫ הלל‬is found as a ‫ הללו־יה‬frame (Ps 104:35, 106:48 [=1 Chr 16:36], Ps 115:18, and 135:21), only seven occurrences remain, three of which are in Ps 145 (see also Pss 34:1; 66:8; 100:4; 145:1, 2, 21; and Neh 9:5). Consequently, it would perhaps not be far-fetched to see the juxtaposition of these two terms in Ps 145 as significant.35 Now, it has been suggested that Ps 145 once concluded a ‘Book’ of Psalms, either prior to the addition of Pss 146–150 or together with them, so that the concluding v. 21 would have functioned as the final doxology.36 Some even suggest that it should be read in par with the ‫ ברך‬doxologies.37 Although possible, I would suggest that if the observations made concerning Pss 135–136 are valid, new light might be shed on the inclusio. In fact, it seems as if Ps 145 combines the ‫ ברך‬doxologies with a ‫ הלל‬framework, so that the latter eventually gains the upper hand.38 So put, it would belong to a different phase of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, and the possible awareness of the ‫ ברך‬doxologies implies that such a phase would be a later one. Ultimately, the fact that both ‫ ברך‬and ‫ הלל‬are juxtaposed under the superscription ‫ תהלה‬could imply that the intention was to relate the ‫ ברך‬doxologies to a new formative stage, which would be developed in full in Pss 146–150. Put differently, Ps 145 seems both to be aware of, and to transform, the (earlier) ‫ ברך‬doxologies, and a similar observation has been made by Ballhorn as the following: Es kann nicht geleugnet werden, daß das in Ps 145, inbesondere in v.1f.21, enthaltene semantische Material in hohem Maße jenem der drei buchabschließenden Schlußdoxologien in Ps 41,14; 72,18f.; 89,53; sowie jener in Ps 106,48 entspricht: ‫ אמת‬/ ‫אמן‬, ‫עולם‬, ‫אלהים‬, ‫יי‬, ‫ברך‬. Darüber hinaus sind noch einige weitere semantische Übereinstimmungen mit der stark er-

35

Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 596, also suggest that the use made of ‫ ידה‬in v. 20a is a “deliberate change owing to the keyword character of ‫ ידה‬in the fifth Davidic Psalter,” but from the perspective of the psalm, such a proposal is difficult to sustain, as the use of ‫ יהד‬is better seen in the context of the other words used throughout the psalm to call for praise of YHWH, none repeated as much as four times (e.g. ‫רום‬, ‫נגד‬, ‫שבח‬, ‫שיח‬, ‫דבר‬, ‫אמר‬, ‫ספר‬, ‫נבע‬, ‫רנן‬, ‫ידה‬, cf. the list in Ballhorn 2004, 285). 36 Wilson 1985a, 225–26, describes the psalm to stand as the “climax” of the fifth ‘book’, and argued that the position of the psalm in 11Q5, together with the added refrain in that version underscored such a conclusion. Cf. Zenger 1998b, 30; Miller 1998, 105; Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 605; deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 990. 37 So Zenger 1998b, 30. 38 Cf. also Ballhorn 2004, 296.

Chapter 12. The ‘Final Hallel’

251

weiterten Schlußdoxologie in Ps 72,18f. zu verzeichnen: ‫כבוד‬, ‫שם‬, ‫נפלואת‬. Allerdings gibt es mehrere Hinweise, daß Ps 145 sich nicht auf derselben Textebene wie die Doxologien der ersten vier Bücher befindet.39

Consequently, the idea that Ps 145 relates to ‫ ברך‬doxologies, although not being part of the same formative stage, is strengthened by the fact that it does not feature ‫ ברך‬in qal passive participle (although it features in the repeated line added to 11Q5), has a different ‫ עולם‬formula (Ps 145 adds ‫ועד‬, which also features in the repeated line of 11Q5),40 and lacks a concluding Amen.41 If somewhat to the point, one could perhaps also suggest that Ps 145 was added to a collection of psalms together with Pss 146–150, and that these psalms imply a slightly new perception of the collection as a book of praises (‫)תהלים‬. Such a notion is not new and it is often argued that Ps 145:21 anticipates Pss 146–150, so that the latter provide an ultimate response to the call to praise (the name of YHWH),42 but before discussing these possibilities, a closer look at Pss 146– 150 is needed. II. Psalm 146 The first psalm following Ps 145 is framed by Hallelujah (vv. 1a, 10), thus providing some sort of a connection to both Pss 147–150 and the other psalms similarly framed. It has no other superscription, but some have understood its placement after Ps 145 as an indication that the voice of David would linger on and sound in the background of at least vv. 1–2.43 Furthermore, as stated above, both Wilson and Zenger understand the psalm as a “response” to Ps 145:21a.44 However, such a reading is not warranted by the psalm itself, which evidently says nothing about David.45 In fact, it is worth noticing that, besides under39

Ballhorn 2004, 294. Cf. Miller 1998, 106. 41 There is, however, no need to interpret a possible omission of Amen as an indication that the psalm is “open-ended” (so Zenger 1998b, 30; cf. Zenger 1998a, 89). 42 So, e.g., Lohfink 1990, 108; Wilson 1993a, 74; Kimelman 1994, 47–48; McCann Jr. 1996, 1261; deClaissé-Walford 1997, 99; Miller 1998, 109; Zenger 1998b, 39; Zenger 1999, 118; Wilson 2002b, 105; Zenger 2003, 154–55; Booij 2008b, 636–37; Mays 2011, 439; deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 996. Wilson 1985a, 194, suggests that Ps 146 expands on v. 21a while Ps 150:6 relates to v. 21b (cf. also Kselman 1988, 596–97; Zenger 1997a, 99–100; Zenger 1997c, 14). As for the name of YHWH, Miller 1998, 108–9, notes that Ps 146 has among the largest clustering of YHWH in the entire ‘Book’ of Psalms, so that “[w]hat Psalm 145 has declared or called for now happens in the following psalm.” Furthermore, the last thing that is heard in the (MT) ‘Book’ of Psalms is the praise of the name (‫)הללו־יה‬. 43 deClaissé-Walford 1997, 100; cf. Wilson 1985a, 194; Miller 1998, 107; Zenger 2003, 143; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 616. 44 See above, n. 42. 45 Ballhorn 2004, 309, notes that the figure of David disappears (“verschwindet”). 40

252

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

standing Hallelujah as a genre designation, the LXX rather adds Αìαιου καὶ Ζαχαριου (“of Haggai and Zechariah,” the addition is also found in Ψ 146– 149), implying that it was rather associated with the period of restoration following the exile (cf. Ezr 5:1, 6:14).46 The body of this fairly short psalm could be divided into four stanzas as follows: v. 1a Hallelujah vv. 1b–2 Exhortation to praise YHWH continuously vv. 3–4 Antithesis: Do not trust in human princes v. 4 Characteristics of the human princes vv. 5–9 Thesis: Trust in YHWH vv. 6–9 Characteristics of YHWH as king v. 10a, b Acclamation of the continuous reign of YHWH v. 10c Hallelujah

Following this outline,47 the first verses consist of a general exhortation to praise (v. 1b). Interestingly, the colon reads ‫הללי נפשי את־יהוה‬, a line quite similar to the one found in Pss 103:1 and 104:1, 35, although there it reads ‫ברכי‬ ‫נפשי את־יהוה‬.48 Thus, one might see here a similar transposing of ‫ ברך‬into ‫הלל‬ as was noted for Ps 145, and this is strengthened if looking at the next verse, which also overlaps with Ps 104. While Ps 104:33 reads “I will sing to YHWH throughout my life, I will play to my God as long as I am” (‫אשירה ליהוה בחיי‬ ‫)אזמרה לאלהי בעודי‬, Ps 146:2 reads “I will praise YHWH throughout my life, I will play to my God as long as I am” (‫)אהללה יהוה בחיי אזמרה לאלהי בעודי‬. Once again, the difference is the presence of the root ‫ הלל‬in Ps 146. Moving on to vv. 3–4 and the contrasting vv. 5–9, the psalm has been noted to overlap thematically with Ps 118:9, for example. Connections to Pss 115:8– 11 and 135:18 are also often pointed out,49 although the contrast there is between YHWH and the idols. According to Zenger, what is implied in Ps 146 is a “rejection of all forms of human rule and power over human beings,”50 but although the verb ‫ מלך‬is reserved for YHWH only (v. 10), it is not clear if that 46

Cf. Goldingay 2008, 708; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 616. Slomovic 1979, 363–64, suggests several parallels to the books of Haggai and Zechariah, both thematic and linguistic. 47 The structure basically follows Lohfink 1990, 109; cf. also Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 612. Goldingay 2008, 711, and Allen 2002, 377, see a new start in v. 6c, while deClaisséWalford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 996, follow the chiastic structure of Kselman 1988, 591– 92, (vv. 1–2, 3–4, 5–8b, 8c–9, 10). 48 For a brief discussion on the occurrence of this phrase in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see below, pp. 334–35. 49 So, e.g., Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 610. 50 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 613. Zenger even suggests that vv. 3, 5 are programmatic for the entire final frame of the ‘Book’ of Psalms (Pss 1–2, 146–150; Zenger 1998b, 31–32), so that the psalm was composed specifically for its current position (Zenger 2003, 143, n. 11). Cf. also, e.g., Wilson 1985a, 226–28; Ballhorn 2004, 309; deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 997.

Chapter 12. The ‘Final Hallel’

253

should be taken as an indication of the ultimate failure of human kingship. If glancing at Ps 118, one might suggest that such a dichotomy is somewhat misplaced since that psalm has the words put in the mouth of a victorious king, thus emphasizing that the ultimate object of trust should be YHWH, not humans, while simultaneously implying that as the king trusts YHWH, victory is given to him. Furthermore, it seems as if the main point of contrast in Ps 146 is rather the relation between the passing away of all humans and the everlasting keeping of truth of YHWH (‫השמר אמת לעולם‬, v. 6).51 This also provides the reason for why humans should not be the object of ultimate trust.52 Nonetheless, it is YHWH rather than the human princes (‫בנדיבים‬, ‫בבן־אדם‬, v. 3) who is fulfilling the responsibilities of the ideal king,53 and this is spelled out in vv. 5–10, a section introduced by a macarism proclaiming happiness (‫)אשרי‬ to everyone having the God of Jacob as his or her help.54 This expression (‫אל‬ ‫יעקב‬, or ‫ )אלהי יעקב‬is quite rare in the Hebrew Bible, attested only 16 times, of which 10 are in the ‘Book’ of Psalms. In seven of these, it is associated with the temple and themes of help and refuge (Pss 20:2; [24:6] 46:8, 12; 76:7; 84:9; 94:7; see also, e.g., Isa 2:3, Mic 4:2), while the last three occurrences (Pss 75:10; 81:2, 5) relate it to the singing of praises. In Ps 81 it even features in an enumeration of instruments. It is quite clear, then, that the expression has been integrated into Zion theology,55 thus conveying the notion of the protection of YHWH, which also sheds light on the mentioning of Zion in the last verse of Ps 146 (v. 10), a verse proclaiming the everlasting reign of YHWH. This God is described as the sustainer of creation (v. 6, cf. Pss 115:15, 121:2, 124:8, 134:3), followed by a recounting of his continuing provision and support for the needy.56 There is a focus on the name “YHWH,” which occurs six times throughout vv. 7–10, and the actions performed are related to ideas surrounding

51 However, Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 606, suggest that the focus “is not on humanity in general but on powerful humanity.” 52 Cf. Terrien 2003b, 910; Mays 2011, 440. 53 Wilson 1985a, 227. 54 The suggestion by deClaissé-Walford 1997, 100, that the reader/hearer is sent back to Pss 1–2 by means of the occurring ‫ אשרי‬and that this would imply “two essentials for the postexilic community – the ‫ תורה‬and the kingship of YHWH,” is probably doing too much of the context (see also McCann Jr. 1996, 1262–63, who argues that the content of the instruction given in Ps 146 is essentially the same as Ps 2). As macarisms are quite common throughout the ‘Book’ of Psalms, and since ‫ תורה‬is nowhere mentioned in the psalm, such a suggestion is rather unlikely. Mays 2011, 440, interprets the phrase as an example of the psalm being composed as instruction. 55 See Allen 2002, 378; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 613; cf. Gillingham 2010, 98. 56 This is argued by, for example, Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 614, in light of the participial statements (cf. Goldingay 2008, 711). Some interpret these verses as giving the psalm a didactic or instructional function (see again Mays 2011, 440).

254

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

the ideal king.57 As such a king, YHWH is continuously taking care of his people, giving justice to the oppressed (v. 7, cf. Ps 103:6), feeding the hungry (cf. Ps 145:15), freeing prisoners, opening the eyes of the blind (v. 8, cf. Isa 42:7), raising the bowed (cf. Ps 145:14, p. 249) preserving the stranger (v. 9), and so on, while the way of the wicked is described as “bent” (‫)ודרך רשעים יעות‬.58 Throughout these verses, many allusions to various psalms are to be found, as well as to other passages from the Hebrew Bible (most notably Isaiah), and the characterization of YHWH leads up to the acclamation of his everlasting reign in v. 10, so that the psalm could be understood as an invitation to participate in a continuous praise of the reliability of the kingship of YHWH (vv. 1b–2, 10), the God of Zion.59 Seeing the opening verses in light of Ps 145, it seems as if ‫ הלל‬terminology has now fully replaced the ‫ ברך‬terminology.60 While Ps 145 had ‫ הלל‬and ‫ברך‬ juxtaposed, Ps 146 favors ‫הלל‬, and has the entire psalm framed by Hallelujah. Furthermore, the many overlaps with other texts, both from the ‘Book’ of Psalms and other parts of the Hebrew Bible do not indicate primarily structural functions within a closing ‘Book’ of Psalms (since the overlaps are in no way restricted to other psalms),61 but rather something of an emerging collection of scriptures to which a growing corpus of psalms was beginning to belong.62 III. Psalm 147 Turning to Ps 147, it is also framed by Hallelujah, but here it is not clear whether the first Hallelujah should actually be considered as belonging to the body of the psalm itself. The verse in question, v. 1, reads as follows in the MT Ps 147 and Ψ 146: ‫הללו יה‬ ‫כי־טוב זמרה אלהינו‬ ‫כי־נעים נאוה תהלה‬

57

1a 1b 1c

Hallelujah, for it is good to play for our God, for it is pleasant to adorn with a song of praise.

Such a tradition is seen in, e.g., Deut 10:17–18; Isa 11:3–5; 16:5; 61:1–3; Jer 22:2–3, 15b–6a. Absalom is portrayed as taking advantage of this tradition in 1 Sam 15:1–6 (cf. Zenger 2003, 143). For a fuller treatment, see Brettler 1989, 111–14; cf. Lohfink 1990, 110– 12. A possible point of comparison is also the description of Hammurabi in the Code of Hammurabi (Pritchard 1969, 164), but while that text enumerates only a few features (mainly the contrasting of the strong with the weak, where the king should side with the weak), Ps 146 recounts all the more. 58 deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 998, see the contrast as yet another allusion to Ps 1. 59 Cf. Zenger 1997a, 100; Ballhorn 2004, 304. 60 Cf. Ballhorn 2004, 304. 61 For list of possible allusions, see, e.g., Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 610–11. 62 Cf. perhaps Ballhorn 2004, 306, although his stress on written texts might be somewhat overemphasized.

Chapter 12. The ‘Final Hallel’

Αbηλουια Αìαιου καὶ Ζαχαριου Αἰνεῖτε τὸν κύριον ὅτι ἀγαθὸν ψαλµός τῷ θεῷ ἡµῶν ἡδυνθείη αἴνεσις

1a 1b 1c 1d

255

A Hallelujah of Haggai and Zechariah. Praise the Lord, because a psalm is a good thing, to our God may praise be pleasing.

As presented, the main question is how to understand ‫כי‬, ‫זַ ְמּ ָרה‬, and ‫נָ אוָ ה‬. Starting with the second, it is vocalized in the Masoretic text as piel infinitive with feminine ending. Some have suggested that it should be changed to the imperative ‫זַ ְמּרוּ‬, but the Masoretic vocalization is to be preferred.63 If so, it also sheds light on the third term, which is omitted in the LXX. Although used as an adjective in the only other occurrence of ‫( נָ אוָ ה תהלה‬Ps 33:1), it could be understood as piel infinitive with a feminine ending (roughly “adorn”), creating a neat parallel to 1b.64 Turning to ‫כי‬, its common use as a conjunction (“for”) provides a highly unusual way to introduce a hymn. It has been suggested by some to function as an emphatic particle (“indeed”),65 while Zenger has argued that the common use is to be retained so that it rather implies an intentional linking of Ps 147 with Ps 146.66 So put, it is obvious that the problem with ‫ כי‬proceeds from the idea that Hallelujah is always part of a redactional frame and is thus never part of the actual body of the psalm, but such a presupposition needs not be upheld. As I will argue below (see pp. 278–81), it could be quite reasonable to posit that some of the Hallelujahs attested throughout Pss 111–117 could have originally been a part of the psalms themselves, and so it would not be unreasonable to posit that Hallelujah is integral to the psalm here as well. In fact, such an understanding would explain both the peculiar use of ‫( כי‬which would not be peculiar at all) and the translation in the LXX. As argued previously, the LXX understands Hallelujah as a ‘type’ designation, found only as superscription (except for Ps 150), and in this usage it is always transliterated. However, in Ψ 146:1, the LXX has both a transliteration (Αbηλουια) and a translation (Αἰνεῖτε τὸν κύριον). To my mind, the best way of understanding this is to interpret the latter as a translation of the ‫ הללו־יה‬in Ps 147:1a, thus indicating its integrality, and that this necessitated the addition of yet another superscription, in line with the

63

See, e.g., Kautzsch 1910, 143; Kraus 1989, 555; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 619. This was first suggested by Blau 1954, who proposed the translation “Lob schmücken, lobpreisen.” It is followed by several scholars. Kraus 1989, 555, for one, translates it as “intone a song of praise,” while Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 618–19, prefer “adorn with praise.” Some English translations retain the adjectival understanding. NRSV, for one, translates “and a song of praise is fitting.” 65 Allen 2002, 381–82, n. 1b. Kraus 1989, 554, also translates it as such, although he later comments on the bicolon as dependent on the Hallelujah (556). 66 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 627. I will return in more detail to this suggestion below, as it depends on a specific understanding of the diachronic growth of the psalm, as well as verbatim overlaps with Ps 146. 64

256

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

one in Ψ 145–148.67 Consequently, the Hallelujah of v. 1a would form part of the first summons to praise.68 As for the structure of the psalm, it is worth noting that the LXX divides the psalm in two parts, 147:1–11 (Ψ 146) and 147:12–20 (Ψ 147),69 and provides both with an identical superscription. Such a variation of demarcation of psalms is not surprising in the light of both DSS and medieval manuscripts, and it has also been argued that the two parts are of different origins. Although the common view has been to regard vv. 1–11 as an original core which were later expanded by vv. 12–20,70 Leuenberger has recently argued for the opposite direction, suggesting that the addition of vv. 1–11 would have been part of the redaction of the final Hallel. According to Leuenberger, vv. 12–20 were once an independent psalm of Zion, while vv. 1–11 constitutes a bridge-text with many overlaps with Pss 146–150.71 I will return to this below, but proceeding from the observations made so far, the following structure could be suggested:72 v. 1 Summons to praise (including the Hallelujah of v. 1a) vv. 2–6 Reasons to praise v. 7 Summons to praise vv. 8–11 Reasons to praise v. 12 Double summons to praise vv. 12–20a, b Reasons to praise v. 20c Hallelujah73

So understood, the psalm could be described in the following way. Starting with the first summons to praise, it is permeated with the root ‫הלל‬, and the use of ‫ תהלה‬in v. 1 (see above) could be understood as implicitly referring to the

67

Goldingay 2008, 719, suggests that it is rather the second that is added in the LXX. So also Gerstenberger 2001, 442; deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 1000. Cf. Ballhorn 2004, 310, who understands its integrality as an indication of Ps 147 being compiled for the final Hallel. 69 As for the DSS evidence, it is scant. The psalm is attested three times, in 4Q86, 11Q5, and Mas1f (for the possible reconstruction of the psalm in 4Q87, see above, p. 100), but vv. 11–12 are not preserved. According to Ulrich et al. 2000, 66, space would not have allowed for the psalm to have been divided in to parts in 4Q86. This is also the case for the other two manuscripts. 70 See, e.g., Lohfink 1990, 115–20. 71 Leuenberger 2004, 349–51. He is followed by Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 620–21, although the latter initially held an opposite view, arguing for strong connections between vv. 12–20 and the surrounding psalms, while vv. 1–11 had little such overlaps (see esp. Zenger 2003, 153). 72 This suggestion is similar to, e.g., Kraus 1989, 556–59; Allen 2002, 383–85; Goldingay 2008, 717; Mays 2011, 442; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 622–23; deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 999. Duhm 1899, 476–80 suggested early on that the three parts were actually three separate psalms (see a similar view in Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 610). 73 In the current shape of the psalm, the two Hallelujahs form an inclusio. 68

Chapter 12. The ‘Final Hallel’

257

psalm itself, which constitutes the framework within which the singing of praise takes place. Consequently, it is also conceptually linked to the other Hallelujah psalms, as well as to Ps 145.74 Following this summons are a number of reasons to praise. The first is that YHWH is building Jerusalem (‫)בונה ירושלם‬, that is, gathering the banished Israel (‫נדחי ישראל יכנס‬, cf. Isa 11:12, 56:8). The use of the participle indicates that the focus is primarily on ongoing acts rather than on particular events,75 although the return from Exile is “unüberhörbar.”76 John Goldingay also suggests that it is not primarily a physical rebuilding of the city that is in view, but rather the building up of the population, while Zenger proposes that the verses imply both an external and internal restoration of Jerusalem, and that the participles give the psalm an eschatological tone.77 However, the latter is not warranted on the basis of the participles alone, it would be safer to suggest that the focus of these verses is primarily on the ongoing, constant care of YHWH for his people (Jerusalem is likely to be understood as Israel), which is expanded on in v. 3.78 Moving on, in vv. 4–5, focus shifts to nature, and the purpose is to show that YHWH’s lordship over creation assures his ability to care for his people.79 He reckons the stars (‫מונה מספר‬ ‫לכוכבים‬, v. 4, cf. Isa 40:26), but there is no reckoning of his ability (‫לתבונתו אין‬ ‫מספר‬, v. 5).80 The section then closes in v. 6 by contrasting the care for the poor (‫מעודד ענוים‬, cf. Ps 146:9 ‫ )יתום ואלמנה יעודד‬with the fate of the wicked (‫)רשעים‬. Thus, there is again a contrast including the wicked without any mention of the righteous (cf. Pss 145:20, 146:9).81 In v. 7 comes a new set of summons, this time to “give thanks” (‫)בתודה‬, and the basic idea expressed throughout vv. 7–11 is that YHWH provides for the ones fearing him (‫ )יראיו‬and hoping for his steadfast love (‫)את־המיחלים לחסדו‬, first in relation to the creation (vv. 8–9),82 and then by contrasting it to armed, military forces, in which YHWH takes no pleasure (vv. 10–11) as they are “false trails to success.”83 The first has some overlaps with Ps 104(:3, 13–14)

74 Thus similar to deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 1000, although the verse is not necessarily to be seen as reminding the reader of the superscription of Ps 145. 75 Cf. Goldingay 2008, 717. 76 Ballhorn 2004, 314. 77 Goldingay 2008, 719; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 623. 78 For such an understanding of Jerusalem, see, e.g., Ballhorn 2004, 314. 79 Cf. Gerstenberger 2001, 443; Goldingay 2008, 720. 80 Goldingay 2008, 720. For a possible background, see the description of Marduk in Enuma Elish (so Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 623–24). 81 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 624, suggests that v. 6 looks forward to Ps 149. 82 The progression suggested by Goldingay 2008, 721 (YHWH provides with clouds [v. 8a], which provide rain [v. 8b], which causes grass to sprout [v. 8c], which is then the food for the cattle [v. 9a]) is appealing, although it does not quite account for the mention of the ravens in v. 9b. 83 Allen 2002, 386; cf. Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 610. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011,

258

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

and Job 38:41, although Ps 147 does not mention either human work, nor the provision for human beings,84 and the latter overlaps with Ps 33:17–18 (cf. also Ps 20:8, Isa 31:1–3). The third part starts with double summons to praise (‫ שבחי‬and ‫הללי‬, cf. Ps 117:1) addressed to Jerusalem and Zion.85 Worth noting is that ‫ הלל‬here features in the piel imperative. Throughout the Hebrew Bible, the form is found 52 times, of which only two(!) are outside the ‘Book’ of Psalms (Jer 20:13, Jer 31:7), and only one outside psalms with either a Hallelujah superscription, subscription, or framework (Ps 22:24). The rest (49) are found in Pss 104, 105, 106, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 135, 146, 147, 148, 149, and 150 (30 of the occurrences are in Pss 146–150). Of these, it is mostly found either at the beginning or at the end of the psalm, but in six of these, it is also attested in the “body” of the psalm (Pss 113, 135, 146, 147, 148, 150). I will return to possible implications of this below (p. 281), but it emanates as quite reasonable that the fact that Hallelujah features both in v. 1 and in v. 12 would have motivated its juxtaposition to other such psalms. Following the summons are two verses that convey an idea similar to vv. 2–3,86 again by means of participles, namely the restoration of Jerusalem, who is conceived as having sons (‫)בניך‬, possibly implying a conceptualization of Zion as a mother (cf. Isa 54:11–14).87 Verses 15–20 then provide a slightly new focus: the effect of the life-giving word of YHWH, which is sent down to the earth (‫)השלח אמרתו ארץ‬. With an imagery reminiscent of Job 38 and Isa 55:10–11,88 the word is described as bringing about winter, but then also melting the snow into a flow of water.89 Thus, the word, which frames vv. 15–18 (‫אמרתו‬, cf. ‫)דברו‬, is understood as a creative word,90 but in vv. 19–20, it takes on slightly different connotations as the words of YHWH (‫ )דבריו‬are described as his “statutes and judgments” (‫חקיו‬ ‫)ומשפטיו‬, given to Jacob and Israel (v. 19). Furthermore, such a gift is described as not bestowed upon any other people (‫לא עשה כן לכל־גוי‬, v. 20, cf. Deut 4:7–

625, see a connection to both Ps 146:3–4 and Ps 149:5 (the reversal of power relationships under the royal rule of YHWH), but I would argue that the contrasts are greater than the similarities in both cases, since the focus of Ps 147 is on the idea that the restoration of Jerusalem should not depend on military strength (cf. Goldingay 2008, 722). 84 Cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 624–25; but also Weiser 1962, 835. 85 For the personification of Jerusalem and Zion, see also Isa 49–54 (cf. Goldingay 2008, 722). 86 Cf. Kraus 1989, 557–58; Allen 2002, 386. 87 Cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 626. The verse also features the only occurrence of ‫ ברך‬in Pss 146–150. 88 Cf. Zenger 2003, 153; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 626; Mays 2011, 443; deClaisséWalford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 1001. 89 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 620; cf. Mays 2011, 442. 90 Kraus 1989, 558–59; Allen 2002, 387. Thus not a synonym to torah, as in, e.g., Ps 119 (cf. Ballhorn 2004, 313, with n. 818).

Chapter 12. The ‘Final Hallel’

259

8), but although the word pair reflects a similar use as found in Deut 4, the participle (‫מגיד‬, “declaring”) indicates that it does not primarily refer to a one-time giving of the law, but to a continuing revelation of YHWH’s acts and will for his people.91 Noteworthy is that the word ‫ תורה‬is not used, and this actually applies to all of Pss 120–150, that is, it is never used again “after” Ps 119 (in the MT and LXX ‘Books’ of Psalms). In sum, the effect of vv. 15–20 is to relate YHWH’s work in nature to his work in history (with his people), a perspective similar to Isa 40–66 (cf. perhaps Isa 41:26, 42:9, 43:12, 44:8).92 In all, the psalm combines several perspectives in the proclamation of the providence of YHWH towards his people, and throughout there are overlaps with Isa 40–66 in particular, but also with Deut 4, Pss 33, 104, and Job 37–39. However, primarily it is possible thematic and lexical links to Pss 146 and 148 that have been stressed in recent research.93 Here, it is noted, for example, that Ps 146:2 shares ‫ הלל‬and ‫ זמר‬with Ps 147:1 (see also Ps 135:3, 149:3), Ps 146:9 shares the verb ‫ עוד‬with Ps 147:6 in the context of judgment of the wicked, and Ps 146:10 shares ‫ אלהיך ציון‬with Ps 147:12.94 The psalms are also argued to share similar ideas: the care for the weak,95 the giving of food in Pss 146:7 and 147:9 (although it is given to different recipients), the “unmasking of human power” in Ps 146:3–4 and Ps 147:10 (although, see n. 83 above), and the connection between creation and the care for the weak. Similarly, a number of links are identified with Ps 149 (e.g., ‫ תהלה‬in Ps 147:1, cf. Ps 149:1; ‫ ישראל‬in Ps 147:2, 19, cf. Ps 149:2; ‫ ציון‬in Ps 147:12, cf. Ps 149:2; ‫ ענוים‬in Ps 147:6, cf. Ps 149:4; ‫ רצה‬in Ps 147:10, cf. Ps 149:4; ‫ בני־ציון‬in Ps 147:13, cf. Ps 149:2; ‫ משפט‬in Ps 147:19, cf. Ps 149:9; and ‫ כנור‬in Ps 147:7, cf. Ps 149:3). Although connections to Ps 148 are scant (Zenger, for one, only mentions the order of law as an “order for the whole cosmos” as a shared theme),96 a clear “purposeful arrangement of the closing psalms” is suggested, one that moves from the “individual praise of the kingship of YHWH to the praise of YHWH by the postexilic Israelite community.”97 Such a list is impressive, but at a closer look, it is quite problematic. First, it is to be noted that most of the identified connections are between Ps 147 and 149, leading Zenger to propose the idea of a concentric arrangement around Ps 91

Therefore, not primarily referring to any written word of YHWH, as suggested by both Gerstenberger 2001, 445, and Zenger 2003, 153: “keinen Zweifel … dass die Tora gemeint ist.” 92 Ballhorn 2004, 313; Goldingay 2008, 725; Mays 2011, 442; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 621; cf. deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 1001. 93 Although it should be noted that Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 621, also suggest that Ps 33 and Ps 147:1–11 possibly have the same origin, based on the identified overlaps. 94 Ballhorn 2004, 311, n. 812; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 627. 95 Cf. Miller 1998, 109, who sees these two psalms as expanding on Ps 145. 96 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 627; cf. Zenger 1999, 119. 97 deClaissé-Walford 1997, 101.

260

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

148. Second, many of the shared terms are either very common or used in different ways in the two psalms, so that they, at least, do not warrant the idea that Ps 146 and Ps 147:1–11 come from the same hand.98 In fact, it seems as if many of the overlaps do not provide firm support for a joint composition as much as they proceed from such an idea. This is seen clearly if looking at the way these psalms are configured in alternative sequences throughout the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls, and I will return to these issues in section 12.B below. IV. Psalm 148 The next psalm, also framed by Hallelujah has the most occurrences of ‫ הלל‬in the piel imperative (after Ps 150) of all psalms. In the first five verses, it is used nine times, with additional occurrences also in v. 7 and v. 14. As for its structure, there is basic agreement on how to describe its main parts, but as it comes to the last two verses (vv. 13–14), the picture is not quite so clear. Postponing the discussion of these verses until after the general overview of the psalm, the conclusions are nevertheless pre-empted in the following outline:99 v. 1a Hallelujah100 vv. 1b, c Summons to praise YHWH from the heavens (‫)הללו את־יהוה מן־השמים‬ vv. 2–4 Summons to the heavenly sphere vv. 5–6 Reasons to praise (introduced by ‫)יהללו את־שם יהוה‬ vv. 7a Summons to praise YHWH from earth (‫)הללו את־יהוה מן־ארץ‬ vv. 7b–12 Summons to the earthly sphere vv. 13–14a Reasons to praise (introduced by ‫)יהללו את־שם יהוה‬ [v. 14b, c Additions in light of Ps 149] v. 14d Hallelujah

As seen in the outline, the first stanza (vv. 1b–6) is concerned with praising YHWH from the heavens, while the second (vv. 7–14a) focuses on the earthly sphere. Starting with the first, it features YHWH’s angels (‫מלאכיו‬, v. 2a) and hosts (‫צבאיו‬, v. 2b), both possibly referring to the same beings, with the latter

98

As argued in Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 621–22. This basic structure follows the proposal by Auffret 1982, 383–404, and is almost the consensus view in most recent commentaries, save for the understanding of the function of vv. 13–14 (Gerstenberger 2001, 447; Allen 2002, 393; Ballhorn 2004, 315; Goldingay 2008, 728; Mays 2011, 444; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 631; Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 612; deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 1002). Cf., however, Spieckermann 1989, 50–51. 100 The LXX superscription is the same as in Ψ 145–148 and thus reasonably understood accordingly. As for the frame, it is distinct from the body of the psalm (see, however, Ballhorn 2004, 315). The psalm overlaps somewhat with the song added to Dan 3:52–90 (LXX, cf. Weiser 1962, 837; Allen 2002, 393; Marttila 2006, 165; Goldingay 2008, 730). 99

Chapter 12. The ‘Final Hallel’

261

colon emphasizing their numbers.101 Furthermore, the sun and moon (‫שמש וירח‬, v. 3a) and stars of light are exhorted (‫כל־כוכבי אור‬, v. 3b, hence demythologized, as in Gen 1:16–18, 37:9, and perhaps Ps 136:8–9), as are the highest heavens (‫שמי השמים‬, v. 4a)102 and the waters above them (‫והמים אשר מעל‬ ‫השמים‬, v. 4b, cf. Gen 1:6–8). After this series of exhortations comes a motivation introduced by ‫כי‬, stating that the reason why all parts of the heavenly sphere are to praise is that YHWH has created them by command (‫כי הוא צוה‬ ‫)ונבראו‬. The use of ‫ברא‬, as well as the concept of creating by command probably alludes to Gen 1 (cf. also Ps 33:9), especially given all of the overlaps in the previous verses,103 and the statute of v. 6b is probably to be seen as denoting the permanence of their existence.104 In the second stanza (vv. 7–14a), the summons are directed at the earthly sphere, beginning with the sea monsters (‫תנינים‬, cf. Gen 1:21) and depths (‫תהמות‬, cf. Gen 1:2, where it is singular) in v. 7, followed by fire (‫אש‬, that is, lightning), hail (‫)וברד‬, snow (‫)שלג‬, fog (‫)וקיטור‬, and storm-wind (“doing his word,” ‫ )רוח סערה עשה דברו‬in v. 8,105 before moving on to mountains (‫)ההרים‬, hills (‫)גבעות‬, and then fruit trees (‫)עץ פרי‬, and cedars (‫ )ארזים‬in v. 9. The psalm then focuses on the animal world in v. 10, more specifically the wild beasts (‫)החיה‬, cattle (‫)בהמה‬, creeping things (‫)רמש‬, and winged birds (‫)וצפור כנף‬.106 The last part turns to humans, starting with kings of the earth (‫)מלכי־ארץ‬, people (‫)לאמים‬, princes (‫)שרים‬, and judges of the earth (‫ )שפטי ארץ‬in v. 11, followed by young men (‫)בחורים‬, young women (‫)בתולות‬, oldsters (‫)זקנים‬, and youngsters (‫ )נערים‬in v. 12. So put, all human kind is to praise, regardless of status, gender, or age,107 and the stanza concludes in a way similar to the first 101

Goldingay 2008, 730, understands the term as designating YHWH’s “aides,” while deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 1003, opt for “messengers.” Cf. perhaps Pss 103:19–21 or 104:1–4, although they do no mention YHWH (Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 636). 102 Some have interpreted the use of the plural in v. 4a as an indication of the idea of different spheres or divisions of the heavens (cf. Neh 9:6; T. Levi 2:7–10; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 636). 103 Cf. Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 613; deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 1003–4. Zenger’s suggestion that ‫ צוה‬is an “echo of a reference to Torah” is not necessary (Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 636), and thus, the link he suggests between Ps 148:5–6 and Ps 147:19–20 by means of “Torah theology” is not convincing (Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 639; cf. Ballhorn 2004, 318). 104 Cf. Goldingay 2008, 731. There is no need to consider v. 6b a later addition (contra Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 637). 105 deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 1004, see a possible connection to Ps 147:15, 18, while Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 613, suggest that the reference to snow, frost, and hail “brings to mind” Ps 147:16–17. 106 For these descriptions, cf. Gen 1:21, 24–25, although there is no exact overlap. A possible background to these lists has been seen in Egyptian encyclopaedic lists. For an early discussion, see, Hillers 1978, 329–34 (who ends up refuting the connection). 107 Contra Allen 2002, 394: “a religious community gathered in Jerusalem.”

262

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

stanza. Here, though, the reason to praise is that “his name alone is exalted” (‫כי‬ ‫נשגב שמו לבדו‬, v. 13b) and that “his glory is above earth and heaven” (‫הודו‬ ‫על־ארץ ושמים‬, v. 13c).108 Consequently, focus is on the incomparability of (the name of) YHWH,109 who is also described as having raised up a horn for his people. So put, v. 14a introduces a somewhat new focus on the people, and as mentioned above, there has been a discussion about how to understand the place and function of vv. 13–14. To this I now turn. 1. A Praise for All His Faithful As regularly pointed out, there is some tension between v. 14 and the rest of the psalm as new features are introduced, and taken with v. 13, the two verses read as follows: ‫ יהללו את־שם יהוה‬13a They are to praise the name of YHWH, ‫ כי־נשגב שמו לבדו‬13b for his name alone is exalted, ‫ הודו על־ארץ ושמים‬13c his glory is above earth and heaven, ‫ וירם קרן לעמו‬14a and he has raised up a horn for his people, ‫ תהלה לכל־חסידיו‬14b a praise for all his faithful, ‫ לבני ישראל עם־קרבו‬14c for the people of Israel who are close to him. ‫ הללו־יה‬14d Hallelujah!

The most apparent tension is the mentioning of the people, especially the description of them as “his faithful” (‫)חסידיו‬, and as “close to him” (‫)קרבו‬, since they are not found in the rest of the psalm. In fact, the psalm is quite general prior to these verses, it does not mention any specific groups, but rather uses categories to express a totality. Furthermore, as related to v. 14a, most would agree that the raising up of a horn is a metaphor for strength, the bestowal of dignity, or the like (cf. Deut 33:17; 1 Sam 2:1, 10; Zech 2:4; Pss 75:11; 89:18; 92:11; 112:9; 132:17; Lam 2:17; 1 Chr 25:5),110 possibly with some military connotation,111 but the actual purpose or context for such a bestowing of strength is not clear.112 Moreover, the translation of ‫ תהלה‬is not straight for108

The unusual order, which is found only in Gen 2:4b, has been argued by Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 631, to relate invertedly to vv. 1 (“heaven”) and 7a (“earth”) respectively, forming a chiasm. On the whole, Ps 148 has several overlaps with both Gen 1 and Ps 33, and some have regarded it as “eine eine hymnische umsetzung von Gen 1” (so Zenger 2003, 146). 109 Cf. Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 613. 110 Zenger 1999, 119; Allen 2002, 394; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 638; Mays 2011, 445; cf. Weiser 1962, 838. 111 Schmutzer & Gauthier 2009, 162; cf. Ballhorn 2004, 319, who argues that there are also possible messianic connotations here. 112 Cf. Kraus 1989, 564; Gerstenberger 2001, 450; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 638. Schmutzer & Gauthier 2009, 183, argue that the metaphor stresses Israel’s “political and military viability,” and so “prompts an eschatological praise,” that is, Pss 149:6 and 150:6.

Chapter 12. The ‘Final Hallel’

263

ward, and last, six of the seven words of v. 14bc, are found in Ps 149, while only one is found in Ps 148, (‫עם‬, attested in v. 14a only). To solve these issues, an early suggestion was to regard vv. 13c and 14a as a final bicolon, while reading v. 14bc as a paratext, either a subscription to Ps 148, designating the psalm as a “Tehillah for the all his faithful,”113 or as a displaced superscription to Ps 149.114 Both suggestions are interesting. One implication of the first would be that the Hallelujah framework is secondary, while the second suggestion would indicate that Pss 148 and 149 were transmitted together prior to the addition of the Hallelujah framework (which was then inserted in an odd place).115 Alternative views are provided by, for example, Hermann Spieckermann, who relates vv. 13c–14c to vv. 4–6 and argues that they all are later insertions, coming from the same hand,116 and Zenger, who suggests that v. 14 is to be related to the redaction of the final Hallel. In his view, it is not only intended to bring the previously independent Ps 148:1–13 closer to Ps 149, but to integrate it properly to the sequence Pss 146–150.117 2. Evaluating the Connections How, then, should these verses be evaluated? Beginning with v. 13a, its verbatim overlap with v. 5a makes it reasonable to posit that it belongs to the core psalm. The same applies to v. 13b, and the recapitulation of “earth and heaven” in v. 13c can be reasonably understood as part of a conclusion to the series of exhortations throughout the two stanzas. Ignoring v. 14a for the moment, it is equally clear that vv. 14b and 14c are quite different from vv. 1–13, and the fact that all but one term overlap with Ps 149 while no overlap is extant between the verses and vv. 1–13 makes it plausible to regard as a later addition. But what about v. 14a? And what would have motivated the addition in the first place? As will be suggested, the answer to the second question depends on the answer to the first.

113

This view traces back to Gunkel & Begrich 1985, 57, and is repeated in, e.g., Kraus 1989, 561, and Gerstenberger 2001, 447, 450–51. 114 So MacKenzie 1970. 115 MacKenzie 1970, 222, suggests that the entire sequence Pss 146–150 would have been “written one after the other in a series,” although he does not substantiate the claim. 116 Spieckermann 1989, 50–59. These additions are, furthermore, suggested to have been made with only Ps 148 in view, but that they provided reasons for the subsequent juxtaposition of Ps 148 with Ps 149 (57, n. 17). 117 Zenger 1997c, 17, with n. 45; Zenger 1997a, 101, with n. 17; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 647. See also Marttila 2006, 165–67, who understands the verse in light of a collectivizing reinterpretation of several psalms, in this case related to a group designated as the Hasidim (there are some overlaps with the Hasidim redaction proposed by Levin 1993). Some do, on the other hand, argue for the integrality of v. 14 (e.g., Allen 2002, 389–91; Ballhorn 2004, 318–21).

264

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

Although the sudden appearance of the people is surprising, the use of the wayyiqtol (‫)וירם‬, as well as the fact that the subject is only explicit in v. 13a could be interpreted as indicating a connection between v. 14a and v. 13c, so that v. 13 is to be understood not as a tricolon, but as two bicola (vv. 13ab, 13c.14a).118 If so, it would also follow that v. 14bc is to be understood as a separate bicolon, and possible support for such a view is found in an addition made to Ps 149:9 in 11Q5. While the Masoretic text reads ‫הדר הוא לכל־הסידיו הללו־יה‬, 11Q5 26 3 reads as follows (it is presented together with Ps 148:14bc, and the underlined words are the ones not found in the MT version of Ps 149:9): ‫הללו יה‬ ‫הללו יה‬

‫לבני ישראל עם־קרבו‬ ‫לבני ישראל עם קודשו‬

‫לכל־חסידיו‬ ‫לכול חסידיו‬

‫תהלה‬ ‫הדר הוא‬

Ps 148:14bc Ps 149:9bc

This similarity was noted already by Roderick A. F. MacKenzie, who found the parallel “obscure,” although it indicated to him that Ps 148:14bc should be considered as connected to Ps 149, rather than to Ps 148. Unfortunately, although Ps 148 is attested in the DSS, vv. 13–14 are no longer extant. On the basis of material reconstructions, it is, however, plausible that it included v. 14bc,119 but noteworthy is that the two psalms are not juxtaposed. There is also a noteworthy difference concerning the first verb used. If relating ‫ תהלה‬to the verb ‫ רום‬of Ps 148:14a, it has been suggested that the former could be read as “(he has raised) the renown,” thus possibly related to ‫ הודו‬in v. 13c.120 Such an understanding is found in several places throughout the Hebrew Bible (see, for example, Hab 3:3 and Ps 48:11, but also of Israel as the “object of praise” in, for example, Deut 26:19, Isa 62:7, Jer 13:11, 33:9, and Zeph 3:18–20), and Leslie C. Allen argues that the addition in 11Q5 26 3 (which he judges to be misplaced) indicates that such an understanding of ‫ תהלה‬was actually present there as well, since it is replaced with ‫הדר‬.121 However, in the context of Ps 148, a better solution would be to understand ‫ תהלה‬as expanding (as an explicative apposition)122 on the raising of the horn, thus rather translated as a “(reason for) praise.”123 Zenger observes that in the final Hallel, ‫ תהלה‬always designates praise, and if positing a redaction relating to Ps 149, the translation “praise” is to be preferred.124 Although the latter could be discussed,125 not least in the way 118

Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 630–31, make similar observations, but conclude that v. 14a is not parallel to v. 13c (635). For the pairing above, see also Spieckermann 1989, 51. 119 Cf. the reconstruction in Dahmen 2003, 72. 120 So Allen 2002, 390; cf. Clifford 2003, 313; Clines 2011, 8:596. 121 Allen 2002, 390. 122 Zenger 2003, 147, n. 20. Cf. Ballhorn 2004, 319, who regards the entire v. 14 as an explication of v. 13. 123 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 629. 124 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 630. 125 The suggestion by Zenger 2003, 154, that this praise would be equated with the ‘Book’ of Psalms is, for example, quite unfounded.

Chapter 12. The ‘Final Hallel’

265

the psalms are found in 11Q5, the translation is appealing, and could in fact provide the key to the relation between vv. 13–14. If understanding the 11Q5 version of Ps 149 as an indication that Ps 148:14bc, are best understood as a bicolon, and if regarding v. 14a as integral to the psalms for the reasons specified above, I would suggest that v. 14bc was likely added to the psalm as a way of specifying the referent of the otherwise vague mentioning of a people (‫ )עם‬in v. 14a. Such an addition would have been well in line with the theological stance of Ps 149, perhaps even crafted by the same hand, and although this does not mean that they were therefore juxtaposed, the addition brings them somewhat closer together. However, this addition seems quite unrelated to the addition of the Hallelujah framework, so that the latter was probably added even later. V. Psalm 149 Following Ps 148, Ps 149 expands fully on the notion of the “faithful” (‫)חסידים‬, as they occur in the first and last verse respectively, as well as in v. 5. Starting with the structure of the psalm, several features suggest a twofold structure, with v. 5 at an important turning point. Apart from the occurrence of ‫ הסידים‬in vv. 1, 5 and 9, the preposition ‫ ב‬seems deliberately used, once in vv. 1, 5, and 9 respectively, and twice in vv. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8.126 Furthermore, the exhortations to praise in vv. 1–3 are first followed by a motivation (v. 4), and then by a new call in vv. 5–6, which, in turn, is followed by elaborations and motivations in vv. 7–9.127 The latter relate to v. 6 by the use of three ‫ ל‬+ infinitive construct, and v. 6 relates to v. 5 due to the fact that the subject is only mentioned in the latter.128 In sum, the structure could be illustrated as the following:129 v. 1a Hallelujah vv. 1bc Exhortations to sing a new song in celebration of YHWH’s kingship vv. 2–3 Jussive exhortations praise vv. 4 Reasons (YHWH’s bestowal of royal characteristics on the people) vv. 5–6 Renewed call to praise vv. 7–9ab Conceptualization of the people as performing royal activities v. 9c Hallelujah

126

That is, preferring the reading ‫ בלאמים‬in v. 7 (cf. 11Q5 26 1). Cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 644. 128 Cf. Booij 2008a, 104–5. 129 A similar division was suggested already by Gunkel 1926, 52, and has been proposed by several scholars (cf. Füglister 1987, 83; Lohfink 1990, 121; Gerstenberger 2001, 452; Allen 2002, 399; Zenger 2003, 148; Ballhorn 2004, 323; Goldingay 2008, 737; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 644–45; Mays 2011, 446; deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 1005; Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 615). Alternative models are proposed by, e.g., Weiser 1962, 840; Tournay 1985, 349–50 (vv. 1–3, 4–6, 7–9); Alden 1978, 209–10 (a chiastic psalm centered upon vv. 5–6); and Prinsloo 1997, 399 (vv. 1–5, 6 [“nexus”], 7–9). 127

266

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

The psalm begins in v. 1 by calling for the singing of a new song (‫)שיר חדש‬: the praise of YHWH (‫ )תהלתו‬in the assembly (‫ )קהל‬of the ‫חסידים‬. These ‫ חסידים‬are likely to be identified with Israel (v. 2a), who are further designated as the “sons of Zion” (‫בני־ציון‬, v. 2b), the people of YHWH (v. 4a), and the “poor” (‫ענוים‬, v. 4b). The singing of a new song has parallels in Pss 33:3, 96:1, and 98:1, as well as in Isa 42:10 (cf. also Pss 40:4, 144:9), and the reason for such a new song has often been suggested as being related to some new or unexpected action by YHWH on behalf of his people,130 with clear connections to the reign of God.131 In v. 2, YHWH is described as both the maker of Israel (‫בעשיו‬, participle)132 and the king of Zion (‫)במלכם‬, thus evoking a juxtaposition of creation and royal reign similar to Isa 40–55 (cf. esp. Isa 42:10–17, but also, e.g., 43:15),133 and v. 3 describes the singing as accompanied by dance (‫)במחול‬, tambourine (‫)ברף‬, and lyre (‫)וכנור‬.134 Here, it is the name of YHWH that is to be praised (‫)יהללו שמו‬. Verse 4 then provides the reason (‫)כי‬: Israel is to praise because YHWH is taking pleasure in them (‫רוצה‬, participle, cf. perhaps Isa 42:1, 1 Chr 28:4), and adorns them with victory (‫)יפאר ענוים בישועה‬, thus manifesting his reign.135 The second stanza is introduced by vv. 5–6. While v. 5 is fairly straightforward and in some respects continues v. 4 as it calls the ‫ חסידים‬to exult in glory (‫ )בכבוד‬and sing for joy on their beds (‫)ירננו על־משכבותם‬, v. 6 has caused some trouble for commentators.136 The verse reads as the following:

130 So Zenger 2003, 148; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 647; cf. Gerstenberger 2001, 453. Some connect these actions to the future (Terrien 2003b, 924). Studying only the four psalms, Patterson 2007 argues that they constitute a “subtype of praise psalms” (430), with certain shared features. Shared features are also surveyed by Ballhorn 2004, 324, and Tremper Longman III argues that the expression always occur in the context of “holy war” (Longman III 1982, 301; Longman III 1984, 269). 131 Cf. deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 1006. 132 Probably to be understood as singular (cf. Kautzsch 1910, 399), or an honorific plural (cf. Goldingay 2008, 736; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 642). Ceresko 1986, 180, with n. 16, follows Dahood 1970, 356–57, and suggests “supreme maker.” The act of bringing Israel into existence has a possible parallel in the exodus, although the use of the participle more likely stresses the act as ongoing (cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 648). 133 Cf. Füglister 1987, 84; Goldingay 2008, 739. 134 For the unusual pairing of dancing with tambourines, see below, p. 272. 135 Cf. Barstad 2004, 621; Mays 2011, 447. The interpretation of the phrase is not straightforward. ‫ פאר‬occurs only here in the ‘Book’ of Psalms, and only 13 times in the Hebrew Bible, of which nine are in Isaiah. Illuminating for Ps 149 is perhaps its occurrence in Isa 55:5 (cf. also Isa 60:9, 61:3), where it is also used together with ‫ רצה‬in describing a transfer of promises from David to the people (for this text, see Willgren Fca). Thus, a notion of kingship serves as a backdrop, and this is probably the case in Ps 149 as well (see below), so that ‫ פאר‬could be understood as “adorn,” or perhaps even “crowns.” 136 For the relation to v. 4, cf. Allen 2002, 400. For an overview over various suggestions as to the interpretation of the “beds”, see Booij 2008a, 105–7; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 642–

Chapter 12. The ‘Final Hallel’

‫רוממות אל בגרונם‬ ‫וחרב פיפיות בידם‬

6a 6b

267

High praises of God in their throats and a two-edged sword in their hand

Not only do the following verses take quite an unexpected turn towards highly military language, causing Brueggemann’s well-known retreat (“I do not know what to make of this, for it is quite unexpected in the hymns”),137 but the relation between the two cola in v. 6 itself is also somewhat enigmatic. Consequently, I will return to the verse after having surveyed the rest of the psalm. In vv. 7–9, the people are envisaged as executing vengeance among the nations (‫)לעשות נקמה בגוים‬. The notion of vengeance is, alongside v. 6, one of the aspects of the psalm deemed the most problematic, and the context seems to be that of (just) punishment (for example retribution, compare Ps 94:1, where it is spoken of the ‫אל־נקמות‬, “God of vengeance”).138 As it stands, it forms part of the three verses introduced by a ‫ ל‬+ infinitive, and consequently, the latter are probably to be understood as expressing the “purpose or mode of an action,” expanding on v. 6.139 The imagery used, one of punishment among the people, binding of kings and nobles (‫ונכבדיהם‬, cf. v. 5), and judgment among them, has been pointed out to overlap with both Isa 40–66 (especially Isa 61, but also compare v. 7 with, for example, Isa 45:14)140 and Ps 2.141 The latter has been argued to be significant due to the placement of the psalms in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, with Ps 2 as the second psalm and Ps 149 as the penultimate psalm. As well as some similar uses of terms (compare the pairing of ‫ גוים‬and ‫ אמים‬in Ps 149:7 with the pairing of ‫ גוים‬and ‫ לאם‬in Ps 2:1; the use of ‫ ברזל‬in Ps 2:9 and Ps 149:8, both in the context of defeating kings; and ‫ גיל‬in Pss 2:11, 149:2), the basic theme is also similar in both psalms – the defeat of opposition from kings of the earth (Pss 2:2, 149:8) in establishing the kingdom of YHWH, emanating from Zion (Pss 2:6, 149:2) – but herein also lies a fundamental difference. While Ps 2 features a king on Zion who breaks the kings with a rod of iron, Ps 149 rather has the sons of Zion (the people) binding kings and nobles with iron

43. It is probably to be understood as underscoring the never-ending aspect of the praise, that is, not ceasing even during night time (Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 651; cf. Barré 1995, 54–55, who argues that v. 5 focus on “interiority,” and so indicates that what is implied is “spontaneous, personal joy,” in contrast to the “public, ‘ritual’ exultation of v. 1). 137 Brueggemann 1984, 166. Mays 2011, 448, puts it like this: “Something wonderful and strange is afoot here, the lowly becoming the warriors who fight for the kingdom and inherit the earth.” 138 Cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 651–52; deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 1007. Goldingay 2008, 741–42, prefers the term “redress.” 139 Cf. Gerstenberger 2001, 454. 140 Cf. Gosse 1994, 260–61; Goldingay 2008, 742. 141 See, e.g., Gosse 1994, 259; Zenger 1997c, 19–20; Gerstenberger 2001, 456; Ballhorn 2004, 336–39; deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 1005.

268

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

chains.142 In both cases, however, the reign of YHWH is ultimately in the background (cf. the analysis of Ps 2, pp. 147–54 above), enforced by the violent acts described. Ultimately, the divine and human acts are seen as intertwined (compare perhaps Judg 5:11, but in clear contrast to what was argued for Pss 135– 136), so that the people are invited to join in God’s work in the world, including the execution of judgment (v. 9).143 The mentioning of a written document (‫ )משפט כתוב‬in relation to the judgment is puzzling, as no referent is specified, although it is clearly a divine word.144 The final verse, v. 9, also recapitulates v. 1 and v. 5 by the mentioning of the ‫חסידים‬, and the use of ‫“( הדר‬glory,” “honor,” “majesty”) could be understood as recapitulating the ‫ כבוד‬of v. 5. If so, the whole second stanza would in fact expand on the glory of the people.145 If returning to v. 6, it is often suggested that a key lies in how to understand the waw in 6b. Three suggestions have had a significant impact.146 A first proposal is formulated by Raymond J. Tournay, and understands the waw as a waw adaequationis.147 The implication is that the two cola are to be understood as a simile (“high praises of God in their throats as a two-edged sword in their hand”),148 and according to Tournay, such a use is well attested, especially in proverbs and didactic texts, and would solve the problem with the military language, as it would not have been intended to be taken literally.149 Surprising, however, is that the material surveyed goes beyond actual occurrences of waw, leading to the suggestion that sometimes the waw adaequationis is not even expressed.150 As argued by both Gottfried Vanoni and Jochen Sautermeister, the suggestion is, however, implausible, not least in light of the use of infinitives in 142

Cf. Mays 2011, 448. Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 616; cf. McCann Jr. 1996, 1276–77; Ballhorn 2004, 325; Goldingay 2008, 741; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 650–51. This is perhaps seen also in the use of ‫עשה‬, which relates to YHWH in v. 2, but to the people in vv. 7, 9. 144 Suggestions range from the Torah, the prophets, or even the psalms (cf. Füglister 1987, 90–91; Ballhorn 2004, 330–31; Goldingay 2008, 743; Mays 2011, 447). Weiser 1962, 840, suggests a recounting of the “destruction of the pagan nations of Canaan,” fixed in writing. 145 Allen 2002, 398; Mays 2011, 446; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 652. As with ‫כבוד‬, ‫ הדר‬is to be understood as related to YHWH (following the interpretation of the 3 m. s. pronoun in Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 643, 652). Thus, in both cases, the glory of the people is related to a partaking in the kingship of YHWH. 146 For a general overview of different approaches, see Sautermeister 2000, 65–69, who divides them into three categories: 1) “die historische Realinterpretation”; 2) “die eschatologische Interpretation”; and 3) “die comparatio- bzw. explicatio-Interpetation.” As will be seen below, there are some overlaps between all of them. 147 Tournay 1985, 351–52, followed by, e.g., Lohfink 1990, 124–25; Ballhorn 2004, 325. 148 Cf. also the Targum on Ps 149 (Stec 2004, 244). 149 Tournay 1985, 358: “N’est-ce pas dans le thème de la Parole divine, arme par excellence du croyant, que réside en réalité la nouveauté du Ps 149?” Cf. Terrien 2003b, 926. 150 Tournay 1985, 352, pointing to, e.g., Jer 17:11 and Job 24:19. 143

Chapter 12. The ‘Final Hallel’

269

the following verses, but more so because of the fact that the regular use of the waw adaequationis is that the first line serves as the point of comparison, rather than the second (“like high praises of God in their throats is the two-edged sword in their hand”).151 Another suggestion, although quite similar, is proposed by Zenger, who argues for a waw explicativum, resulting in the translation “high praises of God in their throats, and that is the two-edged sword in their hand.”152 In his view, the verses that follow are to be read as eschatological metaphors, illustrating the rescue of the poor, the judgment of the oppressors and the creation or restoration of the order of justice.153 Consequently, it is Israel’s praise that accomplishes what is envisaged in vv. 7–9, as with Tournay.154 In relation to the first, Ballhorn even suggests that the actual songs of praise themselves are in view, that is, the ‘Book’ of Psalms.155 A third possibility is to take vv. 6–9 literally, arguing that the problem with v. 6 is evoked by a failure to recognize the “ancient (and modern) realities of theologically sanctioned violence.”156 Points of comparison would then rather be passages like, for example, Neh 4 and 2 Chr 20.157 As noted here, there are some overlaps, not least in the role associated to the singing of praises,158 but ultimately, the psalm itself does not provide enough clues to settle the debate. However, if taking the possible relation to Ps 2 seriously, one could argue that the function of vv. 7–9 is primarily to conceptualize the people as a royal people, transferring actions previously associated with the king to the people. Thus, just as Ps 2 does not primarily envisage an actual defeat of all the kings of the world, neither does Ps 149 convey the notion of explicit warfare, but rather, by means of using terms with royal connotations (not least ‫פאר‬, ‫)הדר‬, makes the people assume the role of the king as within the permeating concept of the kingship of YHWH (compare the vicarious ruler of Ps 2, see above, p. 150).159 If so, there is no need to posit an original eschatological

151

Vanoni 1991, 563–67; Sautermeister 2000, esp. 75–76. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 642–43, 651; cf. Zenger 1997b, 194; Zenger 2011, 1:48–55. 153 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 646. So put, it is seen as an “eschatological relecture” of Pss 96 and 98, inspired by Isa 40–66. 154 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 651. See also, e.g., Zenger 1997b, 188. 155 Ballhorn 2004, 325. Seeing ‫ רומם‬as referring to the ‘Book’ of Psalms, is, however, quite speculative. The noun is, for one, very rare, and not related to psalmody in the way Ballhorn proposes. 156 Gerstenberger 2001, 455; cf. Prinsloo 1997, 404–6. 157 See also Goldingay 2008, 741–43. Ceresko 1986 argues that an ancient memory rather than a contemporary strategy is in view. 158 See also Berman 2002, who argues that ‫( פיפיות‬with its literal sense of “a sword of mouths”) was almost universally used as a trope for the potency of speech. 159 Cf. Füglister 1987, 98–100, and the formulation by Kraus 1989, 567: “As recipients of grace, the Israelites may rule with Yahweh.” 152

270

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

reading of the psalm, although such readings are attested in its history of reception. If plausible, it should be clarified that this does not presume that Ps 149 was aware of the placement of Ps 2 within a collection, not even of Ps 2 itself, but rather that they share a similar way of conceptualizing kingship, and as I demonstrated in my analysis of Ps 2, such a conceptualization was quite widely attested in the ancient Near Eastern world. To conclude, Ps 149 emanates as fairly different from the rest of Pss 146– 150 (save for Ps 148:14bc), and the contrast to Ps 148 is seen, for example, in the role played by the kings and princes. While they are part of the praising creation in Ps 148, they are subdued in Ps 149. Consequently, Ps 149 is probably not to be seen as, for example, “eine eschatologisch-militante Zuspitzung von Ps 148.”160 VI. Psalm 150 Ps 150 is a psalm argued to bring “the story of the Psalter to a dramatic close,”161 although this is only the case in MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. Other constellations are found in both the LXX and the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls. If related to the final Hallel, however, it certainly holds an appropriate final position, is permeated with ‫( הלל‬the root is used 13 times throughout the six verses), and ultimately turns “the liturgical cry … into an entire psalm.”162 Although it has some hymnic characteristics, the sparse description of YHWH (v. 2) and the lack of motivation is surprising,163 and the main part of the psalm is rather concerned with various types of instruments. As for its structure, it could be divided into three parts according to the following:164 v. 1a Hallelujah v. 1bc Where v. 2 Why vv. 3–5 How vv. 6a Who v. 6b Hallelujah

The psalm sets out by focusing on where to praise God (‫אל‬, v. 1), and the place is specified as “in his sanctuary” (‫)בקדשו‬, “in the firmament of his might” (‫ברקיע עזו‬, cf. Gen 1, Ezek 1:22–26). The latter possibly relates to the heavenly 160

Ballhorn 2004, 338. deClaissé-Walford 1997, 102. 162 Mays 2011, 449. 163 Cf. Brueggemann 1991, 66–69. It is often noted that the psalm does not contain any praise per se, but rather an extended call to praise, although Ballhorn 2004, 345, is probably correct when stating that “[d]er Aufruf wird selbst zum Lob.” 164 Cf. Gerstenberger 2001, 458; Goldingay 2008, 747; Mays 2011, 450; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 655–6; deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 1009; Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 618. 161

Chapter 12. The ‘Final Hallel’

271

realm (cf., e.g., Ps 19:2), and the former could refer to either some earthly temple or to heaven, but the intention is reasonably to evoke the notion of totality. Thus, praise of YHWH is to be given from everywhere.165 The use of ‫ רקיע‬further implicates a notion of YHWH as the one keeping the world safe,166 while ‫ עזו‬has royal connotations (cf., e.g., Pss 29:1, 93:1, 96:6, and 99:4). Interestingly, this way of referring to a sanctuary is also found in Ps 68:25–26, where it clearly refers to an earthly temple. The verses also overlap with Ps 150 in describing a musical procession: ‫ ראו הליכותיך אלהים‬25a Your solemn processions are seen, O God, ‫ הליכות אלי מלכי בקדש‬25b the processions of my God, my King, into the sanctuary – ‫ קדמו שרים אחר נגנים‬26a the singers in front, the musicians last, ‫ בתוך עלמות תופפות‬26b between them girls playing tambourines

These verses are part of a longer description of a festive procession up to the Jerusalem temple, where all tribes are to join in (v. 28), and the sanctuary is the place where God dwells as king. Interesting to note is also the order of the procession, which could perhaps shed light on Ps 150:3–5 (cf. also Ps 98:5–6, see below). Moving on, the second verse answers the question “why?” in mentioning YHWH’s mighty deeds and surpassing greatness (‫ בגבורתיו‬and ‫)כרב גדלו‬. The first term is often used in retellings of YHWH’s salvific acts in history (Pss 66:7, 71:18, 106:2, 145:11–12). In vv. 3–5, a number of instruments are recounted. YHWH is to be praised with the sound of the horn (‫)בתקע שופר‬,167 with harp (‫)בנבל‬, lyre (‫)וכנור‬, timbrel (‫)בתף‬, dance (‫)ומחול‬, stringed instruments (‫)במנים‬, flute (‫)ועוגב‬, loud cymbals (‫)בצלצלי־שמע‬, and shouting cymbals (‫)בצלצלי תרועה‬. This presents a truly impressive orchestra, reasonably conveying a notion of totality, and an inquiry into which instruments are included and which are not, as well as into the sequence in which they occur, could provide some clues as to what is envisaged here. The horn (‫ )שופר‬was regularly used to summon people to a battle (Judg 6:34, 1 Sam 13:3, Jer 4:5) or a festival (Lev 25:6, Pss 81:4, 98:6), often connected to the proclaiming of the rule of YHWH (cf. Pss 47:6, 98:6).168 Giving a signal using the horn is probably not to be understood as accompanying the praise, but 165

Cf. the understanding of the temple as the place where heaven and earth join together. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 658, claim that the sanctuary would be the earthly one, since the psalm is “especially concerned with bringing together the earthly (v. 1b) and heavenly (v. 1c) praise of YHWH and filling the whole cosmos with it.” 166 That is, from the chaotic waters, cf. Brueggemann 1991, 69. 167 Ballhorn 2004, 346–47, understands the preposition ‫ ב‬in vv. 3–5 as a bet comitantiae, that is, understood as, e.g., “lobt ihn unter [rather than mit] Blasen des Schofars” (emphases mine). 168 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 659.

272

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

announcing it.169 Interesting is that the trumpet (‫)חצצרה‬, which is regularly associated with the priests (e.g. Num 10:1–10), is not mentioned in the psalm. Looking more broadly at the use of the two terms, it is also notable that 1–2 Chronicles seem to prefer the trumpet over the horn. The former is mentioned 19 times, while the horn only occurs in two passages, 1 Chr 15:28 and 2 Chr 15:14. In the first of these, there is overlap with 2 Sam 6:15, but while the passage in 2 Samuel only has the horn, 1 Chronicles features both horn and trumpet (as well as cymbals, harps, and lyres). 2 Chr 15:14 also juxtaposes the two. Consequently, it seems as if the context of use and perception of these instruments differ between Ps 150 and 1–2 Chronicles, so that the former has more in common with the (earlier?) use in 1–2 Samuel. Put differently, 1–2 Chronicles seem to reflect a period where the horn is no longer in use in the temple cult.170 Furthermore, while the horn is attested four times in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, the trumpet features only once, in Ps 98:6, together with the horn. This may suggest that the psalm was composed prior to 1–2 Chronicles,171 but at least implies that it does not quite relate to the vision of the temple cult as found in 1–2 Chronicles. The second pair is ‫ נבל‬and ‫כנור‬, both probably lyres,172 and an overview of the occurrences in the Hebrew Bible show that they often occur together, both during “secular” (e.g. Isa 5:12) and cultic (1 Chr 16:5) celebrations.173 In 1–2 Chronicles, they belong to the Levites (cf. 2 Chr 5:12–14), as is also commonly the case in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, although such a connection is not clear in DtrH (cf., e.g., 2 Sam 6:5, 1 Kgs 10:12). Third is the “tambourine” (‫)תף‬, probably a little hand drum often played by women in the Hebrew Bible,174 and the “dance” (‫)מחול‬. Apart from being juxtaposed in Ps 150 and Ps 149:3 (see above, p. 266) they both occur in Exod 15:20, Judg 11:34, 1 Sam 18:6, and Jer 31:4. None of these passages are explicitly associated with any temple cult,175 but rather depict the tambourine and dance as used in joyful celebrations, often following a victory of some kind.176 169

Cf. Allen 2002, 404; Ballhorn 2004, 350–51. The horn also acquired symbolic meaning over time, for example, as a symbol of national and ethnic identity (so Braun 2002, 27), or connected with oracles of the day of YHWH (Isa 27:13). 170 Cf. Keel 1997, 342, who mentions that the horn is the only instrument to have survived into the synagogue, and that this possibly has to do with it being taken out of use in the temple. 171 Allen 2002, 402, or even preexilic (Goldingay 2008, 747); cf. Keel 1997, 342. Notable is that LXX translates ‫ שופר‬with σάλπιìος (“trumpet”), the same word used to translate ‫חצצרה‬. 172 So Braun 2002, 22; cf. Kraus 1989, 571. 173 Braun 2002, 18–19: cf. Keel 1997, 347–49 174 Braun 2002, 29–31. 175 Cf. Goldingay 2008, 749. 176 Cf. Ballhorn 2004, 352. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 649.

Chapter 12. The ‘Final Hallel’

273

The tambourine also occurs together with a range of other instruments (Gen 31:27, 1 Sam 10:5, 2 Sam 6:5, Isa 5:12, 24:8, 30:32, Ps 81:3, Job 21:12, and 1 Chr 13:8)177 where a similar context seems to be in view, although they are also part of the cultic procession in Ps 68:26 (‫תפף‬, cf. above, p. 271). The two instruments that follow are more obscure. While ‫ מנים‬might be a generic term for stringed instruments,178 ‫ עוגב‬could be some kind of flute (perhaps also a generic term).179 Both are used very sparsely in the Hebrew Bible. Apart from the occurrence in Ps 150, ‫ מנים‬is only found once (Ps 45:9; cf. also Si 39:15, which reads ‫)כלי מינים‬,180 and ‫ עוגב‬thrice (Gen 4:21, Job 21:12, 30:31),181 and they seem to have been used at festive occasions not primarily associated with any temple cult. Thus, it seems as if v. 4 has the people’s praising of YHWH in view, and that this act of praise does not take place in the temple.182 Moving on to v. 5, the cymbals (‫ )צלצלים‬feature twice, first “loud” (‫ )שמע‬and then “shouting” (‫)תרועה‬.183 Interestingly, ‫ צלצלים‬occurs only once outside Ps 150 (in 2 Sam 6:5), and as with the horn, it is substituted in the parallel passage in 1 Chr 13:8 by a more common word for cymbal (‫מצלתים‬, used 13 times in the Hebrew Bible, exclusively in Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1–2 Chronicles, always belonging to the Levites): 2 Sam 6:5 ‫ודוד וכל־בית ישראל משחקים לפני יהוה בכל עצי ברושים ובכנרות ובנבלים ובתפים‬ ‫ובמנענעים ובצלצלים‬ David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating before YHWH with everything made of fir tree and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals. 1 Chr 13:8 ‫ודויד וכל־ישראל משחקים לפני האלהים בכל־עז ובשירים ובכנרות ובנבלים ובתפים‬ ‫ובמצלתים ובחצצרות‬

177 Keel 1997, 340, suggests that its sparse use in 1–2 Chronicles is intentional, and refers to the banning of the tambourine from temple music in later times. 178 This has been the main view since Pfeiffer 1779. 179 Keel 1997, 344–45. Braun 2002, 32, suggests a long flute. 180 Cf. Clines 2011, 5:336–37. 181 Perhaps also in Ezek 33:32. Cf. also 11Q5 28 4, where the context suggests a stringed instrument (Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 661). 182 Cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 661. 183 Cf. the suggestion by Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 618, that the parallelism of Ps 150 is one of intensification (the second line being louder). It has also been suggested that the two cola refer to different ways of playing, rather than different instruments (Keel 1997, 340). For ‫תרועה‬, cf. perhaps the use of ‫ רוע‬in the celebration of the rule of YHWH in Pss 66:1; 95:1; 98:4, 6; 100:1.

274

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

David and all Israel was celebrating before God with all their might, with song and lyres and harps and tambourines and cymbals and trumpets.

By some very slight changes made to the text of 2 Sam 6:5 (the consonants are largely the same), the passage in 1 Chronicles is first omitting any reference to the fir tree, and then substitutes the castanets with the priestly trumpet, as well as ‫ צלצלים‬with ‫מצלתים‬. The result is a description more in line with the perception of temple music in 1–2 Chronicles, and it has been suggested that the exclusion of some instruments was motivated by their association with pagan cults.184 Consequently, the contrast between the use of instruments in 1–2 Chronicles and Ps 150 is further underscored. Taking a step back, a clear progression is seen throughout these verses. If compared to Ps 68:25–26, it would not be described as a procession to the temple, but rather an outward-moving exhortation to praise.185 Announced by the horn, the exhortations are first directed at Levitical singers but then moves away from the temple, involving the entire people, before reaching its climax186 which is announced by the cymbals and proclaimed in v. 6: “Let everything that breathes praise the Lord!” (‫)כל הנשמה תהלל יה‬.187 Consequently, Ps 150 invites everybody (all humanity) to praise YHWH, and this is a praise where music has a central place, although it is not depicted as exclusively temple music but rather relates to a great number of various contexts in which instruments were used (including the temple).188 As for the final Hallelujah, it is possibly to be seen as integral to v. 6, forming a bicolon with v. 6a.189

184 For the castanets, see Braun 2002, 19, and for the ‫צלצלים‬, see 107–10. The LXX uses the same word to translate both ‫ צלצלים‬and ‫מצלתים‬: κύµβαλον (cymbals). 185 Thus similar to Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 659 (cf. also Janowski 2010, 301), although the stress on the “symbolic topography of the second Jerusalem Temple” with “spaces of increasing holiness concentrically arranged about the central point of the Holy of Holies” is not quite necessary (quoting Hartenstein; cf. Hartenstein & Janowski 2012, 51–52). 186 Cf. Allen 2002, 403; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 663; Brueggemann & Bellinger Jr. 2014, 619. 187 As it stands, ‫ כל הנשמה‬is probably to be understood to be referring to all humans (so also, e.g., Clines 2011, 5:779; Mays 2011, 450–51; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 663–64), rather than all created beings (cf. Gen 7:22; Kidner 1975, 529; McCann Jr. 1996, 1279; Terrien 2003b, 929). 188 So also Ballhorn 2004, 352. Consequently, there is no direct warrant for the suggestion by Zenger 1999, 119, that Ps 150 “nimmt einerseits die Szenerie der Tempelmusik auf und transformiert sie andereseits zum metaphorischen Kontext der nicht-liturgischen Psalmenrezitation.” 189 Goldingay 2008, 749. Cf. perhaps the LXX, where v. 6 contains the only occurrence of a Hallelujah at the end of a psalm.

Chapter 12. The ‘Final Hallel’

275

B. Psalms 145.146–150 as a Composition Having provided an overview of Pss 145–150, what, then, can be said about the often-repeated notion of an intentionally compiled collection, a notion regularly accompanied with the idea of a “composition” in the singular?190 In this view, each psalm is supposed to relate in some way not only to the psalms to which it is juxtaposed, but also to carry on their themes, almost evoking the notion of a developing plot. Related to their current place in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, some have, furthermore, regarded them almost as an epilogue,191 with Ps 145 as an “overture”192 and Ps 150 providing a “klangvollem ‘Schlussstein’.”193 Moreover, they would relate back to Pss 1–2, so that the overall shape and perception of the (MT) ‘Book’ of Psalms is affected. In such a line of argument, Ps 146 has been spoken of as the response of David himself to the first half of Ps 145:21,194 or that, in Ps 147, Israel and Jerusalem join the chorus, followed by the joining of angels Ps 148, only to revert back to the people in Ps 149, ultimately leading to the final Ps 150 “toward which the whole hallel has been building.”195 These, and similar readings, have been proposed by several scholars, not least by Zenger, who understands practically every verbatim overlap between these psalms as indicative of the intentionality of the juxtaposition, with the suggested additions of vv. 1–11 to Ps 147 and v. 14 to Ps 148 as cases in point. As noted above, he views Pss 146–150 as concentrically arranged around Ps 148 to “develop” an (eschatological) “program” centered around the “bringing-to-perfection of creation and history” by YHWH, Lord and king.196 However, such suggestions are quite problematic for a number of reasons. For one, the discussions are not always put into dialogue with the material culture in which the collections were created. Moreover, I would claim that arguments for intentional juxtaposition are not always properly distinguished from readings proceeding such a notion. To clarify these issues, I will expand on them both below, starting with a brief revisiting of the ways in which Pss 145– 150 are found throughout the MT, the LXX, and the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls.

190 Cf. the use of the term composition in Leuenberger 2004, 360; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 606; or “Gesamttext” in Ballhorn 2004, 25–30. Cf. Millard 1994, 145, who argues that “das kleine Hallel insgesamt als Abschluß des Psalters komponiert sind.” 191 Zenger 1997c, 13. 192 Mays 2011, 439. 193 Janowski 2010, 305. 194 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 606, see also above, p. 251, with n. 42. 195 Wilson 1985a, 193–94. DeClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, & Tanner 2014, 994, even speak of the ‘Book’ of Psalms having a “theme” (sg.), with Ps 145 as a summary statement of it. 196 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 41.

276

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

I. Psalms 145.146–150 and Artifactual Diversity Looking first at the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls, parts of Pss 145.146–150 are possibly found on a total of four scrolls, and interestingly, only one of these has the psalms in a sequence congruent with the Masoretic arrangement (Mas1f has Pss 147[ → 148 → 149 → ]150 → End of Scroll).197 As for the others, 4Q86 possibly preserves the sequence Pss 106 → 147 → 104, while 11Q5 (cf. also possibly 4Q87) preserves Pss 146, 147, and 148 in a sequence of psalms including, among others, Pss 104 → 147 → 105 → 146 → 148 [ → 120], while Pss 149–150 are found juxtaposed as Pss 143 → 149 → 150 → Hymn to the Creator. Furthermore, the LXX features Ps 151 at the end of the sequence, and divides Ps 147 in two parts, thus compromising the concentric understanding proposed by Zenger, for example. Seen in light of the artifactual diversity observed in my overview of ancient anthologies, this variation should not be surprising, and at least provides a warrant against proceeding from a MT sequence as a default mode when analyzing lexical links. As I have argued elsewhere, this point is enforced considerably if looking at the lexical links created by such basic acts as re-arranging psalms (that is, without changing their semantic content in any significant way).198 More specifically, I showed that in the case of Ps 147, of all the four sequences in which it was found, the MT sequence revealed the least number of lexical links. Consequently, the possibility of using lexical links to establish notions of intended sequential readings of psalms is shown to be problematic, as is the use of the Masoretic sequence as a default mode. II. Dissolving Borders of Sequential Reading To illustrate the often-intertwined presuppositions of and actual arguments for seeing the specific MT sequence Pss 145.146–150 as an intended, unified composition, I have chosen to quote part of Zenger’s discussion of the integrality of Ps 149 in this sequence.199 In this fairly extensive quote, I have italicized and underlined the main arguments presented in an attempt to differentiate between them. While italics demarcate arguments that serve as the foundation for establishing intentional juxtaposition, the underlined parts reveal the presuppositions, as well as the readings following from the presuppositions. Consequently, the latter should not be regarded as arguments, but rather as results. For one thing, Psalm 149 is, within the five-part composition of Psalms 146–150, the Ziontheology counterpart to Psalm 147, with which it shares multiple keywords and motifs … 197

For an overview of the scrolls and how they might be reconstructed, see Part III. See Willgren Fcb. 199 The discussion is a response to an argument proposed by Leuenberger 2004, 355–58, that Ps 149 is to be considered a later insertion into the final Hallel. For the discussion of unifying factors, (not least keywords) throughout all of Pss 146–150, see 346–60. 198

Chapter 12. The ‘Final Hallel’

277

Psalms 147 and 149 also stand out within the composition of Psalms 146–150 because both have multiple verbs for “praise,” while Psalms 146, 148 and 150 concentrate (almost exclusively) on the verb ‫ הלל‬for “praise.” In addition, Psalm 149 is the dramaturgically necessary transition from Psalms 146–148 to Psalm 150: Psalms 146–148 propose the vision of the restoration of the universal world order that is then celebrated in Psalm 150; Psalm 149 celebrates Israel as YHWH’s instrument for this restoration. The close connection between Psalms 149 and 150 is underscored by a number of keyword references … Psalm 150 in a sense describes the result of the intervention of YHWH proposed in Psalm 149 on behalf of Israel and, through Israel, on behalf of the nations–with the very purpose of establishing the universal royal rule that is programatically proposed in Psalm 145 and longed for in Ps 146:10.200

If my analysis is somewhat on point, the actual basis for regarding Pss 146–150 as a unified collection is far less impressive than what might have been suspected. Ultimately, it rests on the identification of keywords and shared themes, but if they are unsatisfactory tools, not only because many of Zenger’s suggestions are quite common terms in the Hebrew Bible but more so in light of the artifactual diversity, not much remains of the foundation for a sequential reading of the five psalms. If reasonable, it also becomes clear that the reading of Pss 146–150 as a (unified) conclusion to the ‘Book’ of Psalms has led to a somewhat unwarranted emphasis of certain themes present in Pss 1–2, as they are argued to be corresponding with Pss 145.146–150 in some way. Most apparent is the focus on torah (Ps 1),201 and on messianic expectations (Ps 2). Although several of the psalms were noted above to feature some kind of statute (Ps 147:19–20, 148:6b) or written ordinance (Ps 149:9a) the actual word ‫ תורה‬was never used (as it was in Ps 1), and the action described was never to “meditate” (as in Ps 1), or something similar. Furthermore, the referent of the statues and ordinances are often obscure (with Ps 147:19–20 as the possible exception), and the very last psalm, which would form the essential psalm from a framework perspective, does not feature any of these words. Rather, the focus is quite different, so that, for example, the suggestion by Zenger that Pss 146–150 depicts “ein Israel der Armen bzw. der Ḥasidim, die gerade in der Bedrängnis ihre Kraft in JHWH suchen und finden – im Gehorsam zur Tora und im Rezitieren der Psalmen,”202 becomes rather implausible. The same could be said about the relating of Ps 149 to Ps 2. Although overlapping, I argued that their similarities were more likely to be due to similar conceptualizations of kingship than the result of the shaping of a collection. More examples could be adduced, such as the imposing of the notion of David laying down his crown on psalms that have very little to 200 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 653. To this, Zenger would also add additional arguments, not least the resemblance between Ps 149 and Ps 148:14 (Zenger 1997c, 17). 201 Cf. Ballhorn 2004, 341–42: “Wenn das Schlußhallel ein symmetrisches Gegenstück zum ‘Portal des Psalters’, zu Ps 1f., wäre, dann dürfte dieses Thema keinesfalls fehlen.” 202 Zenger 1997c, 19; Zenger 1997b, 193.

278

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

do with David,203 but the basic point would be the same: the Hallelujah frameworks were not intended as borders of sequential reading. How, then, should these psalms be understood? First, the fact that the psalms all share Hallelujah frameworks is probably significant, as is the recurrent use of the root ‫הלל‬. Basically, it could be suggested that similarities between these psalms (the most explicit being the relation between Ps 148:14bc, and Ps 149, but also such features as the focus on kingship) might have provided the basis for them being juxtaposed. As seen in the analysis, they were often influenced by earlier texts that shared a similar focus (especially Pss 33, 96, 98, 100, and Isa 40–66), although significant differences were also observed (for example, the focus on the care for the downtrodden in Pss 145, 146, and 149). Furthermore, their specific use of Hallelujah which is shared only with a handful of other psalms in the ‘Book’ of Psalms probably resulted in them being understood as similar kinds of compositions, thus possible to transmit together in various constellations, as seen in the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls. Their overall doxological tone would, then, render plausible that they were intended as an extended, concluding doxology in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. Consequently, even if not providing interpretive keys to the ‘Book’ of Psalms in any literary sense, it would be reasonable to posit that the placing of five Hallelujah psalms at the end of a collection of psalms which had very few psalms with similar superscriptions would be indicative of their concluding function. If so, it would also be important to inquire into the other observed occurrences of Hallelujah (cf. above, p. 258) to see if some general patterns emerge.

C. The Hallelujah Frameworks Once Again As presented in the discussion of the superscriptions, the MT displays a rather complex use of Hallelujah (attested in Pss 104–106, 111–117, 135, and 146– 150) when compared to, for example, the LXX which had a more coherent handling of the term. Furthermore, I suggested in my analyses above that some seemed to be integrated into the actual psalm, especially in Ps 147:1 and 150:6, thus encouraging a necessary caution to not automatically assume that all attested Hallelujahs trace back to, say, the same redaction.204 Consequently, I now attempt to provide a brief survey of the psalms in question, with focus on the relation between the psalm proper and the Hallelujah. I will then relate these findings to each other, and suggest ways forward for how to systematize the

203

Ballhorn 2004, 317; cf. Wilson 1985a, 226; Millard 1994, 145; deClaissé-Walford 1997, 100; Wittman 2014, 66. 204 A similar point is made by Gerstenberger 2001, 447.

Chapter 12. The ‘Final Hallel’

279

way in which Hallelujahs might have been added, and propose some ways in which the Hallelujah psalms might have affected the perception of the collection of psalms as a whole. Starting with the first occurrence in Ps 104, Hallelujah is attested in the last verse, where it follows the exhortation “Bless YHWH, O my soul” (‫ברכי נפשי‬ ‫)את־יהוה‬.205 Because this expression is found verbatim only in Ps 103:1, 2, 22, and Ps 104:1 in the Hebrew Bible, thus forming clear inclusios around both these psalms, and because Ps 103 does not have any Hallelujah, it is likely secondary to Ps 104.206 In Ps 105, it is also attested in the last line (v. 45),207 after a final bicolon. As it stands, it is not integrated syntactically in the psalm, and is probably to be considered secondary, although the matter is somewhat inconclusive. Last, as suggested above (see pp. 209–10), the Hallelujah of Ps 106:1 is probably a later addition, while the one occurring in the doxology (v. 48) might rather have been integral to the psalm.208 The next attestation of the term is in Ps 111, where it occurs in v. 1.209 Since the psalm is an acrostic, it is clearly secondary, although praise (‫ )תהלה‬also occurs in the last verse. This is likely also the case in the acrostic Ps 112, where it is placed first in a similar fashion (v. 1).210 In Ps 113, it occurs as a frame.211 Here, the first occurrence (v. 1) might be seen as part of the introducing exhortations to praise, extending throughout the first three verses, with v. 1 using ‫הלל‬ in the piel imperative thrice (‫הללו יה הללו עבדי יהוה הללו את־שם יהוה‬, cf. the discussion of Ps 135:1 above, pp. 232–34). The final Hallelujah is probably secondary, and was possibly originally attached to Ps 114, as it is otherwise the only psalm within a longer series of psalms without a Hallelujah. If so, it would clearly be secondary to Ps 114, as the psalm features distinct parallel statements throughout. Turning to Ps 115, it concludes with a Hallelujah in v. 18.212 Here, it is not necessarily an addition, as it fits quite neatly to the final verses (compare in particular the use of the short form ‫ יה‬in vv. 17–18, and the similarities to Ps 106:48). In Ps 116, however, it is probably secondary.213 Lastly, the very 205

So MT and 11Q5 (the line is not preserved in 4Q86). As noted above, the LXX treats Hallelujah consistently as a superscription. 206 Cf. Zenger 1998a, 77, n. 2; Allen 2002, 48. 207 So MT. It is probably to be reconstructed in 4Q87 and 11Q5. 208 So MT. They are not attested in the DSS, with the possible exception of v. 48 in 4Q86 (see above, p. 88). 209 So MT. The psalm is not attested in the DSS. 210 So MT. In 4Q98f, it was either not present, or was attested on a separate line (cf. above, n. 11, p. 86). 211 So MT. 4Q84 probably attests the Hallelujah of v. 1, written on a separate line, although the identification of Ps 113 is not “absolutely fixed” (Ulrich et al. 2000, 43). 212 4Q87 partly preserves the final Hallelujah and thus agrees with the MT. It is also reconstructed in 11Q8. 213 So MT. Verse 19 is attested in 4Q84, where a Hallelujah is possibly reconstructed on

280

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

short Ps 117 is permeated with praise, making the final Hallelujah (v. 2b) a fitting component, relating to the call to praise of v. 1.214 Apart from these occurrences, a Hallelujah also features in psalms already discussed. In Ps 135, I suggested that the Hallelujah of v. 1 could have been integrated, while the last was a later addition, and in Pss 146–150, all but Ps 147:1 and Ps 150:6 were suggested to be later additions. In sum, it seems as if most of the attested Hallelujahs are secondary, but probably not all. Being a first, tentative sketch of a more nuanced approach to the issue, the following suggestions have been made. As the psalms now read in their Masoretic versions, a Hallelujah was possibly (with various degrees of certainty) original to Pss 106:48, 113:1, 115:18, 117:2, 135:1, 147:1, and 150:6. Given this, it was probably added to Pss 104:35; 105:45; 106:1; 111:1; 112:1; 113:9 (originally Ps 114); 116:19; 135:21; 146:1, 10; 147:20; 148:1, 14; 149:1, 9; and 150:1. If tenable, several interesting features present themselves. First, no Davidic psalm has a Hallelujah, although one of them has ‫( תהלה‬Ps 145). Second, a Hallelujah is only added to psalms without any other superscription. Third, frameworks are created around Pss 106, 135, and 146–150 only, and fourth, the seemingly random addition of Hallelujahs in the sequence of Pss 111–117 might have its explanation in the already existing Hallelujahs. In all, the addition can be satisfactory explained if related to Masoretic-like sequences, and if plausible, the following scenario given below could be suggested. As described above (see pp. 242–43) a Hallelujah was possibly added to Ps 106 to create a framework around the psalm and separate it further from Ps 107, and such a move would have been made even clearer if Hallelujahs were added to Pss 104 and 105 at the same time. If so, it was not necessarily done based on an understanding of Ps 104 as a part of a “group,” but perhaps rather to supply a Hallelujah to psalms without a superscription (Ps 103 is attributed to David). Then, as it comes to the section including Pss 111–117, Hallelujahs were added to complement the three existing ones (Pss 113:1, 115:18, 117:2), and their addition could be understood in relation to the notion of adding Hallelujahs “between” psalms, as observed in the discussion of superscriptions above (pp. 187–90). As Ps 115 and 117 featured a Hallelujah in the last verse, so was a Hallelujah added at the bottom of Ps 116, that is, “between” Pss 116 and 117, and since Ps 113 featured a Hallelujah in the first verse, Hallelujahs were added to the first verse of Ps 111 and before Ps 112 (Ps 110 is attributed to David), that is, “between” Pss 111 and 112. The adding of Hallelujahs “between” psalms would also account for the addition of a Hallelujah now counted as part of Ps 113, thus originally placed “between” Pss 113 and 114. Furtherthe top of a column, while v. 19ab concludes the previous one (Flint 1997a, 129; Ulrich et al. 2000, 44–45). 214 So MT. The psalm is not attested in the DSS.

Chapter 12. The ‘Final Hallel’

281

more, in line with the argument above (pp. 242–43), Ps 135 was provided with a final Hallelujah to create a framework separating it from Ps 136, and frameworks were established around the five last psalms to demarcate the final Hallel. Admittedly, such additions would make most sense if the sequence of psalms to which the Hallelujahs were added was close to the MT-sequence, and if so, it seems as if these additions were made to enforce the fivefold division, while at the same time superseding the ‫ ברך‬doxologies (compare the analysis of Ps 145). The effect of these additions is that three sequences of psalms with Hallelujahs at each intersection are created, and consequently Pss 114 and 115 were probably considered as a single psalm.215 To illustrate this scenario further, I have provided an overview in Table 8 below. Although somewhat speculative in detail, the major strokes of this suggestion would indicate that prior to these additions, the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms would hardly have been perceived as a ‫ספר תהלים‬, as Hallelujahs were only rarely attested. However, having made the additions, as well as having juxtaposed Pss 145.146–150 into a final Hallel, this title makes much more sense. In fact, it would be reasonable to assume that the title in fact depends on such a formative stage.216

D. Conclusions As stated in the introduction, I have attempted to deal with the possible function of Pss 145.146–150 as a concluding doxology, and this was done in two sections. First, I analyzed each psalm separately, making several observations. For one, Ps 145 was argued to intentionally juxtapose ‫ ברך‬with ‫ הלל‬so that ‫הלל‬ was given the “upper hand.” Furthermore, I noted that Pss 146–150 used earlier psalms and traditions quite extensively, perhaps indicating a growing corpus of authoritative texts. They also continued to favor of ‫ הלל‬over ‫ברך‬, and shared a number of themes, the most prominent being the kingship of YHWH. An addition was observed in Ps 148:14bc, and I suggested that it was best seen as specifying the referent of an otherwise vague mentioning of a people in v. 14a, and that it was in line with the theological stance of Ps 149. In the second part, I explicitly addressed the notion of Pss 145.146–150 as an intentional unified composition and concluded that in light of the attested artifactual variations, the arguments for such a notion were all quite unconvincing. Given this, I argued that they were probably not intended to be read in se215 So also 4Q96, and many medieval manuscripts (Millard 1994, 13–14; cf. Yarchin 2015a, 12–15). 216 That the title is in some way dependent upon Pss 146–150 (or at least Ps 150) is regularly suggested (see, e.g., Miller 1986, 15, 67; Seybold 1990, 13, 15–16; Zenger 1998a, 78, n. 6).

282

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

quence, although the presence of shared vocabulary and themes could still be appropriately interpreted as providing the basis for their juxtaposition, a juxtaposition suggested to have been intended to create a final doxology to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. These observations were then related to the broader use of Hallelujah in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, and I suggested an approach to the question of their addition that was sensitive to the possibility that some might originally have been integral to the psalms of which they are now a part. Ultimately, it was the addition of these Hallelujahs that, together with the placing of Pss 145.146–150 at the end of the (MT) sequence, would provide the conceptualization of the collection as a ‫ספר תהלים‬. In sum, the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms ends with a series of exhortations, a fivefold doxology (perhaps pointing to both continuity and discontinuity with the previous fivefold ‘book’ division), and the differences as compared to the ‫ברך‬ doxologies surveyed in the last chapter will be important to bear in mind when I will later turn to an attempted reconstruction of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms (Part VI). It was noted, for example, that Pss 146–150 lacked any mention of torah, David, and Levites, used ‫ ברך‬only occasionally (Ps 147:13), and had a different conception of the temple cult than the one in 1–2 Chronicles (compare the use of instruments in Ps 150).

11Q5 149 150 = =

Key: Ψ Sp Sb -

147

147

148 149 150

148 149 150

= []

Attested Same as MT Reconstructed Not attested

145 146 147 148 149 150

146

146

LXX Psalm Superscription Subscription Lacks

134 135

Third stage: Consistent relocations of Hallelujah (LXX) 103 104 105 106 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118

135 136

135 136

116

Second stage: Hallelujah additions (MT) 104 105 106 107 111 112 113 114 115

117 118 119

117 118 119

116

First stage: Only some Hallelujahs integral (MT) 104 105 106 107 111 112 113 114 115

Other possible Hallelujah sequences (DSS) 11Q5 (=4Q87?) 4Q86 Ps 104 147 105 146 148 106 147 104 Sp = [-?] [+] [=] [=] Sb = [=] = [=?] [=] [=?]

Ψ Sp Sb

Ps Sp Sb

Ps Sp Sb

Table 8: Addition of Hallelujah

Chapter 12. The ‘Final Hallel’

283

Overview and Outlook Having inquired into possible peritexts in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, a number of observations have been made which all provide important clues concerning the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. Although it is not necessary to repeat them all here, the major strokes of the conclusions drawn would nevertheless be appropriate to revisit before turning to a new area of investigation. First, I discussed the possibility that Pss 1–2 functioned as some kind of preface to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. Proceeding from close readings of the two psalms, I suggested that Ps 1 was probably not to be understood as any reading instruction, but that the notion of a torah of YHWH rather pointed to some other set of texts, presumably a torah of Moses. Furthermore, I argued that the question of the possible combination of these psalms had to be kept apart from discussions of prefatorial functions, and so, it was observed that although awareness of their combination was attested early on, prefatorial functions were not discussed until the fourth century CE. Even then, this applied only to Ps 1, and not in a strict sense but rather christologically. Consequently, I concluded that Pss 1–2 did not perform any of the two basic functions of a preface (to get the book read, and to instruct on reading it properly), so that the widespread idea that they established a new framework where the ‘Book’ of Psalms could now be perceived as a torah to be meditated upon was unfounded. If reasonable, it also followed that discussions of the scripturalization of psalmody would have to be somewhat separated from Pss 1–2. Finally, I suggested that Ps 2:12bd was added to bring the two psalms closer together, although without implicating a harmonized reading. Rather, the addition could be understood as adding a new perspective, a theme of refuge that stood somewhat in tension with both psalms, while at the same time forming an inclusio with Ps 1:1. Turning to the superscriptions, a fundamental observation was that scholarly discussion needs to better incorporate the complexity of manuscript variations into the discussion, so that the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms is not automatically given priority. In fact, when relating various manuscripts to each other, valuable clues about their function and use could be uncovered. So, I suggested, for one, that the creation of collections of psalms was not achieved primarily by means of adding superscriptions, but by juxtaposing psalms on the same scroll. Consequently, the identification of longer sequences of psalms with similar superscriptions needed not be indications of earlier, independent collections of

Overview and Outlook

285

psalms. I also observed traces of continuous additions of superscriptions, indicating that this process occurred over a long period of time. This very fact also enabled the suggestion that three roughly demarcated sections could be posited (Pss 1–89; 90–119; 120–150), although the sections did not necessarily indicate formative stages, but have to be complemented and further refined by additional observations. The comparison of various witnesses also revealed that the LXX often presupposed MT sequences in the way superscriptions were added. An overall need to “fill the gaps” was observed, and the additions were quite similar in form. Ultimately, the superscriptions could be understood as traces of a complex web of trajectories of use that had increasingly been transmitted together with the psalms themselves, thus eventually functioning as (authoritative) interpretive frameworks. So put, there was an intertwining of canonical processes with the formation history of the collection, and this was seen in particular in an observed Davidization of these psalms. A brief chapter was devoted to Ps 72:20, where I suggested that an understanding of this verse as a frozen colophon solved many problems. As I argued, the verse would have been added to a collection of psalms that extended over two scrolls, and the fixation of the colophon could also indicate that the sequences of psalms found in this collection were not altered in any major way after this. Interestingly, it was conceived as a collection of prayers (‫ )תפלות‬of David. Eventually, the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms would be divided into five parts, and the ‘book’ dividing ‫ ברך‬doxologies found in four psalms were shown to provide some clues about this process. Discussing first the relation between the doxologies and the psalms of which they are now a part, I suggested that they were probably added to Pss 72 and 106 with only these psalms in view, while they were secondary to Pss 41 and 89. Tracing the use of Amen, I then suggested that several trajectories could be observed to which the ‫ ברך‬doxologies could be related. While Pss 72 and 106 seemed to relate best to a performative, responsive use of Amen, the doxologies in Pss 41 and 89 seemed to have attained clearer paratextual functions. Consequently, I proposed that the ‫ ברך‬doxologies of Pss 72 and 106 were probably the oldest, so that the doxologies in Pss 41 and 89 were modeled upon them. As these were added, a fivefold structure was created, and its purpose was probably to create a thin conceptual link to the Pentateuch, ultimately relating psalmody to torah. Also significant was the recurring connection to the Second Temple cult in general and the Levites in particular. As there were notable differences between the ‫ ברך‬doxologies and the use of Hallelujah, I suggested that Pss 135–136 could once have served as the fifth and final ‫ ברך‬doxology. Several observations pointed in this direction: Ps 135 included a final, fivefold doxology featuring ‫ ברך‬in qal passive participle, and both psalms referred to narratives now found in the Pentateuch. They also fea-

286

Part IV. In Search of the Artificial

tured a theme of trust, and had a pro-Levitical stance. Interestingly, such a suggestion could also account for the adding of Ps 2:12bd. Finally, I addressed the question of a possible concluding doxology in Pss 145.146–150. By providing close readings of these psalms, I suggested that Ps 145 revealed an intentional juxtaposition of ‫ ברך‬and ‫הלל‬, eventually giving ‫הלל‬ the “upper hand.” Furthermore, I argued that the often suggested notion of intentionally developing themes throughout Pss 146–150 was unconvincing, both in light of my close readings of the psalms and my analysis of the arguments proposed for such readings, but also, and not least, in light of the attested artifactual variation. Moreover, several differences were observed when compared to the ‫ ברך‬doxologies. Last, I proposed that the addition of (Hallelujahs to) Pss 145.146–150, together with the addition of several Hallelujahs to psalms throughout the ‘Book’ of Psalms, would have eventually lead to the conceptualizing of the collection as a ‫ספר תהלים‬, a “scroll of praises.”

Part V

Psalms on Repeat

Introduction The task of this part of the study is to search for traces of psalms and collections of psalms in texts other than the ‘Book’ of Psalms itself. It was noted in the introduction that there was a need for a way of evaluating suggested use(s) and proposed reading(s) of MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, and this notion was further substantiated in the analysis of 11Q5, where I concluded that the status and function of a collection cannot be properly evaluated solely by means of analyzing the work itself, especially if its formation is likely to have taken place over a long period of time. Given this, I will now provide an overview and analysis of a wide range of texts that in some way contain epitexts, quotes, and allusions to psalms. The overview will attempt to be sensitive to possible changes of use and traces of the formative stages identified in Part IV. Furthermore, when looking at the possible citations, I will, apart from briefly noting their function in the new context, be interested to see if psalms are quoted with a sensitivity to any Sitz in der Literatur, that is, if the interpretation of a psalm is in some way informed by psalms to which it is juxtaposed in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, or some other sequence known from, for example, the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls. To specify this even further, two types of material will be important. First are instances where a psalm is present within another text. The clearest example of such a use would be citations, but also relevant here could be allusions. Since quotes can be quite an elusive phenomena, I will need to briefly discuss possible definitions before I start my investigation. Second are texts that in some way refer to a collection of psalms, or provide possible (historical) contexts in which psalms were used. I will structure my discussion in three chapters focusing on three various set of texts. Although most studies on the reception and use of psalms start off at a time where “the Psalter had become a recognized collection,”1 Chapter 13 will attempt to sketch the possible contours of a corpus at an earlier time, that is, already in the Hebrew Bible. As was seen in the discussion of ancient anthologies without ancient manuscripts, most notably the Homeric Hymns (see pp. 64–68 above), the tracing of quotes and allusions enabled scholars to sketch the initial phases of the growth of the collection, and since the psalms now included in the 1

So, e.g., Gillingham 2008, 1:5.

290

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

MT ‘Book’ of Psalms were probably used and transmitted in various ways for a long time prior to the first remaining artifacts in the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls, they would have left some traces that are possible to uncover here. The next chapter, Chapter 14, will then search for similar traces throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls, and taken together with the conclusions drawn in Chapter 13, I will then extend some of the observed trajectories even further and search for traces of psalms and collection of psalms in texts from around the first century BCE to the second century CE (Chapter 15). Although only scratching the surface of a fairly complex field of research, these chapters will hopefully provide some important clues about the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms.

Methodological Considerations In one of the first monograph-length studies of citations, Antoine Compagnon moves towards a definition of quotes by suggesting three basic aspects: quotation as an act, a form, and a function. Regarding the first, Compagnon situates citations within the act of reading and writing, arguing that every act of reading and writing is in some fundamental sense to be seen as quotation. So put, it relates to the basic observation by Michail Bakhtin, developed into the notion of intertextuality by Julia Kristeva. Here, “any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another.”2 Compagnon traces this observation back to the simple (“irrefutable”) fact that languages all have their fundamental building blocks, so that there is, in every language, “des choses qui se répètent; des choses, c’est-à-dire des objets de langage, n’importe quel objet de langage: signe, mot, phrase, discours, texte, système de textes (ou encyclopédie).”3 Translated to the particular search for psalm quotes, this would point to an important first observation, namely that resemblance between two texts, even verbatim repetition, need not be an indication that one of these texts quotes the other. They might simply bear witness to the use of similar idioms, metaphors, modes of expression, etc. Therefore, one would have to evaluate the significance of the similarities before moving into a discussion of possible directions of dependence. The conclusion that two texts do not depend on each other in a strict way by means of, for example, quotation, does not, however, implicate that their resemblance is therefore insignificant. Rather, it could indicate that the two texts relate to a similar context, be it cultic, cultural, or the like. As will be seen below, there are several such examples, some quite relevant for the discussion of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms (see, e.g., pp. 305–9 below).

2 3

Compagnon 1979, 34–36, 50–55. The quote is from Moi 1986, 37. Compagnon 1979, 50.

Introduction

291

Such an understanding does, however, raise the fundamental question of what distinguishes a quote from the basic repetition that permeates all literature. According to Compagnon, a quote is always an alien body, and is to be identified by some interdiscursive sign.4 This relates to his second aspect, that of form. However, in the texts in focus here, the most obvious example of such a sign – the quotation mark – is not to be found. Although quotes are sometimes clearly demarcated (by an introducing formula or such), they are mostly coherently imbedded into their new context. Consequently, scholars have often proposed a distinction between declared citations (quotes with introductory formulas) and undeclared citations (quotes without introductory formulas).5 Although I will use such a distinction in the way I structure my discussion below, I will not consider them as distinct analytical categories. Rather than theorizing about how many words should be shared between two texts for it to be called a “quote,” I will approach the overlaps as “a spectrum of intertextual reference, moving from the explicit to the subliminal.”6 In fact, as soon as one digs into the material, it becomes quite clear that a passage that shares only a few words with a psalm could theoretically be a more obvious quote than a passage repeating far more words. In sum, then, I suggest that the following factors need to be taken into consideration:7 1) Verbatim similarities featuring rare words establish a stronger connection than those including common or very common words. 2) Verbatim similarities occurring in similar contexts establish a stronger connection than similarities based on shared words only. 3) Declared citations establish a stronger connection than undeclared citations. 4) Shared phrases establish a stronger connection than shared words. 5) Shared phrases featuring formulaic or idiomatic language establish a weaker connection than shared phrases that do not. 6) Multiple shared phrases establish a stronger connection than single shared phrases.

Recently, a valuable resource of biblical quotations has been provided by Lange and Matthias Weigold, and although the procedure of identifying quotes has been somewhat similar to the one described there, the examples adduced here are far less numerous.8 This is motivated primarily by the overall question of these chapters, the question of how psalms were used throughout the period of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms (and the period immediately following), since stronger connections would provide better grounds on which to draw con-

4

Compagnon 1979, 72. Cf. Porter 2006, 106–9. 6 Hays 1989, 23; cf. Chae 2006, 12–15. 7 Cf. Chazon 2003, 95–96; Leonard 2008, 246; Lange & Weigold 2011, 23–29. 8 See Lange & Weigold 2011, 17–19, 163–78, 365–71. 5

292

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

clusions. Put differently, it is clear that several of the texts listed by Lange and Weigold reveal too weak a connection to be able to use as a clue to the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. As for Compagon’s final aspect, the function of the quote, he claims that every citation has a fundamental function of relating two texts to each other. Two texts are put into dialogue, where one is original. In line with such an observation, Elizabeth Gregory suggests that the act of quoting in fact places the work (or the author) within a tradition of earlier texts, and so confronts the present with the past.9 Interestingly, she finds the roots of modern quotation in Christian scriptural commentary, and in describing an act that is elsewhere often labeled “proof-texting,” she suggests that the quotes used by early commentators could be seen both as a synecdochal manifestation (as opposed to a fragment) of a received scriptural whole (“the unfragmentable Logos”), and as “guarantors of the authority of the texts they were cited within.”10 Moreover, the discrepancy between the original context and the secondary context could be understood as a redistribution of authority, so that it was not only given the original text, but also the (new) commentary. This phenomenon is then explained as the result of the presence of two opposing modes in every quotation. The first, reverence, signals the author’s submissiveness to the authority of the original text, but as the speaker’s own authority is also asserted, there is also some irreverence.11 Consequently, texts can radically alter a tradition while at the same time claiming to belong to that very tradition. There is always some continuity, but the new setting will inevitably reshape the interpretation of the psalm(s).

9

Gregory 1996, 1–4. Gregory 1996, 4–5. 11 Gregory 1996, 5. 10

Chapter 13

Traces in the Hebrew Bible Proceeding from the points made in the introduction, I will structure this section in four parts. First, I present texts where psalms are demarcated by some introductory formula (“Declared Citations”). Second, I present texts where no such demarcation is found, but where the verbatim similarities of the two passages probably indicate a conscious repetition (“Undeclared Citation”). Here, it will be important to discuss the direction of dependence. Third, I present a set of texts where the repetition is not primarily denoting a relation between texts, but rather indicates some common tradition (“Stock-phrases”). Finally, in the last section, I gather what I have called “External indicators” (epitexts).

A. Declared Citations I. 2 Samuel 22 The first possible example of a declared citation of a psalm to be inquired into is found in 2 Sam 22. The passage repeats multiple phrases also found in Ps 18 (minor variations occur), and they are properly introduced as the words of David “on the day when the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul.” The passage, then, also overlaps with the superscription of the psalm, although it now primarily performs the function of an interdiscursive sign. The end of the quote is demarcated by 2 Sam 23:1.1 As it stands, 2 Sam 22 forms part of four loosely connected chapters that are often seen as an “appendix” to the second book of Samuel, and Karl Budde suggested that they were arranged chiastically (2 Sam 21–24).2 This complicates the discussion of the function of the psalm, but some basic observations could nevertheless be made. The first relates to the question of direction of dependence. Since there are slight differences in the wording of the two variants, it could be argued that one version would be more “original” than the other. However, a more common, and probably more correct, proposal is that neither one is dependent upon the 1

The verse is noted to have a similar function as the ‘biographical’ notes. For the latter see above, pp. 184–87. 2 Budde 1902, 304; cf. Watts 1992, 99, 101.

294

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

other, but that both bear witness to a psalm that might have circulated independently, and was only later inserted in the two settings respectively.3 As for the literary context, the latter half of 2 Samuel deals with struggles within the family of David and the effect these had on the political situation.4 However, the superscription to the psalm does not relate the psalm to any of these events in particular, but rather speaks generally of YHWH’s protection of David.5 Given this, it has been suggested that the inclusion of the psalm was intended as some theological commentary on the history of David.6 Hans W. Hertzberg, for one, argues that the psalm was included to “describe and explain all the king’s military action.”7 Brueggemann, on the other hand, argues that the final chapters in fact aim at deconstructing the “well established royal ideology.”8 According to Brueggemann, this is seen in particular in 22:21–28, where it is YHWH, and not the king who is celebrated. Hence, “[t]he king achieves nothing, deserves nothing, guarantees nothing. It is Yahweh, only Yahweh, who delivers,”9 although David is still appreciated as king and man of faith.10 Ultimately, YHWH’s actions move to the fore, but the characterization of David is significant as well. As to the former, James W. Watts has suggested that this passage, as well as a number of other passages featuring inset hymns, uses the psalms to underscore that YHWH had been the primary agent in the events just narrated.11 He also proposes a connection to the song of Moses in Deut 32. Pointing to a number of similarities – that both are part of larger blocks of loosely connected material, that both are followed by a new song with more of a testamentary focus, and that both feature before the recounting of the main character’s death – he argues that the psalm was in fact included in 2 Sam 22 in imitation of Deut 32.12 Turning to the characterization of David, Sheppard has suggested that the idealization of Moses as the prophet par excellence (Deut 34:10–12) is paralleled by the characterization of David in 2 Sam 22 as an ideal king.13 As is regularly observed, such a notion is also deeply permeated with a notion of personal piety.14 As the psalm transforms the narratives into 3

For this, see, e.g., McCarter Jr. 1984, 473; Kraus 1993, 256 (“parallel transmission”); Goldingay 2006, 253; cf. Craigie & Tate 2004, 171–72. 4 Cf. Watts 1992, 99. 5 Cf. McCarter Jr. 1984, 464. 6 See, e.g., Childs 1979, 274–75, who speaks of a “theological interpretation of David’s whole career.” Cf. also Anderson 1989, 265. 7 Hertzberg 1964, 393. 8 Brueggemann 1988, 385. 9 Brueggemann 1988, 389. 10 Brueggemann 1988, 395. 11 Watts 1992, 104. 12 Watts 1992, 106–7, 116; see also Sheppard 1980, 155. 13 Sheppard 1980, 155. 14 See, e.g., Watts 1992, 105.

Chapter 13. Traces in the Hebrew Bible

295

metaphors for YHWH’s protection, it explains the success of David as a result of his devotion to YHWH. Ultimately, David is portrayed as an example to follow,15 and Brueggemann puts it well when he concludes that David becomes the approved king because he “trusted and cried out to Yahweh, and obeyed,” but also that he was “empty-handed, utterly needful, utterly trusting.”16 Consequently, although the psalm is likely to be older than its inclusion in 2 Sam 22, this very act of repetition (citation) reveals something of how psalmody was perceived and used. The psalm is linked with David and appropriated in a way that is further developed in the ‘biographical’ notes, but with one significant difference. While David is portrayed as king in the context of 2 Sam 22, the ‘biographical’ notes focus only on him as a praying man in distress.17 A further aspect to take into consideration is that 1–2 Chronicles do not feature this psalm. However, this need not indicate that 2 Sam 22 would be later, but rather point to the conclusion that 1–2 Chronicles have replaced Ps 18 with the well-known “Levitical medley,” to which I now turn. II. 1 Chronicles 16 The passage in view, 1 Chr 16:8–36, repeats Pss 105, 96, and 106, and has been discussed in relation to the ‫ ברך‬doxologies (see above, pp. 211–16). I will not repeat all the conclusions drawn, but as seen there, 1 Chr 16 includes (parts of) three psalms into a new setting where they were introduced as the words of David (1 Chr 16:7), although none of the psalms quoted are attributed to David by means of ‘author’ designations. Furthermore, I argued that the aim with such a composition would have been to relate the Second Temple cult to David, as well as the Asaphites to psalmody, and that this was done by means of using well-established psalms. Consequently, it might be suggested that the three quoted psalms were transmitted as part of a larger corpus of psalms by the time of 1–2 Chronicles, and that such a corpus would also have included psalms attributed to David (and Asaph). That the psalms are performed by Levitical singers (Asaph and his brothers) in a cultic context is probably significant as well, since it might indicate that the psalms were not necessarily considered Davidic in relation to some notion of being “authored” by him, but rather because they were to be used in the cult that he inaugurated. Moreover, it seems as if the performative use is in the forefront, rather than, say, some kind of “proof-texting,” as described in the introduction.

15

Anderson 1989, 265. Brueggemann 1988, 397, makes a connection to Hannah in the beginning of 1 Sam, so that these chapters could be seen as an inclusio focusing on power and the transformation of power. 17 Cf. p. 186 above. 16

296

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

III. Summary Summing up this brief section, I propose the following: 2 Sam 22

1 Chr 16

connects portrays parallels presupposes connects

David with psalmody David as a model of trusting YHWH the transmission of Ps 18 a transmission of a larger corpus of psalms attributed to David and Asaph of which Pss 96, 105, and 106 were part psalm use to David and the Levitical singers

So put, it is quite clear that the introducing formulas in these passages do not refer to any ‘Book’ of Psalms, but rather describe the psalms as the words of David. Furthermore, no awareness of any Sitz in der Literatur was found, at least not related to a MT sequence (Ps 105 and Ps 106 are, for example, not juxtaposed in 1 Chr 16).

B. Undeclared Citations I. Possible Borrowing Moving to less certain ground, there are some texts where verbatim repetition would be best understood as citations, although without any formal demarcation.18 The first is found in the psalm in Isa 12. This passage has been argued to

18 Excluded from this discussion are verbatim similarities between ‘biographical’ notes and the narratives in 1 Samuel–2 Kings, since they have already been discussed, and the same applies to similarities between the doxologies and 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. I have also excluded passages where the psalms clearly constitute the secondary context, as e.g., the dependence of Ps 68:8–11 on Judg 5:4–5 (cf. esp. Ps 68:9 with Judg 5:5, cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 2005, 165); Ps 135:13–14 on Exod 3:15 and Deut 32:36 (cf. Goldingay 2008, 583; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 499); Ps 113:7 on 1 Sam 2:8 (although this is not a clear-cut example. The two best alternatives are either a common milieu or a reuse of 1 Samuel on the part of the psalmist. For the former, see Willis 1973, 154; cf. Goldingay 2008, 318. For the latter, see Allen 2002, 134; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 183); Ps 107:35 on Isa 41:18; Ps 98:3 on Isa 52:10; and Ps 147:4 on Isa 40:26. There are also a number of texts where verbatim similarities are most likely to be explained as unintentional repetition, or at least not providing strong enough connections. If specifying such similarities a bit further, some verbatim overlaps are between a psalm that recount parts of the history of Israel and the texts in which such a history is found (e.g. Ps 135:11; cf. Num 21:33, Deut 1:4, 3:3, 29:6, Josh 9:10, 12:4, 13:30, 1 Kgs 4:19, Ps 136:20, or, e.g., Ps 106:40; cf. Exod 4:14; 32:11; Num 11:33; 12:9; 25:3; 32:10, 13; Deut 7:4; 11:17; 29:26; Josh 7:1; 23:16; Judg 2:14, 20; 3:8; 10:7; 2 Sam 6:7; 2 Kgs 13:3; Isa 5:25; 1 Chr 13:10). Others would reflect shared poetical expressions and similar uses of metaphors. These are often noted by commentaries, but not considered as indicating any dependence (cf. Ps 22:14 with Lam 2:16 and 3:46; Ps 113:3 with Mal 1:11; Ps 50:1 and Ps 69:25 with Ezek 22:31 and Zeph 3:8; Ps 126:2 with Job 8:21; or Ps

Chapter 13. Traces in the Hebrew Bible

297

be a “patchwork of biblical citations and allusions, especially from the book of Psalms,”19 and here, there are verbatim overlaps with both Pss 105 and 118. The overlap with Ps 118 will be discussed under the section on shared stockphrases below (see pp. 305–12, esp. p. 310), but the verbatim similarities with Ps 105 are as follows: Ps 105:1 ‫הודו ליהוה קראו בשמו הודיעו בעמים עלילותיו‬ Give thanks to YHWH, call on his name, make known his deeds among the peoples. Isa 12:4 ‫הודו ליהוה קראו בשמו הודיעו בעמים עלילתיו‬ Give thanks to YHWH, call on his name, make known his deeds among the peoples.

If maintaining the patchwork idea, it seems reasonable to assume that if a borrowing has taken place, it would be on the part of Isaiah, who then includes the verse in the context of a new psalm.20 However, the language is quite formulaic, and need not be a quote. Next, in Jer 10:13 (cf. 51:16),21 another possible quote presents itself, noted only in passing in my analysis of Ps 135. It forms part of a difficult passage (there are, for example, problems of composition, great differences between MT and the LXX, as well as an Aramaic verse, v. 11),22 and the verse is commonly thought of as a later addition to Jeremiah, although some maintain its integrality:23 Ps 135:7 ‫מעלה נשאים מקצה הארץ ברקים למטר עשה מוצא־רוח מאוצרותיו‬ He it is who makes the clouds rise at the end of the earth, he makes lightnings for the rain, bringing out the wind from his storehouses. Jer 10:13 ‫ויעלה נשאים מקצה ארץ ברקים למטר עשה ויוצא רוח מאצרתיו‬ and he makes the clouds rise from the ends of the earth. He makes lightnings for the rain, and he brings out the wind from his storehouses.

132:4 with Prov 6:4, etc.). An exception might be the similarities between Ps 42:8 and Jonah 2:4. There is also a vast amount of shared language within the ‘Book’ of Psalms itself. 19 Blenkinsopp 2000, 270. 20 Cf., however, Wacholder 1988, 29. 21 Holladay 1993, 41–45, has an extensive section on the relation between Jeremiah and Psalms. See also Holladay 2002. 22 For a short overview of the issues, see Craigie, Kelley, & Drinkard Jr. 1991, 157–58. 23 Holladay 1989, 69.

298

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

Jack R. Lundbom suggests that this is a “near-quote” on the part of Jeremiah.24 If so, it could be considered an undeclared quote, and the new context in Jeremiah is a hymn. However, others have argued for the opposite direction,25 and the issue is difficult to settle. Noteworthy is that both Jer 10 and Ps 135 deal with the issue of idols. Next, in Jer 10:25, the following possible quote is found: Ps 79:6–7 ‫ שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך ועל ממלכות אשר בשמך לא קראו‬6 ‫ כי אכל את־יעקב ואת־נוהו השמו‬7 6 7

Pour out your anger on the nations that do not know you, and on the kingdoms that do not call on your name, for they have devoured Jacob and laid waste his habitation. Jer 10:25 ‫ שפך חמתך על־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך ועל משפחות אשר בשמך לא קראו‬25 ‫כי־אכלו את־יעקב ואכלהו ויכלהו ואת־נוהו השמו‬

25 Pour out your anger on the nations that do not know you, and on the peoples that do not call on your name, for they have devoured Jacob, they have devoured him and consumed him, and laid waste his habitation.

In Jeremiah, the verse forms part of a conclusion of “the larger poetic substratum within chaps. 2–10”,26 and the similarities have been argued to either constitute a quote on the part of Jeremiah, who then expands somewhat on the two psalm verses,27 or that both draw from a common tradition.28 A third possibility is, of course, that the psalmist depends on Jeremiah.29 Marvin E. Tate, for one, argues that the composite character of the psalm makes it likely that it is the psalm that draws from Jer 10 rather than the other way around.30 In Job, there are two possible quotes, and the first is found in Job 7:17–18, where Ps 8:5 is repeated: Ps 8:5 ‫מה־אנוש כי־תזכרנו ובן־אדם כי תפקדנו‬ What are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?

24 Lundbom 1999, 596. Holladay 1986, 335, is more reluctant to speak of a direction of dependence. 25 See, e.g., Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 498. 26 Lundbom 1999, 611. 27 So Holladay 1989, 65, who calls this a “deliberate quotation,” (cf. Holladay 1993, 41). 28 So Craigie, Kelley, & Drinkard Jr. 1991, 164. 29 See, e.g., Goldingay 2007, 523; Hossfeld & Zenger 2005, 306. 30 Tate 1990, 299–300.

Chapter 13. Traces in the Hebrew Bible

299

Job 7:17–18 ‫ מה־אנוש כי תגדלנו וכי־תשית אליו לבך‬17 ‫ תפקדנו לבקרים לרגעים תבחננו‬18 17 What are human beings, that you make so much of them, that you set your mind on them, 18 visit them every morning, test them every moment?

Here, a parodic twist presents itself.31 David J. A. Clines notes that “[i]n every respect the language of the psalm is reapplied ironically by Job,”32 and this fits neatly into what Katharine J. Dell calls a “misuse of forms.”33 In her view, the speeches of Job reveal a transformation of traditional forms of psalms, and so Job 7:17–18 would be an example of a parodic use of the hymn form, seen, for example, in the repetition of the verb ‫פקד‬, where the original sense of Ps 8:5 – “visit in mercy” – takes on a new meaning as “call to account.”34 The second possible repetition is Ps 107:40 in Job 12:21, 24. But since the two phrases are separated by two verses in Job, the direction of dependence is not quite clear. Clines argues that Job quotes the psalm in an attempt to demonstrate the destructive power of God (Job reveals no purpose behind the humiliation of princes),35 whereas Hossfeld and Zenger argue that Ps 107 is rather inspired by Job.36 II. Psalms within Psalms Turning to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, there are several verbatim repetitions between psalms, and these could be ordered into at least three categories. To the first category belongs Ps 43, which share vv. 2 and 5 with Ps 42. These verses are, however, not to be considered quotes, but their presence probably indicates that they have been regarded as a single psalm. The second group includes Pss 14 and 53, two versions of the same psalm, both probably with deliberate changes made to make them fit to new (historical) circumstances (seen especially in the final verses).37 So put, their relation is similar to the relation be-

31 Hartley 1988, 151; Gray 2010, 181. The characterization of the human in this passage also overlaps with Job 19:9, 25:6, Ps 22:7, and Isa 41:14. For a discussion of these passages and their connection to Ps 8, see Spieckermann 1989, 226–53; Lindström 1994, 80–81, 379– 426. 32 Clines 1989, 192. 33 Dell 1991, 109–58. 34 Dell 1991, 116. 35 So Clines 1989, 301. Cf. Gray 2010, 220, who ponders the idea of a direct influence. 36 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 109. So also Allen 2002, 91. 37 For a discussion on their relation, see Willgren 2009.

300

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

tween Ps 18 and 2 Sam 22. The third group, then, is the group containing possible quotes. Beginning with the three more obvious examples, it has been noted that Pss 70, 108, and 135 repeat earlier psalms. As for Ps 70, each of its six verses overlap in some way with Ps 40:14–18. Both psalms have similar superscriptions, except for the last term, where Ps 70 has ‫“( להזכיר‬for remembrance”) rather than ‫מזמור‬. As for which psalm is original, there are varying opinions. Zenger argues that Ps 70 is quoted and reworked by Ps 40,38 while Craigie argues for the opposite direction,39 and Tate suggests that they rather reflect common poetic material.40 Neither collection, nor Sitz in der Literatur, is seen here, although the decision of the direction of dependence would imply that the older psalm was part of a transmission of psalms by the time it was quoted by the later one. Moving on to Ps 108, vv. 2–6 quote Ps 57:8–12 (Ps 57:6 is almost identical to Ps 57:12), while vv. 7–14 quote Ps 60:7–14. So put, all parts of the psalm are taken from other psalms in a way similar to the composition in 1 Chr 16 (v. 1 is the superscription). However, some changes are made, and since the verbatim similarities are so extensive, they are likely to be seen as intentional.41 This use would then indicate that Pss 57 and 60 were well established, and their inclusion in the same order as they are now found in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms could perhaps indicate that they were incorporated in a similar way in the collection from which they were quoted,42 although it cannot be argued on these grounds only. Noteworthy also is that the new superscription removes features that I have noted to belong to the psalms throughout Pss 2–89, and adds features similar to the ones added routinely by the LXX. One could therefore understand Ps 108 as an early witness to the Davidizing process attested in the LXX (see above, pp. 173–78). The second example is Ps 135:15–18, 19–20, which repeats Ps 115:4–8, 9– 13. As argued in my analysis of Ps 135, it probably made deliberate use of Ps 115 (see above, pp. 227–39), so that it will suffice to note here that the extended quotes imply that Ps 115 was part of a collection of psalms of some sort when repeated in Ps 135. These examples being fairly clear, there are yet a number of psalms that show verbatim overlap with other psalms. Ps 96, for one, probably quotes and slightly reworks Ps 29,43 Ps 86:14 overlaps with Ps 54:3 (although this need not

38

Hossfeld & Zenger 2005, 187–88. So also Millard 1994, 57–58. Craigie & Tate 2004, 314. 40 Tate 1990, 204–5. 41 For a presentation of these, see Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 115; cf. Millard 1994, 59–60. 42 Cf. Millard 1994, 83–84. 43 See., e.g., Hossfeld & Zenger 2005, 465. 39

Chapter 13. Traces in the Hebrew Bible

301

be a quote, but might be explained on the basis of formulaic language),44 as do Ps 97:8 overlap with Ps 48:12,45 and Ps 98:9 with Ps 96:13. III. Nascent Scripturalization In some of the possible quotes, a psalm seems to have been used in support of an argument in the secondary text, or to illuminate some aspect of it, and although not warranting the notion of “proof-texting,” this could be seen as traces of some nascent scripturalization. The first example is found in Prov 30:5, where Ps 18 or 2 Sam 22 is possibly quoted. Consider the following lines: Ps 18:31 / 2 Sam 22:31 ‫האל תמים דרכו אמרת־יהוה צרופה מגן הוא לכל החסים בו‬ This God – his way is perfect, the word of YHWH proves true, he is a shield for all who take refuge in him. Prov 30:5 ‫כל־אמרת אלוה צרופה מגן הוא לחסים בו‬ Every word of God proves true, he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

The verse is part of the words of Agur, and Richard J. Clifford argues that the entire chapter 30 bears the mark of rereading or reuse of other texts now found in the Hebrew Bible,46 including a possible allusion to Ps 73:22 in Prov 30:2a. In a similar vein, Raymond van Leeuwen calls vv. 1–3, 4, 5–6, 7–9 an “editorial ‘anthological’ poem” formed by references to other parts of the Hebrew Bible.47 Given this, it would be reasonable to see the overlaps as a quote on the part of Proverbs, so that the psalm is integrated into a new framework and given a slightly different function. If so, v. 6 is also interesting, as the urging not to add to the words of Eloah could imply that the two verses might constitute something of an early form of authoritative use of texts. However, this is somewhat inconclusive, and the relevance for a discussion of the ‘Book’ of Psalms is blurred by the fact that the psalm also occurs in 2 Sam 22. The quote thus reveals no collection, or any awareness of its possible literary contexts in the ‘Book’ of Psalms or 2 Samuel respectively. A final undeclared citation is found in 2 Chr 6:41–42, where Ps 132:8–10 is repeated as the following: Ps 132:8–10 ‫ קומה יהוה למנוחתך אתה וארון עזך‬8

44 So Goldingay 2007, 626. Hossfeld & Zenger 2005, 369, call Ps 86 an “artful relecture of already existing texts,” and point specifically to the Davidic Pss 40–41, 69–71, 72. 45 Cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 2005, 475. 46 Clifford 1999, 258. 47 Quoted in Murphy 1998, 227.

302

Part V. Psalms on Repeat ‫ כהניך ילבשו־צדק וחסידיך ירננו‬9 ‫ בעבור דוד עבדך אל־תשב פני משיחך‬10

8 Rise up, O YHWH, and go to your resting place, you and the ark of your might. 9 Let your priests be clothed with righteousness, and let your faithful shout for joy. 10 For the sake of your servant David do not turn your face from your anointed one. 2 Chr 6:41–42 ‫ ועתה קומה יהוה אלהים לנוחך אתה וארון עזך‬41 ‫כהניך יהוה אלהים ילבשו תשועה וחסידיך ישמחו בטוב‬ ‫ יהוה אלהים אל־תשב פני משיחיך זכרה לחסדי דויד עבדך‬42 41 Now rise up, O YHWH God, and go to your resting place, you and the ark of your might. Let your priests, O YHWH God, be clothed with salvation, and let your faithful rejoice in your goodness. 42 O YHWH God, do not turn your face from your anointed one. Remember your steadfast love for your servant David.

As the repetition is quite extensive, and as 2 Chronicles leaves its Vorlage in 1 Kgs 8, it would be plausible to suggest that 2 Chronicles quotes (and reworks) Ps 132.48 If so, it is to be noted, with Ralph W. Klein, that the two passages in 1–2 Chronicles quoting psalms (the other being in 1 Chr 16) occur at the end of the Ark Narrative, and at the end of the dedication of the temple respectively.49 So put, these psalms are understood as compositions connected to the temple cult and the ark on one hand,50 and the promises to David on the other.51 Focusing briefly on the use made of the quoted verses, as well as differences to 1 Kgs, it can first be observed that while 1 Kgs (e.g. 8:53) refers to traditions of Moses, 2 Chronicles refers to traditions of David. Furthermore, some changes are made to the psalm. First, the priests are not dressed in righteousness (‫ )צדק‬but salvation (‫)תשועה‬. This alteration is possible to understand in light of Ps 132:16, where YHWH announces that he will dress his priests in salvation (‫)ישע‬,52 and so, 2 Chr 6 possibly draws from the entire psalm, although the verbatim overlaps are limited to vv. 8–10. Second, the replacing of ‫בעבור‬ ‫“( דוד עבדך‬for your servant David’s sake”) with ‫“( זכרה לחסדי דויד עבדך‬remember your steadfast love for your servant David”) has been noted to be significant. Hugh G. M. Williamson, for one, argues that it could have been made in light of Isa 55:3 as an “attempt to reassert the royalist interpretation of the

48 So, e.g., Klein 2012, 98. Dillard 1987, 51 calls it a “free citation.” See also, e.g., Kraus 1989, 475; Smith 1991, 260; Allen 2002, 267; Goldingay 2008, 542–43; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 457. 49 Klein 2012, 98. 50 Cf. n. 92 below, p. 311. 51 Cf. Williamson 1982, 220–21. For these two themes, see also, e.g., Kraus 1989, 475–79. 52 Klein 2012, 98–99. For a possible explanation of the other changes made in 2 Chronicles, see Klein 2012, 98–101.

Chapter 13. Traces in the Hebrew Bible

303

promises to David,” thus correcting the idea of a transfer of promises from David to the people argued in Isa 55.53 If so, the psalm would be used as part of a larger argument, and the relation to Isa 55:3 is indeed suggestive, since both passages plausibly refer to psalms. Put differently, it might be indicative that 2 Chronicles corrects an interpretation of a psalm (Ps 89 in Isa 55:3) by referring to another psalm (Ps 132), plausibly included in the same collection. It might, then, be possible to suggest a nascent scripturalization, although the performative use is still in the forefront, and this view would be further substantiated if turning briefly to Isa 40–55. As I argue elsewhere, there are some interesting uses made of psalms and forms of psalms throughout Isa 40–55.54 Looking broadly, there are several instances where a psalm seems to have been quoted. Westermann, for one, argues that Isa 40:27 contains a quote from a community complaint,55 and interestingly, this complaint is answered by YHWH, first by a rhetorical question in v. 28, and then further by vv. 29–31. A similar case is found in the quoting of the people’s complaint in Isa 49:14.56 Although none of these overlap with psalms from the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, they might nevertheless indicate something about the way in which psalms were used at the time. There are, however, some possible allusions to psalms now included in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms as well. Consider, for example, the description of Jacob and Israel in Isa 41:14 and Ps 22:7,57 or the similarities between Isa 46:3–13 and Ps 71:2–19, where the purpose of the allusions seems to be to proclaim that YHWH in fact grants the requests. What these examples show, then, is not so much a literary dependence as the recognition and affirmation of a common use of complaint psalms. While the declared citations could be taken as quotes from psalms once used but now lost,58 or perhaps as summaries of fundamental petitions raised in such psalms, it is interesting to note that the implied use is communal. Despite the psalms themselves being complaints of the individual, Isa 40–55 answers them as if the speaker was the people.59 Moreover, the psalms are used to address a current situation of the people, and since the answer (the fulfillment) is still to come, it might be suggested that they are given a future orientation. So, even if not much can be said about the actual psalms used, it would at least be reasonable 53

Williamson 1982, 21; cf. Klein 2012, 99–101, who suggests that the phrase might also be translated as “David’s loyal acts on behalf of the temple,” depending on the understanding of the genitive. Dillard 1987, 51–52, rather sees it as an allusion to Ps 132:1. 54 For more detailed arguments, see Willgren Fca. 55 Westermann 1969, 59–60. This is often noted by commentators, and a suggested point of comparison is, e.g., Ps 44:25 (Whybray 1975, 58; Blenkinsopp 2002, 194). 56 Possible points of reference could be Pss 10:11–12, 22:2, 74:19, 77:7–13 (cf. Blenkinsopp 2002, 310; Goldingay & Payne 2006, 2:181). 57 Cf. n. 31, p. 299 above. 58 So, e.g., Whybray 1975, 58. 59 Cf. Sommer 1998, 119.

304

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

to posit that complaint psalms constituted a (significant?) part of the psalmody at this time. The same pattern is observed in Isa 55:1–5, which was the passage mentioned as possibly relevant for the understanding of 2 Chr 6. In the article I referred to above, I suggest that the nature of the overlaps between Isa 55:1–5 and Ps 89 indicate that the implied audience of Isa 55 probably knew of the psalm, and that they understood the Davidic covenant very much in line with it. Thus, both the audience and Isa 55:1–5 affirm the validity of the promises to David, so that the suggested transfer of promises from David to the people is to be understood as a reaffirmation of it. Now, it would be tempting to suggest, with Zenger, that additions were made to Ps 89 to create a link back to Ps 2,60 so that the allusion to the psalm in Isa 55 could indicate an emerging collection of psalms by that time, but this would be too speculative based on this passage alone. Furthermore, the very fact that the promises are reshaped indicates a fair amount of freedom, both in relation to the understanding of the Davidic covenant, and to the psalm itself. In fact, the possible use with which Isa 55:1– 5 interacts seems to be performative. It would be reasonable to assume that as a result of the exile psalms that in some way dealt with the Davidic dynasty were at risk of falling into oblivion. Potentially regarded as outdated and failed, it could be suggested that by acts of reinterpretation such as the one in Isa 55, they were given a chance to survive. By reinforcing the validity of the promise to David, while at the same time pushing its fulfillment into the future, a new interpretive framework was established. Put differently, royal psalms could now be seen to provide answers to questions surrounding the promises to David, so that new light is also cast upon 2 Chr 6, a passage that, curiously enough, disagrees with Isa 55. IV. Summary Summing up this section, some things could be noted. First, it is wise to note that while most passages are probably to be understood as citations, the issue of direction of dependence is often elusive. For example, the repetition of words was inconclusive for the following: Ps 40 (cf. Ps 70), Ps 54 (cf. Ps 86), Ps 97 (cf. Ps 48), Ps 98 (cf. Ps 96), as well as Isa 12 (cf. Ps 105), Jer 10 (cf. Pss 79, 135), and Job 12 (cf. Ps 107). Nevertheless, in light of the remainder of the verses surveyed, I suggest the following tentative suggestions: Ps 14 Ps 108 Ps 135

perhaps indicates a different collection than Ps 53 indicates that Pss 57 and 60 were part of an established transmission of psalms presupposes Ps 115

60 Zenger 2002, 88–91; cf., the argument for the opposite direction in Hossfeld & Zenger 1993, 51.

Chapter 13. Traces in the Hebrew Bible Ps 96 Job 7 Prov 30 2 Chr 6 Isa 40–55

presupposes presupposes presupposes presupposes perhaps indicates perhaps indicate

Isa 55

indicates

305

Ps 29 Ps 8 Ps 18 Ps 132 a nascent scripturalization a future orientation of psalmody that complaint psalms constituted a (significant?) part of psalmody at the time a reinterpretation of royal psalms a nascent scripturalization

C. Stock-Phrases As I mentioned in the introduction, there are some instances where verbatim overlaps could be argued to provide significant clues despite the fact that they do not classify as quotes. Understood as phrases that could be described as almost formulaic, the texts using these phrases are unlikely to presuppose each other, but could nevertheless imply that the psalms reflect the same tradition(s) or even similar cultural (or cultic) milieus. I have chosen to refer to these as “stock-phrases.” I. A Levitical Stock-Phrase The first example is the phrase probably to be reconstructed as ‫הודו ליהוה כי טוב‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬, “Give thanks to YHWH, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever.”61 It is found in various forms in the following passages: Table 9: A Levitical stock-phrase ‫כי־טוב ויהוה כי־ לעולם חסדו‬ ‫לעולם חסדו‬ ‫כי־טוב ויהוה‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫כי־טוב‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫כי־טוב‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫כי־טוב‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫כי־טוב‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫כי־ לעולם חסדו‬ ‫כי־טוב‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫כי־טוב‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ 61

‫ברכו שמו‬

‫את־יהוה צבאות‬ ‫־לו‬ ‫ליהוה‬ ‫ליהוה‬ ‫ליהוה‬ ‫ליהוה‬ ‫ליהוה‬ ‫ליהוה‬ ‫ליהוה‬

‫קול אמרים הודו‬ Jer 33:11 ‫הודו‬ Ps 100:4–5 ‫הודו‬ Ps 106:1 ‫הדו‬ Ps 107:1 ‫הודו‬ Ps 118:1, 29 Ps 118:4 ‫הודו‬ Ps 136:1 Ps 136:2–26 ‫ויענו בהלל ובהודת‬ Ezra 3:11 ‫הודו‬ 1 Chr 16:34 ‫להדות‬ 1 Chr 16:41

Cf. the reconstruction in Kratz 2013, 297. For the phrase as a liturgical call to praise probably performed as call and response, see Spieckermann 1990, 17–18; cf. Ballhorn 2004, 196.

306 ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫כי־ לעולם חסדו‬ ‫לעולם חסדו‬

Part V. Psalms on Repeat ‫כי טוב‬ ‫כי־טוב‬

‫ליהוה‬ ‫והודות ליהוה‬ ‫להדות ליהוה‬ ‫ליהוה‬ ‫הודו‬

‫ובהלל‬ ‫וישתחוו‬ ‫ואמרים‬

2 Chr 5:13 2 Chr 7:3 2 Chr 7:6 2 Chr 20:21

As can be seen in the table, 13 passages share this phrase in some form, and since many of these are in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, they might provide clues about its formation. At least three observations can be made, and I will elaborate on each below: 1) two texts seem to differ in some significant respects from the other verses (Jer 33:11 and Ps 100:4–5); 2) outside the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, the phrase seems to occur only in texts connected with the Second Temple cult; 3) the phrase occurs in psalms that have been argued to stand at significant junctures in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. As for the first observation, Jer 33:11 uses the phrase as part of a prophecy about the restoration of Judah and Jerusalem, placed in the mouth of those who will bring thanks offerings to the Second Temple (‫)מבאים תודה בית יהוה‬. Since the passage overlaps with Ps 100 by means of the use of tetragrammaton (‫)כי־טוב יהוה‬, and since the context of thanks offerings is similar (cf. the superscription to Ps 100, ‫מזמור לתודה‬, as well as v. 4), it might be argued that Jer 33:11 depends on the psalm. When compared to the other occurrences, it suggests itself quickly that the latter bear witness to some kind of standardization of the phrase, and since neither Jer 33:11, nor Ps 100:4–5 belongs to this group, I suggest that they reflect an earlier (or at least different) use of the phrase. Furthermore, no Levites are mentioned. Second, apart from the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms and Jer 33, the phrase is used only in Ezra and 1–2 Chronicles, and here, the context is always that of Levitical singing. In Ezra 3, the singing is led by the “Levites, the sons of Asaph” (‫ )והלוים בני־אסף‬as part of a celebration of the laying of the foundation of the temple (vv. 10–13). In 1 Chr 16:34, the phrase is used in the well-known quote from Ps 106. The narrative context is the service before the ark of the covenant (v. 4), with the Levites responsible for the singing, and the phrase occurs two times (vv. 34, 41). Similarly, 2 Chr 5:13; 7:3, 6, place the phrase in the context of the inauguration of the temple of Solomon, first uttered by the Israelites (5:13, 7:3), and then by the Levites (v. 6). Finally, in the last verse (2 Chr 20:21), the phrase is used in a military context, to be sung by holy singers (Levites) in front of the army (vv. 21–22). Consequently, the picture painted is quite consistent, and suggests that the stock-phrase is a Levitical one, used in Second Temple times. Turning to the third observation, it is an issue that has been intensely discussed in recent research on the ‘Book’ of Psalms. In fact, scholars have argued that the placement of psalms featuring this stock-phrase should be understood in relation to the occurrence of Hallelujah psalms, so that, when taken together,

Chapter 13. Traces in the Hebrew Bible

307

these would point to an intentional redactional structuring of the last two ‘books’ (Pss 90–150). One of the first to develop these ideas was Wilson.62 Understanding Hallelujah psalms as concluding sections of psalms, Wilson noted that psalms featuring the stock-phrase (what he called a ‫ הודו‬formula) regularly followed such Hallelujah psalms. Arguing that such a juxtaposition was not likely to be the result of any chance compilation, he proposed that ‫ הודו‬psalms were used to indicate the beginning of a new section. Consequently, he identified a number of divisions within the last two ‘books’ of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms as follows:63 1) Pss 90–106 (‘book’ 4) was concluded by Hallelujah Pss 104–106. 2) Ps 107 (‫ )הודו‬introduced next section, which was concluded by Pss 111–117 (‫)הללו־יה‬. 3) A third section was introduced by Ps 118 (‫)הודו‬, and concluded by Ps 135 (‫)הללו־יה‬. 4) A final section was introduced by Ps 136 (‫)הודו‬, and concluded by Ps 145 (‫הללו־יה‬, Pss 146–150 were then seen as a conclusion to the entire MT ‘Book’ of Psalms).

So put, junctures were located between Pss 106 and 107, Pss 117 and 118, as well as between Pss 135 and 136, but Wilson also argued that if compared to the “abrupt break” between Pss 106 and 107, the correspondences between Ps 118 and Ps 115, and Ps 135 and Ps 136, indicated that these junctures were “softened.”64 Building on these conclusions, Kratz argued for a similar function of the ‫הודו‬ psalms, but reconstructed the divisions somewhat differently.65 First, he suggests that Ps 100 concludes Pss 93–99 while at the same time introducing the structure of the remainder of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. Second, he notes a similar interplay between ‫ הודו‬psalms and Hallelujah psalms as Wilson (the latter being demarcated as Pss 104–106, 111–117, 135, 146–150), but also includes the use of ‫( ברך‬Pss 100:4, 106:47–48) so that a pattern of “thanksgiving - praise - benediction” is revealed. Furthermore, he notes that psalms in some way connected to David often followed the ‫ הודו‬psalms and suggests that David is to be understood as an example of this thanksgiving, praise, and benediction.66 In all, the following groups of psalms are identified:67

62

See Wilson 1985a, esp. 186–90; 220–28. It should be noted that this applied only to the MT sequence, since Wilson 1997, 456, observed that “[t]here is no clear evidence, however, of a functional distinction between halělû-yā h psalms (for closing segments) and hôdû psalms (for opening segments) in 11QPsa. In some groups no hôdû psalms appear, while in others, hôdû and halělû-yā h psalms are indiscriminately mixed together.” Nonetheless, he argued that such groupings appeared at significant points of the scroll. 64 Wilson 1985a, 190, n. 48. 65 Kratz 2013, 297–98. 66 Kratz 2013, 297, with n. 46–48. 67 As can be seen, the demarcation of the major sections is identical to that of Wilson, although described somewhat differently. 63

308

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

1) In ‘book’ 4 (Pss 90–106), Pss 93–99 are first concluded by Ps 100 (‫)הודו‬, then followed by the Davidic Pss 101 and 103, as well as Pss 104–106 (‫)הללו־יה‬. 2) A new section is introduced by Ps 107 (‫)הודו‬, followed by the Davidic Pss 108–110, and concluded with Pss 111–117 (‫)הללו־יה‬. 3) A third section is introduced with Ps 118 (‫)הודו‬, which is closely connected to Ps 119 in serving as a joint “einleitenden Aufruf zur Toda,”68 and then followed by, i.a., the Davidic Pss 122, 124, 131 and 133, and concluded with Ps 135 (‫)הללו־יה‬. 4) A fourth an final section is introduced with Ps 136 (‫)הודו‬, followed by the Davidic Pss 138–145, and concluded by Pss 146–150 (‫)הללו־יה‬.

As with both Wilson and Kratz, Levin also argues that the phrase has an introducing function, but that such a function would be primarily liturgical, no literary. As found in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, it is rather attested in psalms placed in final positions (see also the discussion above, pp. 227–39). In this view, Ps 100 revealed an original use as a “Schlußdoxologie,”69 and such a function was later taken over by Ps 118:1–4, which he understood as originally belonging to Ps 136 as a liturgical introduction, so that this psalm originally concluded Pss 113–118.70 At a later stage, the phrase was also taken over by Pss 105–107.71 Turning to Zenger, he formulates a critique of the use made of the ‫ הודו‬and Hallelujah psalms in the models of Wilson and Kratz, arguing that they create unnatural junctures between Pss 117–118, and Pss 135–136. According to Zenger, these psalms are rather to be understood as closely connected: Ps 118 is seen as the final psalm of Pss 113–118, and Pss 135 and 136 share many features.72 So, to better explain the structure and redaction of Pss 90–150, Zenger suggests that other factors are at play:73 1) Ps 107, which forms a frame together with Ps 145, introduces a section that includes the Davidic Pss 108–110 and the acrostic Pss 111–112. 2) The section is followed by a liturgical collection (the “Egyptian Hallel” Pss 113–118). 3) Ps 119 is found in the “structural center” of Pss 107–150, and shows connections both to Pss 111–112 and 145. 4) Following Ps 119 is yet another liturgically inspired collection, Pss 120–134. This section is concluded by Pss 135–136 which have been redactionally connected to them. Here also belongs Ps 137 as a “theological commentary.” 5) Last, a Davidic collection follows, where Ps 138 can be seen as a “direct response” to Ps 137. Ps 145 provides a conclusion.

68

Kratz 2013, 302. Levin 2000, 18. 70 Levin 2000, 23; cf. Gärtner 2012, 362–72. 71 Levin 2000, 26. 72 Zenger 1998a, 87–88. 73 Zenger 1998a, 98–99. 69

Chapter 13. Traces in the Hebrew Bible

309

As can be seen in these various models, the stock-phrase has an important place in the discussions of the structure of the last parts of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, but how are the suggestions to be evaluated? First, it should be noted that although the (standardized) stock-phrase only occur in four psalms (that is, if not including Ps 100), none of the models above satisfactorily include them all. Wilson and Kratz do not, for example, regard Ps 106 as an introduction, despite the fact that it contains the phrase. Although Wilson notes that Pss 105–107 seems to be juxtaposed by means of a similar incipit, he then refutes the idea based on the introductory function of the ‫ הודו‬psalms.74 Similarly, Zenger states that the connection between Pss 106 and 107 “merely emphasizes that the fifth book is a commentary summarizing the preceding four books of psalms which are to be understood as a unit.”75 Furthermore, Wilson regards Ps 145 as a concluding psalm, although it is not a Hallelujah psalm. In sum, it seems as if the relation between ‫ הודו‬psalms and Hallelujah psalms is not one of deliberate juxtaposition, but of contrast. Taking Ps 106 as a case in point, the presence of a stock-phrase should presumably indicate that it functioned as an introduction, but the Hallelujah frameworks, as well as the ‫ברך‬ doxology rather points to it having a concluding function. This observation also indicates that the models above all proceed from a notion of a fivefold ‘book’ division that is not properly integrated into the argument. If related to the observations I have made both in relation to the ‫ ברך‬doxologies and the Hallelujah superscriptions, subscriptions, and frameworks, it would rather be reasonable to assume that the use of the stock-phrase, the ‫ ברך‬doxologies, and the Hallelujah psalms perform quite different functions respectively, belonging to diachronically different stages of formation. While the former should not be considered a paratext at all, reasonably not used in structuring a collection of psalms, the latter two were probably used in such a way. Here, however, the additions of Hallelujahs were later. If my reconstruction of the way these Hallelujahs have been added to the psalms are plausible (see above, pp. 278–81), it would also implicate that very few Hallelujahs were attested as part of psalms by the time Pss 106, 107, and Pss 111–117 were included in the collection, thus rendering the notion of intentional juxtaposition somewhat implausible. Consequently, while it would be reasonable to conclude that the stock-phrase relates the psalms to which they are added to the Levites of the Second Temple, they are probably not partaking in any structuring of Pss 90–150.

74

Wilson 1985a, 194–95; cf. Ballhorn 2004, 198, with n. 537. The latter rather argues that ‫ הודו‬and Hallelujah psalms are used together to conclude sections, but does, then, have the same problems with Pss 106 and 107 as noted below. See also the alternative view of Klein 2014, 346–47. 75 Zenger 1998a, 88. For Ps 106 as a later insertion, thus understanding Ps 107 as an earlier ending of a collection of psalms (Pss [1]2–107*), see Klein 2014, 296–98.

310

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

II. Further Examples of Stock-Phrases Beside the Levitical stock-phrase just discussed, there are other possible examples. Consider the phrase ‫“ ואתה אדני אל־רחום וחנון ארך אפים ורב־חסד ואמת‬But you, YHWH, are a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,” which is used in Ps 86:15, as well as in six other texts with slight variations:76 Exod 34:6, Joel 2:13, Jonah 4:2, Ps 103:8, 145:8, and Neh 9:17 (see also Num 14:18, Nah 1:3). As argued by Spieckermann, it probably has quite an old prehistory, stretching back even to Canaanite El theology.77 While Exod 34:6 is to be seen as the oldest attestation of the full phrase, none of the passages above reflect its original context.78 Allen, on the other hand, claims that it is “intimately associated with Yahweh’s renewal of the covenant on Sinai after the golden calf incident,” so that its origin would be a cultic confession.79 He also makes a possible connection between the ironic use of the phrase in Jonah and its form in Ps 145:8. According to Allen, the point made in the book of Jonah – that YHWH’s concern is universal – was probably an interpretation gaining support in this time, and the way might have been paved by texts such as Ps 145:8–9, which concludes with ‫טוב־יהוה לכל‬ ‫ורחמיו על־כל־מעשיו‬, “YHWH is good to all, his compassion is over all that he has made.”80 If so, Jonah could presuppose Ps 145, and possibly use it in a way similar to the way 2 Chr 6 related to Ps 132. Another traditional formula possibly reflecting a liturgy is the phrase ‫המעלך‬ ‫“ מארץ מצרים‬who brought you up out of the land of Egypt,” which is found in Ps 81:11, as well as in Exod 32:1, 4, 8, 23; Lev 11:45; Deut 20:1; Josh 24:17; 1 Kgs 8:9; 12:28; 2 Kgs 17:7, 36; Isa 11:16; Jer 2:6; Hos 2:17; Am 2:10; Mic 6:4.81 Likely to be an “old conventional formula for the Exodus,” Shalom M. Paul notes that it is used throughout the Hebrew Bible employing two different verbs (‫ העלה‬and ‫)הוציא‬, and discussion has centered around the possibility of relating these verbs to either P or some Deuteronomistic redaction.82 Yet another phrase possibly having independent existence is ‫עזי וזמרת יה‬ ‫“ ויהי־לי לישעה‬YHWH is my strength and my might, he has become my salvation.” It occurs in Ps 118:14, as well as in Exod 15:2 and Isa 12:2. Discussing the occurrence in the Song of the Sea in Exodus, William H. C. Propp argues that it might be original here, thus quoted in the psalm and in Isaiah,83 although 76

Cf. Spieckermann 1990, 1, with n. 3. Spieckermann 1990, 3–5. 78 Spieckermann 1990, 5. 79 Allen 1976, 80. The phrase has also left its mark on, e.g., Pss 111:4, 116:5, 2 Chr 30:9. 80 Allen 1976, 228. See also my analysis of Ps 145 above (pp. 245–51). 81 Cf. Holladay 1986, 86; Lundbom 1999, 259. 82 Paul 1991, 90–91; cf. Andersen & Freedman 1989, 330. See also, e.g., Milgrom 1991, 688. 83 Smith 2007, 281, argues that Isa 12 is dependent on both Exod 15 and Ps 118. 77

Chapter 13. Traces in the Hebrew Bible

311

the verse is “extremely difficult and possibly corrupt.”84 Similarly, Joseph Blenkinsopp argues that Isa 12 is quoting the Song of the Sea, and most psalm commentaries proceed from a similar direction of dependence as for Ps 118:14.85 However, Gerstenberger is probably correct in seeing this as a formulaic phrase, thus approaching my notion of a stock-phrase.86 Expressing the saving acts of YHWH in the Exodus from Egypt,87 the phrase ‫ביד חזקה ובזרוע נטויה‬, “with a strong hand and an outstretched arm” is probably to be understood as a stock-phrase. It is found in Ps 136:12, as well as in Deut 4:34, 5:15, 26:8, Jer 32:21, Ezek 20:33, and 34, and uses imagery with roots in Egyptian royal typology.88 The combination of the two expressions, which appear separately as well, is probably first made in Deuteronomy.89 A passage possible to see as a quote is found in Ps 31:14 and Jer 20:10, but as the key phrase here consist only of ‫מגור מסביב‬, “terror is all around,” a literary dependence is not likely. The expression occurs only six times in the Hebrew Bible, five in Jeremiah (Jer 6:25; 20:3, 10; 46:5; and 49:29), and one in Ps 31. Based on this, Holladay, argues that it is probably original in Jeremiah and quoted in the psalm (Lundbom has it the other way around),90 but a more probable conclusion would be to regard it as a fairly common expression.91 There is also some traditional material found in Ps 68:2, ‫יקום אלהים יפוצו‬ ‫אויביו וינוסו משנאיו מפניו‬, “Let God rise up, let his enemies be scattered, let those who hate him flee before him” (compare Num 10:35, where Philip J. Budd understands the phrase as “traditional liturgical material associated with the ark in the processions of the cult”).92 Furthermore, the phrase ‫שירו ליהוה שיר חדש‬, “Sing to YHWH a new song” is shared by Pss 96:1, 98:1, 149:1, and Isa 42:10,93 and within the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, the confession ‫גדול יהוה ומהלל‬ ‫מאד‬, “Great is YHWH and greatly to be praised” is found in Pss 48:2, 96:4, and 145:3, and ‫ברכי נפשי את־יהוה‬, “bless YHWH, o my soul” is shared by Pss 103:1, 2, 22; and 104:1(, 35). As for the latter, it might be suggested that the phrase provided a reason for their juxtaposition.94

84 Propp 1999, 511; cf. Durham 1987, 206, who notes the difficulties but also argues that it fits quite neatly into the context. 85 Blenkinsopp 2000, 270. Cf. also Oswalt 1986, 290, n. 6, who calls it an allusion. For the psalms, e.g., Kraus 1989, 398; Allen 2002, 166; Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 239. 86 Gerstenberger 2001, 304. 87 Zimmerli 1979, 415; Lundbom 2004, 513. For Ezekiel’s use, see Eichrodt 1970, 279. 88 Weinfeld 1991, 212; Lundbom 2004, 102. 89 Weinfeld 1991, 212. 90 Holladay 1989, 68–69; Lundbom 1999, 857. 91 Craigie & Tate 2004, 261; Goldingay 2006, 445. 92 Budd 1984, 114–15. Cf. Milgrom 1990, 81, who also points to Ps 132:8. 93 See also above, pp. 265–70. 94 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 45, suggest a deliberate redaction adding Ps 103:22; 104:1, 35.

312

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

III. Summary To sum up, the stock-phrases have provided some interesting clues about the use of psalms from the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. The clearest case was provided by the first phrase, which was argued to be connected with the Levitical singers and the Second Temple cult, while the others contributed to the general picture of the multivocality of psalmic traditions and their relation to similar traditions throughout the Hebrew Bible. The main conclusions could be summarized as follows: Pss 106:1; 107:1; relate to 118:1, 4, 29; 136 Jonah 4:2 possibly relates to Pss 103–104

are likely

the Levites and the Second Temple cult, but are not of structural significance in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms Ps 145 in a way similar to the relation between 2 Chr 6 and Ps 132 juxtaposed by means of a shared stock-phrase

D. External Indications As psalms were increasingly transmitted in collections, it would also be reasonable to assume that they would eventually have been referred to as such. However, such notions are quite difficult to find. Consider Neh 12:44–47 as an example. The passage portrays how singers (‫ )משררים‬and gatekeepers (‫)שערים‬ are appointed to serve in the temple, and v. 46 provides a motivation: Neh 12:46 ‫ המשררים ושיר־תהלה והדות לאלהים‬95‫כי־בימי דויד ואסף מקדם ראשי‬ For in the ancient days of David and Asaph, there were chiefs of the singers and songs of praise and thanksgiving to God.

Two aspects are worth noting. First, psalmody is related to David and Asaph, and is in line with the Davidization sketched in my discussion of the superscriptions (see, esp. pp. 173–78 above). Second, the verse refers to psalmody as “songs of praise and thanksgiving.” So put, they do not refer to any collection of psalms, but rather more loosely to psalmody as an undefined corpus. Consequently, although it is likely that psalms attributed to David and Asaph were known by the time of Nehemiah, and although they were probably transmitted in written collections, such collections seem not to have been significant as such. This emanates even clearer if seen in light of later texts, which do refer to psalms as part of a collection (see below, esp. pp. 355–63). Being but one example, a similar way of referring to an undemarcated body of psalms, this time explicitly connected to the temple, could be Ps 137:3 (‫)שיר ציון‬.96 95 96

So qere. Cf. Myers 1965, 206; Clines 1984, 235; Blenkinsopp 1988, 349. See also Millard 1994, 40; Bellinger Jr. 2005, 10.

Chapter 13. Traces in the Hebrew Bible

313

E. Conclusions A vast amount of texts have been surveyed in this chapter, and I will now attempt to put some of the pieces together. Focusing first on the question of Sitz in der Literatur, it has become quite clear that no such concerns were found. Now, although this could indicate that there were in fact no collections of psalms formed throughout this period, several of the observations pointed in the opposite direction. Consequently, a better conclusion would be that these collections were primarily used as “containers” of psalmody, so that the primary context of use was “outside” them. This was further supported by Neh 12:46 and Ps 137:3. Moving on, there were some indications that the perception of psalmody was transformed along several trajectories. As a first example, I observed that psalms could be used as part of arguments. Consequently, I suggested the notion of nascent scripturalization, although no example of explicit “proof-texting” could be observed. More specifically, I proposed that seeds of such a practice could be found in the way Isa 55 related to Ps 89, and subsequently also in the way 2 Chr 6 related to Ps 132. Second, I observed that psalms were increasingly associated to David and the Levites, and a third trajectory can be identified in the dominant performative use of psalms throughout these texts, that is, even in texts displaying some nascent scripturalization. Taken together, it would be safe to conclude that the psalms now found in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms were fairly influential. The reuse of psalms, shorter phrases or hymnic language seems to have been going on continuously, indicating a fluidity in the way one could work and rework existing material into something new and different. Turning more specifically to the possibilities of detecting contours of earlier phases of formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, several observations have to be related to each other. Repetitions of psalms were found both within and outside of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, and this indicates that the formation of collections of psalms was quite a tangled process. Psalms could be transmitted separately, ultimately ending up either in different contexts (2 Sam 22 and Ps 18), or in the same collection (Pss 14 and 53). Furthermore, although focus has been on MT psalms, there were several indications of the existence of psalms not included in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, although they cannot be safely reconstructed. Nevertheless, as some of the citations seemed to presuppose that psalms were part of a written transmission of psalms, the following could be tentatively suggested. First, the possible repetition of psalms throughout Isa 40–55 indicated that complaint psalms were a (significant?) part of psalmody at this time, and that psalms such as, for example, Pss 22 and 89 would have been part of the transmission. Then, based on the repetition of Pss 57 and 60 in Ps 108, and taken together with the observation that Pss 96, 105–107, 118, 132, and 136 presup-

314

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

posed a Second Temple context, it might be suggested that Pss 57 and 60 were part of a written transmission of psalms prior to the inclusion of the latter. As for the latter, they would have been included in a collection alongside several psalms attributed to David and Asaph (see, e.g., 1 Chr 16), and if seen in light of the repetition of Ps 115 in Ps 135, a further distinction could be made, so that the following general stages can be posited, although none with any clear boundaries: 1) A written transmission of psalms including (some version of) at least Pss 22, 57, 60, and 89, together with a number of complaint psalms. 2) Proceeding from stage 1, some, or all of Pss 96, 105–107, 115, 118, 132, and 136 were subsequently included. The collection would also have featured several psalms attributed to David and Asaph. 3) A last stage would have added at least Ps 135, but possibly also some of the psalms listed in stage 2, except for Ps 115, and possibly Ps 118.

If reasonable, the two later stages were in some way related to the Levitical singers and the temple cult, and were therefore not quite possible to distinguish based on the material surveyed in this chapter. I will return to this issue in Part VI.

Chapter 14

Traces in the Dead Sea Scrolls Moving on from the somewhat fuzzy sketch of psalms repeated throughout the Hebrew Bible, I now turn to a set of texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, that are difficult in another respect. Although there are more clear examples of citations, both declared and undeclared, the fragmentary state of many of the manuscripts makes analysis difficult. As with the previous section, I will try to paint a general picture by sketching the contours of possible collections of psalms and analyzing in what way these psalms are used in their new context(s). Consequently, this investigation is to be seen as a first attempt to inquire into these questions in a more systematic, although not comprehensive way. This said, an issue comes to the fore that was lurking behind the scenes in the previous chapter, namely the question of which psalms I should be searching for. As I observed in my discussion of the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls (see above, pp. 81–132), several scrolls contained compositions not included in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. So, if one wants to inquire into a possible authoritative use of psalms in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which psalms are to be in focus? I would propose that a reasonable way forward would be to carry out the investigation without making any presupposed distinction between MT psalms and other psalms. This means that, apart from compositions from the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, I will also search for traces of psalms attested in 11Q5 (11Q6), 4Q88, and 11Q11. For the sake of clarity, I will, when appropriate, make a distinction between psalms belonging to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms by designating these psalms as MT psalms, while speaking of psalms unique to 11Q5, 4Q88, or 11Q11 as compared to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms as 11Q5 psalms, 4Q88 psalms, and 11Q11 psalms respectively. The investigation is structured into four parts. In the first and second part, I focus on declared and undeclared citations respectively. In the third part, I look at the possible function of psalms when attested in “new” collections. Last, I search for external indicators (epitexts).

316

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

A. Declared Citations I. Pesharim Starting with declared citations of psalms, they all occur in texts regularly categorized as pesharim, and so it would be appropriate to first give a brief introduction to this type of text. As regularly introduced, the pesharim of Qumran have two essential building blocks: 1) a quote, and 2) an interpretation of (or commentary on) the quote introduced by some formula, regularly the word ‫פשר‬.1 The quote, which can be designated as the base text, is in some way “contemporize[d]”2 by the commentary, as aspects of the text are eschatologically applied to the interpretive community. The base text is thus understood as prophetic (as it had foretold contemporary events).3 As for the commentary part, other relevant passages are often included, which can be designated as supporting texts. The selection of these are by no means random, but guided by the base text, so that the commentary “is carefully constructed with all manner of allusions primarily to other scriptural texts which have not only suitable vocabulary but also suitable literary contexts of their own.”4 Evidently, both base and supporting texts would have been regarded as authoritative for both writers and intended readers/hearers of the commentary,5 and consequently, these manuscripts would be of special importance for the question of the shape and use of psalms and collections of psalms. The pesharim are also commonly divided into two types, continuous and thematic.6 Characteristic of continuous pesharim are that they consist of a series of quotes where the Hebrew Bible passages are (ideally) in sequence, and without any omissions.7 The pesher on Habakkuk is often referred to as its prime example. Related to the focus of my discussion, these pesharim are important since they could provide examples of psalms being read and commented upon in sequence. As for the thematic pesharim, they are constructed more selectively, not necessarily following the structure of the base text, but citing eclectically from a number of texts which are then structured according to a certain theme.8 Nonetheless, they are commonly organized with attention to the sequence of 1

Cf. Berrin 2005, 112–13. So Berrin 2005, 114. 3 Evans 2000a, 123–24. 4 Brooke 1994, 350. Brooke 2013, 96–97, further suggests a multilayered “intertextual hierarchy,” where the base text is at the top, followed by explicit references to other authoritative texts, as well as other texts in a descending scale. 5 Cf. Flint 2000, 77. 6 Other categories have also been suggested, see, e.g., Dimant 1992, 245–48. 7 Brooke 2005b, 135. There are a number of exceptions, see, e.g., Berrin 2000, 645. 8 Laughlin & Tzoref 2011, 169–70. 2

Chapter 14. Traces in the Dead Sea Scrolls

317

the Hebrew Bible in a more general sense, moving from Torah to the prophets (see, for example, 4Q174 and 4Q175).9 In sum, these texts could provide an interesting window into the way psalms and collections of psalms were used in the late Second Temple period. II. 1Q16 1Q16, a very damaged manuscript probably from the later third of the first century BCE, consists of 18 fragments, and remains of commentaries on two psalms are visible.10 Fragment 1 possibly quotes Ps 57:1, frag. 2 perhaps includes a citation of Ps 57:4, and the rest of the manuscript (frags. 3–10) comments upon Ps 68. The first verses remaining are Ps 68:12–13, followed by ‫פשרו‬, then, in frag. 8, are Ps 68:26–27, followed by vv. 30–31 in frags. 9–10. III. 4Q171 The next manuscript, 4Q171, has been described as containing a continuous pesher.11 It consists of four columns (possibly five) of text reconstructed from 13 fragments, and dates between the last third of the first century BCE and the first half of the first century CE.12 Several psalms are commented upon in their entirety. The first part of the damaged first column possibly has parts of Ps 37:5–6 extant on lines 11–12, followed by a commentary. Clearly visible is then Ps 37:7, followed by a commentary introduced by (a reconstructed) ‫פשרו‬, and the manuscript continues to quote Ps 37 in smaller sections throughout cols. i–iv, each one likely to be followed by a ‫פשרו‬, although it is not always extant: Ps 37:8–9a + ‫ ;פשרו‬Ps 37:9b + ‫ ;פשרו‬Ps 37:10 + ‫ ;פשרו‬Ps 37:11 + ‫ ;פשרו‬Ps 37:12– 13 + ‫ ;פשרו‬Ps 37:14–15 + ‫[ ;פשרו‬vacat]; Ps 37:16 + [‫ ;]פשרו‬Ps 37:17–18 + [‫ ;]פשרו‬Ps 37:19a + [‫ ;]פשרו‬Ps 37:19b–20a + ‫ ;פשרו‬Ps 37:20b + ‫ ;פשרו‬Ps 37:20c + ‫ ;פשרו‬Ps 37:21–22 + ‫ ;פשרו‬Ps 37:23–24 + ‫ ;פשרו‬Ps 37:25–26 + [‫ ;]פשרו‬Ps 37:28 + [‫ ;]פשרו‬Ps 37:29 + [‫ ;]פשרו‬Ps 37:30–31 + [‫ ;]פשרו‬Ps 37:32– 33 + ‫ ;פשרו‬Ps 37:34 + [‫ ;]פשרו‬Ps 37:35–36 + [‫ ;]פשרו‬Ps 37:37 + ‫ ;פשרו‬Ps 37:38 + [‫ ;]פשרו‬Ps 37:39–40 + [‫]פשרו‬. Following this psalm is a vacat in col. iv line 22, and a quote from Ps 45:1a with ‫ פשרו‬+ commentary starting in line 23; Ps 45:1b + [‫ ;]פשרו‬Ps 45:2 + [‫]פשרו‬. Probably related to 4Q171 are also three additional fragments (11–13), where frag. 13 contains a quote from Ps 60:8–9 (or

9

See, e.g., 4Q179 where Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua are quoted in an order congruent with the MT (Laughlin & Tzoref 2011, 172, with n. 14). 10 Barthélemy & Milik 1955, 81–82; Flint 1997a, 46; Evans 2000a, 109; Horgan 2002b, 25. 11 Evans 2000a, 109. For text, translation and commentary see Allegro 1968, 42–50. 12 Horgan 2002a, 6.

318

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

Ps 108:8–9, see pp. 299–301 above) + [‫]פשרו‬.13 No supporting texts from the Hebrew Bible are used in relation to any of these psalms. Several interesting features appear here. First, it is clear that the pesher is continuous, but that this only applies to the individual psalms, not to any arrangement of psalms. As with the psalms of 4QMidrEscha.b below, the psalms attested here are not found in sequences conflicting with the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms (no ‘psalms’ scroll juxtaposes Ps 37 with Ps 45), and so their order here would not be indicative of any specific collection of psalms.14 Moreover, the interpretive context is not a literary collection of psalms, but the individual psalm itself. Second, it is to be noted that the distinction between thematic and continuous pesharim is not functional as it comes to pesharim on psalms. Although 4Q171 is regularly designated as a continuous pesher, the psalms are nevertheless likely to have been chosen on thematic grounds.15 Third, the pesher indicates that the three psalms were considered authoritative, prophetic scripture, and the interpretation is eschatological.16 So put, they were probably belonging to a written transmission of well-known psalms.17 IV. 4Q173 4Q173 is very fragmented, but seems to quote psalms in a way similar to 4Q171. Thus, it is commonly seen as a continuous pesher, dating to before the end of the first century BCE.18 Frag. 1 has Ps 127:2–3 + [‫]פשרו‬, frag. 2 probably quotes Ps 127:3a + [‫ ]פשרו‬and Ps 127:3b + ‫פשרו‬, while frag. 3 quotes Ps 127:5 + [‫]פשרו‬. In frags. 4 and 5, two other psalms are possibly quoted: first Ps 129:7–8, and then Ps 118:20, both probably followed by ‫( פשרו‬although it is not preserved). While the juxtaposition of Pss 127–129 is attested in 11Q5 (and possibly reconstructed in 4Q87), the placing of Ps 118:20 after Ps 129 is not found in any manuscript. As with the previous manuscripts, the psalms are used as authoritative prophetic texts, interpreted eschatologically.

13

Gillingham 2002, 485, notes that 4Q171 includes a reference to Ps 127 as well, but this is probably a mistake, as it rather belongs to 4Q173. 14 Cf. Lange 2009, 438. 15 Cf. Brooke 2005b, 142. Katzin 2004, 161–62, suggests a theme of testing (cf. Flint 2005, 165). 16 Cf. Horgan 2002a, 6. 17 The argument by Brooke 2005b, 141–42, that Pss 38–44 would have been omitted because they did not fit with the writer’s theme is not necessary. 18 Horgan 2002c, 31.

Chapter 14. Traces in the Dead Sea Scrolls

319

V. 4Q174 and 4Q177 The next pesher to be inquired into has been briefly introduced above (see pp. 160–62). As mentioned there, Steudel has argued that the two manuscripts 4Q174 and 4Q177 in fact constitute copies of the same literary work, 4QMidrEschata.b.19 The first copy, 4Q174 (4QFlorilegium) consists of 26 fragments dating to somewhere between the second half of the first century BCE and the beginning of the first century CE.20 The second, 4Q177 (Catena A), dates to the second half of the first century BCE.21 As for the content, it has been suggested that the work is best understood as a thematic pesher, with Brooke even proposing that the order of the texts attested could reflect an “emerging canon such as might be hinted at in 4QMMT.”22 Although difficult to assess, it would at least indicate that the fundamental interpretive context of the juxtaposed base texts is an authoritative (however demarcated) body of scriptures, and is thus not primarily the immediate literary context of the quoted passage, or even the ‘book’ to which the passage belongs. Looking first at 4Q174, five base texts are attested, Deut 33, 2 Sam 7, Pss 1 and 2, and possibly Ps 5. As for the latter, it could also belong to 4Q177.23 Focusing on the psalmic base texts, they are commented upon in light of five supporting texts also taken from the Hebrew Bible. Sometimes, these supporting texts are clearly declared citations, as illustrated by the lines following the quote of Ps 1:1, introducing Isa 8:11: ‫בספר ישעיה הנביא לאחרית‬ l ‫אשר כתוב‬ ‫]ה[ימים‬, “as is written in the scroll of Isaiah the prophet in reference to the Last [D]ays” (4Q174 1–2 i 15). Taken together, the use of psalms in 4Q174 implies that they were regarded as authoritative, and as they are all used in a larger argument intended to reveal, among other things, the identity of the community of the last days, it is reasonable to assert that they were also understood to be prophetic.24 Proceeding to 4Q177, psalms are possible to identify in four of the five reconstructed columns.25 The beginning of col. i is fragmentary, but contains what seems to be the end of an interpretation of Ps 10:2, 7–11 (as a base text) with Isa 37:30 and 32:7 as (extant) supporting texts. This column, consisting of

19

Steudel 1994, esp. 127–51. Also mentioned as potential copies of this work are 4Q178, 4Q182 (designated as Catena B in the editio princeps, see Milgrom & Novakovic 2002b, 305), and 4Q183. See also Brooke 2005b, 149. 20 Brooke 2000b, 297; cf. Milgrom 2002, 248. See also Allegro 1968, 53–57. 21 Brooke 2000a, 121. (“Early Herodian, or late Herodian period” Milgrom & Novakovic 2002a, 286). See also Allegro 1968, 67–74. 22 Brooke 2005b, 147; cf. Brooke 2013, 88. For 4QMMT, see below, pp. 342–44. 23 Laughlin & Tzoref 2011, 171, with n. 10, as well as 173–74. 24 Cf. Flint 1997a, 218. 25 The overview depends on Brooke 2000a, 121–22; Brooke 2013, 94; Laughlin & Tzoref 2011, 171. In Steudel’s reconstruction, the columns are renumbered.

320

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

frags. 5, 6, and 8, then quotes Ps 11:1–2 as base text, followed by an interpretation (possibly introduced by ‫ )פשר‬with a supporting quote from Mic 2:10–11. Also extant is Ps 12:1, interpreted in the light of Isaiah. The second column (frags. 7, 9, 10, 11, 20, 26) features quotations from Ps 12:7 and Ps 13:2–3, 5 (the latter followed by ‫ )פשר‬as base texts, the first with Zech 3:9 (and possibly LXX Isa 6:10) as the supporting text(s), and the second supported by Ezek 25:8. Moving on, col. iii (frags. 1, 2, 3, 4, 14, 24, 31) has Ps 16:3 and 17:1 (followed by ‫ )פשר‬as two base texts, with a number of supporting texts quoted, and consequently, all these columns reveal a use of psalms similar to 4Q174. The words of the base text are understood eschatologically (the expression “the last days” [‫ ]באחרית הימים‬is, for example, attested several times), and these features pertain to the entire manuscript. The last column, col. iv (frags. 12–13), attests the last part of a quote from Ezek 22:20 and Jer 18:18, followed by Ps 6:2–6. So put, it is not clear if the psalm is to be considered as a base text or a supporting text. The quote from Jer 18 ends as follows: 4Q177 12–13 iv 7 … ‫]ו[ה אל באפכה תו֯ ]כיחני‬ ֯ ‫] [לאחרית ֯ה]י[מים ֯אשר אמר דויד י֯ ֯ה‬ This refers to] the Last D[a]ys, of which David said, “O YH[W]H, do not [rebuke me] in Your anger (Ps 6:1)

As seen here, Ps 6 seems to be used as a supporting text to Jer 18:18, but the picture is somewhat blurred as the quote from Ps 6 comes to an end. Consider line 8: ‫[למים על‬ ֯

4Q177 12–13 iv 8 ‫נפ]שי‬ ֯ ‫… ועתה יהוה עד מתי חונני חלצה‬

… but now, O YHWH, how long? Have mercy, deliver [my] soul [ ” (Ps 6:2–4). This refers to] the Last Days, about

Ultimately, the key is how to interpret ‫ אשר אמר‬on line 7. While Steudel points to 4Q174 and notes that ‫ אמר‬formulas are often used to demarcate subordinate quotes, Mark Laughlin and Shani Tzoref claim that the phrase is not common enough to draw any definitive conclusion.26 If seen as a base text, the psalms featuring in 4Q177 would be quoted in the following order: Pss 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 6. If regarded as a supporting text, however, the consecutive arrangement of psalms would be more in line with the order of psalms in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. A third possibility is proposed by John Strugnell, who places frags. 12–13 before frags. 5–6, so that Ps 6 precedes Ps 10.27 If combined with the possibility that 4Q174 is a copy of the same work, a sequence of

26 27

Steudel 1994, 142; Laughlin & Tzoref 2011, 172, n. 13. Strugnell 1969, 245.

Chapter 14. Traces in the Dead Sea Scrolls

321

at least 10 psalms emerges (Pss 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17), and it could perhaps be relevant to note that none of these psalms (when attested) occur in sequences conflicting with the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms in any of the ‘psalms’ scrolls (see above, pp. 110–21). Such a pattern is interesting, especially when it is noted that the verses quoted are often the first verse(s) of each psalm. As argued in relation to 4Q174 (see above, pp. 160–62), the use of incipits could indicate that the entire psalm is evoked, so that a similar notion could be appropriate here as well. However, Strugnell’s relocation of Ps 6 has been refuted as unlikely on material grounds,28 although the issue is still not entirely settled,29 and important in this context is also the observation that Pss 14 and 15 are not included. This could be due to the fragmentary state of the manuscript, but as argued by Strugnell (and Steudel), the reconstructed columns were likely to be consecutive, so that Pss 14 and 15 would not have fitted between Ps 13 and Ps 16.30 What, then, do these manuscripts possibly reveal about the use and function of psalms? First, it can be noted that they are regarded as prophetic. Consequently, one of the trajectories suggested in the survey of citations in the Hebrew Bible is here seen in full bloom. Second, line 7 in col. iv indicates that it was David who spoke prophetically about the last days. Last, the psalms are applied to a community. Proceeding from the overlap between the order in which several of the psalms are commented upon and the order in which they are found in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, it would not be far-fetched to assume that 4QMidrEschata.b reflects some common practice of juxtaposition.31 This said, it is equally clear that although such sequences are used in structuring the pesher, the author(s) did not understand them to have any interpretative significance per se.32 Would the latter have been the case, one would perhaps have expected Pss 14 and 15 between Ps 13 and Ps 16, and perhaps another placement of Ps 6.33 Rather, psalms seem to have been used as distinct compositions, so that the pesher in

28

Steudel 1994, 66–70. Cf. VanderKam 1995, 577. 30 See Strugnell 1969, 241. Steudel 1994, 93, 129, also reconstructs Ps 5:10 between the quotes of Pss 12 and 13, but the reading is uncertain (cf., VanderKam 1995, 577; Flint 1997a, 47). 31 Only in this sense could one agree with Lange 2009, 438, when he concludes that 4QMidrEschata.b quotes “eine Psalmen-Sammlung.” Consequently, there is no warrant for the suggestion that the collection quoted has “eine von Ps-" abweichende Liedfolge.” 32 I develop this further in Willgren 2016c. 33 Perhaps worth mentioning here is the suggestion by Hossfeld & Zenger 2005, 38–39, that Pss 3–14 (in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms) are arranged “as a corpus of petitionary ‘search for refuge’,” with Pss 11–14 as a sub-group. Nothing in 4Q177 indicates any familiarity with such an idea. 29

322

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

question does not contain a running commentary on a ‘Book’ of Psalms, but rather a selection of psalms coherent with the overarching theme.34 VI. 11Q13 The last manuscript including declared citations of psalms is 11Q13. Dated to the middle of first century BCE, it consists of eleven fragments with three columns.35 While col. i has only some single words remaining (among others the mentioning of Moses), cols. ii and iii contain most of the preserved text. Possibly a thematic pesher, it has a clear eschatological orientation.36 Its overall focus is on the end of days, more specifically on the tenth jubilee, and chronology seems to be an important feature throughout.37 Among the Hebrew Bible passages quoted, two psalms, Pss 82 and 7, appear in col. ii 9–12 as follows:38 11Q13 ii 9–12 ‫שלת משפט כאשר כתוב‬l ‫לממ‬ l ‫ע[ם קדושי אל‬ ֯ ‫לצ ֯ב]איו‬ ֯ ֯‫צדק ו‬ ֯ ‫ץ ֯לשנת הרצון למלכי‬l ‫הק‬ l ‫ הואה‬9 [‫ו[עלי]ה‬ l ‫מ]ר‬l ‫א‬l ‫ועליו‬ l ‫[בקורב אלוהים ישפוט‬ l ‫בע]דת אל‬ l ‫]נ[צב‬ l ‫ דויד אשר אמר אלוהים‬l‫ עליו בשירי‬10 ‫ למרום שובה אל ידין עמים ואשר א]מר עד מתי ת[שפוטו עוול ופני רשע]י[ם תש]או ס[לה‬11 [‫מחוקי אל ל]הרשיע‬ l ‫]רמ[ה‬ ֯ l‫ ם בסו‬l‫י‬°[ ‫וחי גורלו אש]ר‬ ֯ ‫ר‬l ‫ פשרו על בליעל ועל‬12 9

it is the time for the year of grace of Melchizedek and of [his] arm[ies, the nati]on [of] the holy ones of God, of the administration of justice, as it is written 10 about him in the songs of David, who said: “Elohim shall [st]and in the ass[embly of God]; in the midst of the gods he shall judge” (Ps 82:1). And about him he sa[id: “And] above [it,] 11 to the heights, return: God shall judge the nations” (Ps 7:7–8). And as for what he s[aid: “How long will you] judge unjustly, and be par[tial] to the wick[e]d. [Se]lah,” (Ps 82:2) 12 the interpretation of it concerns Belial and the spirits of his lot wh[o ], in [the]ir tur[ning] away from God’s commandments to [commit evil].

The first verses in question apparently discuss the identity of Melchizedek, and by quoting Ps 82:1 and Ps 7:7–8, he is described as presiding in a divine assembly as a judge.39 This is probably also the main link intended between the two 34 Cf. Steudel 1989, 479; Brooke 2000a, 122. Laughlin & Tzoref proceed from an idea that 4Q177 was modeled upon the form of a complaint psalm, so that each psalm quoted relates to a specific element of such a psalm, as traditionally reconstructed by form critics. In such a view, Pss 14 and 15 would have been omitted because they differed from the others by not being psalms “in which an individual addresses God in the belief that God will hear his prayer and save him from his wicked enemies” (Laughlin & Tzoref 2011, 173). However, in light of the presence of Pss 1–2 on 4Q174, the idea emanates as unconvincing. 35 García Martínez, Tigchelaar, & Van der Woude 1998, 223. For a discussion of the date, see also Roberts 2002, 264. 36 Brooke 2005b, 150. 37 Brooke 2005b, 150–51. 38 García Martínez, Tigchelaar, & Van der Woude 1998, 225, 229. 39 Interestingly, Mosser 2005, 61–62, has noted overlaps between 11Q13 and early

Chapter 14. Traces in the Dead Sea Scrolls

323

psalms, and so put, the psalm verses are subordinate to the theme, used as part of a larger argument.40 However, this does not apply to Ps 82:2. Rather than being a subordinate quote, the psalm seems to be used as a base text, followed by ‫פשרו‬. Nevertheless, focus is still on the latter days, and the explanation given is well in line with the overall argument of the text, since the wicked of Ps 82:2 are identified with Belial and his followers. Consequently, the psalms are also understood as prophetic. The mentioning of the “songs of David” (‫ )בשירי דויד‬is noteworthy, not least since Ps 82 is not attributed to David, but to Asaph (in MT, the LXX, and the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls).41 In fact, this could provide an indication of Ps 82 being commonly juxtaposed to psalms attributed to David. Put differently, it would be plausible to suggest that the referencing of Pss 82 and 7 as part of a transmitted corpus of “songs of David” (i.e., more songs than the ones quoted here) indicates that such a corpus included psalms attributed to others as well, hence implying some sort of written sequences. If reasonable, one could perhaps see here a first indication of the kind of Davidization of psalms I suggested as a consequence of the fixation of Ps 72:20.42 In this view, an entire collection of psalms was to be understood as Davidic despite the mentioning of other individuals or groups throughout the superscriptions, and as will be seen in the next chapter, such an explanation is quite plausible (see, esp. pp. 352–55). Ultimately, I would suggest that 11Q13 indicates that there existed an authoritative (Davidic) body of psalms from which Pss 82 and 7 were chosen. However, not much additional clues are given as to how such a body would have materialized on scrolls (for one, the two psalms are not juxtaposed in any of the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls). VII. Summary So far, only fairly explicit citations have been surveyed, all found in the DSS pesharim. Common to the way in which the psalms were interpreted was that they were all treated as prophetic texts, commented upon alongside other prophets in the Hebrew Bible, and their use as base texts further underscored an authoritative status. Regularly, they were also mentioned to be Davidic (either explicitly, or by means of quoting the psalm superscription), and in one case, a possible reference was made to other psalms, although these were not specified any further (11Q13). Of the scrolls surveyed in this section, 4QMidrEschata.b provided the clearest example of a possible sequential use of psalms, as several

Christian writers, suggesting that the latter “independently adapted an interpretation of Psalm 82 that was common currency in the Second Temple era.” 40 Cf. García Martínez, Tigchelaar, & Van der Woude 1998, 231–32. 41 A similar observation is made by Bayer 1982, 44; cf. Schuller 1992, 96, n. 26. 42 See above, pp. 196–201, and Willgren 2016b.

324

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

psalms now juxtaposed in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms were consecutively commented upon. However, while a common way of arranging psalms probably influenced the structure of the pesher, it did not play any significant role in the actual interpretation.43 Put differently, the interpretive framework was not a collection or sub-collection of psalms, but rather generic, as related to the overall argument of the pesher. The attribution of Ps 82 to David also indicated significant Davidization of psalmody. Consequently, the following tentative conclusions could be drawn: 4QMidrEscha.b

4Q171 4Q173 1Q16 11Q13

understands

Pss 1–2, 5, 6, 10–13, and 16–17 as authoritative and prophetic likely presupposes a collection including these psalms presupposes the reception of such a collection as Davidic understands Pss 37, 45, and 60/108 as authoritative and prophetic understands Pss 118, 127, (128?), and 129 as authoritative and prophetic understands Pss 57 and 68 as authoritative and prophetic presupposes a Davidic collection including Pss 7 and 82 understands these psalms as authoritative and prophetic

From this, it follows that psalms are often commented upon in an order congruent with the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, although it seems always to be the individual psalm (as opposed to a possible collections) that is considered authoritative. While most psalms are found throughout MT Pss 1–72, at least four are from the latter parts of the MT collection, but more notable is what is lacking: no 11Q5 psalm, nor any 4Q88 psalm, or 11Q11 psalm is quoted as authoritative, prophetic scripture in any of the pesharim surveyed here. Although the full implications of this cannot be judged just yet, it surely seems indicative of some aspects of their use, and I will return to a possible interpretation of this observation in my final discussion (see below, pp. 345–46).

B. Undeclared Citations I. 4Q176 Moving on to undeclared citations, 4Q176 (4QConsolations or 4QTanhumim) contain a number of possible citations of texts known from the Hebrew Bible. The manuscript is dated to the first half or middle of the first century BCE, con-

43

Unfortunately, Mroczek 2012, 33, does not discuss this pesher, but argues that “only seven psalms appear in these documents, scattered over three manuscripts in two different caves, and presented in a way that does not reflect their Masoretic order.” This also applies to Mroczek 2016, 34–35.

Chapter 14. Traces in the Dead Sea Scrolls

325

sists of 57 fragments, and two scribal hands are attested.44 In all, five columns have been reconstructed from a large amount of fragments, and while cols. i–v contain quotes mainly from Isaiah (Isa 40:1–5; 41:8–9; 41:10; 43:1–7; 44:3; 49:7, 13–17; 51:22–23; 51:23; 52:1–3; 54:4–10), but also from Zechariah (13:9), the surviving parts of col i 12–15 feature a prayer overlapping with Ps 79.45 The main difference from the use made of psalms in the pesharim is that the quotes in 4Q176 are not made subject to any commentary, but are rather “presented within a framework constituted by the structuring voice of the author, ensuring that the words of scripture are read within their proper perspective.”46 It has been suggested that the main focus of the composition is the fate of the “people of God,” and according to Jesper Høgenhaven, the manuscript reflects a transition from a state of humiliation for the righteous to a state where the glory of God is revealed, and judgment passed on all mankind, resulting in the reward and blessing of the people.47 While John M. Allegro called it a pesher, Høgenhaven seems to be correct to understand it as a prayer “borrowing inspiration in perspective and wording from Psalm 79.”48 The similarities between lines 13–15 and Ps 79:1–3 are as follows:

[‫נחמו נחמו עמי‬

4Q176 1–2 i 13–15 ]‫דם‬ l ‫ מקדשכה וריבה עם ממלכות על‬13 ]‫ ירושלים וראה נבלת כוהניכה‬14 ]‫ומים‬ ֯ ‫תנח‬ ֯ ‫ ואין קובר ומן ספר ישעיה‬15

13 Your sanctuary, and strive against kingdoms over the blood of … 14 Jerusalem, and see the corpses of your priests … 15 And there is none to bury them. And from the book of Isaiah consolations … Ps 79:1–3 ‫ מזמור לאסף אלהים באו גוים בנחלתך טמאו את־היכל קדשך שמו את־ירושלם לעיים‬1 ‫ נתנו את־נבלת עבדיך מאכל לעוף השמים בשר חסידיך לחיתו־ארץ‬2 ‫ שפכו דמם כמים סביבות ירושלם ואין קובר‬3 1 2 3

A psalm of Asaph. O God, the nations have come into your inheritance, they have defiled your holy temple, they have laid Jerusalem in ruins. They have given the bodies of your servants to the birds of the air for food, the flesh of your faithful to the wild animals of the earth. They have poured out their blood like water all around Jerusalem, and there was no one to bury them.

44

Allegro 1968, 60–67; Lichtenberger 2002, 329–30; Høgenhaven 2007, 100–101. Høgenhaven 2007, 101–8. 46 Høgenhaven 2007, 122. 47 Høgenhaven 2007, 122. 48 Høgenhaven 2007, 112, with n. 32. 45

326

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

Seen here, 4Q176 also makes a connection to a passage from the “book of Isaiah.” In fact, the relation between the prayer and Isaiah seems similar to the one I proposed for the psalms quoted in Isa 40–55, namely that the latter provides an answer (a consolation) to the situation depicted in the psalm.49 Consequently, it is in line with one of the trajectories sketched above, where psalmody and prophecy are put in dialogue. Equally clear, however, is that the passage scarcely reveals any direct borrowing, but only indicates that, at best, Ps 79 (or psalms in general) might have been used as a model. II. 4Q380–381 Two interesting manuscripts, 4Q380 and 4Q381, written with different hands, are dated to the Middle to Late Hasmonean period.50 Of 4Q380 remains seven fragments, and while there are 102 fragments of 4Q381, only nine or ten are in manageable sizes.51 As there is no overlap between the two manuscripts,52 several possibilities concerning their relation have been suggested, and Schuller has helpfully presented some of the main alternatives.53 She notes that there are five superscriptions preserved throughout 4Q380 and 4Q381 (counting at least three psalms in 4Q380, and at least 12 in 4Q381):54 4Q380 1 ii 8 reads ‫תהלה‬ ‫“( לעבדיה‬a Tehillah of Obadiah”); 4Q380 4 1 reads ]‫“( תהלה ל‬a Tehillah of …”); 4Q381 24 4 reads ‫ל]הי[ם‬ ֯ ‫א‬l ‫“( תהלה לאיש ֯ה‬a Tehillah of the man of God”); 4Q381 31 4 reads ‫“( מ[לך יהודה‬a … of the king of Judah”); and 4Q381 33 8 reads ‫“( תפלה למנשה מלך יהודה בכלו אתו מלך אשור‬a Tefillah of Manasseh, king of Judah, when the king of Assyria imprisoned him”). Although some superscriptions are fragmentary, and some perhaps added later,55 Schuller observes that the identification of the unknown “man of God” is an important interpretive key. Here, two alternatives are often suggested. Either, the phrase refers to David (cf. Neh 12:24, 36; 2 Chr 8:14) or else, it refers to Moses.56 If referring to David, one could see 4Q381 as a “royal collection” (since all three superscriptions are referring to kings), and 4Q380 as a related, but distinct, “prophet-

49

Cf. Høgenhaven 2007, 113, although no connection to Isa 40–55 is made. Schuller 1992, 90; Eshel et al. 1998, 76, 88; Pajunen 2012b, 186. Brooke 2004, 12, suggests that these manuscripts should perhaps be dealt with as psalms scrolls, as they are presented in a similar way as other psalms. See also Davis 2015. 51 Schuller 1992, 90–91. 52 Schuller 1992, 90. 53 Schuller 1992, esp. 96. 54 So Schuller 1997, 1 (in contrast to Schuller 1992, 91). Apart from the superscriptions, two psalms end with Selah (‫)סלה‬. 55 So Schuller 1992, 95, although the only argument provided for a possible later addition is a comparison with the superscriptions of the psalms from the ‘Book’ of Psalms (see n. 19) and the Psalms of Solomon (cf. Schuller 1997, 2, with n. 8). 56 Schuller 1992, 96, with n. 24; cf. Schuller 1997, 2. 50

Chapter 14. Traces in the Dead Sea Scrolls

327

ic collection.” However, if interpreted as Moses (or perhaps some other prophetic figure), the two manuscripts could be seen as copies of the same collection, and furthermore, that the collection would have been non-Davidic. In relation to the latter, Schuller then suggests that it could be seen as a “supplement to the biblical psalter which by this time was more and more considered as totally the work of David.”57 As seen here, the superscriptions frequently use ‫תהלה‬, thus constituting somewhat of a contrast to the superscriptions of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms where the term is attested only once, in the superscription of Ps 145, a psalm I have argued to belong to the final stage of formation (see above, pp. 281–86). Interestingly, Schuller argues that “[g]iven that the superscriptions in 4Q380 and 381 are so clearly modeled in form and vocabulary on the biblical Psalter, I am inclined to see here some influence from Ps. 145 in the choice of ‫[ התלה‬sic] but I cannot draw the link more clearly.”58 To my view, the observation is much to the point, and might in fact indicate that the Hallelujah additions had started to influence the perception of psalms as ‫תהלים‬, perhaps both in the sense of a demarcated collection (e.g. 4Q491, see below, pp. 342–45) and Davidic psalms in general (e.g. 11Q5 27 3–5). If so, the influence would probably not be from Ps 145 in any direct sense, but rather from the overall impact of the Hallelujah psalms in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. The observation by Schuller that ‫ תהלה‬was “becoming a more common designation for psalmody in the post-exilic period” would certainly fit such an idea quite neatly.59 1. 4Q380 Turning first to 4Q380, it contains, in 1 i 1–11, a psalm focusing on Zion that has some overlaps with Ps 106:2–5 (esp. lines 7–11).60 In fact, these overlaps have caused some discussion as to the direction of dependence between the two. Although it is commonly assumed that Ps 106 is prior to 4Q380, Pajunen has recently expanded on an early suggestion by Brooke that Ps 106 in fact borrows from the version now attested in 4Q380.61 Consider the following:62

57

Schuller 1992, 96, with n. 26. Pajunen 2012b, 187, however, has argued that since features characteristic to 4Q381 are not found in 4Q380, they probably reflect two distinct collections. 58 Schuller 1998, 217–18. 59 Schuller 1992, 98. Apart from the two passages above, Schuller also mentions ‫תהלי פלא‬ in 4Q400 2 4; 4Q403 1 ii 1; 3 2; 4Q405 18 5, and ‫ תהלת המשוב‬in 1QM 14 2. To these, yet a number of fragments could be adduced, essentially substantiating the picture (see, for example., additional occurrences in 4Q403, as well as in 4Q286, 4Q404, 4Q405, 4Q503–504, 4Q510, 4Q511, and 11Q17). 60 Eshel et al. 1998, 80. 61 Brooke 1989; Pajunen 2012b. 62 Text and translation of 4Q380 are from Pajunen 2012b, 188–91.

328

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

֯‫[ו‬

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

4Q380 1 i 1–11 ]‫[ ֯ע ֯ל‬ ] 1 ‫ירו[שלם היא‬ ] 2 ‫ ה מעולם ועד‬l‫ ]העיר בחר יה[ו‬3 ‫[קדשים‬ ] 4 ‫ קרא עליה‬l‫ש[ם יהוה נ‬ ֯ ‫ ]כי‬5 ‫ ]וכבדו[ נראה על ירושלם‬6 ‫את שם‬l ‫ ציון מי ימלל‬vacat 7 [‫תהלת]ו‬ l ‫ הוה וישמעו כל‬l‫ י‬8 ֯‫]זכ[רו יהוה ברצנו ויפקד ֯הו‬ l 9 ‫בטוב‬ ֯ ‫ להראות‬10 ‫לש]מח בשמחת‬ ֯ ֯‫רי֯ ו‬l ֯‫ ]בח[י‬11 [ ‫ עם נחלתו‬12

[ Jeru]salem, that is [the city YH]WH [chose] forever and ever [ ] holy ones [for the na]me of YHWH is invoked upon it [and his glory] is seen upon Jerusalem vacat O Zion! Who can utter the name of YHWH and who are the ones to declare all [his] praise? YHWH [remem]bered him in his favor. And visited him to let him experience the prosperity of his chosen ones, to make him [rejoice in gladness with his inheritance ] Ps 106:1–6 ‫ הודו ליהוה כי־טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬1 ‫ מי ימלל גבורות יהוה ישמיע כל־תהלתו‬2 ‫ אשרי שמרי משפט עשה צדקה בכל־עת‬3 ‫ זכרני יהוה ברצון עמך פקדני בישועתך‬4 ‫ לראות בטובת בחיריך לשמח בשמחת גויך להתהלל עם־נחלתך‬5 ‫ חטאנו עם־אבותינו העוינו הרשענו‬6

1 2 3 4 5 6

O give thanks to YHWH, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever. Who can utter the mighty doings of YHWH, or declare all his praise? Happy are those who observe justice, who do righteousness at all times. Remember me, YHWH, when you show favor to your people, help me when you deliver them, that I may see the prosperity of your chosen ones, that I may rejoice in the gladness of your nation, that I may glory in your heritage. Both we and our ancestors have sinned, we have committed iniquity, have done wickedly.

From this overview, the following differences can be seen: 1) Zion is not mentioned in Ps 106; 2) Ps 106:2 has ‫גבורות‬, where 4Q380 1 i 7 has ‫ ;את שם‬3) Ps 106:2 has ‫ שמע‬in hifil impf. 3 m. s., while 4Q380 has qal impf. 3 m. pl.; 4) Ps 106:3 is not found in 4Q380; 5) Ps 106:4 is formulated as a supplication, and

Chapter 14. Traces in the Dead Sea Scrolls

329

has a double reference to the people not found in 4Q380 1 i 9; and 6) Ps 106:5 continues as a supplication, and has the terms ‫גויך להתהלל‬, which are not found in 4Q380 1 i 10–12.63 How, then, could these differences be interpreted? If first related to the structure of Ps 106, I stated in my brief discussion of Ps 106 (see above, pp. 209–10) that the relation between the first six verses and the rest of the psalm (the historical narrative of vv. 7–46 and the last vv. 47–48) has been highly debated. Some basic observations can be made. Hossfeld, for one, divides the verses into three parts, vv. 1, 2–3, 4–5, and argues that v. 1 is “indispensable in Ps 106” since the rest of the psalm (vv. 2–3, 6ff) presupposes it. Furthermore, vv. 2–3 provide a question (v. 2) followed by an answer (v. 3), while vv. 4–5 are seemingly misplaced as they are formulated in first person singular.64 The sixth verse is regularly viewed as introducing the historical narrative.65 Proceeding from such a division, it is to be noted that vv. 4–5 seem to presuppose some kind of national calamity, which would (so the psalmist hopes) be followed by some salvific act.66 Also noteworthy is that ancient versions have the suffixes in plural,67 and that ‫ גוי‬is rarely used in connection with YHWH in the Hebrew Bible. In all, these verses seem quite fragmented in relation to the rest of the psalm, and it has consequently been suggested that they have a compositional function, not only in relation to the final verses in Ps 106, but also to the surrounding psalms. Hossfeld and Zenger, for example, have argued that vv. 4–5 are best seen in light of Ps 107, and it is well known that there are multiple overlaps between these two psalms, as well as between Ps 106 and Ps 105.68 Moving on to 4Q380, the composition seems more coherent. With a clear focus on Zion, the psalmist looks to YHWH’s acts in retrospect (lines 9–12). However, the use of the third person masculine singular suffixes is not entirely clear. Either they refer to Zion, or to the unnamed person mentioned in line 7. While Schuller opts for the latter, Corinna Körting has argued convincingly for the former (for example, by pointing out that Zion is referred to with both masculine and feminine suffixes in the Hebrew Bible, as in the DSS) and has shown that such a reading would make good sense of the suffixes in lines 10– 12.69 Consequently, the entire psalm would be a well-structured psalm of Zion.

63

Apart from these, there are some minor orthographic differences. Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 87, argue that this is a petition of a proselyte (cf. Klein 2014, 206). Goldingay 2008, 225, notes it as a “surprise” and suggests that the verses invite worshippers to make the prayer their own. Gerstenberger 2001, 238, sees it as a liturgical interlude. 65 See, e.g., Goldingay 2008, 226. 66 Mays 2011, 341. 67 Cf. Gerstenberger 2001, 238. 68 Hossfeld & Zenger 2011, 75–78, 84–86, 101–2. See also Klein 2014, 215–18. 69 Körting 2012, 223. 64

330

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

Now, how about the differences? If considered as presented above, it could be argued that point 1 could be explained either way,70 but if seen in the light of Ps 107 (e.g. vv. 32) it would be more difficult to explain why Ps 106 would have omitted Zion than to account for its addition in 4Q380. As for point 2, since Ps 106:47 refers to ‫“( שם קדשך‬your holy name”), it would not make sense that such a clear potential inclusio would have been removed, even though the “mighty deeds” are also fitting in the context. The argument by Pajunen that Ps 106:47 betrays a knowledge of the pairing of “‘name’ and ‘praises’” in 4Q380, as reflecting a “more original pair when talking about the cult” does not make sense here.71 The reverse is more likely, namely that 4Q380 altered 106:2 in light of line 5. As Körting puts it: “God’s name is invoked upon the city (l. 5) and therefore it is prepared to praise the divine name (l. 7).”72 Then, in relation to point 3, Pajunen argues that it is more likely that Ps 106 has “smoothed over” the alteration extant in 4Q380 than the other way around, but as he also mentions that such an alteration is a “feature of compositional style”73 in 4Q380, it can probably go either way. Moving on to point 4, Ps 106:3 is an enigma, perhaps to be understood as a marginal note eventually making its way into the text, as it does not fit neatly into the context. Unfortunately, the suggestion by Pajunen that it would have been inserted as an “abridgment of the ideas present in the second column of 4Q380” does not shed any more light on its placement in Ps 106. Next, the difference in perspective in relation to point 5 can be explained both ways. The focus on the people is congruent with Ps 106, while the focus on Zion is fitting within 4Q380. However, contrary to Pajunen, it would in fact make sense for 4Q380 to have omitted ‫“( בישועתך‬your salvation”), as the focus is probably not on the people, but on Zion.74 Finally, as the positive use of ‫ גוי‬is quite unexpected (point 6), it would make sense if it had been omitted by 4Q380, an omission well in line with the possible omission of the people in line 9. In addition to the observed differences, Pajunen has also suggested that if Ps 106 has borrowed from 4Q380, it would give a new depth to the plea as a longing for Jerusalem and the cult. Put differently, he suggests that the omission of Zion voiced “the absence of Jerusalem to the audience,”75 but since such an absence would have been made clearer, not dimmer, by the inclusion of Zion (cf., e.g., Ps 137, or Lamentations), the argument is not convincing.

70

So Pajunen 2012b, 194. Pajunen 2012b, 194–95. Cf. Brooke 1989, 278, who argues that Ps 106 is not concerned with uttering the name, but rather of showing how “the disobedient people did not acknowledge the ‘mighty deeds’ of Yahweh,” thus understandable as a deliberate change. 72 Körting 2012, 221. 73 Pajunen 2012b, 195. 74 See Pajunen 2012b, 195. 75 Pajunen 2012b, 196–97. 71

Chapter 14. Traces in the Dead Sea Scrolls

331

In sum, although many of the differences are inconclusive when it comes to direction of dependence, there is a slight inclination towards the conclusion that 4Q380 reuses Ps 106. Consequently, Körting is probably to the point when she proposes that the writer has “strategically reappropriated the older text material and the biblical traditions about Jerusalem and Zion for a new purpose.”76 So put, it is well in line with what has previously been observed for the use of psalms from the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms in other Dead Sea Scrolls. 2. 4Q381 Moving on to 4Q381, there are a number of possible citations of MT psalms.77 4Q381 15 2–3 probably quotes Ps 86:16c (86:16a and 16b are possibly to be restored in the preceding lacuna), 17a, [17b], 17c; 4Q381 15 4–7 repeats Ps 89:10, [11, 12a], 12b, 14a, [14b], 7, [8a]; 4Q381 17 3 overlaps with Ps 21:10; 4Q381 31 1(–2) possibly quotes Ps 9:16; and 4Q381 50 4 is similar to Ps 76:9.78 According to Schuller, there are also possible links between 4Q381 31 5, 6, 9, and Ps 69:5, 21, 31, although the latter would not classify as quotes, but rather possible examples of shared features, vocabulary, etc.79 Last, 4Q381 24 7–11 quotes several verses from Ps 18:3, 7–9.80 The latter is worth some additional consideration. As analyzed by Chazon, the author seems to draw on the entire first section of Ps 18, which is then reshaped within a new framework of petition so that the psalm in fact functions as the motivation for the petition.81 Interestingly, this is the very composition that has the superscription “man of God.” Although no conclusions were drawn when mentioned above, it might now be asserted that since the author seems to deliberately quote Ps 18, and since it would be fair to assume that s/he (or the one[s] responsible for adding the superscription, if that was done later) was aware of the attribution of Ps 18 to David, it would be reasonable to conclude that the superscription also refers to him, rather than to Moses or some other prophet.82 Consequently, the superscription would be an implicit reference to David as inspired (prophetic?) poet,83 and would thus be very much in line with

76

Körting 2012, 219. Eshel et al. 1998, 91. 78 See the overview and commentary in Eshel et al. 1998, 87–172; cf. Schuller 1992, 92– 93. As to the last example, Schuller suggests that if frags. 48 and 50 are taken together, a reworking of more verses from Ps 76 could be seen (vv. 1–11, Schuller 1992, 93–94). 79 Schuller 1992, 93. 80 Cf. Chazon 2003, 86–87. That the quote is probably not from 2 Sam 22:3, 7–9 is seen in those places where Ps 18 differs from 2 Sam 22. Here (e.g. vv. 3, 7) 4Q381 always follows Ps 18. 81 Chazon 2003, 89. 82 Cf. a similar argument in Chazon 2003, 89. 83 See Chazon 2003, 89. 77

332

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

what has been previously observed. Seen only in the context of 4Q380–381, the reasons not to attribute the psalm explicitly to David cannot be uncovered, but as I will show later, a surprising answer might be found in 11Q11 (pp. 339–41 below). In sum, then, it has been suggested that 4Q381 and probably 4Q380 reveal a fairly extensive and creative reuse of MT psalms. Schuller has claimed that the “lengthy quotation of an extended series of cola from earlier psalms within a ‘new psalms’ … is unparalleled,”84 and although the dependence is surely interesting, it is not entirely unparalleled, as my overview of 4Q393 will show. The use of these psalms do, however, testify to the impact of psalms from the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms on the poetry of Second Temple times, so that the notion of inspired, Davidic authorship of the MT psalms is somewhat strengthened. Interestingly, this impact is perhaps also possible to trace to a collection if the increasing use of ‫ תהלה‬could be seen in the light of my proposed reconstruction of the addition of Hallelujahs (see Chapter 12, esp. pp. 278–81). III. 4Q393 4Q393, commonly designated as 4QCommunal Confession, and suggested to belong to the same scroll as 4Q392,85 is reconstructed from 16 fragments of various sizes, and has been dated to somewhere between 30 BCE and 20 CE.86 The two manuscripts contain either a single composition copied by two scribes, or a collection of at least two compositions,87 and share features with postexilic communal complaint psalms. Relevant here is that there are significant overlaps between 4Q393 and Ps 51,88 so that the manuscript could provide an interesting example of the influence of MT psalms on the poetry of the late Second Temple period:89 [

4Q393 1 ii–2 1–7 ]°‫ ֯ע ֯א‬°°°[ ] 1 ‫]י[ך‬ ֯ ‫בדב ֯ר‬ l ‫עשי[תי למען תצדק‬ ֯ ‫וה ֯ר ֯ע] בעיניך‬ l 2 [‫נסכנ֯ ]ו‬ ֯ ‫ ה בעונותינו‬l‫כה ֯הנ‬l ‫פ[ט‬ ֯ ‫בשו‬ ‫ ֯תז֯ ]כה‬3 [

‫]ח[ולל]נו‬ ֯

‫הסתר‬l ‫ובק[שי ערף אלוהינו‬ ‫֯ב ֯ט]מאת‬ ‫חדשה‬l ‫ו[תי֯ נ֯ ]ו וכו[ל עונותינו מחה ורוח‬ ֯ ‫מחט]א‬ ֯ ‫ך‬l ֯‫פני‬l

84

4 5

Schuller 1992, 93. For a discussion, see Falk 1999, 127–28. See also Chazon et al. 1999, 23–24. 86 Chazon et al. 1999, 26. 87 Falk 1999, 128. 88 Falk 1999, 136–40. Chazon et al. 1999, 48, describe the composition as an expansion of the prayer of Moses in Deut 9:26–29 influenced by Neh 9 and Ps 51, but also by texts like Jub. 1:4–25 and 4QapocrJosha, b. 89 Text and translation from Chazon et al. 1999, 49, 51. 85

Chapter 14. Traces in the Dead Sea Scrolls

333

‫ר ֯כי֯ ך‬l ‫ד‬l ‫רבנ֯ ו֯ יצר אמונות ולפשעי֯ ם‬ ֯ ‫בק‬ l ֯‫ברא בנו וכונ֯ ן‬ ‫תה ֯ד ֯ף על‬ ֯ ‫מלפניך‬ l ‫רו[ח נשברה‬ ֯ ‫ ֯א]ל‬l‫וחטאים השב אליך ו‬ 2 3

6 7

and what is evil[ in your eyes ]I have[ done,] so that you are just in your senten[ce], you are pu[re when ]you[ jud]ge. Behold, in our sins w[e] are founded, [we] were [br]ought forth[ ]

4 5 6 7

in imp[urity of and in st]iffness of neck. Our God, hide your face from o[ur] faul[ts and] wipe out [al]l our sins. A new spirit create in us, and establish within us a faithful nature. To transgressors your ways and return sinners to you. Do n[ot] thrust the broken of [spir]it from before you, because … Ps 51:2, 6–7, 11–12, 15 ‫ בבוא־אליו נתן הנביא כאשר־בא אל־בת־שבע‬2 ‫ לך לבדך חטאתי והרע בעיניך עשיתי למען תצדק בדברך תזכה בשפטך‬6 ‫ הן־בעוון חוללתי ובחטא יחמתני אמי‬7 ‫ הסתר פניך מחטאי וכל־עונתי מחה‬11 ‫ לב טהור ברא־לי אלהים ורוח נכון חדש בקרבי‬12 ‫ אלמדה פשעים דרכיך וחטאים אליך ישובו‬15 90

1 6

when the prophet Nathan came to him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba. Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are justified in your sentence and blameless when you pass judgment. 7 Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me. 11 Hide your face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. 12 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me. 15 I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will return to you.

As can be seen in this overview, there is some considerable overlap between Ps 51 and 4Q393, but it is equally clear that it is not a direct quote. Rather, a new prayer has been shaped. If proceeding from the assumption that 4Q393 knew of Ps 51, there are some interesting alterations made, and this is perhaps seen clearest in the use of the first plural suffixes rather than first singular (“to make it suitable for a communal confession”).91 Other possible alterations are found in several places. As a first example, lines 2–4 alter Ps 51:7, emphasizing the individual’s rebellious character.92 Second, lines 5–6 rework ‫ לב טהור‬and ‫ורוח‬ ‫ נכון חדש בקרבי‬of Ps 51:12 into a focus on the creation of a new spirit and a faithful inclination, and so possibly, according to Daniel K. Falk, “highlight the sectarian two spirits dualism and determinism.”93 Last, lines 6–7 possibly transform a promise to teach transgressors into a petition that God himself would in-

90

The identification of line 1 with Bathsheba is suggested by Strugnell, but the reading is very uncertain (Chazon et al. 1999, 50). 91 Falk 1999, 140. 92 So Chazon et al. 1999, 52. 93 Falk 1999, 140. He also suggests that there is an intended structural rearrangement to create an “ABBA pattern consistent with the preceding bicolon.”

334

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

struct them.94 In sum, although it is reasonable to posit that Ps 51 provided a model for shaping the prayer, the author seems to have been quite free to elaborate and adapt the words as s/he saw fit. IV. 4Q434–438 Five collections of fragments, designated 4Q434–438, are commonly known as the Barkhi Nafshi (the name refers to the incipit ‫)ברכי נפשי את אדוני‬. The reason for them being treated together is that each one of the manuscripts overlaps with at least one of the other, so that they are likely to be seen as copies of the same text, or, perhaps better, a collection of texts.95 As for their dating, 4Q438 is the oldest (50–25 BCE), while the other are Herodian (30 BCE–68 CE). Throughout these manuscripts, a number of psalms are repeated in various ways. In fact, most quotes are from either MT psalms or Isaiah, and the first example is the incipit, which overlaps with Pss 103:1, 2, 22 and 104:1, 35 (although 4Q434 has ‫ אדוני‬instead of ‫)יהוה‬. Rather than a citation, this repetition has been interpreted as the result of these compositions belonging to a similar tradition. With an eye on the Barkhi Nafshi tradition in later Judaism, Esther G. Chazon suggests that there was perhaps a genre of Barkhi Nafshi texts,96 and in a slightly different way, Pajunen argues for a Barkhi Nafshi poetic category consisting of: 1) blessings directed to God at the beginning and the end; 2) a central theme; which is 3) approached from different temporal perspectives, starting with the past.97 Without entering into any detailed discussion, it would be reasonable to suggest that the relation between Pss 103, 104, and 4Q434 is to be qualified as a similar use of a stock-phrase (see p. 305 above), not a quote.98 Moving on, an undeclared quote of Ps 37:15 is probably found in 4Q437 2 i 3. As noted above, this psalm is also quoted in 4Q171. There, it is interpreted as referring to the “wicked of Ephraim and Manasseh,” plotting against the “priest and the members of his party.” While the latter would be saved, the former would be handed over to the violent ones to be judged (‫ואחר]י[ כן ינתנו ביד עריצי‬ ‫)גואים למשפט‬, and interestingly, a similar idea is found in 4Q434 1 i 5 (‫וביד‬ ‫)עריצי֯ ֯ם לא נתנם ועם ֯רשעים לא שפטם‬, thus possibly indicating a coherence in the way in which these psalms were interpreted.99 94

Chazon et al. 1999, 52, also note a connection between line 7 and Ps 51:13, 19b. Chazon et al. 1999, 255–57, argue for a single text, as does Seely 1999, 148–49. Pajunen 2012a, 356, on the other hand, suggests that the fragments reflect a collection. Schuller 2006, 314, takes a similar position. 96 Chazon et al. 1999, 255; cf. Seely 1999, 147. 97 Pajunen 2012a, 364. 98 However, if Pajunen 2012a, 368, is correct that 4Q434 1 i 1–6 imitates the structure of Ps 103:6–10, their relation is cast in a different light. 99 The observed connection is made by Seely 1999, 153. 95

Chapter 14. Traces in the Dead Sea Scrolls

335

A second possible use of psalms is found in 4Q437 2 i 15–16, where Ps 63:2, 7, 9, and Ps 77:13 seem to have been combined:100 4Q437 2 i 15–16 ‫ק]רני [צמאה‬l ‫ זכרתי ויעלוץ לבבי בכה תרום‬°[ ]°‫לישועתך אדו[נ֯ י֯ את‬ ] 15 ‫יצו[עי באשמרות‬ ֯ ]‫אח[ריך בעלילותיך אשיח זכרתיך ׄע ׄל‬ ֯ ‫נפש]י‬ l ‫קה‬ l ‫ד[ב‬ l ‫ ]נפשי לכה‬16 15 … thirsts [ 16 my] soul [cl]eaves [af]ter you; on your deeds will I meditate. I have remembered you on my [cou]ch, in the night-watches ‫צמאה לך נפשי‬ ‫דבקה נפשי אחריך‬ ‫ובעלילותיך אשיחה‬ ‫אם־זכרתיך על־יצועי באשמרות אהגה־בך‬ 63:2b 63:9a 77:13b 63:7

63:2b 63:9a 77:13b 63:7

my soul thirsts for you; My soul clings to you and muse on your mighty deeds when I think of you on my bed, and meditate on you in the watches of the night;

If the identification of the two psalms is reasonable, 4Q437 shows a great amount of creativity both in selecting and rearranging older material into something new.101 Ultimately, then, these manuscripts provide a good example of the way one could draw on psalms from the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms without being restricted or limited by their original contexts.102 V. 4Q521, 4Q525, 4Q528 Three additional manuscripts, 4Q521, 4Q525, and 4Q528 (they have nothing in common, but treated together only due to their fragmentary state), can also be mentioned in this context, as they are examples of a possible poetical reuse of parts of psalms. 4Q521, probably from the first quarter of the first century BCE,103 overlaps with Ps 146:6, 7–8 in frags. 2 ii + 4 2, 8;104 4Q525, from the second half of the first century BCE,105 contains an undeclared citation of Ps 15:2–3 in frags. 2–3 ii 1; and finally, 4Q528, from the first half of the first cen-

100

Seely 1999, 159. Text and translation is from Chazon et al. 1999, 311, 314. For more possible allusions, see the discussion in Chazon et al. 1999, 267–334. 102 Perhaps appropriate to restate in this context is the obvious fact that the poets of Qumran were not influenced by psalms only. As has been shown by Chazon et al. 1999, 258, for example, there are also significant overlaps with other poetical texts throughout the DSS (not least the Hodayot), both regarding vocabulary and imagery. 103 Puech 2003, 5. 104 Cf. Puech 2003, 12, 14. Puech calls this “une sorte de midrash du Psaume 146” (35). 105 Puech 2003, 116. 101

336

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

tury BCE,106 possibly quotes Ps 128:1 in 1 5 (the manuscript is heavily damaged).107 However, these examples might not indicate literary dependence as much as bear witness to a general influence of Hebrew Bible psalmody. VI. 4Q213a and 4Q370 So far, only MT-psalms have been accounted for, but in at least three instances, it has been suggested that 11Q5 psalms are quoted. The first example is 4Q213a 1 17 (4QLevib, Aramaic Levi Document), which contains some potential overlap with the composition known from 11Q5 (and 11Q6) as Plea for Deliverance. The relevant lines are as follows: ‫ו[אל תשלט בי כל שטן‬ ֯

4Q213a 1 17 ] 17

17 Let no demonic adversary have dominion over me… 11Q5 19 15–16 ‫ אל תשלט בי שטן ורוח טמאה מכאוב ויצר‬15 ‫ רע אל ירשו בעצמי‬16 15 Let Satan have no dominion over me, nor an unclean spirit, let neither pain nor the will 16 to evil rule in me…

As argued by Lange, 4Q213a would not have been quoting the version attested in 11Q5, since it is significantly older (it dates to the third century BCE), but the fact the quote appears in a prayer central to the Aramaic Levi Document indicates that the composition must have been important, showing that “apocryphal” psalms such as Plea for Deliverance could have authoritative status.108 Also mentioned in this context is Jub. 1:20, which is not attested in any of the Dead Sea Scrolls, although possibly originally on, for example, 4Q216 (4QJuba). The passage has been translated as “do not let the spirit of Beliar rule over them to accuse them before you,”109 and thus overlaps somewhat with the other two (the notion of the rule or dominion of Beliar is also found in 1QS 1 24).110 However, since the overlap is quite limited, the verbatim overlap not exact, and the plea quite general, Lange’s conclusions seem a bit overstated. At best, it could be seen as an example of the use of some kind of stock-phrase. Apart from Plea for Deliverance, Hymn to the Creator (11Q5 26 9–15) is also possibly repeated in both 4Q370 and Jubilees. Consider the following:

106

Puech 2003, 188. Puech 2003, 190. 108 Lange 2009, 437. 109 Charlesworth 1985, 53. 110 Lange 2009, 437. 107

Chapter 14. Traces in the Dead Sea Scrolls

337

11Q5 26 13 ‫ מעטר הרים תנובות אוכל טוב לכול חי ברוך עושה‬13 13 … decking out the mountains with food, fine sustenance for all who live. Blessed be He who made … ‫יוכלו וישבעו‬ 4Q370 1 i 1–2 ‫על פניהם ופרי טוב השביע כלנפש כל אשר עשה‬ ֯ ‫ו[שפך אכל‬ ֯ ‫ר הרים תנו֯ ]בה‬l ‫יעט‬ l [‫ ]ו‬1 ‫רצוני אמר י֯ ]ה[וה‬ ‫ ויברכו֯ את שמ ]קדש[י֯ והני הם אז עשו הרע בעיני אמר יהוה ויאמרו אל במ]עלי[ליהם‬2

1

2

[And] he decked out the mountains with fo[od, heap]ing up sustenance upon them. And (with) good fruit he satisfied all. “Let all who do my will eat and be satisfied,” said Y[H]WH. “And let them bless my [holy] name. But look! Now they have done what is evil in my eyes,” said YHWH. And they rebelled against God in their d[ee]ds.

The overlaps are quite striking, and according to Carol A. Newsom, the direction of dependence would be that 4Q370 quoted Hymn to the Creator “in a slightly adapted form, then paraphrased or expanded each of the following terms of the second colon in order to create his own text” (here, ‫ לכול חי‬would, for example, correspond to ‫)כל נפש‬.111 Consequently, the connection between the two texts is quite strong, and furthermore, a part of Hymn to the Creator (11Q5 26 11) is perhaps repeated also in Jub. 2:18–21.112 VII. Summary What has been indicated in this overview is that the impact of MT psalms on psalms from the (late) Second Temple period is quite extensive, and the reworking of these texts quite fascinating, especially if compared to the undeclared citations in the Hebrew Bible. If one would have included more than the most apparent citations, this image would have been further substantiated as, for example, several of the Hodayot psalms seem to reuse imagery or phrases from the MT psalms (cf., e.g., Ps 1:3 with 1QHa 18 27; Ps 6:6–7 with 1QHa 13 a 36; and Ps 26 with 1QH 10 32),113 as do other manuscripts, although many are fragmentary.114 As stated in the introduction, the aim of the investigation was to provide a general overview (although as accurate as possible), and although the 111

Newsom 1988, 30, see also Lange 2009, 437–38; Pajunen 2014b, 158. So Lange 2009, 437; cf. Skehan 1978, 171. 113 See also Holm-Nielsen 1960, 301–15. 114 See, e.g., the possible similarities between Ps 106:37, 40–41 and 4Q243 13 2–3 as well as 4Q244 12 2, the possible repetition of Ps 107:26–27 in 4Q418 frag. 1 3–4 (possibly a ‘psalms’ scroll, although it is difficult to determine, cf. Strugnell, Harrington, & Elgvin 1999, 497), and the possible dependence of 4Q160 3–5 ii 2–3 on Ps 40:2–3 (Schuller 2006, 310). See also the similarity between Ps 123:2 and 4Q378 19 ii 5, and between Ps 94:12a and CD 1 20. 112

338

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

observations made need to be complemented (and perhaps corrected in some respects) by more in-depth analyses of the manuscripts mentioned, the following tentative conclusions might be drawn: 4Q176 presupposes 4Q380–381 perhaps presuppose possibly presuppose presuppose 4Q393 reworks 4Q434–438 perhaps presuppose presuppose perhaps join parts of 4Q521 presupposes 4Q525 presupposes 4Q528 presupposes 4Q213a share a stock-phrase 4Q370 presupposes

Ps 79, which is put into dialogue with Isaiah the addition of Hallelujahs Ps 106 Pss 9, 18, 21, 69, 76, 86, and 89 Ps 51 a similar tradition as Ps 103 and 104 Ps 37 Ps 63 with Ps 77 Ps 146 Ps 15 Ps 128 with Plea for Deliverance Hymn to the Creator

At a first glance, it does not seem feasible to say much about possible shapes of a collections of psalms. The psalms used in various ways are from all parts of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, and other compositions from the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls were also repeated in similar ways throughout the scrolls. Consequently, no clear distinction would be possible to make between, for example, the MT psalms and 11Q5 psalms. Nevertheless, a potential clue was provided by 4Q380–381, if seen as affected by the additions of Hallelujahs to a collection of MT psalms. However, the issue should not be pressed any further at this point. As seen in the overview, the reworking of psalms was done in several different ways. In 4Q176, a psalm was put into dialogue with another passage from the Hebrew Bible, in 4Q393 and 4Q380, large parts of a psalm were reworked into a new composition, and in 4Q437, small parts of two psalms were joined on two short lines. Last, in 4Q381, parts of psalms were simply incorporated into new compositions. Taken together with the observation that the quotes were rarely identical to the MT psalm, it would indicate that the act of reworking was quite flexible, even if building on (presumably) authoritative texts. Furthermore, the object quoted was always the individual psalm, never collections of psalms, although indications of larger bodies of psalms were sometimes found.

C. Psalms in ‘New’ Collections I. 4Q522 Another set of texts relevant for my purposes do not quite classify as quotes, since they incorporate more or less complete psalms in ‘new’ collections. It is not so much of a reworking, then, as a new juxtaposition. Two clear examples

Chapter 14. Traces in the Dead Sea Scrolls

339

are found, the first being 4Q522. This manuscript is considered to be a copy of a composition known as the Apocryphon of Joshua (sometimes “paraphrase of Joshua”), a composition that is also attested in 4Q378, 4Q379, and 5Q9.115 The manuscripts are dated to the first century BCE, with 4Q522 possibly in the second third,116 and as alluded in the name given to the composition, it contains a narrative reworking of the book of Joshua into which, among others, prayers have been inserted.117 Column i contains a list of geographical names, while col. ii contains a long passage dealing with Joshua and the tent of meeting, focusing on the question of why the ark was not brought to Jerusalem.118 It is in this context that Ps 122 (found on the last frags. 22–25) is quoted in full (including the Davidic superscription).119 The rationale behind this juxtaposition is not quite clear, and the psalm’s focus on Jerusalem seems somewhat puzzling. Tov, for one, asks if there is room for “a psalm of praise for Jerusalem when Jerusalem has not yet been conquered,”120 and suggests that the composition was rather included at the bottom of col. i – a more “natural place.”121 Without entering into any lengthy discussion, it can be noted that the insertion of a psalm into a narrative context is reminiscent to the inset hymns in the Hebrew Bible, and is probably to be seen in the light of such a practice.122 It does not necessarily say anything about any authority of the psalm inserted, although the literary dependence on Ps 122 is clear. II. 11Q11 The next example is 11Q11, a manuscript briefly introduced in the discussion of the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls (p. 102). As stated there, it dates to the middle of the first century CE, and contains “at least three” (probably four) compositions, where the last composition is Ps 91. According to Puech, the first psalm would have ended in col. 1 1 (thus found on three fragments that he placed before col. 1),123 and the second psalm would have started in col. 1 2 and ended in col. 4 3. A third psalm then extended from col. 4 4 to col. 5 3, followed by Ps 91, which would have started in col. 5 3 and ended on line 13. As I noted in my discussion of Amen in the Dead Sea Scrolls, each psalm also concluded with ‫( אמן אמן סלה‬see above pp. 219–21, it is partially attested in col. 5 3, 14 and re115 Dimant 2005, 107. Tov 1998, 233, also suggests a possible overlap with MasParaJosh and 4QpaleoParaJosh. 116 Puech 2003, 41. 117 Dimant 2005, 108. 118 Cf. Tov 1998, 244; Dimant 2003, 182; Dimant 2005, 118. 119 For text and commentary, see Puech 2003, 67–70; Ulrich et al. 2000, 169–70. 120 Tov 1998, 249. 121 Tov 1998, 249–50. 122 Cf. Puech 2001, 131. 123 Puech 1990, 397–98; cf. the reconstruction in Sanders 1997, 219.

340

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

constructed in col. 1 1; 4 3), so that the collection has a certain coherence. The variation in the last occurrence (the addition of ‫“ ויע]נו‬and they answered”) also lead Puech to suggest that the final line was to be seen as closing the scroll. The connection to David, explicit in the third psalm (11Q11 4 4) and possibly reconstructed in the second and fourth (11Q11 1 1, 5 4),124 would then make the collection Davidic,125 and taken together with the probable inclusion of a list of demons (‫ )שדים‬in 11Q11 1 2–3 and the fragmented lines that follow,126 as well as the use of the root ‫ פגע‬in 5 2, Van der Ploeg suggested that these four psalms were in fact the ones mentioned in DavComp (‫ושיר לנגן על הפגו֯ עים‬ ‫“ ארבעה‬and songs for making music over the stricken, 4” 11Q5 27 9–10).127 The idea was further developed by Puech, who argued that the four psalms comprised a “rituel d’exorcisme.”128 According to Puech, there was a theoretical possibility that other collections could be identified with the four psalms mentioned in 11Q5 as well. Here, 4Q510–511 provided the clearest example, but since there were no indications of them being Davidic, and since they were of later date, they were judged as unlikely candidates.129 Consequently, he posited that the four (presumably) Davidic psalms of 11Q11 constituted “the essence of the apotropaic ritual suggested by col. 27 of 11Q5.”130 If first assessing the suggested function, there are a lot of indications that Ps 91 has been used for apotropaic purposes. In some rabbinic texts, it is even called ‫“( שיר של פגעים‬the song of the stricken”), and it was often inscribed on amulets and bowls for apotropaic use.131 Moreover, there are some differences between the MT version of the psalm and the one found in 11Q11, and Eshel has suggested that they might have been deliberate adaptations for apotropaic use.132 An example of this would be the change of speaker from first person sin-

124

Puech 1990, 386–89. Henze 2005, 191. 126 Henze 2005, 192. 127 Van der Ploeg 1971, 129. 128 Puech 1990, 400; Puech 1992, 78. 129 Puech 1990, 402–3; Puech 1992, 79. Cf. Fabry 1998, 145–46, who suggests 11Q11 could be seen in the light of 4Q510 and 4Q511 as indicating an origin in “chasidäischen, apotropäischen Ritualen.” 130 The quote is from Sanders 1997, 217 (cf. Skehan 1978, 166; Flint 1997a, 166–67). See also Wilson 1985a, 67, who claims that if so identified, it is a text of a fundamentally different type than a “Psalter collection,” as it is a limited collection with a specific purpose. 131 See Puech 1992, 78; García Martínez, Tigchelaar, & Van der Woude 1998, 183; Angel 2009, 790; Schmutzer 2013, 99–105. Cf. also the Sifre on Num 6:24 mentioned in Eshel 2003, 71: “Another exposition: ‘And guard you,’ i.e., from the harmful demons; as it says, ‘For he will give his angels charge over you, to guard you in all your ways.’ (Ps 91:11),” and perhaps also its use in Matt 4:6. Puech 1992, 81 further suggested that the actual scroll could have performed a similar function. 132 Eshel 2003, 72–74. For a comparison between the two versions, see also Körting 2010. 125

Chapter 14. Traces in the Dead Sea Scrolls

341

gular to second person singular in vv. 14–16 (11Q11 6 12–13), thus made to conform to the rest of the psalm.133 Sanders has similarly argued that the 11Q11 version of Ps 91 “fits the context of a psalm to be recited by or for whoever needs divine protection against demons or evil spirits.”134 If the function of the collection is fairly clear, then, what about its status? Here, some answers might be found in the fact that it features Davidic superscriptions. As suggested by Van der Ploeg, 11Q11 might be an example of “a more ancient stage of Psalter tradition than that of the Massoretic Psalter.”135 Similarly, Puech proposed that the Davidic superscriptions, as well as the mention of Solomon in 11Q11 1 2, would have given the collection a certain authority and thus legitimizing the prayers, as both David and Solomon were connected to the practice of exorcism.136 To this, one could add yet another observation. Of all psalms and prayers attested throughout the DSS material (and there are many!), only psalms now included in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms are attributed to David, except for in two places. The first of these is Ps 151, a psalm also included in the LXX, and the second is the psalm in 11Q11 5 4. Although possibly an argument from silence, the pattern is quite striking and might even shed new light upon the peculiar superscription in 4Q381 24 4. If the latter is to be identified with David (as I argued above, p. 331), it almost seems as if the author(s) (of the superscription) intentionally avoided the name David. Seen from the larger perspective of the lack of Davidic superscriptions, it could be suggested that there was some reluctance to attribute psalms to David in the late Second Temple period, except in those cases where psalms were already known to be part of a well-recognized collection of Davidic psalms (as was the case with the additions made by the LXX and with the additions to the MT psalms in 4Q87, 4Q92, 4Q98, 4Q98e, and 11Q5). That this also applies to 11Q5 psalms is even more remarkable, especially in light of the general Davidization of psalmody. Consequently, although it is not incorporated in the MT or LXX ‘Books’ of Psalms, the fact that 11Q11 features a psalm with a Davidic superscription would point to the conclusion that 11Q11 could have had a significant status in the community.

133

Eshel 2003, 72–73. Other variants are possible to interpret in a similar way. Sanders 1997, 231; cf. Lichtenberger 2003, 418–20. The focus on protection is also argued by Pajunen 2008, 604–5, who observes that the “actual casting out of the demon has already been accomplished by the previous psalm(s),” and thus, Ps 91 is a rather fitting ending to the ritual. Cf., however, Lange 2009, 409, who argues that the version of Ps 91 in 11Q11 (at least vv. 14–16) is more original. 135 Van der Ploeg 1965, 216. The quote is from Sanders 1969, 113, who seems to take it for granted, and suggests a renaming of the manuscript to 11QPse to make this character even clearer. 136 Puech 1992, 89; cf. Wacholder 1988, 40. 134

342

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

D. External Indications I. Possible References to the ‘Book’ of Psalms as a Collection The last piece of evidence to be analyzed in this chapter is what I have called “external indications”: epitexts that in some way refer to a collection of psalms, or provide possible (historical) contexts in which psalms were used. Here, the scarcity of direct references to a ‘Book’ of Psalms is striking, but some clues might nevertheless be uncovered. Starting with the known title of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, ‫ספר תהלים‬, it is attested once, in 4Q491 17 4 (‫)ספר התהלים‬, a very damaged text possibly part of the War Scroll (but with no identifiable overlap).137 The manuscript is dated to the second half of the first century BCE,138 but since the relevant fragment contains only these words, it could hypothetically refer to any collection.139 However, if one would attempt to identify its referent, a good starting point would be to look at the various collections attested throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls. If so, two main candidates emanate clearly, since they are the only ones to use ‫ תהלה‬as superscriptions: 4Q380–381 and a collection overlapping with the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms.140 In light of the discussion of 4Q380–381, and related to my suggestion that the perception of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms as a ‫ספר‬ ‫ תהלים‬would have been dependent upon the adding of Hallelujahs, it could be proposed that a MT-type ‘Book’ of Psalms is the most plausible referent to the expression in 4Q491 17 4, although nothing conclusive can be said. However, if plausible, one could perhaps also posit that ‫( תהלים‬m. pl.) might have become almost a technical term for such a collection as compared to its feminine counterpart ‫תהלות‬,141 which would then refer to “praises” in a more general sense.142 In fact, ‫ תהלים‬is only used in 4Q491 and 11Q5 27 4 (never in the Hebrew 137

Baillet 1982, 40–41. So Baillet 1982, 12. Schuller 1998, 218, n. 46 notes that the contents could go back to the mid-second century BCE. 139 The connection to the ‘Book’ of Psalms is, however, made by many (see, e.g., Flint 1997a, 219; Smith 2001, 266; cf. Baillet 1982, 41: “1QM ne connaît que les deux expressions ‫ תהלת אל‬iv 14 (inscription sur des enseignes) et ‫ תהלת המשוב‬xiv 2. S’il s’agit vraiment du livre biblique des Psaumes, nous avons ici la plus ancienne attestation de son titre, tel qu’il a été conservé par la tradition juive”). Hossfeld & Steiner 2013, 240, have no doubts about the identification with the ‘Book’ of Psalms: “Already by the first century BCE the title ‫ספר‬ ‫‘( תהילים‬book of Psalms’: see 4QMa) is documented in the Qumran scrolls.” 140 Cf. also 4Q403 1 i 1 (‫תהלת רומם בלשון‬, “a Tehillah of exaltation by the tongue”), 6 (‫ = תהלת] זמר בל[שון‬4Q404 1 1); 1 ii 31–41 (]‫פ[ל ֯א‬ ֯ ‫ב]רי‬l ‫ב ֯ד‬l ‫פלא‬l ‫בתהלי‬, “in wondrous psalms with [won]drous wor[ds,” all texts and translations from Eshel et al. 1998; cf. Schuller 1998, 218). 141 Cf. Kraus 1993, 11; Flint 1997a, 22–23, and already Gunkel & Begrich 1985, 433. 142 So, e.g., Anderson 1972a, 24. Although cf. Mroczek 2012, 31; Mroczek 2015a, 14, who notes correctly that both terms might have been understood in a “broader generic sense.” 138

Chapter 14. Traces in the Dead Sea Scrolls

343

Bible), and since the latter (which does not feature ‫ )ספר‬is obviously referring to Davidic psalms, although not to any collection, the suggestions become somewhat attractive. Nevertheless, it should not be excluded that it refers to some entirely different collection.143 The next possible external indication is found in 4Q397 frags. 14–21 10–11 (4QMMT is probably from between 159–152 BCE, but the manuscipts date between 75 BCE and 50 CE),144 where David is mentioned among the “book of Moses” and the “books of the prophets”:145 [

4Q397 frags. 14–21 10–11 ‫הנ[ביאים ובדוי֯ ]ד‬ l ‫ ֯ש ֯ה ]ו[בספר]י‬l‫ כתב[נ֯ ו אליכה שתבין בספר מו‬10 ‫ ]במעשי[ דור ודור‬11

10 we have [written] to you so that you may study (carefully) the book of Moses and the books of the Prophets and (the writings of) David [and the] 11 [events of] ages past.

If correctly reconstructed, the text seems to suggest that there existed texts composed to enlighten and inform the reader of the message of certain authoritative works, including (a book of?) David. Although the passage does not specify the contents of the possible writings of David, so that they “do not necessarily need to be identified as psalms,”146 it would, in light of the use of, for example, Davidic superscriptions discussed above, and the notion of careful study, be reasonable to assume that psalms are in fact referred to here (although the notion of a specific collection is not possible to argue). If so, it would not be far-fetched to posit that the pesharim surveyed above could be examples of the texts supposed to enlighten such psalms.147 Now, scholars have also argued that the line reveals a tripartite division (so the translation), indicating a nascent third division of the Hebrew Bible (cf. Luke 24:44),148 but such an interpretation has been convincingly refuted, not least since there is no warrant for identifying “David” with a specific (fixed) collection, but also since the text could be

143

Schuller 1998, 218, proposes a collection of battle hymns. See also Mroczek 2016, 33–

34. 144

Qimron & Strugnell 1994, 109, 121; cf. Flint 2003, 290. Text and translation from Qimron & Strugnell 1994, 58–59. The reconstruction has been questioned, however. For a discussion, see, e.g., Lim 2001, 24–27; Ulrich 2003. 146 So Mroczek 2012, 161–64, who argues that if reconstructed as the writings of David, the identification of these writings with a collection of psalms is nevertheless not to be immediately assumed (cf. Lim 2001, 34–37, who suggests that ‫ בדויד‬could refer to the deeds of David; Brooke 2004, 14; Mroczek 2015a, 29–31). 147 Cf. Schuller 2003, 184. 148 See, e.g., Qimron & Strugnell 1994, 59, 111–12; Flint 1997a, 219; Flint 2000, 59; Bouzard Jr. 2003, 327–28; Jain 2014, 239; Cole 2012, 73, with n. 120; cf. Carr 1996, 41–42. 145

344

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

read as including “David” among the prophets (‫ ספרי‬is not repeated). In fact, in light of the use of psalms throughout the pesharim, such a reading seems better, and so, one should not use 4QMMT as an indication of a tripartite canon.149 A last example is found in 1Q30, where frag. 1 4 reads ]° ‫ס[פרים חומשים‬ (“five scrolls”). In the first edition of the text, Milik translated the phrase as “… li]vres du Pentateuque/du Psautier,” leaning towards the ‘Book’ of Psalms (“plutôt du Psautier”),150 but such an identification is uncertain, for obvious reasons. For one, Tov notes that the use of ‫ חומשים‬for the parts of the Pentateuch is not attested prior to the rabbinic literature,151 and the same would apply to the ‘Book’ of Psalms. However, if 1Q30 originally belonged to the same scroll as the ‘psalms’ scroll 1Q11,152 it could hypothetically be suggested that it refers to a fivefold division of a collection of psalms. II. Indications of Use If traces of possible references to a collection of psalms were scant, so also are other indications of use. Apart from the possibly implied liturgical use of Ps 145 and other similar examples, traces are perhaps to be found in the use of red ink in the first lines in 2Q14 (Ps 103:1–4). Maurice Baillet, the editor of the manuscript, referred to the Egyptian practice of using red dots to demarcate passages to be studied each day, passages where the first line was also written in red, and noted a similar use of red ink to highlight the first line in Roman law (cf. the French rubrique), in the Talmud, and in another Qumran manuscript, 4QNumb.153 Given this, he suggested that the red ink was used to attract the attention of the reader, and so perhaps implied a liturgical function (reading) of the manuscript.154 Another indication of use could perhaps be inferred from the various lengths of the ‘psalms’ scrolls. As some might have contained only a single psalm, they would perhaps reflect some more private use. At the very least, it would be reasonable to assume that scrolls containing psalms were compiled and used for

149

See also Lim 2001; Mroczek 2016, 37–38. Barthélemy & Milik 1955, 133; Millard 1994, 8, n. 10, finds it probable (“wahrscheinlich”) that it refers to the ‘Book’ of Psalms. 151 Tov 2004, 75, n. 126. Lim 2001, 28–29, does, however, see a sepher moshe as more probable than the ‘Book’ of Psalms. 152 Jain 2014, 43–56, cf. the discussion of 1Q11 above, p. 98. 153 Baillet, Milik, & de Vaux 1962, 70. For the use of red ink in 4QNumb, see Ulrich et al. 1994, 210–11, who note that the red ink seems here to demarcate paragraphs, hence implying to a liturgical reading, although the paragraphs do not correspond to the major divisions of the MT (“they marked sedarim, but according to a system no longer preserved,” 211). 154 Baillet, Milik, & de Vaux 1962, 70, followed by, e.g., Flint 1997a, 32; Fabry 1998, 142; Schuller 2003, 185; Pajunen 2014b, 143. 150

Chapter 14. Traces in the Dead Sea Scrolls

345

various purposes, so that a great plurality of use is to be expected,155 but since explicit traces of use are so sparse, not much more can be said at this time.156

E. Conclusions Summarizing this chapter, it has become clear that MT psalms were quite influential throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls, and that this influence is seen in a number of ways. Most important for my purposes has been to observe that several MT psalms were regarded, treated, and commented upon as authoritative scripture, and as such, they are likely to be understood as part of an emerging body of scriptures, alongside, for example, the Torah and other prophetic texts. Furthermore, they were studied and commented upon within the context of such a body of scriptures, interpreted through a clear eschatological perspective. David was seen as a prophet, and “his” psalms revealed important insight into contemporary events. So far, this is nothing new. Gillingham, for one, outlines a movement from liturgy to prophecy in broad strokes,157 and although the basic recognition of an increasing understanding of psalmody as prophetic is very much to the point (cf. 11Q5 27), it is probably not correct to describe it as a movement away from liturgy. Rather, both aspects probably continued side by side along various trajectories, so that a movement towards prophecy is not to be seen as the result of some “de-liturgization,” but more likely as an effect of a scripturalization of psalmody. Important in this context is also that the notion of prophecy was, to a large extent, related to the conceptualization of the psalms as Davidic. The absence of any 11Q5, 4Q88, or 11Q11 psalms among the pesharim (psalms with no Davidic superscription) is one possible indication of this relation, while a second indication might be the curious refrain to attribute psalms to David except for psalms that are now included in the MT or LXX ‘Book’ of Psalms. Consequently, the use made of psalms studied so far implies a distinction between MT/LXX psalms and other psalms, and such a distinction is further strengthened by the fact that only MT psalms are commented upon in the pesharim. If these findings so far are reasonable, it does not necessarily follow that other psalms as found in, for example, 11Q5, were not “authoritative.” Au contraire! They were probably highly influential to the community’s life, although not necessarily regarded as “scripture.” Ultimately, the overview provided in this chapter indicates that the notions of scripture and authority are 155

See also Pajunen 2014b, 144. The issue is ultimately to be related to the broader question of psalms and prayers in late Second Temple times, and here, some helpful distinctions have been provided in Schuller 2003 (see also Schuller 1994b; Schuller 1998; Schuller 2006). 157 Gillingham 2002. 156

346

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

best understood in relation to individual psalms, rather than to collections of psalms. As for traces of possible formative stages, it was noted that Ps 1 featured in a sequence including Pss 2–17*, and that additions of Hallelujahs were possibly presumed in 4Q380 and 4Q491. A weaker clue was possibly found in the notion of a fivefold division in 1Q30. Furthermore, the referring to Ps 82 as Davidic probably bore witness to an ongoing Davidization of psalmody, so that psalms transmitted alongside psalms attributed to David would eventually be read in light of such an attribution, although they did not feature a Davidic ‘author’ designation themselves. If related to the conclusions drawn concerning Ps 72:20, this could even warrant a notion of a specific arrangement of psalms, and as will be seen in the next chapter, such a trajectory of use would later emerge in full bloom.158 Apart from a discussion of the possible authority and scriptural status of psalms, it was seen in the (somewhat fuzzy) overview of undeclared citations that psalms were an important source of inspiration in terms of structure, form, vocabulary, imagery, and so on, as new poetry was written. Although I have only scratched the surface, it seems reasonable to suggest that as far as these overlap go, no clear distinction could be made between MT psalms and other psalms.

158 Thus somewhat in contrast to Pajunen 2014b, 153, who concludes that “they testify to the growing influence of psalms in general, not to a specific Davidic Psalter.”

Chapter 15

Prolonging Trajectories of Use The traces of psalms studied so far have revealed some interesting developments in the way psalms were referred to and used in various contexts. To further inquire into these observations, I will now provide a somewhat broader overview of texts from around the first century BCE to the second century CE. So put, it overlaps somewhat with the texts analyzed in the last chapter, but extends into yet another century. Since the material is quite vast, and since the aim is to provide as clear examples as possible, I have limited the overview of citations to declared ones alone. Proceeding from some of the trajectories of use sketched in the previous chapters, the chapter is structured in three main parts, although some overlap is inevitable. First, I will deal with the understanding of psalms as prophetic and Davidic. As noted throughout the preceding chapters, psalms were beginning to be perceived as texts with a prophetic potential, ultimately directed towards the future. Such a notion was related to David, so that it was as his words that the psalms were seen as prophetic. Second, I will focus more closely on various aspects of the continuous Davidization, proceeding, among others, from the notion that psalms could be considered as Davidic although their superscription did not feature a Davidic ‘author’ designation. Third, I will provide examples of continuing scripturalization of psalms, ultimately searching for references to collections of psalms. This is in line with a trajectory in which psalms were increasingly used as part of (theological) arguments to substantiate claims made on the part of the author, and in which they were eventually referred to as written texts. Although no unequivocal signs of collections have been found so far, the aim with this part is to at least continue the search. In sum, the aim of this chapter is to paint a general picture of psalm use around the turn of the Common Era, hopefully sensitive enough to the dynamic diversity reflected in the texts without entering into too detailed discussions of the numerous passages mentioned.

348

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

A. Prophetic and Davidic The association of psalms to David and their conceptualization as prophetic texts is perhaps seen clearest in the way psalm citations came to be introduced. Starting with the New Testament, several examples can be adduced.1 Consider, for example, Mark 12. This text, which deals with the issue of the Messiah being David’s son, quotes Ps 110 as part of the argument (Mark 12:35–37; cf. Matt 22:41–46, Luke 20:41–44), and the psalm is introduced as the following: αὐτὸς Δαυὶδ εἶπεν ἐν τῷ πνεύµατι τῷ ἁγίῳ, “David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared.”2 Consequently, it is assumed that David, who is also featured in the superscription of Ps 110 in both the MT and the LXX (the DSS do not preserve the psalm), is the one speaking in the psalm, and, furthermore, that he is speaking prophetically concerning the Messiah.3 The connection to the Holy Spirit resembles the formulation in 11Q5 27, where David is claimed to have been given a “discerning and enlightened spirit” (‫ )רוח נבונה ואורה‬that enabled him to write a great number of psalms, all spoken “through prophecy” (‫דבר‬ ‫)כנבואה‬.4 A similar connection is also found in Heb 3:7–11 and 4:7 where Ps 95 is quoted (Ψ 94 has a Davidic superscription, MT does not).5 Here, the psalm is introduced as the words of the Holy Spirit (Διό, καθὼς λέγει τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον, “therefore, as the Holy Spirit says”) and expanded on in a pesher-like argument where the “reader” is urged to avoid the negative example of the desert generation which failed to enter into God’s rest (v. 11).6 Then, in the next chapter, having quoted other texts from the Hebrew Bible, the author returns once again to Ps 95, but now it is introduced as words of David (ἐν Δαυὶδ λέγων µετὰ τοσοῦτον χρόνον, “saying through David much later”). Interestingly, this attribution also seems to provide a foundation for the argument: since David lived after Joshua, the day of rest spoken of in the psalm has to still be in the future (Heb 4:8–9).7 1 Many of the New Testament books feature neither declared, nor undeclared citations of psalms: Philippians, Colossians, 1–2 Thessalonians, the Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, James, 2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude (cf. Menken & Moyise 2004, 2). As for Revelation, it is clear that it draws heavily from psalms, although never by means of declared citations (cf. Gillingham 2002, 489, with n. 60; Moyise 2004, 231–32). 2 An interesting variant is found in Luke, and will be brought up below, p. 358. 3 Cf. Bock 1996, 1635–36; Evans 2000b, 273; Watts 2004, 39; Menken 2004, 74; DalyDenton 2008, 196. The function of this quote is not clear-cut, and has been much discussed (see, e.g., Holladay 1993, 118–19). 4 For the entire passage, see above, p. 123. See also Evans 2000b, 273. 5 Cf. also Acts 1:16 where Mroczek 2012, 170, makes a similar connection to 11Q5 27 and suggests that a part of Peter’s speech constitutes a polemic against belief in a Davidic ascent (see also Mroczek 2015b). 6 Lane 1991, 84–89; Attridge 2004, 206; cf. Gillingham 2008, 1:21–22. 7 Cf. Attridge 2004, 207. Lane 1991, 92–94, translates “in the Psalter,” based on an

Chapter 15. Prolonging Trajectories of Use

349

Consequently, psalms could be understood as the words of the Holy Spirit, spoken through David, and as such, they were oriented towards the future. Put differently, these texts indicate that David had, in a distant past, predicted events that were now being fulfilled, and this is spelled out explicitly in Acts 2:29–31 where a part of Ps 16 is introduced: προϊδὼν ἐλάλησεν περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ Χριστοῦ, “Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, saying …” In line with such an understanding, the New Testament can sometimes speak of psalms being “fulfilled” (πληρόω), as seen in the quote of Ps 78 in Matt 13:35, for example, a passage featuring an unnamed “prophet”: ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος, “this was to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet,”8 but this aspect is also likely to be present in several other passages, despite the lack of such terminology.9 In sum, a basic presupposition seems to be that David had foreseen (for example) the passion of the Messiah, and that his words were starting to be fulfilled in the events surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus.10 Painting with broad strokes, it could perhaps be suggested that it was discovered early on that psalms (especially a few “core” psalms, such as Pss 2, 8, 16, 22, 69, 110, and 118)11 facilitated an articulation of the significance and meaning of the events surrounding Jesus. Put differently, they provided a language for understanding the suffering (and death) of the righteous one and his rejection by authorities, but also his vindication, exaltation, and eschatological and universal rule.12 Consequently, they would be widely used, and in various ways. For example, they could permeate the structure of entire passages by means of declared citations, undeclared citations, or other connections of various strength.13 They could serve as validations of presented arguments (see, understanding of ἐν as having a “local sense.” If so, it would rather relate to the metonymous use that will be noted below (p. 357). 8 This feature applies especially to John, see, e.g., John 13:18 (Ps 41); 19:24 (Ps 22), 28 (Ps 22), 36 (Ps 34). Since Ps 78 is attributed to Asaph in both the MT and the LXX, he (or David) might be the one referred to here, but interestingly, the text might originally have attributed the quote to Isaiah (διὰ Ἠσαΐου). For a discussion, see Menken 2004, 66–69, who suggests that the use of elements from Isa 29:13–14 might provide an explanation for the unusual attribution. 9 See, e.g., the quotations of Pss 8; 110; and 118 in Matt 21:16, 42; and 22:44 respectively (Menken 2004, 81; cf. Gillingham 2002, 471, n. 2). It should perhaps be mentioned that a fulfilling of a passage need not be understood as a single event, but could refer to multiple occasions, or an even more dynamic process altogether. 10 Cf. Brooke 1997, 262–63; Menken 2004, 77. 11 Cf. Brooke 1997, 260; Menken 2004, 80. 12 Cf. Menken 2004, 80–81; Gillingham 2008, 1:14–15; Daly-Denton 2008, 194; Creach 2011, 60–61. 13 See, e.g., the suggestion by Watts 2004, 32–35, that Ps 118 was used to create a chiastic structure extending from Mark 11:1 to Mark 12:12 (cf. the parallels in Matt 21:1–11, Luke 19:28–40, and John 12:12–19), or the numerous allusions to Ps 22 in the passion narratives,

350

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

e.g., Acts 2:34–36, 1 Cor 3:20, 10:26, and Heb 1,14 2:6, 5:5–6),15 describe various aspects of Jesus’ roles,16 or conceptualize events surrounding his life.17 Furthermore, they could be used in editorial comments (e.g. John 2:17),18 and an understanding of psalms as prayers also surface in some texts (e.g. Mark 15:34, Acts 4:24).19 In sum, one could perhaps suggest that psalms were made subjected to a fundamental re-reading of scripture in light of a basic understanding of the fulfilling of God’s promises in the resurrected Christ (cf. Luke 24:44–49, John 5:39, Acts 3:18, 17:2–3, 18:24–28, cf. Hebr. 10:5–7).20 An effect of this association of psalms to Jesus was that their meaning would also be transferred back to his followers. Seeing the (righteous) suffering of Christ through the psalms, they could also appreciate their own situations in a similar way, and so, psalms could continue to provide hope and comfort in times of persecution (John 15:24–25; cf. Rom 8:36, 15:3–4, 9–11, Heb 13:6, 1 Pet 2:4–8, 3:8–12, even guidance in how to act, for example, Acts 1:20–26).21 In fact, Paul even encourages such a use (Eph 5:19, Col 3:16).22

especially in the Synoptic Gospels (Holladay 1993, 119; Löning 1998, 269–73; Gillingham 2008, 1:10; cf. Watts 2004, 41–44). 14 This is a chapter replete with psalm citations. In but a few verses, the author quotes from Pss 2, 45, 97, 102, 104, and 110, as he attempts to demonstrate the superiority of Christ to the angels. 15 That is, psalms are often used to guarantee “the antiquity of their claims” (Brooke 1997, 266). 16 See, e.g., the use made of Ps 110, a psalm often quoted close to citations of Ps 2, to speak of Jesus as priest, king, or even his exaltation and the subsequent subjugation of everything to him (Heb 5:5–6; 1 Cor 15:25; Watts 2004, 39; Attridge 2004, 197–99; cf. Williams III 2004, 171). It is also often noted that Ps 2 is present, although not by declared citation, in the recounting of Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration (Matt 3:17, 17:5, Mark 1:11, 9:7, Luke 3:22, 9:35). 17 Cf. Holladay 1993, 122; Doble 2004, 101–2. An example could be Acts 4:25–28, where the raging gentiles of Ps 2 are directly identified with those present at Jesus’ trial. 18 Holladay 1993, 120. 19 Cf. Löning 1998, 269–71. 20 Cf. Doble 2004, 90; Woan 2004, 228; Moyise 2004, 246. Such a way of reading scriptures is spelled out explicitly by Origen in his Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 5.3.4: “Christ is written about even in the Pentateuch; He is spoken of in each of the Prophets, and in the Psalms, and, in a word, as the Saviour Himself says, in all the Scriptures.” 21 Cf. Daly-Denton 2004, 130–32; Keesmaat 2004, 148–52; Williams III 2004, 180. An interesting example of this transfer is also the quote of Ps 118 in Did. 12:1, where words applied to Jesus in the New Testament (“who comes in the name of YHWH”) now refer to visiting teachers and prophets (cf. Holladay 1993, 163). 22 A similar use of psalms, although not connected to Jesus, is also found in 4 Macc 18:10– 19, where Ps 34:20 is quoted (v. 15) in a family setting as words of encouragement on the part of the mother (cf. Flint 2003, 283; Menken & Moyise 2004, 1; Daly-Denton 2008, 184– 85).

Chapter 15. Prolonging Trajectories of Use

351

Consequently, there is both continuity and discontinuity with the uses sketched in the previous chapters. While continuity is seen in, for example, the association of psalms with contemporary events (cf. the psalms pesharim), discontinuity appears in the interpretive grid applied, although it could be suggested that this very grid was partly enabled by the shared Davidic readings of the psalms. Looking outside the New Testament, this trajectory emanates even clearer. Here, many of the psalms quoted are introduced as “words of David” or the like (see, e.g., εἰσὶν οὖν οἱ λόγοι, οὕς φησιν ὁ Δαυίδ, οὗτοι, “the words which David speaks, then, are these” in Justin Martyr’s Dial. 64),23 and in line with both the New Testament and the pesharim,24 they understand David as a prophet who, through the Holy Spirit, has seen into the future (prædixit, “said beforehand” in Irenæus’ Haer. 5.17.3).25 Similarly, Clement of Alexandria introduces Ps 89 as the words of “David – that is, the Spirit by him” (Δαβιδ, τουτέστι τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ δι᾽αὐτοῦ, Paed. 1.9; cf. Strom. 6.6, ὁ Κύριος ὲκ προσώπου τοῦ ὁσίου, “the Lord in the person of the Saint”), and returning to Justin Martyr, he even speaks of Ps 72 as dictated to David by the Holy Spirit (καὶ ἄbου ψαλµοῦ τῷ Δαυἰδ ὑπο τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος εἰρηµένου ἀναµνήσοµαι, Dial. 34). Ultimately, psalms are seen as prophetic texts (cf. Clement of Alexandria’s Strom. 5.5, introducing Ps 1), as was possibly also the case in 4QMMT (see above, p. 343), so that the relating of psalmody to prophetic literature seems to be consistent throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls (cf. 4QMidrEschata.b), the New Testament (e.g. Rom 3:10–18), and the early Jewish and Christian writings (e.g. Tertullian’s Res. 20). As in the New Testament, early Christian texts generally connect this foresight to Christ, so that the psalms ultimately speak of him. This relation is made

23 All translations of early Church Fathers are from Roberts, Donaldson, & Coxe 2016, unless stated otherwise. See also Clement of Rome, 1 Clem. 18:2–17, 52:2–4; Justin Martyr, Dial. 22, 28, 32, 42, 63, 64, 79, 83, 86, 88, 97, 121, 124, 127; Irenæus, Haer. 1.14.8, 3.6.3, 3.8.3, 3.9.2, 3.10.1, 3.10.3, 3.11.8, 3.12.2, 3.12.5, 3.16.3, 3.17.2, 4.2.1, 4.11.3, 4.17.1, 4.28.1, 4.41.3, 5.7.1, 5.18.3, 5.31.1, 5.33.1; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 1.5, 1.9, 1.10, 2.8, 2.11, Strom. 3.4, 3.16, 4.17, 5.10, 5.14, 6.1, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.11, 6.16, Exc. 52; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 5, 9, 13, Idol. 20, Cor. 10, Scorp. 2, 6, 8, Res. 22, Herm. 29, 34, Marc. 3.13, 3.14, 3.17, 4.14, 4.15, 4.35, 5.18; Theophilus, Autol. 2.35, 2.38. Cf. Philo, Deus 74, who has “the psalmist” (ὑµνῳδός). 24 The overlaps are not great as to the form of the pesharim, although some examples exist, see, e.g., 1 Pet 2:4–10 (so Bauckham 1988, 310), the commentary on Ps 78 in Philo, Gig. 17, or the way in which three psalm verses are used to interpret Gen 6:8 in Philo, Deus 74–85. For a discussion of the latter passage, see Leonhardt 2001, 154–55. 25 As in the New Testament, psalms can also be introduced as the words of “a prophet,” or someone “speaking by the Spirit of prophecy.” See, e.g. Philo, Agr. 50; Her. 290; Ign. Magn. 9; Barn. 5:13, 6:4–6, 9:1, 10:10; Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 35, 40, 41, 45, 2 Apol. 45, Dial. 85; Irenæus, Haer. 3.10.5, 4.41.3; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 1.7, 1.10, Strom. 5.11, 5.12, 6.8, 6.10, 7.10; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 8, 9, 10, 13, Marc. 3.17.

352

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

explicit in Justin Martyr’s 1 Apol. 42 who states that David spoke “1500 years before Christ became a man and was crucified”26 (cf. his Dial. 37, “these words are in like manner referred to Christ,” ὁµοίος εἴρηται εἰς τὸν Χριστὸν ταῦτα, or the earlier Barn. 12:10),27 and some texts even have Christ as the one speaking the psalm (1 Clem. 16:15, Barn. 6:16; cf. Heb 2:12–13, 10:5–7).28 It would perhaps be warranted, then, to speak of an emerging “christologization” of the psalms. So put, it should not be understood in the same sense as the Davidization, but rather as seeing Christ as about whom David spoke. If so, it could perhaps also shed some light on the later reading of Ps 1 as a preface, that is, as connected to the idea of Christ as head (see above, pp. 163–67).

B. Continuous Davidization Although the understanding of psalms as prophecies of David proceeds from, and contributes to, the general conceptualization of David as the patron of psalmody, they also indicate that he was associated with specific psalms. Two observations are relevant here. First, it should be noted that the psalms to which David is associated are regularly referred to as written texts. Consequently, the notion of him “speaking” through the psalms is further qualified,29 and examples of this are numerous (see, e.g., Matt 4:6: γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι, “for it is written”).30 Philo even speaks 26

Apparently, the chronology is misguided. The passage in Barnabas does, however, argue that the Messiah was in fact not of a son of David, but a son of God (cf. the ambiguous use of Ps 110 in Mark 12). 28 Sometimes, this is done “through the Holy Spirit” (1 Clem. 22:1, 8), solely by the “Holy Spirit” (e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 2.8; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 10), or only as the words of God (1 Clem. 15:3–4, 36:4–5, Barn. 2:10; cf. Heb 5:5–6). 29 That no dichotomy is to be seen between speech and writing in this case is clear from the way in which the two are used interchangeably, see, e.g., Philo, Agr. 50 where he first writes “he namely who wrote the psalms” (ὁ τὰς ὑµνῳδίας ἀναγράψας, Leonhardt 2001, 147, translates “the one who wrote down the Psalter,” emphasis mine), followed by “for he speaks thus …” (λέγει γὰρ ὧδε). 30 See also Matt 21:16; John 2:17; 6:31; Rom 3:4, 10; 8:36; 1 Pet 2:6–8; Philo, Gig. 17; 1 Clem 14:4–5; 28:2–3; 36:3; 46:2–3; 48:2; Justin Martyr, Dial. 56; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2.13, 15; 5.8; 6.8; 6.15; Tertullian, Marc. 3.19; 4.15; Res. 26. Occasionally, reference is also made to a “psalm of David” or the like (e.g. ψαλµὸς τοῦ Δαυίδ, Justin Martyr, Dial. 36). As for the text quoted, it has generated a lot of interest. While some texts seem to rely upon the LXX, others reveal far more differences, necessitating various explanations. As an example, Leonhardt 2001, 152, has argued that the discrepancy between some of the psalms quoted by Philo and the psalms as they are known throughout various manuscript traditions could be explained both as indications that he quoted by memory, or that he occasionally made deliberate adaptations. The issue is also brought up regularly in the analyses of psalm quotations in the New Testament (see Holladay 1993, 127; Menken & Moyise 2004). 27

Chapter 15. Prolonging Trajectories of Use

353

explicitly of David as a writer of psalms to God in Conf. 149 (… τὸν θεὸν ὑµνήσαντος Δαβὶδ ἀναγράφονται, cf. Agr. 50), and perhaps surprisingly, despite the many psalm quotes, this is the only place in Philo’s works where David is mentioned.31 Instead of referring to David, Philo rather characterizes the “psalmist” by other means. Among others, he is called “no ordinary person, but a prophet” (οὐχ ὁ τυχὼν ἀbὰ προφήτης ἐστίν, Agr. 50), a “divinely inspired man, who speaks in psalms” (ὁ θεσπέσιος ἀνήρ ἐν ὕµνοις λέγων, Plant. 29), a “friend of Moses” (τῶν Μωυσέως γνωρίµων, Conf. 39), or a “follower of and fellow rejoicer with Moses” (ὁ τοῦ Μωυσέως δὴ θιασώτης, Plant. 39).32 It would, however, be reasonable to posit that these all refer to David, not only since he is the one featuring in the LXX superscriptions of the psalms quoted after these introductions, but more so because of the overall focus on the Pentateuch in Philo’s work. As psalms are only quoted to support arguments based on the Torah, it could be suggested that they are of secondary importance to Philo, deriving their authority by their association with the former.33 Notable is also that Philo seems to be interested primarily in the moral stance of the psalms.34 As for the writing of psalms, Josephus (A.J. 7.12.3) also deals with the issue as he suggests that the composing of psalms (and making of instruments) took place at the end(!) of David’s life, when he was “being freed from wars and dangers, and enjoying for the future a profound peace” (Ἀπηbαγµένος δ᾿ ἤδη πολέµων … καὶ κινδύνων καὶ βαθείας ἀπολαύων τὸ λοιπὸν εἰρήνης). Mroczek has observed that the referent of the mentioned “songs and hymns to God” (ᾠδὰς εἰς τὸν θεὸν καὶ ὕµνους) is unclear, so that the text should probably be interpreted in light of texts such as DavComp (11Q5 27) and Ps 151. Therefore, an association with a specific collection of psalms is not necessary, as the primary effect would be the association of David to music and psalmody.35 Furthermore, while David is described as the composer, Josephus regularly has the Levites to perform them (so, e.g., A.J. 7.12.3, 8.3.8, 8.4.1, 8.7.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.3, 9.13.3, 11.3.8, 11.4.2, 20.9.6; cf. 1–2 Chronicles). Moving on to the second observation, it is to be noted that psalms are often quoted as Davidic although they are ascribed to someone else in the superscription. This tendency was noted already in the Dead Sea Scrolls, where a psalm 31

Cf. Leonhardt 2001, 147. Apart from the common use of “prophet,” David is also characterized in other texts as “holy” (τοῦ ἁγίου Δαυίδ, Justin Martyr, Dial. 55), “blessed psalmist” (τὸν µακάριον ψαλµῳδόν, Clement of Alexandria, Protr. 8; cf. Strom. 1.1, 6.16), or, for example, the “elect” (ὁ ἐκλεκτός, 1 Clem. 52). 33 This relation becomes even clearer in Leonhardt’s translation of Conf. 39 and Plant. 39 as “one of the pupils of Moses” and “member of the religious community of Moses” respectively (Leonhardt 2001, 148). 34 Gillingham 2008, 1:13. This is also seen in some of the New Testament texts, see, for example, the analysis of psalms in Romans in Löning 1998, 279–87. 35 Mroczek 2012, 164–65; cf. Mroczek 2016, 34. 32

354

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

attributed to Asaph in the superscription was referred to as a song of David (Ps 82 in 11Q13, see above, p. 323). Furthermore, psalms could be introduced as psalms of David despite their lack of superscription in both the MT and the LXX. Consider the introduction of Ps 2 in Acts 4:25–26: “it is you who said by the Holy Spirit through our ancestor David, your servant” (ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡµῶν διὰ πνεύµατος ἁγίου στόµατος Δαυὶδ παιδός σου εἰπών).36 As suggested in my discussion of 11Q13, this could indicate that these psalms had become part of a transmitted corpus of songs of David, and so point to an overall Davidization of such a collection. In fact, such an explanation gains further weight if including even clearer examples throughout the texts studied here. Barn. 10:10, for example, understands Ps 1, a psalm that lacks superscription in both the LXX and MT, as the words of David.37 Furthermore, Justin refers to both the Asaphite Ps 50 and the Solomonic Ps 72 as David’s words.38 Additional examples are numerous, as David is understood as speaking through: the Asaphite Pss 74 (Origen, Or. 17), 76 (Irenæus, Haer. 3.9.2), 77 (Origen, Comm. Jo. 6.10), 78 (Irenæus, Haer. 3.16.3; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 1.9), 80 (Irenæus, Haer. 3.11.8), 81 (Irenæus, Haer. 3.6.3), and 82 (Justin Martyr, Dial. 124; Tertullian, Marc. 4.14; Origen, Comm. Jo. 2.19, as in 11Q13); the Korahite Ps 85 (Irenæus, Haer. 3.5.1);39 the Hemanite Ps 88 (Origen, Comm. Jo. 1.34); the Ethanite Ps 89 (Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 1.9; Strom. 4.17); the untitled Ps 102 (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.7; Tertullian’s Herm. 34); the Hallelujah Pss 112 (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.1, 6.10), 113 (Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 1.5), 115 (Irenæus, Haer. 3.8.3; Tertullian, Idol. 4; Cor. 10; Scorp. 2 [or Ps 135]), 116 (Tertullian, Scorp. 8), 118 (Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 1.7, Strom. 3.4, 6.16; Tertullian’s Marc. 4.35, so also LXX), and 119 (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.8; Origen, Comm. Jo. 12.23, so also LXX); the psalms of Ascents Pss 123 (Origen, Or. 5), 126 (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2.13; Tertullian, Marc. 4.14), 128 (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2.13), and 132 (Irenæus, Haer. 3.9.2; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 9); and

36

The psalm superscription is not preserved in any of the ‘psalms’ scrolls. See also Barn. 11:6–7; Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 40 (quoting Pss 1–2 as Davidic), Dial. 86 (quoting Ps 1), 88 (Ps 2); Irenæus, Haer. 3.12.5 (Ps 2); Clement of Alexandria, Protr. 8 (Ps 2), Paed. 1.7 (Ps 2), 1.10 (Ps 1), Strom. 2.15 (Ps 1); and Tertullian, Spect. 3 (Ps 1). The superscriptions to Pss 1–2 are not preserved in any of the ‘psalms’ scrolls, although the first verse of both psalms is quoted in 4QMidrEschata.b, possibly indicating a similarity with the MT version. 38 See Dial. 22 and Dial. 34, 64, and 121 respectively. Other early texts referring to these two psalms as Davidic are Irenæus, Haer. 5.18.3, as well as Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 9, Marc. 3.13, and 4.14. This practice also continues in, e.g., the Targum Pss (for this, see Preuß 1959, 49–52) 39 Perhaps also the Korahite Ps 84, which is introduced in Philo’s Her. 290 as words of “a prophetic man” (προφητικὸς ἀνήρ). 37

Chapter 15. Prolonging Trajectories of Use

355

Ps 148, which is attributed to Haggai and Zechariah in the LXX (Irenæus, Haer. 2.2.5; 4.41.1; Origen, Comm. Jo. 2.8).

Such an overwhelming amount of occurrences is surely suggestive, and the fundamental question to be asked is why a psalm not associated with David by means of superscription would be considered as a psalm of David? The importance of the question is seen clearly in light of the various psalm-like compositions found throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls, compositions evidently widely used, but only rarely associated with David (cf. the discussion above, pp. 339– 41). Now, one could perhaps suggest that the association made in the texts above indicates that these psalms actually had Davidic superscriptions in the manuscripts available to their authors, but as such manuscripts are nowhere to be found, and as such texts would contradict not only the Masoretic text, but also the LXX and the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls,40 this would seem quite unlikely. Furthermore, such a replacing of ‘author’ designations on the part of the extant manuscripts would be quite unparalleled. Consequently, a better explanation presents itself if the texts above are understood as an example of a growing Davidization of the psalms. If so, it could be argued that psalms that were regularly transmitted together with other psalms of David would increasingly be conceptualized as Davidic, so that their attribution would in fact be an indication of a collection of psalms.41 If reasonable, it would also imply that the sequences of psalms attested in such a collection would be fairly stable.

C. Traces of (Scriptural) Collections of Psalms As noted above, psalms were increasingly used as written, authoritative compositions, and increasingly, they were to be referred to as part of a growing body of scriptures. An early indication of such a way of reference can perhaps be

40 In some cases when psalms are referred to as Davidic, the LXX has a Davidic superscription, while the MT lacks one. Consequently, it would be reasonable to assume that the author depends on the LXX (see, e.g. Heb 4:7 [Ps 95]; Justin Martyr, Dial. 64 [Ps 99], 79 [Ps 96]; Irenæus, Haer. 3.8.3 [Ps 33], 3.10.3 [Ps 95], 4.9.1 [Ps 96], 5.33.1 [Ps 104]; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 2.11 [Ps 104]; Tertullian, Idol. 20 [Ps 96], Res. 26 [Ps 97]; Origen, Comm. Jo. 1.39 [Ps 104]). 41 A possible break with such a view is found in Hippolytus, Fr. Ps. 1: “The Hebrews give the book the title ‘Sephra Thelim,’ and in the ‘Acts of the Apostles’ it is called the ‘Book of Psalms’ (the words are these, ‘as it is written in the Book of Psalms’), but the name (of the author) in the inscription of the book is not found there. And the reason of that is, that the words written there are not the words of one man, but those of several together … As they are therefore the words of so many thus collected together, they could not be said by any one who understands the matter to be by David alone.” See also b. B. Bat. 14b–15a.

356

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

found in 1 Macc 7:16–17, where Ps 79:2–3 is quoted. Since the psalm is introduced as “in accordance with the word that was written” (κατὰ τὸν λόγον, ὃν ἔγραψεν αὐτόν), several scholars have understood the passage as indicating that, at least for the author of 1 Maccabees, the ‘Book’ of Psalms was acknowledged as scripture. If so, it would be one of the earliest attestations of such a use (around the late second or early first century BCE),42 but the connection is often too quickly made. As the passage only refers to Ps 79, it says little about whether it belonged to any collection of psalms, and even less about the possible shape of such a collection. Given this, while it is reasonable to conclude that Ps 79 was probably regarded as prophetic scripture in line with the usage sketched above (the words of the psalm are related to a contemporary persecution),43 it does not follow that a (MT) ‘Book’ of Psalms therefore had such a status.44 As for the way of introducing psalms, however, similar examples are found in the Mishnah. Although compiled at the end of the period in focus here, it would reasonably contain earlier material, possibly even reflecting a use of psalms in the late Second Temple period,45 and when quoting psalms to substantiate theological arguments, they are often introduced with ‫שנאמר‬, “as it is said.”46 Turning to the New Testament, psalms are regularly introduced as part of scriptures, or at least introduced in ways similar to how other parts of the Hebrew Bible are declared (regularly with the noun γραφή, as in, for example, Matt 21:42, Mark 12:10; cf. 2 Cor 4:13, and 9:9, which use the verb). Probably belonging here are also John’s mentioning of Ps 82 as part of “your law” (οὐκ ἔστιν γεγραµµένον ἐν τῷ νόµῳ ὑµῶν, John 10:34) and Ps 69(?)47 as part of “their law” (τῷ νόµῳ αὐτῶν, John 15:25), implying that “law” is to be understood in a more general sense (as in John 12:34, Rom 3:19, and 1 Cor 14:21).48

42

Seybold 1990, 28; Flint 2003, 281; Jain 2014, 238. Cf. Doran 1996, 95–96; Dimant 2004, 390–91; Gillingham 2008, 1:11–12. 44 In fact, Goldstein 1976, 332–36, has argued that the Greek should rather be translated “in accordance with the verse which he himself wrote,” thus implicating that Alcimus was understood as the author of the psalm. 45 For a discussion, see, e.g., Neusner 1987; cf. Danby 1933. 46 Cf. the quote of Ps 33:15 in m. Roš Haš. 1:2; Ps 12:2 in m. Soṭah 9:12; Ps 68:27 in m. Ber. 7:3; Ps 119:126 in m. Ber. 9:6; Ps 109:18 in m. Šabb. 9:4; Ps 92:14 in m. Qidd. 4:14; Pss 1:5 and 50:5 in m. Sanh. 10:3; Ps 106:28 in m. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:3; Ps 37:21 in m. ʾAbot 2:9; Ps 1:1 in m. ʾAbot 3:2; Ps 82:1 in m. ʾAbot 3:6; Pss 119:99 and 128:2 in m. ʾAbot 4:1; Ps 55:24 in m. ʾAbot 5:19; Ps 40:3 in m. Miqw. 9:2; and Ps 29:11 in m. ʿUq. 3:12, although not all of these are introduced in such a way. 47 For alternatives about what passage is quoted, see Daly-Denton 2004, 131. 48 Cf. Köstenberger 2004, 467; Daly-Denton 2004, 125–26. See also the discussion in Brooke 1998, 54–55. For a similar picture, see 1 Clem 35:7–12; Justin Martyr, Dial. 55; Irenæus, Haer. 2.2.5; 4.11.3; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2.13; 6.3. 43

Chapter 15. Prolonging Trajectories of Use

357

Psalms are also mentioned in the context of a general appeal to scripture, although not necessarily referring to any collection of psalms in particular. In speaking of the Therapeutae, Philo mentions “the laws and the sacred oracles of God enunciated by the holy prophets, and psalms (ὕµνους), and all kinds of other things by reason of which knowledge and piety are increased and brought to perfection” (Contempl. 25),49 and Luke 24:44 includes psalms when recounting that Jesus said that “all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms (ψαλµοῖς), concerning me.”50 Similarly, Justin Martyr mentions David alongside Isaiah and “all the scriptures” in Dial. 29, 85, and 87.51 Here, the two first passages use the name of David in an intriguing way. Consider Dial. 85: ὡς Ἡσαίας ἔφη καὶ Δαυὶδ καὶ πᾶσαι ἁι γραφαί, “as Isaiah and David and all the Scriptures said.” Although the reference to David could be interpreted as a reference to words of David himself, it is better seen as a metonym for a collection of psalms. In fact, such a reading appears quite likely in view of other similar examples. Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, for example, all speak of psalms written “in David” (ἐν Δαυὶδ, Haer. 4.31.2, Strom. 5.1, Marc. 2.27, Scorp. 10; cf. perhaps Heb 4:7), and consequently, these references are probably to be understood in the same sense as references to something written “in the psalms” (ἐν ὕµνοις), as found regularly in Philo (see, e.g., Plant. 29, Conf. 39, 52, Migr. 157, Fug. 59, Mut. 115, Somn. 1.75, 2.242, 245; cf. ἐν τοῖς ψαλµοῖς in Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 5.4 and “in psalmis” in Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 5, 8, 10, 12, 13; cf. also, e.g., ‫ בתלים‬in m. Mid. 2:5). If such a use indicates some psalmic collection of sorts (it has been observed that Philo’s use of ὕµνοι could point to the Hebrew ‫ תהלים‬and is thus likely to presuppose the final additions of Hallelujah),52 what about its contents? And furthermore, how early could such a way of referring to (a) collection(s) of psalms be attested? Are there other indications that authors were aware of such

49

See also Brooke 2004, 14. The passage is often understood as a reference to a tripartite canon, with “psalms” referring to the third part, or at least to a clear group of texts (cf. Millard 1994, 243, n. 19; Löning 1998, 290; Cole 2012, 73, with n. 120), but this is not quite warranted. 51 Dial. 87 has a striking claim to the “scriptures”: Οὐ γὰρ ὑπ᾽ ἐµοῦ συνεσκευασµένοι εἰσὶν οἱ λόγοι οὐδὲ τέχνη ἀνθρωπίνη κεκαbωπισµένοι, ἀbὰ τούτος Δαυὶδ µὲν ἔψαbεν, Ἡσαίας δὲ εὐηìελίζετο, Ζαχαρίας δὲ ἐκήρυξε, Μωσῆς δὲ ἀνέγραψεν. Ἐπιγινώσκεις αὐτούς, Τρύφων; ἐν τοῖς ὑµετέροις ἀπόκεινται γράµµασι, µᾶbον δὲ οὐχ ὑµετέροις ἀb᾽ ἡµετέροις· ἡµεῖς γὰρ αὐτος πειθόµεθα, ὑµεῖς δὲ ἀναγινώσκοντες οὐ νοιεῖτε τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς νοῦν, “For these words have neither been prepared by me, nor embellished by the art of man; but David sung them, Isaiah preached them, Zechariah proclaimed them, and Moses wrote them. Are you acquainted with them, Trypho? They are contained in your Scriptures, or rather not yours, but ours. For we believe them; but you, though you read them, do not catch the spirit that is in them.” 52 Cf. Anderson 1972a, 23; Seybold 1990, 2; cf. Leonhardt 2001, 150, 157, with n. 52. 50

358

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

(a) collection(s)? One passage often featuring in such discussions is 2 Macc 2:13, which reads as the following: ἐξηγοῦντο δὲ καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἀναγραφαῖς καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὑποµνηµατισµοῖς τοῖς κατὰ τὸν Νεεµιαν τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ ὡς καταβαbόµενος βιβλιοθήκην ἐπισυνήγαγεν τὰ περὶ τῶν βασιλέων βιβλία καὶ προφητῶν καὶ τὰ τοῦ Δαυιδ καὶ ἐπιστολὰς βασιλέων περὶ ἀναθεµάτων The same things are reported in the records and in the memoirs of Nehemiah, and also that he founded a library and collected the books about the kings and prophets, and the writings of David, and letters of kings about votive offerings.

As translated here, the author seems aware of several “scrolls” (βιβλία) of David, and it has been suggested that this denotes not only an existing (MT) ‘Book’ of Psalms, but even an emerging canon (consciousness).53 However, John Barton has correctly noted that the passage has little to do with the latter, as it is rather recounting “a salvage operation on archival material of all kinds,” of which only some were regarded as “Scripture.”54 Furthermore, Mroczek has argued that since the larger context deals with the issue of proper observation of the festival of the Jews (1:10b–2:18), the identification should rather be with “non-extant (likely, never extant) liturgical instructions.”55 Although the latter is not entirely convincing, Barton and Mroczek are certainly to the point in questioning the simple identification of the name David with a MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. In fact, the passage need not be interpreted as referring to any specific work at all, but could rather be understood as a more general referring to the gathering of a vast amount of material pertaining to kings and prophets.56 There are, however, traces of a collection in the New Testament. As mentioned above (p. 348, n. 2), Luke 20:42 had a variant of the Markan text, and it reads αὐτὸς γὰρ Δαυὶδ λέγει ἐν βίβλῳ ψαλµῶν, “for David himself says in the ‘Book’ of Psalms.” This reference to a “book” is significant, and although the specific contents of such a “book” cannot be adduced from this quote alone, a gathering of additional references throughout Luke-Acts could perhaps be illuminating. A similar reference (βίβλῳ ψαλµῶν) is found in Acts 1:20, where verses from Ps 69 and Ps 109 are quoted, and as discussed above (see pp. 162–63), Acts 13 first introduces Ps 2 as the “second psalm” (ἐν τῷ ψαλµῷ γέγραπται τῷ δευτέρῳ, v. 33), and then quotes Ps 16 as “he has said in another [psalm/place]” (διότι καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ λέγει, v. 35). It would be reasonable, then, to conclude that the “book” of psalms referred to by Luke contained at least these psalms, as well as the other psalms quoted throughout Luke-Acts: Pss 2, 16, 31 (Luke 23:46), 69, 91 (Luke 4:10), 109, 110, 118 (Luke 19:38, 20:17), and perhaps Ps

53

Cf. Flint 2003, 281; Jain 2014, 238. See also Smith 2001, 264–65; Seybold 2013, 170–

71. 54

Barton 1986, 57. Mroczek 2012, 161; Mroczek 2015a, 26–29; Mroczek 2016, 36–37. 56 Doran 2012, 59–60; cf. perhaps Goldstein 1983, 186–87. 55

Chapter 15. Prolonging Trajectories of Use

359

89 (Luke 13:22) – that is, psalms found throughout the entire MT/LXX ‘Book’ of Psalms. Furthermore, as the referring to a collection of psalms functions as a legitimization of a theological claim, it would also implicate that for both sender and implied addressees these epitexts communicated the notion of a well-established, distinct entity, hence suggesting that there was (in some contexts) an agreed understanding of the referent (the ‘Book’ of Psalms) in the latter parts of the first century CE. That such a collection of psalms was counted alongside other scriptures is clear from a number of passages. In Clement of Alexandria’s Strom. 5.13, Ps 2 is counted as part of the “Old and New Testament” (διά τε τῆς Παλαιᾶς διά τε τῆς Νέασ Διαθήκης), and in Eusebius’ Historia ecclesiastica, it is claimed that Origen provided a “catalogue of the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament” in relation to his commentary on Ps 1, where he included a book of psalms (βίβλος Ψαλµῶν) which he transcribed as Σφαρθεbειµ, thus pointing to the Hebrew ‫( ספר תהלים‬Hist. eccl. 6.25.1–2).57 Furthermore, according to Eusebius, Melito (second century CE) counted a book of psalms to the books of the Hebrew Bible (ψαλµῶν Δαβίδ … µονοβίβλῳ, “of the psalms of David … one book,” see Hist. eccl. 4.26.14). Traces of sequences of psalms are also found in the Mishnah. Consider, for example, the way m. Pesaḥ 5:7 relates to Pss 113–118.58 These psalms, designated as “Hallel psalms,” are to be sung by Levites standing within the temple precincts during the sacrifice of Passover (‫)קראו את ההלל‬. Furthermore, they are sung in sequence, and were to be repeated as long as necessary: “If they completed [the recitation], they repeated it, and if they completed the second time, they repeated it for a third – even though they never in all their days had to repeat it a third time.”59 Consequently, there is a connection between sequential reading and liturgy, and this is also the case in the other passages where these psalms occur. More specifically, they are mentioned in relation to the Seder in m. Pesaḥ 9:3 and 10:6–7 (both Pss 113:9 and 114:8 are quoted in the latter; cf. Matt 26:30, Mark 14:26), and then in relation to the Feast of Tabernacles, for example (m. Sukkah 3:9–11, quoting Pss 4:1, 5, 8; and 118, the former specifying it as an “obligation,” ‫ )חייב‬and Hanukkah (m. Taʿan 4:4–5).60 As a connection to the exodus is recurrently made, later sources would refer to Pss 113–118 as the “Egyptian Hallel,” (‫הללא מצראה‬, see, e.g., b. Ber. 56a).

57 Such a transcription is also found in Hippolytus, Fr. Ps. 1 (“Sephra Thelim,” see above, n. 41, p. 355), Jerome, Psalt. Hebr.: “titulus ipse hebraicus sephar thallim, quod interpretatur volumen hymnorum,” and even later, Codex Hierosolymitanus (eleventh century CE) contains a list of books, and notes both the name σφερτελίµ and ψαλτήριον. 58 See also Millard 1994, 30–32. 59 All translations are from Neusner 1988. 60 ‫ ההלל‬is also mentioned in m. Roš Haš. 4:7, m. Taʿan 4:4–5, m. Meg. 2:5, and m. Sotah ̣ 5:4.

360

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

Furthermore, although probably not a sequence of psalms, there is a reference to the “great Hallel” (‫הלל הגדול‬, probably only Ps 136)61 in m. Taʿan. 3:9, where it is said that it should be sung after a long awaited rain after a period of drought, and as was noted in my discussion of the superscriptions, m. Tamid 7:4 also prescribes psalms from the ‘Book’ of Psalms to be sung on various days of the week. Besides the ones found specified in such a way in the LXX superscriptions, the Mishnah adds Ps 81 (fifth day) and Ps 82 (third day). A last example of psalm sequence as reflected in the Mishnah is found in m. Mid. 2:5, which reads as follows: m. Mid. 2:5 ‫וחמש עשרה מעלות עולות מתוכה לעזרת ישראל כנגד חמש עשרה שיר המעלות שבתלים‬ ‫שעליהם הלוים עומדים בשיר‬ And fifteen steps go up from it to the Israelite courtyard, one each for the fifteen songs of Ascents in Psalms, on which the Levites say their song.

As well as the notion that Levites are supposed to sing these songs in sequence, it is interesting that they are referred to as “in” ‫תלים‬,62 that is, presumably presupposing the Hallelujah additions in the same way it was suggested for Philo’s use of ὕµνοι. Possibly relevant in the context of this discussion is also Josephus’ debated reference to 22 “divine” books of which four contain “hymns (ὕµνους) to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life,” and that it was “natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them” (C. Ap. 1.8). However, this passage gives little clues about the contents, or even existence, of a ‘Book’ of Psalms, although the latter would be reasonable in light of the observation so far. The same is to be said about the often quoted example of a scriptural status of the ‘Book’ of Psalms found in 4 Ezr 14:45–48, which speaks of 24 books, and the prologue to Sirach.63 Related to the books of the Hebrew Bible, the former has been taken as an indication that by about 100 CE, the books now included in the Hebrew Bible were assembled, even “near to being closed,” although not necessarily universally accepted.64 61

See also above, n. 105, p. 226. Cf. a similar notion in m. Sukkah 5:4 (‫)שיר המעלות שבתלים‬. 63 For a fresh treatment of Josephus and 4 Ezr focusing on problems related to the question of which texts might be designated by their enumerations respectively, see Mroczek 2016, 161–71, who proposes that the numbers are best seen as “aesthetic and poetic, not bibliographic statements” (167). 64 Flint 2003, 282; cf. Stone 1990, 439. It is commonly argued that Sir 14:20–15:1, 38:34– 39:11, 50:28, and 51:12 show awareness of the entire MT ‘Book’ of Psalms (see, e.g., Marttila 2006, 204; Jain 2014, 238–39, cf. pp. 64–71 above), but even if allusions to psalms could be identified in a sequence resembling the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, it should only be used as possibly painting a broader picture, as it does not say much about the specific contents of 62

Chapter 15. Prolonging Trajectories of Use

361

A further indication of an emerging awareness of a collection of psalms is the practice of referring to a psalm by means of its placement in such a collection (cf. Acts 13:33). This was mentioned only in passing in my discussion of the superscriptions (see pp. 193–95), but was judged as important, as it would imply that a sequence of psalms had become fairly stable. In fact, this is what is seen in several of the early (Christian) writings, which regularly presuppose the LXX sequence: Justin Martyr refers to Ps 22 as the 21st psalm (Dial. 97), Ps 45 as the 44th (Dial. 37), Ps 47 as the 46th (Dial. 37), Ps 50 as the 49th (Dial. 22), Ps 96 as the 95th (Dial. 73), and Ps 99 as the 98th (Dial. 37). Irenæus refers to Ps 102 as the 101st psalm in Haer. 4.3.1, and a bit later (4.17.1), Ps 51 is first introduced as the 50th psalm, followed by a referring to Ps 50 as the “preceding psalm.” Tertullian mentions Ps 1 as the “first word of David” (Spect. 3), and then counts Ps 22 as the 21st psalm (Adv. Jud. 10, Marc. 3.19, 3.22), Ps 31 as psalm 30 (Marc. 4.42), Ps 49 as psalm 48 (Marc. 4.15), Ps 59 as the 58th psalm (Marc. 3.23), Ps 62 as psalm 61 (Marc. 4.15), Ps 68 as the 67th psalm (Marc. 3.22), Ps 72 as the 71st (Marc. 4.14), Ps 78 as the 77th (Marc. 4.11), Ps 91 as the 90th (Marc. 4.24), Ps 118 as psalm 117 (Marc. 4.15), and Ps 126 as the 125th psalm (Marc. 4.14). Origen refers to Ps 18 as the 17th psalm (Comm. Jo. 2.23), Ps 27 as the 26th (Comm. Jo. 2.18), Ps 36 as the 35th (Comm. Jo. 2.18), and Ps 45 as the 44th (Comm. Jo. 1.30, 1.42).65

However, not all agree with the LXX enumeration. Origen, for one, follows what seems to be an enumeration overlapping with MT when he refers to Ps 17 as the 17th psalm, Ps 90 as the 90th, and Ps 102 as the 102nd in Or. 1. Similarly, in Comm. Jo, he refers to Ps 16 as the 16th (6.18), Ps 69 as the 69th (10.19), and to Ps 22 as the 22nd (10.20). An interesting case, possibly providing clues to the discrepancy of the enumeration, is found in Origen’s commentary on Matthew’s Gospel, where Ps 42 is quoted as the 41st psalm, followed by a quote from Ps 44, which is referred to as the 44th psalm (Comm. Matt. 14.1). While Ps 42 agrees with the LXX enumeration, Ps 44 agrees with MT, and this could perhaps be taken as an indication that Pss 42–43 were regarded as a single psalm by Origen, thus not necessarily implying that one of them was absent from his collection.66 If correct, this would in fact warrant against the more

the collection. There are also other texts speaking more loosely about psalms (e.g., Philo, Contempl. 80), and in a letter to the patriarch Timotheus I, more than 200 psalms of David are mentioned (for a discussion, as well as a translation of the letter, see Reeves 1999, 159–61, 174–77). 65 I include these works of Origen to provide a broader picture, despite them belonging to the third century CE. Similar examples are also to be found in, for example, Hippolytus’ Fr. Ps., who consistently uses LXX enumeration (esp. Fr. Ps. 4), and explicitly mentions that the collection consisted of 150 psalms, divided into five ‘books’ “so that it might be another Pentateuch” (Fr. Ps. 8). 66 Origen’s referring to two different compositions (MT Pss 17 and 18) as the 17th psalm is peculiar (Comm. Jo. 2.23; cf. Or. 1), but could perhaps be related to the fact that some LXX

362

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

fundamental idea of seeing the configuration of psalms in either the MT or the LXX as fixed, and this is also confirmed by the recent studies of Yarchin, pointing to a similar fluidity even up until the “universal printed reproduction” in 1525.67 Also worth noting in this context is that the Greek manuscripts from the second to third century and onwards sometimes use numerals (see, e.g., P. Bod 24 and P. Oxy 10.1226).68 In all, it seems reasonable to conclude that there was some agreement about the sequence of psalms by (at least) the second century CE, but if correct, something should also be said about the various collections of psalms found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, the collection represented by 11Q5. As implied by the overview in this chapter, 11Q5 psalms are nowhere to be found. They are never quoted explicitly, never connected to David, and more notably (at least if related to Flint’s view that there would have been several “editions” of a ‘Book’ of Psalms in the first century CE), there seems to be no awareness of “competing” collections on the part of the early writers. Although there is (at least) one attested case of polemic against other psalms, it is probably not against other possible collections of Davidic psalms, but against psalms of Valentinus.69 In his defense of the “scriptural” psalms in Carn. Chr. 20, Tertullian in fact seems to take for granted that the referent of “psalms of David” is uncontested, in line with most examples adduced above:

manuscripts erroneously number two psalms in a row with the same number (for an example, see Kasser & Testuz 1967, 20). Apart from these examples, Eusebius of Caesarea (third– fourth century CE) would later compose a “canon list” of psalms included in the ‘Book’ of Psalms, giving each psalm a number, thus presupposing a fixed sequence. Also interesting to note is that Eusebius divides the ‘Book’ of Psalms into seven “canons,” and that one of these categories is Hallelujah psalms, thus clearly understanding Hallelujah as a type designation, as suggested above for the LXX (see pp. 202–5, the other “canons” are psalms of David, Solomon, “unlabeled psalms,” Sons of Korah, Asaph, and anonymous; see Wallraff 2013). 67 See, e.g., Yarchin 2015a. 68 This is also the case in Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus. Psalms were possibly also numbered in Origen’s Hexapla (third century CE), and interestingly, he states that the numbering of psalms in Hebrew manuscripts was rare (Wallraff 2013, 6–7, with n. 15). I am grateful for the pointers from Yarchin in thinking about these issues (personal correspondence). Looking at manuscripts that provide numbers for the psalms, variation is to be seen. Consider, e.g., P. Bod. 24, where psalms are numbered, but not always in agreement with the later LXX tradition, that is, psalms are sometimes considered as a single psalm, or divided into two psalms in a way that other manuscripts are not. Furthermore, the insertion of the actual number is quite inconsistent. Sometimes, it precedes the superscription, sometimes it follows it, and sometimes it is placed in the middle of the line. For a presentation of these features, see Kasser & Testuz 1967, 19–20. 69 See further in Gillingham 2008, 1:27.

Chapter 15. Prolonging Trajectories of Use

363

Nobis quoque ad hanc speciem Psalmi patrocinabuntur, non quidem apostatæ et hæretici et Platonici Valentini, sed sanctissimi et receptissimi prophetæ David. Ille apud nos canit Christum, per quem se cecinit ipse Christus. We shall have also the support of the Psalms on this point, not the “Psalms” indeed of Valentinus the apostate, and heretic, and Platonist, but the Psalms of David, the most illustrious saint and well-known prophet. He sings to us of Christ, and through his voice Christ indeed also sang concerning Himself.

If considering the fact that early Christian writers could be fiercely polemical against additions or omissions to the psalms (compare, for example, the recurrent comment by Justin Martyr that the Jews had omitted “from the tree” from Ps 96, Dial. 73), it strikes as odd that nothing is said about possible addition or omission of entire psalms. The simplest conclusion would perhaps be that these authors were unaware of any major alternative configurations of “their” ‘Book’ of Psalms.

D. Conclusions In this chapter, several observations have been made. First, I noted some continuity along the proposed trajectories of use. As in the pesharim, both the New Testament and other early texts treated psalms as fundamentally prophetic words of David. Consequently, one could perhaps speak of an established practice, or at least, to a large extent, of a shared interpretive framework. However, clear discontinuity was also found in the fact that Christian authors now connected psalms to Jesus in relation to a more fundamental re-reading of scriptures. In this view, David’s prophetic words, spoken through the psalms, were seen as starting to be fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Christ. The observed continuous Davidization was suggestive about to the possibility of tracing the contours of a collection of psalms, and if taken together with the indications of scripturalization (for example Luke’s referring to a ‘Book’ of Psalms), and the habit of referring to a psalm by its number, it seems reasonable to conclude that by the second century CE at the latest, but possibly already in Philo’s works, a collection of psalms very much like the MT or LXX ‘Book’ of Psalms was the one recognized and referred to as scripture. Consequently, it was the psalms that belonged to this collection that were understood as prophetic, Davidic, and authoritative, and no awareness of any competing collections such as the ones represented in, for example, 11Q5 or 4Q88 was detected. As for the way in which psalms were quoted, a closer look also revealed that the most common way was to quote single verses. Similar to the pesharim, the interpretive context was, then, primarily a larger body of scriptures, and not, say, a “book,” or some demarcated section of it.

364

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

One might perhaps ask why psalms were so often quoted, and the survey provided at least two possible answers, the first being that they revealed great potential in mapping the suffering and death of Christ, the Messiah. More fundamentally, however, it is reasonable to assume that these psalms were widely recognized and used, both in public and family settings. This was seen in particular in the way psalms were referred to in the Mishnah, as psalms were claimed to have been used in various festivals and liturgies by both the Levites in the temple and in family settings.70

70 See also, e.g., the notion of Ps 94:24 being sung in the temple in m. Maʿaś. Š. 5:15, and Ps 30:1 as being sung by the Levites in the temple in m. Bik. 3:4.

Overview and Outlook Throughout this part of the study, several traces to the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms have been observed, and if related to each other, a number of tentative conclusions can be drawn. First, it has become clear that throughout all texts surveyed here, the Sitz in der Literatur of the psalms seems to have had no significance for their interpretation. This was suggested already in the Hebrew Bible, but emanated clearly in the more explicit expositions found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and beyond. Although psalms could be commented upon in sequences roughly similar to the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms (see, e.g., 4QMidrEschata.b), and although it was at times possible that a whole psalm seemed implied although only a few verses were quoted, they were never interpreted in light of the ones they were juxtaposed to, although an exception might be found in the way Pss 113–118 were used in various liturgies. Rather, the context of interpretation was always a larger corpus of scripture, so that the concept of a ‘Book’ of Psalms seemed not to have been a factor. As the subject of theological reflection, this context of scripture could perhaps be spelled out a bit further. In the Dead Sea Scrolls and later texts, psalms were seen not only as part of a larger body of scriptures, but were regularly connected to prophetic literature. Since this seems to have been the case for a long period of time, and since the ‘Book’ of Psalms was probably taking shape during this time, the idea of a “nascent tripartite division” of the Hebrew Bible has to be somewhat nuanced. Rather than supposing that the Hebrew canon grew in distinct stages where the “writings,” including a ‘Book’ of Psalms, were the last part to have been included, the story of the ‘Book’ of Psalms told here rather suggests that psalms have been part of such a body of scriptures long before it looked anything like the current MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. If correct, one should not take references such as those found in 4QMMT, 2 Macc 2:13, Luke 24:44, the prologue to Sirach, and similar texts as an indication of a tripartite division, or even as an indication of a MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, as these merely suggest that psalms were understood as part of a contemporary notion of authoritative scriptures. Ultimately, then, I would suggest that a tripartite understanding is not an entirely appropriate framework when discussing these issues, and furthermore, that the question of the reception of psalms cannot be clearly distinguished from the question of the formation of collection of psalms,

366

Part V. Psalms on Repeat

nor from questions of canonization and use. As seen in my overviews, these are all tangled processes. Contours of the formative process have also been observed. Admittedly, the traces found in the Hebrew Bible were quite inconclusive, although three possible stages were proposed, but as it came to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the evidence was a bit more suggestive. The presence of Ps 1 in a sequence of psalms, as well as the awareness of Hallelujah frameworks, could imply that a collection very much like the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms could have been conceived as authoritative, and in the New Testament, the picture emerged even more clearly. By the time of the Gospel of Luke, it would be reasonable to posit that a collection of psalms very much like the MT/LXX ‘Book’ of Psalms was the (only) one recognized as scripture by these authors. If so, light is also shed upon 11Q5 and other collections of psalms found throughout the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls. As noted throughout the previous chapters, there were no cases of demarcated citations featuring 11Q5 psalms, and they were never subject to commentaries. Consequently, they do not seem to have been considered as authoritative scripture. Nonetheless, they did have an impact on contemporary psalmody, as they were, for example, incorporated into new compositions. Such an undemarcated use of parts of psalms was also attested for MT psalms, and the impact of the latter seems to have been substantial. Put differently, they seem to have been used as popular sources of hope, comfort, complaint, and theological reflection that resonated throughout centuries of psalmic and poetic compositions. Psalms were also increasingly related to David. However, this was not so much in the role of author of psalms, but as inspired patron of psalmody. Increasingly, however, this attribution became more closely related to a specific collection of psalms, and ultimately, most psalms in such a collection would be understood as his prophetic words, regardless of the attribution found in the superscriptions. This development could be traced back to the Dead Sea Scrolls, most notably 11Q13, and emerged in full bloom in texts from the first two centuries CE. Finally, it was noted that psalms were probably used in a variety of contexts, both public (as related to Levites and the temple) and private (regularly in relation to festivals). The sources of this use were, however, quite scant, and more research is needed, but the observations made all point to the important conclusion that dichotomies between scriptural and liturgical, or between private and public, are all quite unwarranted.

Part VI

The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms

Introduction I have, in this study, provided a number of observations related to the intertwined issues of “how?” and “why?” and the task of this final part is to try to relate them to each other and suggest possible ways forward as to how to reconstruct the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, and to discuss the implications of such a process. As I will now gather the various pieces related to the issue of formation, some of the more fundamental conclusions drawn relating to what tools can be used when reconstructing the formation process(es) need to be rehearsed first. As noted throughout the comparative material surveyed in Part II and seen in the overview of the ‘psalms’ scrolls, the process of formation should not be presupposed to be linear, nor was a gradual stabilization the best model in accounting for the various configuration of psalms throughout the scrolls. If related back to the introduction (see pp. 19–20), it can be concluded that the last aspect of what I there called the first “fundamental presupposition” has been successfully challenged. A far more complex and dynamic process is starting to uncover, a process where aspects such as even the materiality of sheets and scrolls could have played a significant part, and this needs to be taken into consideration in my reconstruction below. Second, I argued in my analysis of the superscriptions that a consequence of the fact that the ongoing Davidization of psalmody included additions of Davidic ‘author’ designations over time was that these superscriptions cannot easily be taken as indications of earlier collections. Rather, a more nuanced approach is called for, an approach where psalms in the early stages of formation have to be considered without Davidic superscriptions, and in my discussion below, I will attempt to illustrate how this might play out. Third, in the discussion of Pss 145.146–150, and to some extent Pss 1–2, I argued that lexical links, thematic overlaps, etc. should not be assumed to primarily function in relation to a MT sequence of psalms. In fact, in light of other attested sequences where the number of overlaps was higher, the suggested intentional functions of such connections emanated as quite unpersuasive. So put, the critique formulated already in the introduction – that literary features such as themes, catch phrases and recurring vocabulary cannot easily be taken as intentional – has been substantiated. Although there are exceptions, most notably in places where it could be argued that additions had been made to the psalm, it

370

Part VI. The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms

should not be assumed that changes made to a psalm were made in light of some (proto-?) MT collection. This said, I will now attempt to gather the pieces of the puzzle provided in this study and relate them to the two focal points, one at a time.

Chapter 16

How? When R. Joshua ben Levi sought to arrange the Psalms in their proper order, a heavenly voice came forth and commanded: “Do not rouse that which slumbers!”1 – Midrash on Psalm 3

A. Gathering the Evidence I. Rehearsing the Artificial In Chapter 8, I argued that a distinction was important to make between the combined use of Pss 1–2 and their possible function as preface. Manuscript evidence indicated that they were both combined and set apart in various ways up until, and throughout, the middle ages. This could also be seen in early discussions on the two psalms. However, a function as preface could not be traced further back than the fourth century, only to Ps 1, only in the Greek Christian tradition, and not in any literary sense. Consequently, none of these psalms should probably be considered as prefaces in any strict sense in a discussion of (the) purpose(s) of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. Also important for the question of formation was the analysis of Ps 2:12, where I proposed that v. 12bd had been added to the psalm at a later stage, and if made with Ps 1 in mind, it was not made by the one(s) responsible for Ps 1, but by a different hand. Turning to the superscriptions, I noted that they had been important in shaping the perception of the individual psalms, but that they did not bind collections together in the sense usually proposed. The latter would rather be derived by the fact that the psalms were juxtaposed. Focusing on ‘author’ designations, a difference was observed between Korah and Asaph on the one hand, and David on the other. While the former could perhaps indicate previously independent sequences, the latter seemed to have been added continuously over a long period of time. Consequenly, they did not provide indications of independent collections, but rather bore witness to an ongoing Davidization of psalmody. However, when so understood, they can nonetheless provide some indications about the sequences of psalms to which they were added, and Ps 86 provides an important clue. Seen in light of similar additions of Davidic ‘author’ designations to psalms without superscriptions in the LXX (most notably 1

Braude 1959, 1:50.

372

Part VI. The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms

Ψ 42), it would be reasonable to assume that the ‘author’ designation of Ps 86 was added after some sequences had become fairly stable, in this case at least a sequence of psalms of the sons of Korah. This could, then, also be the case with the Asaphite superscription added to Ps 50 (cf. some Hebrew medieval manuscript variants in the superscription of Ps 108). Similarly, most of the additions made to LXX psalms presupposed a fairly stable MT sequence of psalms. In the discussion of the superscriptions, I also noted that the clustering of certain features of the superscriptions varied significantly throughout the collection, so that three longer sections could be identified: Pss 1–89; 90–119; 120–150 (if proceeding from the MT collection). Furthermore, I observed that many of the superscriptions indicated a quite dynamic interplay between the written psalms and various contexts of use. Evidently, some of these uses had been inscribed into the actual manuscripts, and a case in point was the superscription to Ps 92 (“for the Sabbath day”) and the continuing additions in the LXX (Ψ 23, 37, 47, 92, 93). In Ps 72:20, I found an example of a frozen colophon, and suggested that it would have been added to a collection large enough to be split across two scrolls. Notable aspects in this verse were the designation of such a collection as one of prayers (‫)תפלות‬, rather than praises (‫)תהלים‬, and that they were attributed to David. As for the ‘book’ dividing doxologies, a quite extensive discussion was provided. First, I suggested that while the ‫ ברך‬doxologies in Pss 72 and 106 could have been added with only the psalm in view, this was not the case with the ones found in Pss 41 and 89. The latter were instead added to divide a collection of psalms into five parts in imitation of the Pentateuch, and here, it was noted that the last psalms of the current MT ‘Book’ of Psalms – psalms framed by ‫ – הללו־יה‬did not perform the function of the (original) final doxology in such a fivefold division. In search of an appropriate final doxology, I then proposed that an appealing alternative was found in Pss 135–136. These psalms, which could be considered as “twins,” featured all of the essential parts of the ‫ ברך‬doxologies except for a final Amen, and significant were the last verses of Ps 135, a fivefold doxology where ‫ ברך‬was attested in qal passive participle. This doxology also overlapped in part with Ps 115:(9–11)12–13 and Ps 118:2– 4, but with the noteworthy presence of the house of Levi (‫ )בית הלוי‬in Ps 135. Tracing the use of Amen, the notion of Levites emanated further as they were recurrently occurring as leaders of the liturgy, and the phrasing of the ‫ ברך‬doxologies was argued to be deeply embedded in the Second Temple cult (at least as inferred from 1–2 Chronicles). Since Pss 135–136 also presumed a fairly finalized Pentateuch and revealed a theme of trust in YHWH, I suggested that they were probably added to a collection as a concluding doxology, and that the doxologies to Pss 41 and 89 were probably added at the same time. The latter two were then argued to have been added at quite “natural” places, that is, at the end of longer sequences of psalms with similar superscriptions.

Chapter 16. How?

373

If reasonable, it would indicate something about the adding of superscriptions as well. Since Ps 41 is found at the end of a long sequence of Davidic psalms, and Ps 89 is at the end of a long series of psalms with an ‘author’ designation, it would be plausible to propose that these sequences of psalms looked something quite similar to the current sequences at the time of the addition of the ‫ ברך‬doxologies. Consequently, by the time of the fivefold division of the ‘Book’ of Psalms by means of ‫ ברך‬doxologies (including Pss 135–136)‚ the ‘Book’ of Psalms had taken clear steps toward its current MT shape. Clues to this shape were also found in Ps 2:12bd. If related to the inclusion of Pss 135– 136, a new perspective was put into dialogue with the existing ones in Pss 1–2, and together with Pss 135–136, a somewhat loose framework was established. As the Hallelujah frameworks did not belong to this formative stage, the task of the last chapter was to inquire into Pss 145.146–150 as a final doxology, as well as into some of the rationales behind the addition of Hallelujah frameworks around other psalms throughout ‘books’ 4–5. Here, I argued that the curious juxtaposition of ‫ ברך‬and ‫ הלל‬in Ps 145, where the two terms occurred in the very same verses in the beginning and end of a psalm with the superscription ‫תהלה‬, could be understood as giving the Hallelujah frameworks the “upper hand” and thus pointing to a final formative stage. By providing close readings of Pss 146–150, I then suggested that in only one case could a clear addition be proposed, namely in Ps 148:14bc. The apparent overlap with Ps 149 could then point to the addition coming from a similar hand, although its current location before the Hallelujah indicated that the latter was not part of a specific formative stage. Turning to the occurrence of Hallelujah around psalms, I suggested that some might have been original to the psalm, perhaps most notably in Ps 106:48 and Ps 135:1, so that the addition of Hallelujahs would not always perform similar functions. While the addition in Ps 106:1 created a stress on the ‘book’ division, the addition in Ps 135:21 drew Ps 135 somewhat away from Ps 136, thus blurring their previous function as a final doxology. The additions throughout Pss 104–106 and 111–116 would also presuppose fairly stable sequences of psalms, and are thus quite similar to the additions of superscriptions in the LXX. Interestingly, these psalms also seemed to have been quite popular throughout the late Second Temple period, as they were found in various constellations throughout the ‘psalms’ scrolls, always with Hallelujah as a string binding them together (see, e.g., 4Q86, 11Q5). Noteworthy as it came to Pss 146–150 was also what was missing: none of these psalms featured David, none featured any Levites, none featured ‫תורה‬, and only once was ‫ ברך‬attested (Ps 147:13). Furthermore, the analysis of Ps 150 and its instruments indicated a different view of the temple cult than found in 1–2 Chronicles.

374

Part VI. The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms

II. Psalms on Repeat Once Again Leaving the ‘Book’ of Psalms proper, traces of psalms and possible collections of psalms were also found throughout the Hebrew Bible. I suggested that a written transmission of psalms (possibly including Pss 29, 48, 57, 60, 89 and a number of psalms no longer preserved) would be reasonable to posit proceeding from the possible quotes and allusions in, among others, Isa 40–55. Then, by the time of 1–2 Chronicles, more psalms had been incorporated, and the relating of three psalms without superscriptions to David and Asaph in 1 Chr 16 could suggest that they were now transmitted alongside other psalms attributed to them, although not many clues were given as to the shape of such a collection. The use of Ps 132 in 2 Chr 6 also possibly pointed to some nascent scripturalization, and one of the roots for a reading of psalms as future oriented was found in the way Isa 55 possibly related to Ps 89. Furthermore, the brief overview of 2 Sam 22 revealed a connection of David to psalmody in which David was portrayed as a model of trust in YHWH, possibly paralleling the ‘biographical’ notes. Also important in this chapter was the repetition of psalms in other psalms. If directions of dependence could be established, such repetitions might indicate what psalms were part of a transmission of psalms at the time of the composition of the later one. Consequently, it was suggested that Ps 108 indicated that Pss 57 and 60 were part of an established transmission, as did Ps 135 presuppose Ps 115, for example. The presence of a quite standardized Levitical stock-phrase in psalms throughout Pss 106–136 also contributed to the idea that these psalms were connected to the Second Temple cult in general, and Levites in particular. Of special significance was the repetition of the stock-phrase throughout Ps 136, further strengthening the observations made about the relation between Pss 135–136 and the Second Temple cult. Turning to the Dead Sea Scrolls pesharim, many psalms were quoted as authoritative, prophetic scripture. Surprisingly, these texts only featured MT psalms, and not only from some distinct sections of the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, but from all of its current ‘books’, except for ‘book’ four (Pss 1–2, 5, 6, 7, 10– 13, 16–17, 37, 45, 57, 60, 68, 82, 118, 127, 128[?], 129). This is noteworthy since it would have been expected that the collection found in 11Q5 and 11Q6 (and possibly 4Q87), if considered a “prime representative” of the ‘Book’ of Psalms in Qumran, would have had an influence on these kinds of texts. But apparently, it did not. Furthermore, I observed that the Asaphite Ps 82 was quoted as a song of David, and seen in light of a similar feature in later sources, I proposed that the best explanation for this was that Ps 82 was transmitted alongside other psalms that featured Davidic ‘author’ designations. As for the undemarcated citations, I observed that they all contributed to a general picture of the influence of Hebrew Bible psalmody in the late Second Temple period, and traces were also observed of 11Q5 psalms. Interesting was

Chapter 16. How?

375

that 4Q380–381 perhaps presupposed the addition of Hallelujah frameworks (compare also Philo’s way of referring to MT psalms as ἐν ὕµνοις, “in the psalms,” Pss 23, 26, 30, 36, 37, 42, 45, 65, 77, 80, 84, 94, 101, 113, hence from all ‘books’ of the MT/LXX ‘Book’ of Psalms), and that the Hebrew main title might have featured in 4Q491. I also observed that David and the psalms were recurrently interpreted as part of the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, so that texts such as 4Q397 should not be taken as indications of a tripartite canon, but rather as reflecting a connection between an established transmission of psalms and prophetic literature. If taking the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls into consideration, it is to be noted that none of the ‫ ברך‬doxologies were attested in full, but that the presence of the ‫ ברך‬of Ps 89:53 in 4Q87 probably indicate that the doxology was part of the psalm at this time. Since I argued that it was an addition made together with Ps 41:14 and Pss 135–136, it would be reasonable to assume that all these additions had been made prior to the mid first century CE (the date of the scroll). If reasonable, it would also be possible that the reconstructed Ps 106:48 in 4Q86 (if correct) is to be interpreted along similar lines, although it provides few clues by itself since I argued that the doxology was probably added with only the psalm itself in view. The reconstruction of Pss 146–150 in Mas1f would, then, push the date back further, as it implies that the Hallelujah formative stage must have been completed by the last half of the first century BCE. As for the superscriptions, the scrolls indicated that a Davidization was still going on during this time (compare the relation between, for example, 4Q83 and 4Q98), and last, both Pss 1–2 were part of collections of psalms by this time, although they were only preserved in (the pesher) 4Q174. The trajectories observed as nascent in the Hebrew Bible and as almost full blown in the Dead Sea Scrolls were then observed to be further developed in the New Testament and other early Jewish and Christian texts. A specific selection of psalms of David were recurrently seen as prophetic, and as with Ps 82 in 11Q13, psalms were interpreted as spoken by David although David did not feature in the superscription. Such a continuity is interesting since it would imply that as it comes to the ‘Book’ of Psalms (and other anthologies formed over time), reception history cannot be seen as entirely distinct from issues of formation. As for explicit references to a collection of psalms, Luke 20:42 provided the earliest attestation. Related to the actual psalms quoted in the gospel, I suggested that a selection of psalms looking very much like the MT/LXX ‘Book’ of Psalms was presumed. Such a conclusion would also fit with the LXX ‘psalms’ scrolls, all featuring psalms known only from the MT/LXX ‘Book’ of Psalms, and never in a different order. A final piece of the puzzle was the fact that Acts provided a first occurrence of a psalm being referred to by its position in the collection, and this feature was seen as further developed by early church fathers, who referred to psalms by their LXX number (Justin Martyr, Irenæus,

376

Part VI. The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms

Tertullian). Last, I noted that none of the texts surveyed explicitly quoted 11Q5 psalms, and neither was there any awareness of any “competing” collections.

B. Putting the Pieces Together I. Finding a Place to Start Having provided a short overview of the pieces of the puzzle uncovered throughout this study, the task is now to try to put them together. Here, it should be stressed once again that the notion of an “oldest core” of the collection in the sense of a stable sequence of psalms to which other psalms were subsequently added is problematic, since a linear, “evolutionary” growth is not to be presumed as a default mode. Put differently, there would be no Ursammlung in the sense of fixed contents and sequences, but rather a growing body of psalms regularly transmitted together. However, somewhere along such a transmission, the clustering together of psalms would have become more stabilized, and from that point and onwards, it would be reasonable to assume that the psalms added would not necessarily fundamentally change the layout and shape of the collection, although psalms could easily be rearranged, or new psalms inserted (and probably removed from) anywhere in the sequence. If reasonable, it would be important to find a time when the collection reached such an identifiable shape, as it could provide the starting point for further reconstruction, and if my suggestion of Ps 72:20 being a frozen colophon is to the point, it would be reasonable to assume that the fixation of such a colophon could provide an appropriate starting point, as its fixation would plausibly indicate that (some of) the sequences to which it was fixed were also fairly stable. Moreover, I suggested that such a collection would have been inscribed on two scrolls of roughly comparable length, thus comprising a fairly large amount of psalms. Looking more specifically at Ps 72:20, some additional clues could be provided, most notably that the psalms included in the collection are referred to as “prayers” (‫)תפלות‬. As is well known, this term features in many psalms, where it primarily connotes intercession and petition (Pss 4:2; 6:10; 17:1 [superscription]; 35:13; 39:13; 42:9; 54:4; 55:2; 61:2; 65:3; 66:19–20; 69:14; 80:5; 84:9; 86:1 [superscription], 6; 88:3, 14; 90:1 [superscription]; 102:1 [superscription], 2, 18; 109:4, 7; 141:2, 5; 142:1 [superscription]; 143:1).2 This is also the way in which the term is used in a number of occurrences outside the ‘Book’ of Psalms,3 and in all, these comprise 38 of its 45 occurrences, sometimes parallel2

Cf. Verhoef 1997, 1061–62; Stähli 1997, 993; Gerstenberger & Fabry 2001, 570. See 2 Sam 7:27; 1 Kgs 8:28 (=2 Chr 6:19); 1 Kgs 8:29 (=2 Chr 6:20); 1 Kgs 8:38 (=2 Chr 6:29); 1 Kgs 8:45 (=2 Chr 6:35); 1 Kgs 8:49 (=2 Chr 6:39); 1 Kgs 8:54 (=2 Chr 7:1); 1 3

Chapter 16. How?

377

ing, for example, ‫“( תחנה‬supplication”: 1 Kgs 8:28 [=2 Chr 6:19], 1 Kgs 8:38 [=2 Chr 6:29], 1 Kgs 8:45 [=2 Chr 6:35], 1 Kgs 8:49 [=2 Chr 6:39], 1 Kgs 8:54, 9:3, 2 Chr 33:13–19).4 Such a connotation does not quite fit with the use of the term in Ps 72:20, where it appears to be more generic, designating a collection of psalms of various forms. However, clues to such a semantic shift are found in the last seven occurrences outside of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, and the first is found in Isaiah: Isa 56:7 ‫והביאותים אל־הר קדשי ושמחתים בבית תפלתי עולתיהם‬ ‫וזבחיהם לרצון על־מזבחי כי ביתי בית־תפלה יקרא לכל־העמים‬ … these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer, their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar, for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.

In this passage, ‫ תפלה‬is used twice, both times as a designation of the temple, which is seen as a “house of prayer.” Also noteworthy is that prayer and sacrifice are linked together in a way that, although sacrifice is portrayed as an essential role of the temple, a shift in emphasis towards the role of prayer is implied. In all, it could be suggested that this use is quite in line with Ps 72:20. In fact, Westermann suggested early on that ‫ תפלה‬here “lost its specific meaning of intercession, and became a general term for prayer. Before this there had been no such general and comprehensive term.”5 Now, this does not necessarily say much about the possibility of (a) specific (collection of) psalms being referred to as prayers, although the widening of the term certainly lends credence to the idea, but two occurrences in 2 Chronicles further strengthen the picture. Consider first 2 Chr 7:12–15, esp. vv. 12 and 15: 2 Chr 7:12, 15 ‫ וירא יהוה אל־שלמה בלילה ויאמר לו שמעתי את־תפלתך ובחרתי במקום הזה לי לבית זבח‬12 ‫ עתה עיני יהיו פתחות ואזני קשבות לתפלת המקום הזה‬15 12 Then YHWH appeared to Solomon in the night and said to him: “I have heard your prayer, and have chosen this place for myself as a house of sacrifice … 15 Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayer that is made in this place.

Kgs 9:3 (=2 Chr 7:12); 2 Kgs 19:4 (=Isa 37:4); 2 Kgs 20:5 (=Isa 38:5); Isa 1:15; Jer 7:16; 11:14; Jonah 2:8; Job 24:12; Lam 3:8, 44; Dan 9:3, 17, 21; Neh 1:6, 11. Some occasions do not give many clues as to the nature of the prayer referred to (e.g. Job 16:17; Prov 15:8, 29; 28:9). 4 For more parallels, see, e.g., Stähli 1997, 994. 5 Westermann 1969, 315. Cf. Gerstenberger & Fabry 2001, 571, who relates such a use to DtrH, suggesting that there, it designates communal prayers that comprehend “all the concerns of the community – praise, thanksgiving, and petition.”

378

Part VI. The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms

As in Isa 56:7, a connection is made between sacrifice and prayer,6 and although the prayers mentioned in v. 15 refer back to vv. 13–14 and thus designate prayers offered in times of distress, it seems as if the term ‫ תפלה‬is used in a similar way in both passages. Further clues as to what kind of prayers could be so designated are found a couple of verses earlier, where a request from Solomon is spelled out in a way similar to v. 15. Consider 2 Chr 6:40 with its parallel in 1 Kgs 8:52a:7 1 Kgs 8:52a ‫להיות עיניך פתחות אל־תחנת עבדך‬ Let your eyes be open to the plea of your servant 2 Chr 6:40 ‫עתה אלהי יהיו־נא עיניך פתחות ואזניך קשבות לתפלת המקום הזה‬ Now, O my God, let your eyes be open and your ears attentive to prayer from this place.

Due to the verbatim overlap, a connection between 2 Chr 6:40 and 2 Chr 7:15 is likely, and relevant for my purposes is that the use made of ‫ תפלה‬would be similar in both cases. If reasonable, it is noteworthy that 2 Chr 6:40 seems to function almost as an introduction, or at least a bridge, to the verses that follow, vv. 41–42, and as was noted in Chapter 13.B.III (see above, pp. 301–4), these verses plausibly contains a quote of Ps 132. Consequently, the passage relates to a psalm under the term ‫ תפלה‬in very much the same way as is done in Ps 72:20, although the latter verse evidently performs a different function as a scribal colophon.8 Also significant in the use of the term in 2 Chr 6 is that that it is not found in the text of 1 Kings. In fact, the change of term seems deliberate. Rather than using ‫תחנה‬, 2 Chronicles uses ‫תפלה‬, and similar observations can be made in relation to other passages. Where 1 Kings feature both ‫ תפלה‬and ‫תחנה‬, 2 Chronicles attests only the former (1 Kgs 8:54, cf. 2 Chr 7:1; 1 Kgs 9:3, cf. 2 Chr 7:12).9 Consequently, it seems as if the changes might have been motivated by a new use of ‫תפלה‬, so that it could now relate to prayers in general, thus incorporating psalms of various forms. Further examples could be 2 Chr 30:27, where the blessing of the people (‫ )ברך‬on the part of the Levites is referred to as ‫תפלה‬, or Neh 11:17, where giving thanks (‫ )ידה‬is also described as ‫תפלה‬. In sum, its seems as if the use of ‫ תפלות‬in Ps 72:20 reflects a use of the term that has its roots in the (early) postexilic period. If reasonable, it is also quite

6

See also Japhet 1993, 614. Japhet 1993, 600. 8 A connection between ‫תפלה‬, psalms, and temple is also made by Goldingay 2014, 86 (commenting on Isa 56:7). 9 See, however, 2 Chr 33:13–19, where both terms feature in a passage without parallel in 1–2 Kings. 7

Chapter 16. How?

379

clear that as a designation of psalmody, it would soon be superseded by other terms. Although the use is reflected in the verses of 2 Chronicles above, 1–2 Chronicles generally prefer other terms when referring to psalms, most significantly variants of ‫ הלל‬and ‫ידה‬.10 II. Psalms 1–119 If the observations made above are combined with the ones made in relation to the superscriptions and the citations of psalms in the Hebrew Bible, and if one proceeds from the notion that this collection would have extended over two scrolls of roughly similar size, the following could perhaps be said. First, if combining the first two of the three identified sections (Pss 1–89, 90–119, 120–150), Ps 72:20 would divide such a collection in two roughly similar parts, with the second scroll slightly shorter. So put, it could have had Pss 1 and 119 as the first and the last psalm in a collection of psalms, and a number of features observed in the analysis of Ps 1 could support such a view.11 First, it was argued that the ‫ תורת יהוה‬of Ps 1:2 was likely to be referring to a Mosaic torah. Second, it was noted that this expression was only found in Pss 19 and 119 in the ‘Book’ of Psalms (‫ תורה‬never again “after” Ps 119), and then mainly in Ezra, Nehemiah and 1–2 Chronicles. In addition, the distribution of ‫ תפלה‬observed above as for the ‘Book’ of Psalms could also support this idea. As seen there, it occurred in many of the psalms that occur throughout Pss 4–109, and then only in three psalms at the very end of the MT sequence. Since Ps 72:20 attributes the psalms to David, the notion of a framework consisting of Pss 1 and 119 would consequently imply a juxtaposition of David (Ps 72:20) and Moses (Ps 1), of psalmody and torah, so that the former points to, and is put into, dialogue with the latter. If so, it would also fit with the observed connection between Ps 1 and Deut 6, as well as with the interpretation of the metaphor in Ps 1:3 as bringing the temple and torah closer together. In fact, such a combination could provide clues about the identity of the compilers. In Deuteronomic tradition, one group is assigned to read the law to the peo-

10

This is seen clearly if comparing 1–2 Kings with 1–2 Chronicles (‫ הלל‬is found eighteen times in 1–2 Chronicles, but only once in 1–2 Kings, ‫ ידה‬is attested seventeen times in 1–2 Chronicles, but only twice in 1–2 Kings). See also Neh 12:46 where the singing of psalms is referred to as ‫( שיר תהלה והדות אלהים‬cf. p. 312 above). 11 The notion of a collection comprising Pss 1–119 has been argued before by esp. Westermann 1981, 253, and Seybold 1990, 21–23 (cf. Seybold 1996, 28, 472). It should perhaps be stressed that the suggestion that there might have existed a collection of roughly comparable length as MT 1–119 (framed by Pss 1; 119) does not imply that no other collections of psalms existed at this time, nor that the sequences of psalms necessarily overlapped with the MT sequences, or that they would have been perceived as fixed, but could nevertheless indicate that one of the collections may have included some of the psalms now included in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms.

380

Part VI. The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms

ple (cf. Deut 31:25–29),12 namely Levites, and such a function is also seen in later texts like Neh 9:1–5 where the ‫ תורת יהוה‬is specifically mentioned (cf. Neh 8:1–12).13 Related to their function as leaders of psalm singing in 1–2 Chronicles, it could be quite plausible that Levites were responsible for the anthologization of psalms, and if so, it would further underscore the conclusion that such a collection of psalms was not itself seen as torah, although the psalms included in it had started to acquire a special status within the community that transmitted them.14 If the broad strokes of this proposed collection are reasonable, it would be tempting to try to reconstruct possible shapes of collections prior to this time, but unfortunately, if considering the formation of anthologies as a multilinear process while at the same time disregarding the Davidic superscriptions as means of reconstruction, not many clues are left. However, the possible repetition of psalms in the Hebrew Bible indicated that at least Pss 29, 48, 57, 60, and 89 were part of a transmission of psalms prior to Isa 40–55. If combined with the possibility of independently transmitted sequences of psalms attributed to the sons of Korah and Asaph, as well as with the notion of a difference between the first two sections of psalms (Pss 1–89, 90–119) it could be proposed that the collection including Pss 1–119 was created by juxtaposing a number of psalms now found throughout Pss 90–119 to a previously transmitted cluster of psalms that in some parts overlaps with psalms now found throughout Pss 2–89. Nothing conclusive could be said about the actual shape of the sequences in which the latter were found, however,15 although it could be significant that Ps 90 has the superscription ‫“( תפלה למשה איש־האלהים‬A tefillah of Moses, the man of God”), that is, using the noun ‫ תפלה‬and focusing on Moses. Ultimately, what is suggested above is that psalms would have been gathered into a collection with some overlaps with MT Pss 1–119 in the Persian period. Such a collection was probably compiled by Levites, and the juxtaposing of psalmody and torah would reflect an emerging dialogue between these two bodies of texts that would eventually lead to the fixation of a specific collection of psalms. Further strengthening the view that this collection would be the first of its kind is that it is only after this time that the possible awareness of a collection of psalms is starting to be seen in texts of the Hebrew Bible and beyond,

12

Cf. Gillingham 2014, 205. See also Smith 1991, 261–63. 14 The juxtaposition of Moses and David was to be subject to much discussion in later works, see, e.g., the passage quoted from the Midrash Tehillim above, p. 166 (cf. Shin’an 2005, 68–74). 15 The possible exception could be the notion of an Elohistic collection, if defined as including psalms mainly using the name ‫אלהים‬, and acknowledging both that such psalms might have been arranged and rearranged a number of times, and that psalms might have been inserted into such a sequence at a later time based on similar preferences for ‫אלהים‬. 13

Chapter 16. How?

381

perhaps most notably in 1 Chr 16. Consequently, from now on, there existed a collection of psalms that was explicitly connected to David. If so, the very presence of a highly Davidic colophon could be argued to provide a corrective against much of the recent interpretations of Ps 1 and the psalms following Ps 90 as downplaying David in favor of Moses. The idea is often that Ps 90 is deliberately placed after Ps 89 to provide an answer to the complaint in the latter, and that the answer is that “the people in exile must rely on God, rather than a Davidic king, to provide for them.”16 If the reconstruction above is valid, the effect of this gathering of psalms would, however, be the opposite. By juxtaposing psalms of David to the reading of the law, the importance of David would in fact be increased, although not primarily in the role of a king, but as a prophetically inspired singer. Put differently, the juxtaposition would be between the works of two prophets. In the context of use sketched above, it would also be reasonable to assume that the performative aspect of the use of psalms was prominent, but it is important to stress that this would not have implied that the collection as a whole was used in such a way, just the individual psalms included in it.17 Furthermore, it is clear from the narratives in 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah that an assumed public performing of psalms by Levites could take place in multiple contexts and locations, both in and outside of the temple, so that there would be no single Sitz im Leben. III. Psalms 1/2–135/136 Moving on, it is likely to be suspected that if a collection framed by Pss 1 and 119 and provided with a colophon (Ps 72:20) attributing psalms to David was formed in the Persian period, the process of attributing an increasing number of psalms in such a collection to David by means of ‘author’ designations would have been set in motion (cf. the addition to Ps 86, which curiously features ‫)תפלה‬. Consequently, it might be posited that by the time of the next traceable formative stage, longer sequences of Davidic psalms would have been formed. The reason for keeping sequences of psalms fairly intact might be surprising, but could have quite practical reasons such as convenience, that is, making psalms easier to find. Clues to the shape and date of such a collection are to be found if relating several of the observations gathered in section 16.A above: 1) the observations about psalms repeated in other psalms (e.g. the repetition of Ps 115 in Ps 135); 2) the citations of Pss 96, 105, and 106 in 1 Chr 16, where they were seen as psalms of David to be sung by Asaph; 3) Ps 132 in 2 Chr 6:41–42; and 4) the occurrence of a Levitical stock-phrase in especially Ps 136. 16 17

deClaissé-Walford 2014b, 372. Contra deClaissé-Walford 1995, 366.

382

Part VI. The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms

Taking these together, it might be proposed that the next major formative stage could be somewhat parallel to the time of the composition of 1–2 Chronicles. By this time, the previous collection would have been expanded to include, among others, a series of psalms with similar superscriptions possibly used together in some liturgical setting(s) (‫שיר המעלות‬, Pss 120–132, or Pss 120–134). It might even be suggested (although quite speculative) that since they are all fairly short and only take up a few sheets of a scroll, they could have been transmitted alongside a larger collection of psalms for some time before actually being stitched to the second scroll. The inclusion of Pss 135–136 would then provide this collection with a final doxology and create an extended, loose framework back to Pss 1–2. It would be now that v. 12bd was added to Ps 2, v. 14 (the ‫ ברך‬doxology) to Ps 41 (which was by now the last psalm in a sequence of psalms to David), and v. 53 to Ps 89. The colophon would have been kept, that is, it would have started to freeze and became part of Ps 72 itself, and the result of the combined changes would have been a collection divided into five parts, inscribed on two scrolls of similar size. Consequently, the conceptual link back to the torah of Moses would have been further strengthened, and if proceeding from the close readings provided by Pss 135–136, this torah would by now roughly have taken the form of the Pentateuch. If reasonable, it might also be suggested that such a shape was partly motivated by a nascent scripturalization of psalms belonging to this collection. Put differently, psalms were increasingly seen as authoritative scripture, and indications of this were seen in the use of Ps 132 in 2 Chr 6, as well as the trajectory of interpreting psalms in a prophetic light tracing back to Isa 40–55. As with the previous collection, the gathering of psalms would presumably have been carried out by Levites (see Ps 135:20a). IV. Psalms 1–150 Continuing the sketch of possible formative stages, a final set of clues is to be found in the discrepancy between the ‫ ברך‬doxologies and the Hallelujah frameworks. More specifically, a last formative stage could be uncovered as related to the inclusion of (especially) Pss 145.146–150. Here also belongs the addition of Hallelujah frameworks to psalms throughout the latter parts of the collection, as well as the incorporation of several psalms attributed to David. In light of the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls, the latter could have been transmitted in various sequences prior to their incorporation in the now quite substantial collection of psalms. By means of superimposing an overall Hallelujah framework on the previous ‫ ברך‬doxologies (seen, not least, in Ps 145), the collection would have had a shape quite similar to the one now known as the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, and by now, it was no longer transmitted as “prayers” (‫)תפלות‬, but increasingly conceptualized as “praises” (‫)תהלים‬, evoking the notion of the collection as a ‫ספר תהלים‬. Furthermore, Ps 72:20 would now have become an archaic

Chapter 16. How?

383

remnant, eventually to be altered by the LXX in line with the new conceptualization of the collection. The fact that it was only altered (not removed) probably shows that it was valued as a significant indication that the psalms gathered in the collection were seen as being of Davidic heritage, and the psalms transmitted as a part of this collection would eventually influence poetry of the Second Temple times in a great number of ways, as observed in Part V. Furthermore, the fact that they were part of this collection would also set them somewhat apart from other compositions. In contrast to the two collections traced above, no explicit signs of any anthologists were detected in the close readings of Pss 146–150. Levites were nowhere mentioned, neither was David, nor torah, or ‫( ברך‬except for in Ps 147:13). That David does not feature in these psalms does perhaps not affect the conception of the collection as a whole in any significant way, both since a large number of psalms in the collection were attributed to him, and since several psalms of David were probably included by the compilers of this final stage, but the absence of the other features that were significant for relating the Levites to the gathering of psalms plausibly indicates that the ‘Book’ of Psalms was no longer a Levitical collection. Taken together with the observation that Pss 145–150 allude to a great number of other texts now included in the Hebrew Bible, it could perhaps be suggested that the psalms now transmitted in the ‘Book’ of Psalms had become part of a broader notion of scripture, used not by a specific group, but cherished by the people in a more general sense. This conclusion is, however, only tentative, and more research is needed. As for the possible time of formation, it was observed that Ps 150 differed in some significant ways from the portrayal of the temple cult as found in 1–2 Chronicles. Consequently, it would be plausible that this formative stage is to be dated sometime after 1–2 Chronicles, and in light of the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls, a terminus is likely to be sought prior to (at least) the middle of the first century BCE, since most of the pesharim, as well as Mas1f are dated to the second half of the first century (and onwards). Perhaps pushing back this terminus prior to the middle of the second century BCE is the LXX. Although the first, quite fragmentary manuscripts are not preserved until much later, there is nothing in these manuscripts that suggests that the psalms of the LXX were once found in entirely different sequences. Rather, the changes made for superscriptions, for example, presupposes a MT sequence, and if related to the common date for the Greek translation of the psalms in the second century BCE,18 it might be suggested that the last formative stage would have taken place sometime in the late third, or early second century BCE. That such a formative stage did not imply a fixation of every psalm in the sequence is quite expected from

18

22.

Schaper 1995, 34–45; Schaper 1998; cf. Swete 1900, 25; Munnich 1983, 88–89, with n.

384

Part VI. The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms

both the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls and the comparative material surveyed, but the selection of psalms to be included in such a collection was probably quite stable at this time, although both the LXX and the Syriac tradition indicate that additional psalms could be included into the collection even after this stage.

Chapter 17

Why? 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.1 – Midrash on Psalm 3

Having provided a reconstruction of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, it is now possible to move on to the second focal point of this study, the question “why?” This question relates to the ends to which psalms have been juxtaposed in a collection. To be able to answer such a question, it would first be important to acknowledge that the question would have to be asked in relation to each of the formative stages identified above, and second, that the fundamental distinction between purpose(s) of selection and purpose(s) of organization (binding) is needed, as argued in the introduction (see esp. p. 28). While intertwined, the first could be said to focus on the relation between the psalms included in the collection and the ones left out, and the second would focus on the way psalms are juxtaposed within the collection itself. I will address each of these two aspects in turn.

A. Purpose(s) of Selection As noted in my introductory discussion of what constitutes an anthology, there would always be a tension between selective and preserving tendencies as it came to their formation, and this is also what has been observed for the ‘Book’ of Psalms. If related to the suggestion that the psalms that eventually ended up in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms are but a snapshot of all psalms used throughout the time of its formation, it could be said that the ones responsible for the compilation of collections of psalms – the anthologists – would have had to make continuous decisions about which psalms to include and which to leave out. While the purpose of the compilation of some of the early collections no longer preserved might have filled quite practical needs such as gathering songs for specific occasions, it would be reasonable to suggest that by the time of the compilation of the collection framed by Pss 1 and 119, the selection of psalms would also have been motivated by their status within the communities that 1

Braude 1959, 1:49.

386

Part VI. The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms

transmitted them. Used in the Second Temple cult and in relation to, among others, the public reading of the torah of Moses, they were also to become authoritative for the community, eventually even becoming scripture themselves. If reasonable, it would follow that continuous addition of psalms to such a collection would have been partly motivated by an aim to derive authority and ascertain their preservation within the community. Consequently, there would have been an increasing preserving force, making it difficult to remove psalms. In other words, the tradition would have started to exert some control of the formation process (cf. p. 25 above) and this collection would eventually become a central container for transmitted psalmody, so that the very notion of being included in it affected the way the individual psalm was read. As seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls pesharim, but also in other early Jewish and Christian texts, it was only psalms believed to be part of such a valued transmission that were commented upon as authoritative scripture, and thus, a distinction between these compositions and other, similar compositions was implied. A consequence of this would also be that the fundamental interpretive influence that the collection had on the individual psalms was not a literary one but one of derived authority, as related to the notion of selection. It is also in this sense that it is possible to speak of an authoritative collection of psalms, since authority would still have related primarily to the psalms themselves as individual compositions. Consequently, they were not primarily transmitted or conceived as a literary whole, a “Psalter.” Rather, the anthology served as a container of authoritative psalms, and as a way of conceptualizing these suggestions, it might once again be appropriate to turn to Ferry. Quoted in the introduction to this study (p. 22), she described anthologies as a physical embodiment and figurative representation of what poets have tended to call the tradition – the iconoclast Pound said that the ‘tradition is a beauty which we preserve and not a set of fetters to bind us’ – but which many critics more recently and more often have called the canon.

Proceeding from such a notion, I would propose that the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms is not ultimately an issue of shaping of a ‘book’ in the way it is usually conceived, but of the creative preservation of a tradition. Rather than relating the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms to the formation of other books in the Hebrew Bible, I suggest that a better analogy would be the formation of the Hebrew Bible itself. In such a view, the ‘Book’ of Psalms would not primarily be a book of psalms, but rather a canon of psalms. Consequently, one might suggest that as early as Pss 1–119 (or perhaps earlier still), there would have been a body of psalms regarded by postexilic communities as canonical in the sense that the psalms included were authoritative in a way that other psalms were not, and as with the Hebrew Bible, such a canon would grow over time, and even look different in various communities. Eventually, the very sequence would also be fixed (although that was a secondary is-

Chapter 17. Why?

387

sue), and that this was done earlier for the ‘Book’ of Psalms than for the Hebrew Bible is probably due to the fact that the psalms of the former were regularly juxtaposed on the same scrolls, while the books of the latter rather filled up separate scrolls, thus not evoking similar notions of shape. If a valid line of argument, it would also follow that the ‘Book’ of Psalms was not canonized as “the third” part of a “tripartite canon,” nor was it canonized in clear steps (compare the notion of separate sheets, above), but that the process is better conceptualized as a growing body of psalms that was increasingly valued in the exilic and postexilic community. Only after a long period of time would these psalms be juxtaposed and fixed in sequences that overlap with what is now known as the MT/LXX ‘Book’ of Psalms. Understood in such a way, the answer to the first part of the question of “why” would be quite in line with both the notion of the ‘Book’ of Psalms as an anthology, and with the answers provided by the survey of the comparative material in Part II. But what implications did the fact that compositions came to be fixed in sequences have on their interpretation? Are there overarching frameworks hinting at further answers to the question of purpose? Can it be said, as is often done, that the paratexts of the collection indicate that the ‘Book’ of Psalms was intended to be read, studied, and meditated upon as a whole, ultimately evoking the notion of an overarching message?

B. Purpose of Organization I. Interpretive Frameworks? Related to the quote by Ferry above, the purpose of organization would relate to the issue of “fetters that bind us.” More specifically, it focuses on the way that the paratexts of the collection provide a range of interpretive options while at the same time providing some limits. As introduced earlier in this study, paratexts would guide the reader through a work, but their functions have to be evaluated in relation to each paratext respectively. So put, the question of purpose of organization is closely connected to questions of the way of reading, performance, and use. As seen in the introduction, and throughout the close readings of the possible paratexts, the suggested interpretive frameworks have often been found unconvincing. Looking first at Pss 1–2 as a possible preface, I noted that they did not direct the reader into a collection of psalms, but rather put psalmody in conversation with a torah of Moses. Now, it would be important to stress that (at least) two layers of interpretation would be intertwined as contexts of interpretation are discussed. The first relates to the original, individual psalm, while the second relates to the function of the psalm as part of a collection. It might, then, be argued that an original use and interpretation of a psalm need not harmonize

388

Part VI. The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms

with a use intended by later anthologists. Put differently, one might conclude that although an original meaning of torah in Ps 1:2 might have been a torah of Moses, it was later intended to be interpreted as the ‘Book’ of Psalms, and it is the later sense that moves to the fore when discussing issues of formation. However, if such a distinction is reasonable, it also follows that any such suggestion would have to be related to a discussion of the shape of the collection by the time the preface was added, thus necessarily diachronically situated. Consequently, if the process of formation reconstructed above is of any value, it would in fact underscore the notion that Ps 1 was never used to (re)shape a collection of psalms into an object of careful study, effecting an interpretive overlayering of “words to God” with “words of God.” In fact, such an interpretation would not be likely in any of the formative stages proposed above, as Ps 1 was argued to have been added together with Pss (90–?)119 to constitute a framework around a collection, pointing to and subsequently partaking in the relating of (Davidic) psalmody to the torah of Moses (eventually the Torah, the Pentateuch, Pss 1/2–135/136). The use of ‫ תורת יהוה‬in Second Temple times also underscored this conclusion. So, rather than being prefatorial in any strict sense, the function of such frameworks is probably to be seen as providing a conceptual threshold, demarcating a selected number of psalms from the wide stream of psalmody in use at that time. Similar conclusions could be drawn in relation to the superscriptions. Since the frameworks suggested by Wilson were unconvincing as models for understanding the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, both in relation to the suggested paratextual functions and the inherent logic in the material presuppositions, they cannot provide any solid foundation for conclusions about the purpose of organization either. Ultimately, it is not possible to speak of any single purpose at all. In keeping with the possibility that sequences of psalms attributed to the Sons of Korah and Asaph could imply earlier collections, their purpose might have been quite practical. That is, these psalms might have been juxtaposed into some feasible sized scrolls for the sake of preservation and use by these very guilds, and if so, their organization would have been a secondary issue, and not necessarily theologically motivated. That a linear reading was not to be presupposed as guiding the organization was also seen in the addition of what I called “indications of use.” Here, it was quite clear that, for example, all psalms to be sung on various days of the week were not juxtaposed (MT/LXX). But even if there are cases where it would be reasonable to suggest some intended progression of thought, it would still not be possible to extrapolate such a model to the entire collection, and in light of the continuous addition of superscriptions, it would not even be safe to conclude that such progressions would necessarily overlap with sequences of similar superscriptions. In fact, it seems as if the complex history of formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms entails a similar complexity as to the layering of various purposes of organization, so that the very idea of a single (or even dominant)

Chapter 17. Why?

389

purpose needs to be questioned. The only clear framework identified was the fivefold division, and as argued above, it only accounted for the addition of three of the five ‫ ברך‬doxologies. II. A Sitz in der Schrift The conclusions drawn so far should not be interpreted in the sense that psalms have been randomly juxtaposed, rather that the proposed readings of recent scholarship need to be reframed. Since this study has focused explicitly on paratexts, features such as lexical and thematic links between adjacent psalms have not been considered in depth, except for in some cases. As seen there, and shown in numerous other studies, it is quite likely that similar vocabulary (etc.) might have served as points of departure when juxtaposing psalms. If so, it would also be in agreement with the comparative material surveyed in Part II, as well as with the catalogues of incipits introduced in Appendix 1. Nonetheless, it would be important to note that such features did not imply that the juxtaposed compositions should be read together. A blunt comparison to modern day cookbooks could perhaps be illustrative. In these books, recipes are often gathered under titles and subtitles, juxtaposed by means of shared contexts of use. Appetizers are clustered together, main dishes put side by side and desserts placed in distinct sections. The various titles would, then, in a sense, control the perception of the individual recipes, evoking a sense of relation between recipes gathered in the same section (evidently, if features of a recipe would differ greatly from the others included in a section, it could be judged that it had been misplaced), but it would not imply that two juxtaposed recipes should therefore be mixed together and served as a single dish. Similarly, features of two psalms might have resulted in them being placed side by side, but this should not automatically be interpreted as an indication that they were intended to be read in light of each other. In effect, I argued that there were very few indications of any notion of a Sitz in der Literatur in the way psalms were quoted in the late centuries BCE and first centuries CE, and moreover, my evaluation of possible lexical links in both Pss 1–2 and Pss 145.146–150 indicated that they were in fact quite inadequate tools for reconstructing answers to issues of purpose of juxtaposition. In light of the use made of psalms studied in Part V of this study, it would rather be quite reasonable to conclude that the literary concept of a ‘book’ had very little significance. The context of interpretation for the psalm seemed to be a looser notion of scripture (perhaps to be designated as a Sitz in der Schrift), where psalms were put into dialogue with (other) prophetic books (that is, the psalms were themselves seen as prophetic), and not least the Torah, but there were no signs of Pss 1 and 150 providing boundaries for these interpretive activities. Consequently, it follows that the juxtaposition of a number of psalms with similar ‘author’ designation probably does not provide borders of sequential reading

390

Part VI. The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms

either, and this would be especially pertinent in relation to the five ‘books’. If the argument provided in my analysis of the ‫ ברך‬doxologies holds up, it would be anachronistic to speak of these ‘books’ as literary units, simply because the borders they demarcate are imposed on already stable sequences of psalms, thus having little to do with the actual juxtaposing of the psalms themselves. In sum, the observations made throughout Parts II–V all point to a similar conclusion, namely that anthologies were rarely read or studied “as a whole” in the sense suggested by the strand of research tracing back to Wilson. This could be further illustrated by means of the two forces argued to be in tension in an anthology. Where one militated against the integration of the individual piece into the large, the other militated against the isolation of the individual piece. If one of these forces is too weak, it would not be an anthology (compare the Zàmì Hymns, where the first force was quite weak, or the Decad, where the second force was weak), and if related to recent research on the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, it could be argued that there has been an unwarranted emphasis on the integration of the individual into the whole, so that the notion of the ‘Book’ of Psalms being greater than the sum of its parts in fact results in the ‘book’ being less than the sum of its parts. III. Paratexts and Interpretive Control But what about the interpretive control argued to be essential to the paratexts? Here, it should be noted that in the ‘Book’ of Psalms, superscriptions were among the most prominent paratexts, but that their function was primarily related to the individual psalm. However, (at least) one aspect stands out, namely the accumulating Davidization. As connected to David, the selection of psalms that would eventually become the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms was also increasingly interpreted in light of David. Such an interpretive lens was probably implicit already in 1 Chr 16, where three psalms not attributed to David in the ‘Book’ of Psalms were introduced as his words, and then quite explicit in the Dead Sea Scrolls pesharim, as well as in the New Testament and the early church fathers (the latter reading them in light of Christ, the “son of David”). Consequently, this would be the clearest example of how the context of a collection and the adding of paratexts provides an interpretive context for the individual psalm. As part of a transmitted body of “psalms of David,” any psalm had the potential to be read as related to David, even if no ‘author’ designation was supplied. This relation to David would also induce a relating of psalms to the stories of David, as is seen in the ‘biographical’ notes, and conversely in 2 Sam 22, for example. So put, it is here that the two aspects of selection and organization intertwine, and it is in this intersection that the relation between the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms and the various collections in the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls could be understood.

Chapter 17. Why?

391

As I concluded in the discussion of the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls, there were a number of different collections present, some probably of great significance for the community, as they were attested in several copies (11Q5, 11Q6, and possibly 4Q87). If psalms had derived authority by being transmitted in the main container of Davidic psalmody, and if they were not primarily transmitted or conceived as a literary whole, a “Psalter,” it follows that they could be arranged in a various number of ways without blurring the lines, just as books in the Hebrew Bible might be arranged in various sequences in various communities of faith. In my view, such a concept makes best sense of the otherwise conflicting notions of variation and overlap with the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms attested in the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls, and also provides tools to deal with the occurrence of compositions that were left out from the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, that is, accounting for the fact that many ‘psalms’ scrolls feature psalms not included in the MT/LXX ‘Book’ of Psalms while the pesharim only comments on psalms included in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. Ultimately, the issue is not about chronological priority (evidently, a later collection could be more authoritative than an earlier), nor is it about “open” or “closed” canons (since such categories can only be used if reading backwards from a point after which no additions were made to a collection), and neither is it about “competing canons” (since “canon” should not be understood as referring to a specific “book”). Instead it is about the relation between the individual and the whole in an anthology on the one hand, and the relation between anthologies and the communities in which they are given shape on the other. If so, it could be concluded that ever since the sixth century BCE, there would have been canons of psalms with certain shapes that were “closed” in the sense of being inscribed on scrolls, but “open” in the sense of being only snapshots of a long process of selecting and preserving psalms.

C. Conclusions In sum, I propose that the purpose(s) of selecting psalms from a wide stream of ancient Hebrew psalmody and arranging them in collections that grew and acquired new shapes over time cannot be understood in the singular. Throughout this study, I have observed multiple purposes, for example, as related to various aspects in the superscriptions, and multiple uses, for example, as related to the citations of psalms in other texts. Thus, there would be no single setting for the collection as a whole, although the overlap between the processes of anthologizing and canonization does provide a fruitful point of departure for such discussions. This means that the idea of a theology (or message) developing through the “macrostructure” of the collection would have to be abandoned as an explanation for the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. Being an anthology of psalms, the ‘Book’ of Psalms does not tell a (linear) story, but rather spins an

392

Part VI. The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms

intricate web of multiple traditions that are preserved and put in dialogue with each other despite (or perhaps because of) the tension of perspective created by such a compilation. Like a garden of flowers, the ‘Book’ of Psalms does not primarily provide a literary context for individual psalms, but rather preserves a dynamic selection of psalms that had proven to stand the test of time and ultimately had come to be regarded, not only as words to God, but as words through which God’s voice could be heard. They had become important sources for the framing of a new hope, the expression of robust protests and far-reaching praises, and for those who entered into this garden, paratexts would provide possible pathways through it, superscriptions provided signs by which individual psalms could be read, and while some psalms were commented upon recurrently, other flowers were rarely picked. In the end, it is in this sense that the ‘Book’ of Psalms can be understood as an intentionally organized selection of psalms, not by being a literary text, but as a multivocal work where each psalm contributes to an ongoing interaction between God and God’s people ultimately hoping that the entire creation would one day join the choir in praise of YHWH, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever.

A Final Outlook As my study of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms has now come to an end, it has probably become clear that I think that the canonical approach has somewhat reached its limits, at least in its current form. Consequently, it could be appropriate to provide some reflections about where to move on from here. The most fundamental effect I hope that a study like this would have is to encourage scholars to take a step back and perhaps once again rethink the problems and prospects of Psalterexegese. If conceptualizing recent studies as a movement from Psalmenexegese to Psalterexegese, I do not suggest that we should revert back to only Psalmenexegese, rather that the way we understand Psalterexegese needs some additional considerations. Anyone who has attended a conference with sessions on the ‘Book’ of Psalms has probably been listening to many stimulating papers devoted to this field of study, and although I do not expect this to change, I would nevertheless hope that my study could help in reframing some of the issues, or at least lead to a more conscious reflection on the relation between diachronic and synchronic issues. Related to the issue of Psalterexegese, I have argued that it is certainly important that psalms became part of increasingly stable sequences of psalms, ultimately demarcated as a distinct collection. I have also agreed with previous research that such processes would have had an impact on the way psalms were conceived and used. However, I do not understand such an impact as primarily literary or related to synchronic issues, but rather related to multilinear canon processes, and if this is reasonable, there is much research remaining in sketching out the contours and possible settings for these processes. How, for example, do the various ways of reading psalms that are attested in the superscriptions relate to one another? What functions did the various configurations of the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls have? Are there more traces of emerging collections to be found in literature contemporary with the ‘Book’ of Psalms? Who were the ones responsible for adding the Hallelujah frameworks? I would also propose that forthcoming studies on the “final shape” of the ‘Book’ of Psalms need to take artifactual diversity into serious consideration, so that one does not automatically proceed from the Masoretic text. In fact, I would call for a closer interaction between the often too distinct fields of biblical exegesis and research on the Dead Sea Scrolls, and here, there is an urgent

394

A Final Outlook

need to find an appropriate terminology when speaking of psalms and collections of psalms configured in various ways. I have also shown that there are no clear lines to be drawn between formation, canonization, and reception history. Rather, these are overlapping, and much remains to be done in relation to how these three trajectories overlap and intertwine in various contexts. A final area that has shown to be promising is the analysis of paratexts. Although it is true that the work of Wilson and others placed the superscriptions at the center of scholarly discussion, focus has primarily been on how they could be taken as indications of editorial activity and earlier collections. However, if I am correct that their primary function is related to the interpretation of the individual psalm, a rather fascinating area opens up, and additional studies are needed to uncover the way various elements in the superscriptions affect the interpretation of individual psalms, and how various traditions interact and develop as these are used and read in ever new contexts. As a consequence of my sketch of possible ways forward, it would also be exciting to see commentaries on the ‘Book’ of Psalms that integrate these various levels of interpretation. More specifically, they could focus not only on the original contexts of the individual psalms, but on the interaction between the superscriptions and the individual psalms. They could integrate the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls more closely into the analyses (that is, not only mention variants relevant for textual critical purposes), and consciously relate the latter to the intertwined trajectories of scripturalization and Davidization of psalmody. In sum, I believe that the study of the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms has a bright future ahead, and although I might not be right in the conclusions drawn in this study, I might perhaps at least have changed our way of being wrong.

Appendix 1

Catalogues of Incipits The material to be discussed here is what I have designated as “Catalogues of Incipits.” The reason for this discussion is primarily motivated by the considerable attention given to these catalogues by Wilson, who designated them as catalogues of hymnic incipits, but also by the fact that they featured in my discussion of the Decad (see above, e.g., pp. 39–41). According to Wilson, they provided a potential window into various organizational techniques, and are seen as important in the reconstruction of similar techniques in the ‘Book’ of Psalms. Proceeding from 17 catalogues presented by Hallo in 1963, Wilson added an additional five, and devoted some considerable space to introduce and describe the features of each one.1 In all, he analyzed 22 catalogues ranging from the Ur III period (ca. 2100–2000 BCE) to the Neo-Babylonian period (625–539 BCE), but subsequent to his work, there has been quite a significant increase in the number of published catalogues and a broader picture has emerged which renders some of Wilson’s conclusions obsolete.2 Consequently, there is a need to reformulate the way in which psalm scholarship has dealt with this material, and to cast new light on the issue I will structure my discussion in three parts. First, I provide an overview of the basic layout and organization of the catalogues, as related to Wilson’s observations, and then, I discuss two sets of distinctions: contents and date. In the interest of clarity, I have also provided a table on pp. 403–4, listing most of the catalogues published to this date.

Basic Layout and Organization One of the main conclusions drawn by Wilson was that the catalogues reflected “an extremely flexible system of classification capable of sufficient modification to accommodate the various purposes for which individual catalogues were

1

Hallo 1963, 169; Wilson 1985a, 25–61. It could, for example, be mentioned that one of Wilson’s “strongly structured” catalogues – N1 (P134670, Wilson 1985a, 58) – is no longer considered a catalogue, but a “liturgical text outlining a ritual procedure composed of three sub-rituals” (Richardson 2006, 5–7, following the suggestion by, among others, Wilcke 1976, 42; cf. Delnero 2006, 118–19). 2

396

Appendix 1. Catalogues of Incipits

produced,”3 and this is certainly to the point. Basically, the catalogues list a set of incipits, that is, first lines of various compositions or tablets, and the most explicit indications of organization are the presence of blank spaces, dividing lines, summarizing entries, subtotals, titles, and the like.4 Such features often serve to demarcate sections in various ways, and looking at the subtotals, they give a relatively clear understanding of some of the underlying rationales behind the grouping of incipits. More specifically, they regularly indicate what the scribe thought the compositions listed had in common, be it genre, language, deity addressed, place of storage, place in a series, material, etc., and a case in point is provided by B3 (P355679). Here, a subtotal is attested after line 74, specifying the incipits listed on this five-sided prism as the incipits of 83 ir2-šem3-ma-dinana u3 dnin-šubur (“83 ershemmas of Inanna and Ninšubur”).5 These are further divided into two groups by another two subtotals counting 76 laments for Inanna and seven for Ninšubur (following lines 67 and 74 respectively), and a horizontal dividing line precedes each subtotal. Consequently, it can be concluded that this catalogue is arranged by deity addressed.6 This said, it is not always apparent why dividing lines are placed where they are. Although they sometimes overlap with the groups summarized by the subtotals, some dividing lines seem to have been placed rather mechanically, without any relation to the incipits (cf., e.g., N4, P269091).7 Looking more specifically at the actual incipits, Wilson also argued that they revealed implicit indications of organization.8 Some incipits could be juxtaposed by means of similar themes, genres, or deities addressed, while others were placed next to incipits that shared similar phraseology. However, the examples provided were not always clear-cut. Consider lines 1–29 of the obverse of the Ur III catalogue Y1 (P275014), which Wilson described as having a “tantalizing” arrangement due to its juxtaposition of incipits with the same initial sign:9 Table 10: “Tantalizing organization” Line 12 13 14 3

Column 2 Initial sign nin en d šul-gi

Line 1 2 3

Column 1 Initial sign dîgir d en-lil2-la2 lugal

Wilson 1985a, 60. See also above, p. 8. Cf. Wilson 1985a, 53–54. 5 Kramer 1975, 155. 6 Cf. Wilson 1985a, 52–53; Delnero 2006, 125–26. 7 Hallo 1975, 78; cf. Wilson 1985a, 51. 8 Wilson 1985a, 53–58. 9 Wilson 1985a, 56. It should be noted that he considered only lines 3–5, 8–27. 4

397

Appendix 1. Catalogues of Incipits

Line 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Column 2 Initial sign d šul-gi en lugal lugal ur-saĝ lugal lugal ur-saĝ en lugal lugal ur-saĝ nin aĝ rig? ušum

Line 4 5 6 Erasure 7 8 9 10 11

Column 1 Initial sign lugal en še-er-zid munus en ur-saĝ ur-saĝ lugal

As seen here, the arrangement is not that tantalizing, and a better conclusion would in fact be that incipits are not juxtaposed by means of the same initial sign. Although one could perhaps account for some “stray incipit[s],”10 the fact that the tablet only features scattered groups with no more than two juxtaposed incipits with the same initial sign in each case would warrant against such an idea. This said, there are certainly other examples where Wilson’s suggested patterns are more convincing (see, for example, the juxtaposition of incipits sharing the same initial sign on lines 19–24 in the catalogue B4, P249269), but unfortunately, he fails to account for the fact that the catalogues are of various types, in relation to content, provenance, and date. Given this, they cannot be treated together as a coherent corpus, but need to be categorized somewhat differently.

Contents Focusing on recent research on the catalogues, one of the important scholarly tasks has been to try to identify what texts the incipits referred to, since such identifications would provide keys to the function of the catalogues.11 Although much work remains in this area, some distinctions are possible to make.

10

Cf. the comment in Wilson 1985a, 58. This task is often made difficult for a number of reasons: some incipits are not verbatim quotes of the first words of a composition, some refer to a section of a composition, and some are in fact not incipits at all, but explicits (the last word[s]) (Hallo 1963, 169, with n. 31). 11

398

Appendix 1. Catalogues of Incipits

A first distinction applies to the Ur III and Old Babylonian (OB, ca. 2000– 1600 BCE) catalogues. Although they contain compositions of a variety of genres (poetry, hymns, laments, myth, debates, proverbs, liturgies, etc.),12 they are all basically “literary” compositions, as contrasted with “archival” material. If the latter refers to texts that document “a message or statement, for example, letters, legal, economic, and administrative documents” and that are regularly found only in single copies, the former would rather denote the “texts of tradition,” and are found in multiple copies in different places and at different times.13 If reasonable, it becomes clear that “literary” is to be understood in a wide sense, and that a further distinction within this category is possible to make, namely between “literary” (for example, the catalogues used to reconstruct the Decad, see above pp. 39–41) and “liturgical” (see, e.g., B1–B7).14 Such a distinction is motivated by the fact that a catalogue never attests both literary and liturgical incipits at the same time, and so, it might be concluded that these compositions were seen as distinct categories by the ancient scribes.15 A consequence of this, however, is that Wilson’s designation of the catalogues as containing “hymnic incipits” is quite inappropriate, and possibly even obscures the fact that the compositions referred to throughout these catalogues are quite different from the psalms in the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms. Basically, they are catalogues of literary incipits, not hymnic.16 Furthermore, this means that his conclusions about the connection between the widespread use of genre designations and cultic use are mainly applicable to the liturgical catalogues, and therefore do not hold up as a general description of rationales behind the use of organizational techniques. To illustrate this, consider the literary catalogue N2, also known as the Nippur catalogue (P255993). As previously noted, it features compositions belonging to the Decad, and after this group – which occupies the first ten incipits and features Gilgameš and Ḫuwawa, Version A as the tenth composition – are two other Gilgameš incipits (lines 11–14). Noteworthy is that one of these is Gil12

These genres are, of course, modern designations. For an overview of the main problems discussing genre in the Sumerian material, see Black et al. 2004, xix–xxx. 13 The quotes are from Pedersén 1998, 3, where a basic distinction between “archives” and “libraries” in Neo-Assyrian times is discussed. Cf. also Fincke 2003, 129. 14 Delnero 2010, 42–43. Apart from these, there is also a catalogue probably listing incantation tablets (I1, Delnero 2010, 43, relates it to the liturgical catalogues), and some catalogues listing letters (see, e.g., Uk1). One important observations related to this distinction was that while liturgical texts were often written in Emesal dialect, and rarely occurred on exercise tablets, literary texts occurred frequently on Type I and III tablets. The function of the former was also likely performative, as seen in, for example, superscriptions listing musical instruments. As noted in my discussion of ancient anthologies, these categories overlap with Vanstiphout’s notion of cultural and cultic repertoires (see p. 76). 15 There are two possible exceptions, U3 and N6, both with only one incipit “misplaced.” 16 This is also how they have been designated ever since at least Kramer 1942.

Appendix 1. Catalogues of Incipits

399

gameš and Ḫuwawa, Version B. Furthermore, the catalogue includes debate poems (lines 25, 27–30), city laments (lines 32–34), some hymns to Inana (lines 41, 44, 45), and Lugalbanda narratives (lines 38–40, 48), as well as school narratives, debates, and diatribes against individuals (lines 50–52, 54–62).17 The catalogue also has the incipit of the Sumerian Temple Hymns on line 49 (é-u6nir),18 and taken together, it becomes clear that these literary catalogues are quite different from not only a collection of psalms such as the ‘Book’ of Psalms, but from all other ancient anthologies surveyed in Part II of this study.

Two Major Periods A second important distinction to be made is between Ur III and OB catalogues on the one hand, and Neo-Assyrian (NA) catalogues on the other. Put differently, the catalogues of these two main periods exhibit some fundamental differences. Apart from the observation that the NA catalogues contain almost nothing of the literary kinds known from the OB period, thus evoking the notion of a paradigm shift,19 the nature of the catalogues themselves seems to have changed. While OB catalogues could be quite inclusive with regard to the compositions listed, perhaps even covering all tablets collected at a specific site, the NA catalogues are more specialized. The reason for this shift was probably the emergence of a highly organized system of libraries, so that both libraries and their tablet collections had grown substantially.20 Consequently, in contrast to OB catalogues, the NA catalogues would more often list series, or parts of series. The prime example would perhaps be VAT 13723 and its related parts, which contain, among others, all incipits from the series Maqlû (“burning”) in col. i, lines 5–13, in an order corresponding exactly to the incipits of tablets attested elsewhere.21 Keeping focus on NA catalogues, P335775 and P335869 provide an interesting window into the process of gathering tablets in this period. More specifical17

See, e.g., Black et al. 2004, 301. Kramer 1942, 16, with n. 21. 19 Cf. Vanstiphout 2003, 17. The transition can be observed in the Middle Babylonian (MB, Cassite period, ca. 1600–1300 BCE) and Middle Assyrian (MA, ca. 1400–1000 BCE) catalogues, as it is in this period that Akkadian literature attained “the form in which it is known from the tradition of the succeeding periods” (Weitemeyer 1990, 383). 20 Cf. Weitemeyer 1990, 389–90. Another difference is that the catalogues do not only feature literary texts, but also the incipits of, for example, incantations and rituals. 21 Geller 2000, 227, 33; cf. Weitemeyer 1990, 385. See also P392617, which, according to Weidner 1941, 186, is of importance to reconstruct the series Enûma Anu Enlil, or P392618, an Assur catalogue that has some 50+ incipits of astrological omina, 22 of which also belong to the series Enûma Anu Enlil, so that each incipit corresponds to a tablet of that series (the catalogue features tablets 39–60, Weidner 1941, 184; cf. Weitemeyer 1990, 385). 18

400

Appendix 1. Catalogues of Incipits

ly, P335775 ends with an eponym date, suggesting that it was written in year 648, and a similar ending in P335869 reveals that the latter was inscribed within two months of the completion of the former.22 Both catalogues contain summarizing entries, that is, each line features a reference to a number of copies of a specific composition or type of tablet (see, e.g., col. i line 8, which reads “1 of the Gilgameš Series”), and subtotals are used to conclude sections of such summarizing entries. Here, the number of tablets listed in the section is provided, but as they also feature a personal name and a professional, patronymic, or geographical identifier, it has been suggested that the catalogues list a number of actual tablets that were acquired (or perhaps donated) to the libraries of Nineveh. If so, the personal name would refer to their previous owner.23 If turning to Ur III and OB catalogues, it should be noted that most of them were also likely to have had archival functions. This is made explicit in U1 (P349957), for example, where line 12 specifies where to find the compositions referred to by the incipits listed on the tablet as “in the lower tablet container” (line 25 then has “in the upper tablet container”),24 but it is also seen in the fact that most of these tablets are of small size, some even written in documentary cursive.25 Consider also B5, where line 2 has a summarizing entry listing 6 égere a-še-er-re (“6 [tablets of] ‘The queen, sobbing’”), while line 3 reads 1 ur-rana mu-un-u5 šà ége-re a-še-er-re (“1 [tablet of] ‘She mounted her beast’ from ‘The queen, sobbing’”).26 So put, the second line probably refers to tablets containing the entire composition, while the tablet referred to on the third line only contained a specific section of that composition.27 This would underscore the archival function, and additional support is found in the fact that catalogues

22

Two other fragments, P335710 and P336221 form part of a single catalogue that has been dated to the same period due to similarities with the P335775 and P335869 (Parpola 1983, 1–2). 23 Interesting to note is that Simo Parpola – when counting the number of tablets and writing boards listed on these two catalogues, as well as the third catalogue mentioned in n. 22 above (2,000 tablets and ca. 300 writing boards) – suggests that they would have been a major acquisition to the library, as the latter would have contained 30,000 tablets at the most (Parpola 1983, 4–6). As well as belonging to libraries, some catalogues would possibly have belonged to individuals (e.g., the Herbert Clark Cylinder [HCC] presented in Shaffer 2000, 431–32), and scribes did possibly also exchange compositions between them, as is seen in CUNES 50-07-013, which has a list of seven incipits of balag lamentations followed by an unusual colophon. Lines 8–9 read: an-nu-tim balaĝ -meš i-šu (erasure) 21; ša la-a i-šu-ú balaĝ -meš šu-bi-lam (“I have these [out of] 21 balag lamentations. The ones I do not have, send (those) balag lamentations to me!” Gadotti & Kleinerman 2011, 73). 24 Cf. Delnero 2006, 131; cf. Delnero 2010, 47. 25 Delnero 2006, 132; Delnero 2010, 48. 26 Shaffer 2000, 430. 27 N6 also lists the incipit of the sixth “house” of the Keš temple hymn on line 16 (Michalowski 1980, 267; cf. Gragg 1969, 172).

Appendix 1. Catalogues of Incipits

401

could sometimes refer to the type of tablet that the composition was inscribed on (cf. B6, line 12). A last example is found in the Ur III Yale catalogue (Y1, P275014). Here, a colophon reveals that the catalogue lists tablets that had been found (or possibly inscribed) by a certain Ni’urum, a name attested several times in Ur III texts, where at least one designates him as an archivist.28 Jeremiah Peterson suggests that the catalogue was probably a “tablet incipit inventory,”29 possibly listing texts that had been “found (or recovered)”30 (the subtotal after the last 10 incipits reads “hymns which are out of use” or “former hymns”). In sum, it seems reasonable to assume that most catalogues were archival, even in the Ur III and OB periods, so that they would primarily refer to tablets in which the compositions listed can be found, rather than cataloguing a number of texts thought to belong together. However, this does not necessarily explain all the ways in which incipits have been configured. As noted in my discussion of the Decad, some of the groups would presumably have been related by means of being compositions used at various levels of scribal education (cf. pp. 39–41).

Conclusions To conclude, it seems as if the catalogues briefly introduced here are quite different from the ‘Book’ of Psalms, so that even if organizational techniques can be observed in the former, they cannot easily be claimed as relevant for discussing the way in which psalms are organized in the latter. Taken together with the notion of the catalogues as archival, as well as the fact that curricular groupings are attested throughout several of the OB literary catalogues, their value as related to the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms turns out as quite limited. But even if they would be considered relevant, I have argued that the failure on the part of Wilson to account for the diversity among the catalogues as related to their content and date renders many of his conclusions unconvincing.

28

Hallo 1963, 168. So Peterson 2010, 173. 30 So Hallo 1963, 168. 29

CDLI Name Wilson P134670 N1 2 P275014 Y1 1 P343021 B1 8 P355678 B2 21 P355679 B3 22 P355675 B5 P355676 B6 P355677 B7 P355701 HCC 17 P345629 N3 5 P269091 N4 18 P263002 N6 P355873 I1 P249269 B4 P345372 L 7 P255993 N2 6 ? S1 P349957 U1 4 P346208 U2 3 P346281 U3 20 P429703 Y2 P349115 Uk1 P411136 P345361 P432383 P345641 9 P429343 P282615 10

4.13.c

0.2.03 0.2.04 0.2.05 0.2.12

0.2.11 0.2.02 0.2.01

0.2.06 0.2.08 0.2.13

ETCSL 0.1.1 0.1.2 0.2.07

Museum numbers HS 1360 YBC 3654 VAT 6481 BM 23774 BM 23701 BM 23612 BM 23249 BM 85564 MH 143860 HS 1454 + 1504 CBS 14077 + N 3637 + Ist Ni 9925 CBS 8086 JRL 1059 AUAM 73.2402 AO 5393 UM 29-15-155 ? ? BM ? BM ? YBC 16317 ? CUNES 50-07-013 AO 8848 BM 96740 HS 1477 + 1478 MB 59484 VAT 10101

Published in Type Provenance Pohl 1937 Ritual Nippur Hallo 1963 Literary ? Zimmern 1913 Liturgical Sippar Kramer 1975 Liturgical ? Kramer 1975 Liturgical ? Kramer 1982 Liturgical ? Kramer 1982 Liturgical ? Kramer 1982 Liturgical ? Luckenbill 1909 Liturgical ? Bernhardt & Kramer 1956 Liturgical Nippur Chiera 1934 Liturgical Nippur Michalowski 1980 Liturgical Nippur Wilcke 1973 Incantation ? Cohen 1976a Literary ? De Grenouillac 1930 Literary ? Kramer 1942 Literary Nippur Van Dijk 1989 Literary Sippar Figulla & Martin 1953 Literary Ur Gadd & Kramer 1963 Literary Ur Gadd & Kramer 1966 Literary Ur Hallo 1982 Literary ? Van Dijk 1989 Letter Uruk Gadotti & Kleinerman 2011 Letter ? De Grenouillac 1930 ? ? Ludwig 2012 ? ? Kramer 1961 Literary Nippur Finkel 1988 Literary ? Ebeling 1919 Literary Assur

Date Ur III Ur III OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB MB MB MA

402 Appendix 1. Catalogues of Incipits

CDLI Wilson Parpola P357084 11 P357078 12 P414134 13 P357124 14 P357090 15 P357091 16 P357149 19 P357123 P357151 P399525 P335775 1 P335710 2 P335869 3 P336222 4 P336223 5 P335913 6 P237530 P369026 P394393 P398215 P238766 P363486 P392618 P357155 ? ? ? P392617

A B C

D E F G

Geller

Museum numbers BM K 2529 + 3276 + 16853 BM K 00002 BM 1882-03-23, 5220 BM K 9618 + 17200 + 20017 + Sm 1685 (?) BM K 3141 BM K 3482 BM Rm 2, 220 BM K 9394 BM Rm 2, 580 BM K 11922 + 18436 (+) 13684 + Sm 2137 (+) K 14067 + Rm 150 BM 1880-07-19, 114 (+) 1880-07-19, 262 BM K 4753 + 5711 + 1881-02-04, 268 + K 12722 BM 1882-05-22, 533 BM K 13280 + K 13818 BM K 6962 BM K 5184 BM 98973 + 99180 VAT 8275 BM K 2389 + 10644 BM K 9600 BM K 8698 IM 67548 + 67553 VAT 9438 + 10324 A 3513 VAT 13723 + 13956 (+) 14093 (+) 14096 + 14101 (+) 14097 12N-T 657 BM 66565 + 66609 (82-9-18 6558 + 6601) AO 6470 + VAT 7814

Published in Provenance Date Rawlinson 1891 Nineveh NA Bezold 1889 Nineveh NA Langdon 1913 Nineveh NA Langdon 1913 Nineveh NA Langdon 1913 Nineveh NA Langdon 1913 Nineveh NA Langdon 1925 Nineveh NA Maul 1988 Nineveh NA Maul 1988 Nineveh NA Lambert 1976b Nineveh NA Johns 1901 Nineveh NA Johns 1901 Nineveh NA Johns 1901 Nineveh NA Parpola 1983 Nineveh NA Parpola 1983 Nineveh NA Johns 1901 Nineveh NA Geller 2000 Nineveh NA Ebeling 1919 Assur NA Geller 2000 Nineveh NA Geller 2000 Nineveh NA Biggs 1967 Assur NA Wilson 1956 Nimrud NA Weidner 1941 Assur NA Gabbay 2007 ? NB Geller 2000 Assur NB? Geller 2000 Nippur NB Geller 2000 ? NB? Weidner 1941 Uruk Seleucid

Appendix 1. Catalogues of Incipits

403

Appendix 2

Superscriptions Here follows a table of psalm superscriptions, and alongside the key below, some additional explanation might be in place. As the table compares three groups of texts, here designated as MT, DSS and LXX, it will not do justice to all the variation occurring within these groups. Starting with the DSS, I include both ‘psalms’ scrolls and other texts where psalms are quoted (such as the pesharim). The name of each scroll appears above the cells. If two scrolls preserve the same superscription, both scrolls are named. If one of these is reconstructed, the symbol for reconstruction will appear. Where two manuscripts preserve conflicting superscriptions, both are included in the table, with the older scroll above the younger. As for the LXX, I follow the Göttingen LXX text. Numerous variations occur among the manuscripts, both in relation to the order of the elements of the superscriptions and the addition or removal of other features, and these are discussed above (pp. 172–95). Interesting exceptions that are discussed there are included here, and a variant reading is noted with a manuscript (MSS) variation symbol (see below). For matters of clarity, I use the same symbol for ‘author’ designations, regardless of whether they appear in Hebrew or in Greek, and regardless of, for example, whether the Greek features τῷ, τοῦ, or other variants.

405

Appendix 2. Superscriptions

Key = Same (DSS) or equivalent (LXX) / Not attested on any scroll [=] Reconstructed

+ •

Adds Lacks Mss Variation

~ * ?

Alteration Subscript Uncertain

A

Asaph

Ai

αἶνος

Ag

ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ

Hy

ἐν ὕµνοις

Al

(‫עלמות )לבן‬

Hz

‫להזכיר‬

Id

Ιδιθουν

Io

υἱῶν Ιωναδαβ καὶ

Mh ‫על־מחלת‬

Sm ‫על־השמינית‬

Am εἰς ἀνάµνησιν

τῶν πρώτων

Mhl ‫על־מחלת לענות‬

So

An

αἰχµαλωτισθέντων

Ml

Ιερεµιου καὶ

Mm ‫מכתם‬

Sr

Ιεζεκιηλ ἐκ τοῦ

Mr

SrH ‫שיר המעלות‬

Ass Ἀσσύριος

λόγου τῆς

Mz ‫מזמור‬

SrL ‫שיר למעלות‬

Ay

‫על־אילת השחר‬

παροικίας, ὅτε

Ng

‫בנגינות‬

Ss

Bi

‘Biographical’

ἔµεbον

Nh

‫אל־הנחילות‬

Ste στηλογραφία

ἐκπορεύεσθαι

Od

ᾠδή

Su

‫על־שושן עדות‬

Sons of Korah

OdA ᾠδὴ τῶν

Sy

εἰς σύνεσιν /

All ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀbοιωθησοµένων

Ho

ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀντιλήµψεως τῆς

JE

ἑωθινῆς

Notes

‫הודו ליהוה כי טוב כי‬

Lm ‫ללמד‬

‫לעולם חסדו‬

M

Bt

‫חנכת הבית‬

K

D

David

Kat ὅτε κατῴκισται ἡ

Di

τῷ δούλῳ κυρίου

Dia µὴ διαφθείρῃς

Kl

Did εἰς διδαχήν

days) Se

‫אל־ששנים עדות‬

Ma ὑπὲρ µαελεθ (τοῦ

Sg

‫שגיון‬

ἀποκριθῆναι)

Sk

ἐξοδίου σκηνῆς

‫משכיל‬ µαρτύριον

εἰς τὸ σῶσαί µε κύριον

ἀναβαθµῶν

‫שיר‬

‫על־ששנים‬

συνέσεως

Og

ὑπὲρ τῆς ὀγδόης

T

ὑπὲρ τῆς

Oi

τοῦ ἐγκαινισµοῦ

Te

εἰς τὸ τέλος

τοῦ οἴκου

Tf

‫תפלה‬

Ethan the Ezrahite

Ek

ἐκστάσεως

Ey

‫לעבד יהוה‬

Ex

εἰς ἐξοµολόγησιν

Gt

‫על־הגתית‬

‫יהוה ישפך שיחו‬

H

Haggai

Lao ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ

He

Heman the

‫לתודה‬

ὑπὲρ τῶν κρυφίων

Pa

τῷ παιδὶ κυρίου

Th

‫תהלה‬

(τοῦ υἱοῦ)

Pr

προσευχή

Ts

‫אל־תשחת‬

L

‫למנצח‬

Ps

ψαλµός

Yd

‫לידיתון‬

La

‫לעני כי־יעטף ולפני‬

Pt

τῷ πτωχῷ, ὅταν

Yn

‫על־יונת אלם רחקים‬

ἀκηδιάσῃ καὶ

Yy

‫ידידת‬

ἐναντίον κυρίου

Z

Zechariah

ἐκχέῃ τὴν δέησιν

Zt

‫זואת לזכרון‬

ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων

Ezrahite Hallelujah

Sabbath (various

γῆ

E

Hl

God

κληρονοµούσης Kr

Sb

Moses, the man of

µεµακρυµµένου Le

ὑπὲρ τῶν ληνῶν

αὐτοῦ S

Solomon

2

[=]

1 =

•2 =

LXX Ψ

=

Ps D Bi

Ps Od D

Ps D

•6 = Te Hy Og Ps D

[=]

4Q83

6 L Ng Sm Mz D

4Q98b

5 = Te Kl

Mz D

5 L Nh

4Q174

•4 ~ Te

Mz D

Mz D Bi

•3 =

4 L Ng

3

4Q174 11Q7

DSS No

1

MT Ps

Psalms 1–27

Ps D Bi

7 ~

D Bi

Sg

7

Ps D

8 = Te Le

5/6Ḥ [=]

Mz D

8 L Gt Mz D

9 L Al

D

11 L Sm Mz D

12 L

Mz D

13 L

D

14 L

Mz D

15

Mm D

16

Tf D

17

D Bi

18 L Ey

Ps D

•9 = Te Kr Ps D

•10 + Te

Ps D

•11 = Te Og Ps D

12 = Te

Ps D

•13 + Te

Ps D

•14 =

Ste D

15 =

Pr D

•16 =

D Bi

17 = Te Pa

4Q177 4Q177 5/6Ḥ 4Q85 5/6Ḥ 5/6Ḥ 5/6Ḥ 11Q7 11Q7 5/6Ḥ 5/6Ḥ 5/6Ḥ 11Q7 [=] [=] [=] [=] [=] – ? [=] [=] [=] D Mz

10

Ps D

18 = Te

Mz D

19 L

Ps D

19 = Te

Mz D

20 L

Ps D

20 = Te

Mz D

21 L

Ps D

•21 = Te An

Mz D

22 L Ay D Mz

24

D

25

Ps D

Ps D Sb

Ps D

•22 •23 •24 = ~ + +

5/6Ḥ 5/6Ḥ 5/6Ḥ [=] [=] [=]

Mz D

23

D

•25 =

D

26

D Bi

•26 +

[=]

4Q98a

D

27

406 Appendix 2. Superscriptions

Mz Sr Bt D

Mz D

D

Mz D

31 L

•28 +

Ps D Sk

•27 =

D

LXX Ψ

•29 + Te Ps Od Oi D

•31 =

D Sy

Ps D Ek

D Ml

32

•30 + Te

4Q85 5/6Ḥ 5/6Ḥ 5/6Ḥ [=] [=] [=] [=]

DSS No

30

29

28

MT Ps

Psalms 28–54

D

•32 +

4Q83 [=] 4Q98 + D Sr Mz

33

D Bi

•33 =

D Bi

34

D

36 L Ey D

37

D

•34 =

D

•35 = Te Do D

•36 =

4Q83 4Q83 11Q8 [=] = =

D

35

Ps D Am Sb

•37 +

Mz D Hz

38

•38 ~ Te Id Od D

39 L Yd Mz D

D Ps

•39 = Te

11Q8 [=]

D Mz

40 L

Ps D

•40 = Te

Mz D

41 L

Sy K

•41 = Te

Ml K

42 L

Ps D

•42 +

43

[=]

4Q171

45 L Ss K Ml Sr Yy K Al Sr

46 L

•43 •44 •45 + = ~ = Te Te Te All K K Sy Sy K Ps Od Kr Ag Ps

K Ml

44 L

K Ps

•46 ~ Te

K Mz

47 L K Mz

49 L

Ps Od K Sb

•47 +

K Ps

•48 = Te

4Q91 4Q85 [=] [=]

Sr Mz K

48

Ps A

•49 =

Mz A

50

Ps D Bi

•50 = Te

4Q85 = 4Q91 [=]

Mz D Bi

51 L

Sy D Bi

•51 = Te

Ml D Bi

52 L

54 L Ng Ml D Bi

•52 = Te Ma Sy D

•53 = Te Hy Sy D Bi

4Q85 4Q83 [=] [=]

53 L Mh Ml D

Appendix 2. Superscriptions

407

•54 = Te Hy Sy D

•55 = Te Lao D Ste Bi

LXX Ψ

•56 = Te Dia D Ste Bi

1Q16 [=?]

•57 = Te Dia D Ste

•58 = Te Dia D Ste Bi

•59 = Te All Ste D Did Bi

56 57 58 59 60 L L L L L Yn Ts Ts Ts Su D D D D Mm Mm Mm Mm Mm D Bi Bi Bi Lm Bi

DSS No

55 L Ng Ml D

MT Ps

Psalms 55–81

•61 = Te Id

Ps D

Hy D

D

•60 = Te

Mz D Bi

Mz D

Ps D Bi

•62 =

4Q83 [=]

63

62 L Yd

61 L Ng

Ps D

63 = Te

Mz D

64 L

Ps D Od JE

•64 + Te

Mz D Sr

65 L

D Mz Sr

68 L

D

69 L Ss

Ps Od

An

•66 = Te Hy D Ps Od

•67 = Te

D

•68 = Te All

4Q83 11Q8 4Q83 [=] [=] [=]

Sr

Mz

67 L Ng

Od Ps

•65 + Te

Sr Mz

66 L

D An So

•69 ~ Te

D Hz

70 L

D Io

•70 +

4Q83 =

71

S

•71 =

S

72

Ps A

•72 =

Mz A

73

Sy A

•73 =

Ml A

74

Ps A Od

•74 = Te Dia

Mz A Sr

75 L Ts

Ps A Od Ass

•75 + Te Hy

Mz A Sr

76 L Ng Ml A

78

A Ps

•76 = Te Id

Sy A

•77 =

4Q87 11Q6 [=] [=]

A Mz

77 L Yd

Ps A

•78 =

Mz A

79

Ass

•79 + Te All Mr A Ps

A Mz

80 L Se

A Ps

•80 + Te Le

[=]

Mas1e

4Q87

A

81 L Gt

408 Appendix 2. Superscriptions

Sr Mz A

Mz A

K Mz

84 L Gt

K Mz

85 L

=

•82 =

Od Ps A

81 =

Ps A

LXX Ψ

[=]

K Ps

•83 = Te Le

[=]

K Ps

•84 = Te

[=]

Mas1e Mas1e Mas1e Mas1e

DSS No

83

82

MT Ps

Psalms 82–109

Pr D

•85 =

Tf D

86

•87 •88 = = Od Ps K K Te Sy Ps Ma E Od Sy H

•86 =

4Q87 [=]

88 89 Sr Mz K L K Mhl Ml Mz Ml E Sr He

87

•90 +

[+?] D

11Q11

91

•91 =

Mz Sr Sb

92

94

11Q5 4Q84 + [=] Hl

93

95

1Q10 4Q84 [=]

96

•92 •93 •94 •95 + + + + Sb Ps Kat Bi Pr AiOd Od AiOd Ps AiOd Od M D D D D D Sb Sb

•89 =

Tf M

90

D Bi

•96 +

97

Ps D

•97 +

Mz

98

Ps D

•98 +

[+?] D Mz

4Q98e

4Q92

99

4Q87 [=?]

4Q87 11Q5 [=?]

•99 •100 •101 •102 •103 •104 •105 •106 •107 •108 = = = + – ~ – + = = Te Od Ps D Pr Ps D Ps D D Hl Hl Hl D Ps Ex Pt Hl* Hl*

4Q84 4Q87 11Q5 11Q5 [=] + D

4Q87 11Q5 11Q5 2Q14 4Q86 11Q5 4Q86 4Q88 [=] [=] –? [=*?] + [=*?] [=] D Ho

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 L Sr Mz D Tf Mz D Mz D D Mz T La Hl Hl* Hl* Hl* A?

Appendix 2. Superscriptions

409

Hl

Hl Hl*

[=?]

=

4Q98f 4Q84

Hl

D Ps

Hl

Hl

Hl Hl*

•109 •110 •111 •112 = = = –

LXX Ψ

DSS No

D Mz

Hl

•113 ~

4Q87 [=]

Hl*

110 111 112 113 114 115

MT Ps

Psalms 110–136

Hl* 4Q84 11Q6 11Q5 [=] = 11Q5 4Q522 11Q5 ~ [=] [+ –] SrH D Sr 11Q5 =

4Q87 11Q5 11Q5 11Q5 [=] = [=]

11Q5 =

11Q6 [=]

11Q5 4Q87 11Q5 [=] [=] [=]

11Q5 =

SrH SrL SrH SrH SrH SrH SrH SrH SrH SrH SrH SrH SrH SrH SrH D D S D D

11Q5 11Q5 ~ =* + Hl*?

Hl Hl*

117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136

Hl

Hl

Hl

Hl

Hl

OdA OdA OdA OdA OdA OdA OdA OdA OdA OdA OdA OdA OdA OdA OdA D D S D D Hl Hl*

Hl

•114 •115 •116 117 •118 119 120 •121 122 •123 124 125 •126 127 128 129 •130 •131 •132 •133 •134 •135 + ~ ~ + + = = – = – = = = = = = = = = = – +

4Q84 [=]

Hl*

116

410 Appendix 2. Superscriptions

11Q5 =

148 149 150

Hl Hl Hl Hl* Hl* Hl*

147

Hl Hl*

Hl Hl Hl Hl Hl Hl Hl* Hl* Hl* Hl* Hl* Hl* HZ HZ HZ HZ

•145 •146 •147 •148 •149 •150 – + – + – + – + – =

11Q5 4Q86 11Q5 11Q6 11Q5 11Q5 Mas1f 11Q5 11Q5 Mas1f = [–] ~ + =* [=] – =* [=] D Tf Hl Zt* 4Q87 11Q5 Mas1f Mas1f 11Q5 [=?] [-?] [=*] [=] [=] – =* Hl Hl

•136 •137 •138 •139 •140 •141 •142 •143 •144 + = ~ ~ = = + + = Te Te Ps D Ps Sy Ps Ai D D D Ps D D D D D Bi Bi Bi Pr

LXX Ψ

11Q5 11Q5 = =

DSS No

137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 L L D Mz Mz Ml Mz Th D Mz D D D D D D Bi Hl Tf Hl*

MT Ps

Psalms 137–150

Appendix 2. Superscriptions

411

Appendix 3

LXX Manuscripts In this appendix, I provide a table listing the earliest LXX manuscripts, some of which were briefly mentioned in the part of this study that focused on the artifacts of the ‘Book’ of Psalms (see above, esp. p. 83). I did not introduce them in any length there, since none dated to the Second Temple period, but as they nonetheless bear witness to a juxtaposition of psalms in agreement with the MT ‘Book’ of Psalms, save for the occasional variance in the division and numbering of the individual psalms, they should not be overlooked in a study on the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms. Put differently, these scrolls include translations of psalms also attested in the MT collection, and always in an order congruent with it. However, it is important to note that not all of the manuscripts listed below are possible to consider as versions of a ‘Book’ of Psalms, as they, just as the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls, might have been of various length, and compiled for a number of different purposes. In the overview, which proceeds from Larry W. Hurtado’s listing of early Christian manuscripts,1 all manuscripts from the first four centuries CE are listed and arranged in a rough chronological order. As is well known, there are several manuscripts from the fourth century CE and onwards featuring the whole, or at least the major parts of the LXX ‘Book’ of Psalms, so that the manuscripts listed here provide an important bridge, filling the gaps between the Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls and, for example, Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus, although the former are in Hebrew.

1

Hurtado 2006, 213–14. In the table, the Rahlfs number is given according to Rahlfs & Fraenkel 2004, as is the number of the manuscript in the online Leuven Database of Ancient Books (LDAB, http://www.trismegistos.org/ldab), and the number of the manuscript in Van Haelst 1976 (VH).

Date (CE) Manuscript 1–2 cent. P. Oxy. 77.5101 2nd cent. PSI Inv. 1989 P. Barc. Inv. 2 (Montserrat II.2) P. Ant. 1.7 2–3 cent. P. Bod. 24 Bodleian Ms. Gr. Bibl. G. 5 PSI 8.921 v. (P. Alex. 240) P. Leip. Inv. 170 3rd cent. P. Lond. Lit. 204 P. Mich. Inv. 5475.c P. Rainer 4.12 (P. Vindob. G. 26035 B) P. Monts. II Inv. 10 BKT 9.169 (P. Berlin Inv. 21265) PL Inv. II/34 3–4 cent. P. Oxy. 15.1779 P. Oxy. 10.1226 P. Mich. 3.133 P. Lond. Lit. 207 (Brit. Mus. P. Inv. 230) P. Ryl. Gk. Add. Box 3.1 N. PUG I 1 P. Harris 31 Stud. Pal. 11.114 (P. Vindob. G. 39777) P. Duke Inv. 740 PSI 8.980 Berlin Staatl. Mus. Misc. 8630 2094 2162 2117 2158 2073 2025 2067 2019 2142 2157 2108 oS-3 2198 2055 2004

Rahlfs 2227 2122 2160 2077 2110 2082 2054 2014 2051

3198 3492

3143 3473 3142

3106

3102

3125

3085 3082 3087 3098 3083 3088 3092 3115

LDAB

VH Preserved Contents (Ψ) 26:9–14; 44:4–8; 47:13–15; 48:6–21; 49:2–16; 63:6–64:5 1:2–3 14:3–5 179 81:1–4; 82:4–9, 16–17 118 17:45–53:5; 55:8–88:10; 88:47–105:32; 106:28–118:44 151 48:20–21; 49:1–3, 17–21 174 77:1–18 224 118:27–64 92 2:3–12 32:11–18; 33:9–13 165 67:35–68:4, 8–14 119:7 144:1–10; 145:4 1:1–2 90 1:4–6 99 7:9–12; 8:1–4 101 8:3–9; 9:7–17 109 11:7–14:4 121 19:7–8 125 21:20–28, 31–32; 22:1–6; 23:1 148 43:20–23 167 68:13–14, 30–33; 80:11–14 88:4–8, 15–18 238 143:14–148:3 177 79:2–16 x

x

x

x

Joins x

Appendix 3. LXX Manuscripts

413

Bibliography Alden, Robert L. (1978): “Chiastic Psalms (III): A Study in the Mechanics of Semitic Poetry in Psalms 101–150.” JETS 21/3, 199–210. Allegro, John M. (ed.) (1968): Qumran Cave 4.I. DJD V. Oxford: Clarendon. Allen, Leslie C. (1976): The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. – (2002): Psalms 101–150. Revised ed. WBC 21. Nashville: Nelson. Allen, Thomas W., William R. Halliday, & Edward E. Sikes (1936): The Homeric Hymns. 2 ed. Oxford: Clarendon. Alster, Bendt (2005): Wisdom of Ancient Sumer. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Alter, Robert (2007): The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Andersen, Francis I. & David N. Freedman (1989): Amos. AB 24A. New York: Doubleday. Anderson, Arnold A. (1972a): Psalms 1–72. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. – (1972b): Psalms 73–150. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. – (1989): 2 Samuel. WBC 11. Dallas: Word Books. Angel, Joseph (2009): “The Use of the Hebrew Bible in Early Jewish Magic.” RC 3/5, 785– 98. Antonelli, Roberto (1999): “L’antologia, il tempo e la memoria.” Critica del Testo 2/1, vii– xii. Arbez, Edward P. (1945): “A Study of Psalm 1.” CBQ 7/4, 398–404. Athanassakis, Apostolos N. (2004): The Homeric Hymns. 2 ed. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Atkinson, Kenneth (1996): “Herod the Great, Sosius, and the Siege of Jerusalem (37 B.C.E.) in Psalm of Solomon 17.” NovT 38/4, 313–22. – (1998): “Toward a Redating of the Psalms of Solomon: Implications for Understanding the Sitz im Leben of an Unknown Jewish Sect.” JSP 17, 95–112. – (1999): “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17.” JBL 118/3, 435–60. Attinger, Pascal (2011): review of Erich Ebeling (et al. eds.), Saduppûm. B – Samug (Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Band 11, 7.–8. Lieferung). BO 68/1–2, 103–6. Attridge, Harold W. (2004): “The Psalms in Hebrews,” pages 197–212 in Steve Moyise & Maarten J. J. Menken (eds.), The Psalms in the New Testament. NTSI. London: T&T Clark. Auffret, Pierre (1982): La Sagesse a Bâti sa Maison. Études de Structures Littéraires dans l’Ancien Testament et Spécialement dans les Psaumes. OBO 49. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. – (1995): Merveilles à nos yeux: Étude structurelle de vingt psaumes dont celui de 1Ch 16,8–36. BZAW 235. Berlin: de Gruyter. Auwers, Jean-Marie (2000): La composition littéraire du psautier: Un état de la question. CahRB 46. Paris: Gabalda.

416

Bibliography

– (2010): “Le Psautier comme livre biblique: Édition, rédaction, fonction,” pages 67–89 in Erich Zenger (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters. Ayres-Bennett, Wendy & Catherine Volpilhac-Auger (2011): “Compilations, Recuëils, Collections.” French Studies 65/3, 301–5. Baillet, Maurice, Jozef T. Milik, & Roland de Vaux (eds.) (1962): Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumran: Textes. DJD III. Oxford: Clarendon. Baillet, Maurice (ed.) (1982): Qumrân Grotte 4.III: (4Q482–4Q520). DJD VII. Oxford: Clarendon. Ballhorn, Egbert (1995): “‘Um deines Knechtes David willen’ (Ps 132,10): Die Gestalt Davids im Psalter.” BN 76, 16–31. – (2004): Zum Telos des Psalters: Der Textzusammenhang des Vierten und Fünften Psalmenbuches (Ps 90–150). BBB 138. Berlin: Philo. Barbiero, Gianni (1999): Das erste Psalmenbuch als Einheit: Eine synchrone Analyse von Psalm 1–41. ÖBS 16. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. – (2007): “The Risks of a Fragmented Reading of the Psalms: Psalm 72 as a Case in Point.” ZAW 119, 67–91. Barré, Lloyd M. (1983): “Halělû yāh: A Broken Inclusion.” CBQ 45, 195–200. Barré, Michael L. (1995): “Hearts, Beds and Repentance in Psalm 4,5 and Hosea 7,14.” Bib 76/1, 53–62. Barstad, Hans M. (2004): “‫ר ָצה‬,” ָ pages 618–30 in G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, & Heinz-Josef Fabry (eds.), TDOT. Vol. 13. Translated by David E. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Barth, Christoph (1976): “Concatenatio im ersten Buch des Psalters,” pages 30–40 in Birgitta Benzing, Otto Böcher, & Günther Mayer (eds.), Geschichte und Religionswissenschaft: Bibliographie. Wort und Wirklichkeit: Studien zur Afrikanistik und Orientalistik: Festschrift für Eugen Ludwig Rapp zum 70. Geburtstag. Vol. 1. Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain. Barthélemy, Dominique & Jozef T. Milik (eds.) (1955): Qumran Cave 1. DJD I. Oxford: Clarendon. Barton, John (1986): Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bauckham, Richard (1988): “James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude,” pages 303–17 in D. A. Carson & Hugh G. M. Williamson (eds.), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baumgärtel, Friedrich (1953): “Zur Liturgie in der ‘Sektenrolle’ vom Toten Meer.” ZAW 65/1, 263–65. Bayer, Bathja (1982): “The Titles of the Psalms: A Renewed Investigation of an Old Problem,” pages 29–123 in Israel Adler (ed.), Yuval Studies of the Jewish Music Research Centre. Yuval Studies 4. Jerusalem: Magnes. Beardslee, William A. “Amen,” in The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger & Michael D. Coogan, no pages. Online: http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/ 10.1093/acref/9780195046458.001.0001/acref-9780195046458-e-0031?, cited April 23, 2014. Becker, Joachim (1975): Wege der Psalmenexegese. SBS 78. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Becker, Jürgen (1964): Das Heil Gottes: Heils- und Sündenbegriffe in den Qumrantexten und im Neuen Testament. SUNT 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. Beckwith, Roger T. (1984): “The Courses of the Levites and the Eccentric Psalms Scrolls from Qumran.” RevQ 11, 499–524. Bellinger Jr., William H. (2005): “Psalm 137: Memory and Poetry.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 27, 5–20.

Bibliography

417

– (2007): “Reading from the Beginning (Again): The Shape of Book I of the Psalter,” pages 114–28 in Joel S. Burnett, William H. Bellinger Jr., & W. Dennis Tucker Jr. (eds.), Diachronic and Synchronic: Reading the Psalms in Real Time Proceedings of the Baylor Symposium on the Book of Psalms. New York: T&T Clark. ben Zvi, Ehud (1996): “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘The Twelve’: A Few Preliminary Considerations,” pages 125–57 in James W. Watts & Paul R. House (eds.), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Berger, Klaus (1970): Die Amen-Worte Jesu: Eine Untersuchung zum Problem der Legitimation in apokalyptischer Rede. BZNW 39. Berlin: de Gruyter. Berlin, Adele (1985): “The Rethoric of Psalm 145,” pages 17–22 in Ann Kort & Scott Morschauser (eds.), Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Berman, Joshua (2002): “The ‘Sword of Mouths’ (Jud. III 16; Ps. CXLIX 6; Prov. V 4): A Metaphor and its Ancient Near Eastern Context.” VT LII/3, 291–303. Bernhardt, Inez & Samuel N. Kramer (1956): “Götter-Hymnen und Kult-Gesänge der Sumererauf zwei Keilschrift- ‘Katalogen’ in der Hilprecht-Sammlung.” WZJ 6, 389–95. Berrin, Shani L. (2000): “Pesharim,” pages 644–47 in Lawrence H. Schiffman & James C. VanderKam (eds.), EDSS. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press. – (2005): “Qumran Pesharim,” pages 110–33 in Matthias Henze (ed.), Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Berry, George R. (1914): “The Titles of the Psalms.” JBL 33/3, 198–200. Bertholet, Alfred (1908a): “Eine Crux Interpretum.” ZAW 28/1, 58–59. – (1908b): “Nochmals zu Ps 2 IIf.” ZAW 28/3, 193. Beyerlin, Walter (1974): “Der nervus rerum in Psalm 106.” ZAW 86/1, 50–64. Bezold, Carl (1889): Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum, Volume 1. London: Harrison and Sons. Biggs, Robert D. (1966): “The Abū Ṣalābīkh Tablets: A Preliminary Survey.” JCS 20/2, 73– 88. – (1967): ŠÀ.ZI.GA: Ancient Mesopotamian Potency Incantations. TCS 2. Locust Valley, NY: Augustin. – (1974): Inscriptions from Tell Abū S ̣alābīkh. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 99. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Black, Jeremy (1998): Reading Sumerian Poetry. Egyptology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies. London: Athlone. Black, Jeremy et al. (2004): The Literature of Ancient Sumer. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blaising, Craig A. & Carmen S. Hardin, ed. (2008): Psalm 1–50. ACCS Old Testament 7. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Blau, Josua (1954): “Nāwā Ṯ hillā (Ps. CXLVII 1): Lobpreisen.” VT 4/4, 410–11. Blenkinsopp, Joseph (1988): Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary. OTL. London: SCM. – (2000): Isaiah 1–39. AB 19. New York: Doubleday. – (2002): Isaiah 40–55. AB 19A. New York: Doubleday. Bock, Darrell L. (1996): Luke 9:51–24:53. BECNT 3:2. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Bons, Eberhard (1995): “Psaume 2: Bilan de recherche et essai de réinterprétation.” Revue de sciences religieuses 69/2, 147–71. Booij, Thijs (2008a): “Psalm 149,5: ‘They Shout with Joy on their Couches’.” Biblica 89, 104–8. – (2008b): “Psalm cxlv: David’s Song of Praise.” VT 58, 633–37.

418

Bibliography

Botha, Philippus J. (2005): “Intertextuality and the Interpretation of Psalm 1.” OTE 18/3, 503–20. Bouzard Jr., Walter C. (2003): “The Date of the Psalms Scroll from the Cave of Letters (5/6HevPs) Reconsidered.” DSD 10/3, 319–37. Braude, William G., ed. (1959): The Midrash on Psalms. 2 vols. YJS 13. New Haven: Yale University Press. Braun, Joachim (2002): Music in Ancient Israel/Palestine: Archaeological, Written, and Comparative Sources. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Braun, Roddy (1986): 1 Chronicles. WBC 14. Waco, TX: Word. Brennan, Joseph P. (1980): “Psalms 1–8: Some Hidden Harmonies.” BTB 10/1, 25–29. Brettler, Mark Zvi (1989): God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor. JSOTSup 76. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Briggs, Charles A. & Emilie G. Briggs (1906): A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Bright, John (1965): Jeremiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Brisch, Nicole (2010): “A Sumerian Divan: Hymns as a Literary Genre,” pages 153–69 in Regine Pruzsinszky & Dahlia Shehata (eds.), Musiker und Tradierung: Studien zur Rolle von Musikern bei der Verschriftlichung und Tradierung von literarischen Werken. WOO 8. Berlin: LIT. Brock, Sebastian P. (1984): “The Psalms of Solomon,” pages 649–82 in H. F. D. Sparks (ed.), The Apocryphal Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon. Brooke, George J. (1985): Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context. JSOTSup 29. Sheffield: JSOT Press. – (1989): “Psalms 105 and 106 at Qumran.” RevQ 54, 267–92. – (1994): “The Pesharim and the Origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pages 339–53 in Michael O. Wise et al. (eds.), Methods for Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. – (1997): “‘The Canon within the Canon’ at Qumran and in the New Testament,” pages 242–66 in Stanley E. Porter & Craig A. Evans (eds.), The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After. JSPSup 26. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. – (1998): “Shared Intertextual Interpretations in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament,” pages 35–57 in Michael E. Stone & Esther G. Chazon (eds.), Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May, 1996. STDJ 28. Leiden: Brill. – (2000a): “Catena,” pages 121–22 in Lawrence H. Schiffman & James C. VanderKam (eds.), EDSS. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press. – (2000b): “Florilegium,” pages 297–98 in Lawrence H. Schiffman & James C. VanderKam (eds.), EDSS. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press. – (2004): “The Psalms in Early Jewish Literature in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pages 5–24 in Steve Moyise & Maarten J. J. Menken (eds.), The Psalms in the New Testament. NTSI. New York: T&T Clark. – (2005a): The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress. – (2005b): “Thematic Commentaries on Prophetic Scripture,” pages 134–57 in Matthias Henze (ed.), Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. – (2013): “Controlling Intertexts and Hierarchies of Echo in Two Thematic Eschatological Commentaries from Qumran,” pages 85–97 in George J. Brooke (ed.), Reading the Dead Sea Scrolls: Essays in Method. EJL 39. Atlanta: SBL Press.

Bibliography

419

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, & Charles A. Briggs (2005): BDB. 9 ed. Peabody: Hendrickson. Brown, William P. (2010): Psalms. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon. Brownlee, William H. (1971): “Psalms 1–2 as a Coronation Liturgy.” Bib 52, 321–36. Brueggemann, Walter (1984): The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary. Augsburg Old Testament Series. Minneapolis: Augsburg. – (1988): “2 Samuel 21–24: An Appendix of Deconstruction?” CBQ 50, 383–97. – (1991): “Bounded by Obedience and Praise: The Psalms as Canon.” JSOT 50, 63–92. – (1993): “Response to James L. Mays, ‘The Question of Context’,” pages 29–41 in J. Clinton McCann Jr. (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. JSOTSup 159. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Brueggemann, Walter & Patrick D. Miller (1996): “Psalm 73 as a Canonical Marker.” JSOT 72, 45–56. Brueggemann, Walter & William H. Bellinger Jr. (2014): Psalms. NCBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Budd, Philip J. (1984): Numbers. WBC 5. Waco, TX: Word. Budde, Karl (1902): Die Bücher Samuel. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Buss, Martin J. (1963): “The Psalms of Asaph and Korah.” JBL 82, 382–92. Butler, Trent C. (1978): “A Forgotten Passage from A Forgotten Era (1 Chr. XVI 8–36).” VT 28/2, 142–50. – (1983): Joshua. WBC 7. Waco, TX: Word. Carr, David M. (1996): “Canonization in the Context of Community: An Outline of the Formation of the Tanakh and the Christian Bible,” pages 22–64 in Richard D. Weis & David M. Carr (eds.), A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Carroll, Robert P. (1986): Jeremiah: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Cazelles, Henri (1964): “Nšqw br (Ps., ii, 12).” OrAnt 3, 43–45. Càssola, Filippo, ed. (1975): Inni omerici. Milano: Mondadori. Ceresko, Anthony R. (1986): “Psalm 149: Poetry, Themes (Exodus and Conquest), and Social Function.” Biblica 67, 177–194. Chae, Young S. (2006): Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd: Studies in the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, and in the Gospel of Matthew. WUNT 216. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Charlesworth, James H., ed. (1985): The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Expansions of the ‘Old Testament’ and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works. Peabody: Hendrickson. Charlesworth, James H. et al. (eds.) (2000): Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert. DJD XXXVIII. Oxford: Clarendon. Chazon, Esther G. (1998): “Hymns and Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pages 244–70 in Peter W. Flint & James C. Vanderkam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, Volume 1. Leiden: Brill. – (2003): “The Use of the Bible as a Key to Meaning in Psalms from Qumran,” pages 85–96 in M. Paul Shalom et al. (eds.), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill. – (2010): “Liturgical Function in the Cave 1 Hodayot Collection,” pages 135–49 in Daniel K. Falk et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS in Ljubljana. STDJ 91. Leiden: Brill. – (2011): “Looking Back: What The Dead Sea Scrolls Teach Us About Biblical Blessings,” pages 155–71 in Nóra Dávid et al. (eds.), The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. FRLANT 239. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

420

Bibliography

Chazon, Esther G. et al. (eds.) (1999): Qumran Cave 4.XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. DJD XXIX. Oxford: Clarendon. Chiera, Edward (1934): Sumerian Texts of Varied Contents. OIP 16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Childs, Brevard S. (1971): “Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis.” JSS 16/2, 137–50. – (1979): Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress. Chyutin, Michael (1994): “The Redaction of the Qumranic and the Traditional Book of Psalms as a Calendar.” RevQ 63, 367–95. – (2002): The Role of the Solar and Lunar Calendars in the Redaction of the Psalms. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 54. Lewiston, NY: Mellen. Clay, Jenny S. (1989): The Politics of Olympus: Form and Meaning in the Major Homeric Hymns. Princeton: Princeton University Press. – (1997): “The Homeric Hymns,” pages 489–507 in Ian Morris & Barry Powell (eds.), A New Companion to Homer. Mnemosyne: Bibliotheca Classica Batava 163. Leiden: Brill. – (2011): “The Homeric Hymns as Genre,” pages 232–53 in Andrew Faulkner (ed.), The Homeric Hymns: Interpretative Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clifford, Richard J. (1999): Proverbs. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. – (2003): Psalms 73–150. AOTC. Nashville: Abingdon. Clines, David J. A. (1984): Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. NCB Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. – (1989): Job 1–20. WBC 17. Dallas: Word. – (2011): DCH. 8 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press. Cohen, Mark E. (1976a): “Literary Texts from the Andrews University Archaeological Museum.” RA 70/2, 129–44. – (1976b): “The Name Nintinugga with a Note on the Possible Identification of Tell Abu Salābīkh.” JCS 28/2, 82–92. Cole, Robert L. (2002): “An Integrated Reading of Psalms 1 and 2.” JSOT 98, 75–88. – (2012): Psalms 1–2: Gateway to the Psalter. Hebrew Bible Monographs 37. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix. – (2013): “Psalm 1–2: The Psalter’s Introduction,” pages 183–95 in Andrew J. Schmutzer & David M. Howard Jr. (eds.), The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul. Chicago: Moody Press. Collins, C. John (2005): “Psalm 1: Structure and Rhethoric.” Presbyterion 31/1, 37–48. Colomo, Daniela & W. Benjamin Henry (2011): “Septuagint,” pages 1–11 in Amin Benaissa (ed.), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Volume LXXVII. Graeco-Roman Memoirs 98. London: The Egypt Exploration Society. Compagnon, Antoine (1979): La Seconde Main: Ou le travail de la Citation. Paris: Seuil. Craigie, Peter C. (1976): The Book of Deuteronomy. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Craigie, Peter C., Page H. Kelley, & Joel F. Drinkard Jr. (1991): Jeremiah 1–25. WBC 26. Dallas: Word. Craigie, Peter C. & Marvin E. Tate (2004): Psalms 1–50. 2 ed. WBC 19. Nashville: Nelson. Creach, Jerome F. D. (1996): Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. JSOTSup 217. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. – (1999): “Like a Tree Planted by the Temple Stream: The Portrait of the Righteous in Psalm 1:3.” CBQ 61, 34–46. – (2008): The Destiny of the Righteous in the Psalms. St. Louis: Chalice. – (2011): “The Destiny of the Righteous and the Theology of the Psalms,” pages 49–61 in Rolf A. Jacobson (ed.), Soundings in the Theology of Psalms: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship. Minneapolis: Fortress. Crudden, Michael (2001): The Homeric Hymns: A New Translation by Michael Crudden. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bibliography

421

Crüsemann, Frank (1969): Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel. WMANT 32. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Dahmen, Ulrich (2003): Psalmen- und Psalter-rezeption im Frühjudentum: Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Struktur und Pragmatik der Psalmenrolle 11QPsa aus Qumran. STDJ 49. Leiden: Brill. Dahood, Mitchell (1965): Psalms I: 1–50. AB 16. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. – (1970): Psalms III: 101–150. AB 17A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Daly-Denton, Margaret (2004): “The Psalms in John’s Gospel,” pages 119–37 in Steve Moyise & Maarten J. J. Menken (eds.), The Psalms in the New Testament. NTSI. London: T&T Clark. – (2008): “Early Christian Writers as Jewish Readers: The New Testament Reception of the Psalms.” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 11/2, 181–99. Danby, Herbert (1933): The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davis, Kipp (2015): “Structure, Stichometry, and Standardisation: An Analysis of Scribal Features in a Selection of the Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls” (paper presented at the Helsinki Workshop on Functions of Psalms and Prayers in the Late Second Temple Period, Helsinki, September 2015). Day, John (1990): Psalms. OTG. Sheffield: JSOT Press. deClaissé-Walford, Nancy L. (1995): “Anzu Revisited: The Scribal Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter.” Word & Word 15/3, 358–66. – (1997): Reading from the Beginning: The Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. – (2000): “The Canonical Shape of the Psalms,” pages 93–110 in Wayne H. Ballard Jr. & W. Dennis Tucker Jr. (eds.), An Introduction to Wisdom Literature and the Psalms: Festschrift Marvin E. Tate. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. – (2006): “Reading Backwards from the Beginning: My Life with the Psalter.” LTQ 41/2, 119–30. – (2012): “Psalms 145: All Flesh Will Bless God’s Holy Name.” CBQ 74, 55–66. – (2014a): “The Canonical Approach to Scripture and The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter,” pages 1–11 in Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms: The Current State of Scholarship. AIL 20. Atlanta: SBL Press. – (2014b): “The Meta-Narrative of the Psalter,” pages 363–76 in William P. Brown (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Psalms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. – (2014c): (ed.) The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms: The Current State of Scholarship. AIL 20. Atlanta: SBL Press. deClaissé-Walford, Nancy L., Rolf A. Jacobson, & Beth LaNeel Tanner (2014): The Book of Psalms. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Deißler, Alfons (1955): Psalm 119 (118) und seine Theologie: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der antologischen Stilgattung im Alten Testament. Münchener Theologische Studien 11. Munich: Karl Zink. Delitzsch, Franz (1867): Biblischer Commentar über die Psalmen. 2 ed. Vol. 1 of part 4 (“poetische Bücher”) of Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament. Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke. – (1871): Psalms. Translated by Francis Bolton. Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes 5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Dell, Katharine J. (1991): The Book of Job as Sceptical Literature. BZAW 197. Berlin: de Gruyter. Delnero, Paul (2006): Variation in Sumerian Literary Compositions: A Case Study Based on the Decad. PhD Diss: University of Pennsylvania. – (2010): “Sumerian Literary Catalogues and the Scribal Curriculum.” ZA 100, 32–55.

422

Bibliography

Dillard, Raymond B. (1987): 2 Chronicles. WBC 15. Waco, TX: Word. Dimant, Devorah (1992): “Pesharim, Qumran,” pages 244–51 in David N. Freedman (ed.), ABD. Vol. 5. New York: Doubleday. – (2003): “The Apocryphon of Joshua – 4Q522 9 ii: A Reappraisal,” pages 179–204 in M. Paul Shalom et al. (eds.), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill. – (2004): “Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” pages 379–419 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. – (2005): “Between Sectarian and Non-Sectarian: The Case of the Apocryphon of Joshua,” pages 105–34 in Esther G. Chazon, Devorah Dimant, & Ruth A. Clements (eds.), Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran: Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15–17 January, 2002. STDJ 58. Leiden: Brill. – (2006): “The Composite Character of the Qumran Sectarian Literature as an Indication of its Date and Provenance.” RQ 22, 615–30. Doble, Peter (2004): “The Psalms in Luke-Acts,” pages 83–117 in Steve Moyise & Maarten J. J. Menken (eds.), The Psalms in the New Testament. NTSI. London: T&T Clark. Doran, Robert (1996): “The First Book of Maccabees,” pages 1–178 in The New Interpreter’s Bible. Volume 4. Nashville: Abingdon Press. – (2012): 2 Maccabees: A Critical Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Douglas, Michael C. (1998): Power and Praise in the Hodayot: A Literary Critical Study of 1QH 9:1–18:14. PhD Diss: University of Chicago. – (1999): “The Teacher Hymn Hypothesis Revisited: New Data for an Old Crux.” DSD 6/3, 239–66. Duhm, Bernh D. (1899): Die Psalmen. KHC 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Dupont-Sommer, André (1962): The Essene Writings from Qumran. Translated by Geza Vermes. Cleveland: Meridian. Durham, John I. (1987): Exodus. WBC 3. Waco, TX: Word. Dwight, Walter S. J. (1917): “Each his own Anthologist.” America 17/12, 301–2. Ebeling, Erich (1919): Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts, Volume 4. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlischung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 28. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Ego, Beate (2000): “The Repentance of Nineveh in the Story of Jonah and Nahum’s Prophecy of the City’s Destruction: Aggadic Solutions for an Exegetical Problem in the Book of the Twelve,” pages 243–53 in Society of Biblical Literature 2000. SBLSP 39. Atlanta: SBL. Eichrodt, Walther (1970): Ezekiel. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster. Eissfeldt, Otto (1964): Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Unter Einschluß der Apokryphen und Pesudepigraphen sowie der apokryphen- und pseudepigraphenartigen QumrānSchriften. 3 ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. – (1971): “Die Psalmen als Geschichtsquelle,” pages 97–112 in Hans Goedicke (ed.), Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Eliot, Thomas Stearns (1934): “Shakespeare and the Stoicism of Seneca,” pages 126–40 in Selected Essays. 2 ed. London: Faber and Faber Ltd. Epstein, Isidore, ed. (2012): The Soncino Babylonian Talmud: Berakoth. Translated by Maurice Simon. Teaneck, NJ: Soncino. – “ʿAbodah Zarah,” no pages. Online: http://www.come-and-hear.com/zarah/zarah_0.html, cited March 7, 2014.

Bibliography

423

Eshel, Esther et al. (eds.) (1998): Qumran Cave 4.VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1. DJD XI. Oxford: Clarendon. Eshel, Esther (2003): “Apotropaic Prayers in the Second Temple Period,” pages 69–88 in Esther G. Chazon (ed.), Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19–23 January 2000. STDJ 48. Leiden: Brill. Eshel, Hanan & Esther Eshel (2000): “4Q448, Psalm 154 (Syriac), Sirach 48:20, and 4QpISAa.” JBL 119/4, 645–59. Evans, Craig A. (2000a): “Biblical Interpretation at Qumran,” pages 105–24 in Alan J. AveryPeck, Jacob Neusner, & Bruce Chilton (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity 5. The Judaism of Qumran: A Systematic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume 2. Handbook of Oriental Studies 57. Leiden: Brill. – (2000b): Mark 8:27–16:20. WBC 34B. Nashville: Nelson. Evelyn-White, Hugh G., ed. (1982): Hesiod: The Homeric Hymns and Homerica. LCL 57. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Ewald, Heinrich (1867): Die Propheten des alten Bundes. 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Ewald, Marie L., ed. (2010): The Homilies of Saint Jerome, Volume 1: 1–59 on the Psalms. 2 vols. The Fathers of the Church 48. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press. Fabry, Heinz-Josef (1986): “11Q Psa und die Kanonizität des Psalters,” pages 45–67 in Heinrich Gross, Ernst Haag, & Frank-Lothar Hossfeld (eds.), Freude an der Weisung des Herrn: Beitrage zur Theologie der Psalmen: Festgabe zum 70. Geburtstag von Heinrich Groß. Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge 13. Stuttgart: Katolisches Bibelwerk. – (1998): “Der Psalter in Qumran,” pages 137–63 in Erich Zenger (ed.), Der Psalter in Judentum und Christentum. HBS 18. Freiburg: Herder. Falk, Daniel K. (1999): “Biblical Adaptation in 4Q392 Works of God and 4Q393 Communal Confession,” pages 126–46 in Donald W. Parry & Eugene C. Ulrich (eds.), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Leiden: Brill. Faulkner, Andrew (2011a): “The Collection of Homeric Hymns: From the Seventh to the Third Centuries BC,” pages 175–205 in Andrew Faulkner (ed.), The Homeric Hymns: Interpretative Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. – (2011b): “Introduction: Modern Scholarship on the Homeric Hymns: Foundational Issues,” pages 1–25 in Andrew Faulkner (ed.), The Homeric Hymns: Interpretative Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Faulkner, Raymond O. (1936): “The Bremner-Rhind Papyrus: I. A. The Songs of Isis and Nephthys.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 22/2, 121–40. Ferry, Anne (2001): Tradition and the Individual Poem: An Inquiry into Anthologies. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Feuer, Avrohom Chaim (2013): Tehillim: A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources. 2 vols. The Artscroll Tanach Series. New York: Mesorah. Figulla, Hugo H. & William J. Martin (1953): Ur Excavations, Texts V: Letters and Documents of the Old-Babylonian Period. London: British Museum Publications. Fincke, Jeanette C. (2003): “The Babylonian Texts of Nineveh: Report on the British Museum’s Ashurbanipal Library Project.” AfO 50, 111–49. Finkel, Irving L. (1988): “A Fragmentary Catalogue of Lovesongs.” ASJ 10, 17–18. Flint, Peter W. (1993): The Psalters at Qumran and the Book of Psalms. PhD Diss: University of Notre Dame, USA.

424

Bibliography

– (1994): “The Psalms Scrolls from the Judean Desert: Relationships and Textual Affiliations,” pages 31–52 in George J. Brooke (ed.), New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992. Leiden: Brill. – (1996): “Of Psalms and Psalters: James Sanders’s Investigation of the Psalms Scrolls,” pages 65–83 in Richard D. Weis & David M. Carr (eds.), A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. – (1997a): The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. STDJ 17. Leiden: Brill. – (1997b): “A Form of Psalm 89 (4Q236 = 4QPs89),” pages 40–45 in James H. Charlesworth & Henry W. Rietz (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 4A: Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. – (1998a): “The Book of Psalms in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” VT 48/4, 453–72. – (1998b): “The Contribution of the Cave 4 Psalms Scrolls to the Psalms Debate.” DSD 5/3, 320–33. – (1999a): “The Contribution of the Dead Sea Biblical Scrolls to Biblical Studies, With the Preliminary Editions of 4QPsp and 4QPsr–u.” JSOT 83, 3–17. – (1999b): “A Preliminary Edition of 4QPsd (4Q86),” pages 93–105 in Donald W. Parry & Eugene C. Ulrich (eds.), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, & Reformulated Issues. Leiden: Brill. – (2000): “The Shape of the ’Bible’ at Qumran,” pages 45–103 in Alan J. Avery-Peck, Jacob Neusner, & Bruce D. Chilton (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity 5. The Judaism of Qumran: A Systematic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume 2. HdO 57. Leiden: Brill. – (2003): “Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Evidence from Qumran,” pages 269–304 in M. Paul Shalom et al. (eds.), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill. – (2005): “The Prophet David at Qumran,” pages 158–67 in Matthias Henze (ed.), Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. – (2006): “Psalms and Psalters in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pages 233–72 in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls Volume One: Scripture and the Scrolls. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. – (2007a): “11QPsb and the 11QPsa-Psalter,” pages 157–66 in Joel S. Burnett, William H. Bellinger Jr., & W. Dennis Tucker Jr. (eds.), Diachronic and Synchronic: Reading the Psalms in Real Time: Proceedings of the Baylor Symposium on the Book of Psalms. New York: T&T Clark. – (2007b): “Five Surprises in the Qumran Psalms Scrolls,” pages 183–95 in Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech, & Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (eds.), Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 122. Leiden: Brill. – (2013): “The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls: Psalms Manuscripts, Editions, and the Oxford Hebrew Bible,” pages 11–37 in Susan E. Gillingham (ed.), Jewish and Christian Approaches to the Psalms: Conflict and Convergence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. – (2014a): “The Contribution of Gerald Wilson toward Understanding the Book of Psalms in Light of the Psalms Scrolls,” pages 209–30 in Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms: The Current State of Scholarship. AIL 20. Atlanta: SBL Press. – (2014b): “Unrolling the Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls,” pages 229–50 in William P. Brown (ed.), Oxford Handbook on the Psalms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. – (Fc): The Cave 11 Psalms Scroll. Dead Sea Scrolls Editions. Leiden: Brill.

Bibliography

425

Flint, Peter W. & Andrea E. Alvarez (1997): “The Oldest of all the Psalms Scrolls: The Text and Translation of 4QPsa.” pages 142–69 in Stanley E. Porter & Craig A. Evans (eds.), Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After. JSPSup 26. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Flint, Peter W. & Patrick D. Miller, ed. (2005): The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception. VTSup 99. Leiden: Brill. Fokkelman, Jan P. (2000): Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible at the Interface of Prosody and Structural Analysis. 3 vols. SSN 41. Assen: Van Gorcum. Foster, Benjamin R. (1991): “On Authorship in Akkadian Literature.” AION 51, 17–32. Fox, Michael V. (1985): The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs. Winsconsin: University of Winsconsin Press. Frayne, Douglas R. (2009): “The Struggle for Hegemony in ‘Early Dynastic II’ Sumer.” The Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 4, 37–75. Freedman, David N. (1987): “Headings in the Books of the Eight-Century Prophets.” AUSS 25/1, 9–26. Füglister, Notger (1986): “Ein garstig Lied: Ps 149,” pages 81–105 in Ernst Haag & FrankLothar Hossfeld (eds.), Freude an der Weisung des Herrn: Beiträge zur Theologie der Psalmen: Festgabe zum 70. Geburtstag von Heinrich Groß. SBB 13. Stuttgart: Katolisches Bibelwerk. Furley, William D. (2011): “Homeric and Un-Homeric Hexameter Hymns: A Question of Type,” pages 206–31 in Andrew Faulkner (ed.), The Homeric Hymns: Interpretative Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gabbay, Uri (2007): “A Neo-Babylonian Catalogue of Balağ Tablets in the Oriental Institute of Chicago.” ZA 97, 86–97. Gadd, Cyril J. & Samuel N. Kramer (1963): Ur Excavations, Texts VI: Literary and Religious Texts, First Part. London: British Museum Publications. (1966): Ur Excavations, Texts VI: Literary and Religious Texts, Second Part. London: British Museum Publications. Gadotti, Alhena & Alexandra Kleinerman (2011): “‘Here is what I have. Send me what I am missing’: Exchange of Syllabi in Ancient Mesopotamia.” ZA 101, 72–77. Gamble, Harry Y. (1995): Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven: Yale University Press. García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, & Adam S. van der Woude (eds.) (1998): Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31. DJD XXIII. Oxford: Clarendon. Gardiner, Alan H., ed. (1931): The Library of A. Chester Beatty: Description of a Hieratic Papyrus with a Mythological Story, Love-Songs, and other Miscellaneous Texts. London: Oxford University Press. Garnett, Richard (1910): “Anthology,” pages 94–96 in Hugh Chrisholm (ed.), Encycl. Brit. 11 ed. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gärtner, Judith (2012): Die Geschichtspsalmen: Eine Studie zu den Psalmen 78, 105, 106, 135 und 136 als hermeneutische Schlüsseltexte im Psalter. FAT 84. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Geller, M. J. (2000): “Incipits and Rubrics,” pages 225–58 in Andrew R. George & Irving L. Finkel (eds.), Wisdom, Gods and Literature: Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W. G. Lambert. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Gelzer, Thomas (1987): “Bemerkungen zum Homerischen Ares-Hymnus (Hom. Hy. 8).” Museum Helveticum: Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Klassische Altertumswissenschaft 44/3, 150–67. Genette, Gérard (1992): The Architext: An Introduction. Translated by Jane E. Lewin. Berkeley: University of California Press. – (1997a): Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree. Translated by Channa Newman & Claude Doubinsky. Stages 8. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

426

Bibliography

– (1997b): Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Translated by Jane E. Lewin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. (1988): Psalms: Part I with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry. FOTL 14. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. – (1994): “Der Psalter als Buch und als Sammlung,” pages 3–13 in Klaus Seybold & Erich Zenger (eds.), Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung: Für Walter Beyerlin. HBS 1. Freiburg: Herder. – (2001): Psalms: Part 2 and Lamentations. FOTL 15. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. & Heinz-Josef Fabry (2001): “‫פלל‬,” pages 567–78 in G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, & Heinz-Josef Fabry (eds.), TDOT. Vol. 11. Translated by David E. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gese, Hartmut (1974): “Die Entstehung der Büchereinteilung des Psalters,” pages 159–67 in Vom Sinai zum Zion: Alttestamentliche Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie. BEvT 64. Munich: Kaiser. Gevaryahu, Haim M. I. (1975): “Biblical Colophons: A Source for the ‘Biography’ of Authors, Texts and Books,” pages 42–59 in G. W. Anderson et al. (eds.), Congress Volume: Edinburgh 1974. VTSup 28. Leiden: Brill. Gillingham, Susan E. (2002): “From Liturgy to Prophecy: The Use of Psalmody in Second Temple Judaism.” CBQ 64, 470–89. – (2008): Psalms Through the Centuries. BBC. Oxford: Blackwell. – (2010): “The Levitical Singers and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter,” pages 91–123 in Erich Zenger (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters. – (2013): A Journey of Two Psalms: The Reception of Psalms 1 & 2 in Jewish & Christian Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. – (2014): “The Levites and the Editorial Composition of the Psalms,” pages 201–13 in William P. Brown (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Psalms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ginsberg, Harald L. (1945): “Psalms and Inscriptions of Petition and Acknowledgement,” pages 159–71 in Saul Lieberman (ed.), Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume. New York: The American Academy for Jewish Research. Glassner, Jean-Jacques (2005): “Des dieux, des scribes et des savants: Circulation des idées et transmission des écrits en Mésopotamie.” Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 3, 483– 506. Goldingay, John & David Payne (2006): Isaiah 40–55. 2 vols. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. London: T&T Clark. Goldingay, John (2006): Psalms 1–41. BCOTWP. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. – (2007): Psalms 42–89. BCOTWP. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. – (2008): Psalms 90–150. BCOTWP. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. – (2014): Isaiah 56–66. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. London: T&T Clark. Goldstein, Jonathan A. (1976): I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 41. New York: Doubleday. – (1983): II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 41A. New York: Doubleday. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. (1966): “The Psalms Scroll (11QPsa): A Problem of Canon and Text.” Text 5, 22–33. Gosse, Bernard (1994): “Le Psaume CXLIX et la reinterpretation post-exilique de la tradition prophetique.” VT 44/2, 259–63. – (2015): L’espérance messianique davidique et la structuration du Psautier. Supplément à Transeuphratène 21. Pendé: Gabalda. Goulder, Michael D. (1975): “The Fourth Book of the Psalter.” JTS 26/2, 269–89. – (1982a): The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch. JSOTSup 20. Sheffield: JSOT Press.

Bibliography

427

– (1982b): The Psalms of the Sons of Korah. JSOTSup 20. Sheffield: JSOT Press. – (1995): “Asaph’s History of Israel.” JSOT 65, 71–81. – (1998): The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107–150). JSOTSup 258. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Gragg, Gene B. (1969): “The Keš Temple Hymn,” pages 155–88 in Åke W. Sjöberg & Eugen Bergmann (eds.), The Collection of Sumerian Temple Hymns. TCS 3. Locust Valley, NY: Augustin. Grant, Jamie A. (2004): The King as Exemplar: The Function of Deuteronomy’s Kingship Law in the Shaping of the Book of Psalms. AcBib 17. Atlanta: SBL Press. Gray, John (1963): I & II Kings: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. – (2010): The Book of Job. THB 1. Sheffield: Phoenix. Gregory, Elizabeth (1996): Quotation and Modern American Poetry: “Imaginary Gardens With Real Toads.” Houson: Rice University Press. de Grenouillac, Henri (1930): Textes Religieux Sumériens du Louvre. TCL 15, 28. Paris: Geuthner. Griffiths, Paul J. (1999): Religious Reading: The Place of Reading in the Practice of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Guillory, John (1993): Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gunkel, Hermann (1926): “Psalm 149,” pages 47–57 in Aaron Ember & Cyrus Adler (eds.), Oriental Studies Published in Commemoration of the Fortieth Anniversary (1883–1923) of Paul Haupt as Director of the Oriental Seminary of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Gunkel, Hermann & Joachim Begrich (1985): Einleitung in die Psalmen: Die Gattungen der religiösen Lyrik Israels. 4 ed. HKAT. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Hallo, William W. (1963): “On the Antiquity of Sumerian Literature.” JAOS 83/2, 167–76. – (1968): “Individual Prayer in Sumerian: The Continuity of a Tradition.” JAOS 88/1, 71– 89. – (1975): “Another Sumerian Literary Catalogue?” StOr 46, 77–80. – (1976): “Toward a History of Sumerian Literature,” pages 181–203 in S. J. Lieberman (ed.), Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen on His Seventieth Birthday June 7, 1974. AS 20. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. – (1982): “Notes from the Babylonian Collection, II: Old Babylonian HAR-ra.” JCS 34/1, 81–93. – (1996): Origins: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of Some Modern Western Institutions. SHANE 6. Leiden: Brill. – (2004): “Sumer and the Bible: A Matter of Proportion,” pages 163–75 in James K. Hoffmeier & Alan Millard (eds.), The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hallo, William W. & Johannes J. A. van Dijk (1968): The Exaltation of Inanna. YNER 3. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hann, Robert R. (1982): The Manuscript History of the Psalms of Solomon. SBLSCS 13. Chico: Scholars. – (1988): “The Community of the Pious: The Social Setting of the Psalms of Solomon.” SR 17/2, 169–89. Harkins, Angela Kim (2005): “Observations on the Editorial Shaping of the So-Called Community Hymns from 1QHa and 4QHa (4Q427).” DSD 12/3, 233–56. – (2010): “A New Proposal for Thinking about 1QHa Sixty Years after Its Discovery,” pages 101–34 in Daniel K. Falk et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts from Cave 1 Sixty Years after Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the IOQS in Ljubljana. STDJ 91. Leiden: Brill.

428

Bibliography

– (2012): “Who is the Teacher of the Teacher Hymns? Re-Examining the Teacher Hymns Hypothesis Fifty Years Later,” pages 449–67 in Eric F. Mason et al. (eds.), A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam Volume One. Leiden: Brill. Hartenstein, Friedhelm (2010): “‘Schaffe mir Recht, JHWH!’ (Psalm 7,9): Zum theologischen und anthropologischen Profil der Teilkomposition Psalm 3–14,” pages 229–58 in Erich Zenger (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters. Hartenstein, Friedhelm & Bernd Janowski (2012): Psalmen. BKAT 15/1 Lieferung 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. – (2015): Psalmen. BKAT 15/1 Lieferung 2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Hartley, John E. (1988): The Book of Job. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eisenbrauns. Hasler, Victor (1969): Amen: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Einführungsformel der Herrenworte “Wahrlich ich sage euch.” Zürich: Gotthelf-Verlag. Hasselbalch, Trine Bjørnung (2015): Meaning and Context in the Thanksgiving Hymns: Linguistic and Rhetorical Perspectives on a Collection of Prayer Texts from Qumran. EJL 42. Atlanta: SBL Press. Hays, Richard B. (1989): Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press. Heimpel, Wolfgang (1972): review of Åke W. Sjöberg & Eugen Bergmann, The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns. JAOS 92/2, 285–88. Hengstenberg, Ernst Wilhelm (1864): Commentary on the Psalms. 4 ed. Translated by Patrick Fairbairn & John Thomson. 3 vols. Clark’s Foreign Theological Library 12. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Henze, Matthias (2005): “Psalm 91 in Premodern Interpretation and at Qumran,” pages 168– 93 in Matthias Henze (ed.), Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Herbert, A. S. (1975): The Book of the Prophet Isaiah 40–66. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hertzberg, Hans W. (1964): I & II Samuel. OTL. London: SCM. Hever, Hannan (1997): “‘Our Poetry is Like an Orange Grove’: Anthologies of Hebrew Poetry in Erets Israel.” Prooftexts 17, 199–225. Hilgenfeld, Adolphus (1868): “Die Psalmen Solomo’s und die Himmelfahrt des Moses: Griechisch Hergestellt und Erklärt.” ZWT 11, 133–68. Hill, Robert C., ed. (2005): Diodore of Tarsus: Commentary on Psalms 1–51. WGRW 9. Leiden: Brill. Hillers, Delbert R. (1978): “A Study of Psalm 148.” CBQ 40, 323–34. Holladay, William L. (1986): Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1–25. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. – (1989): Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. – (1993): The Psalms through Three Thousand Years: Prayerbook of a Cloud of Witnesses. Minneapolis: Fortress. – (2002): “Indications of Jeremiah’s Psalter.” JBL 121/2, 245–61. Holm-Nielsen, Svend (1960): Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran. ATDan 2. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget. – (1977): Die Psalmen Salomos. 2 ed. JSHRZ 4. Gütersloh: Mohn. – (1979): “Religiöse Poesie des Spätjudentums,” pages 152–86 in Wolfgang Haase (ed.), ANRW II Principat 19.1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Holt, Else K., Knud Jeppesen, & Kirsten Nielsen (2002): “Salmernes Bok: Tradition, Redaktion og Komposition,” pages 35–66 in Kirsten Nielsen & Else K. Holt (eds.), Dansk Kommentar til Davids Salmer I. Copenhagen: ANIS.

Bibliography

429

Horgan, Maurya P. (2002a): “Psalm Pesher 1 (4Q171 = 4QpPsa = 4QpPs37 and 45),” pages 6–23 in James H. Charlesworth & Henry W. M. Rietz (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 6B: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. – (2002b): “Psalm Pesher 2 (1Q16 = 1QpPs = 1QpPs68),” pages 25–29 in James H. Charlesworth & Henry W. M. Rietz (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 6B: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. – (2002c): “Psalm Pesher 3 (4Q173 = 4QpPsb = 4QpPs118, 127, 129),” pages 31–33 in James H. Charlesworth & Henry W. M. Rietz (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 6B: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar (2010): “Der Elohistische Psalter Ps 42–83: Entstehung und Programm,” pages 199–213 in Erich Zenger (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters. – (2014): “From Psalms to Psalter Exegesis,” pages 73–78 in Kenneth Mtata, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, & Miriam Rose (eds.), Singing the Songs of the Lord in Foreign Lands: Psalms in Contemporary Lutheran Interpretation. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar & Erich Zenger (1993): Die Psalmen I: Psalm 1–50. NEchtB 29. Würzburg: Echter. – (1996): “Neue und Alte Wege der Psalmenexegese: Antworten auf die Fragen von M. Millard und R. Rendtorff.” BibInt 4/3, 332–43. – (2000): Psalmen 51–100. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder. – (2005): Psalms 2. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. – (2008): Psalmen 101–150. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder. – (2011): Psalms 3. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar & Till Magnus Steiner (2013): “Problems and Prospects in Psalter Studies,” pages 240–58 in Susan E. Gillingham (ed.), Jewish and Christian Approaches to the Psalms: Conflict and Convergence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. House, Paul R. (1990): The Unity of the Twelve. BLS 27. Sheffield: Almond Press. Houston, Walter (1995): “David, Asaph and the Mighty Works of God: Theme and Genre in the Psalm Collections.” JSOT 68, 93–111. Howard Jr., David M. (1989): “Editorial Activity in the Psalter: A State-of-the-Field Survey.” Word & Word 9/3, 274–85. – (1993a): “A Contextual Reading of Psalms 90–94,” pages 108–23 in J. Clinton McCann Jr. (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. JSOTSup 159. Sheffield: JSOT Press. – (1993b): “Editorial Activity in the Psalter: A State-of-the-Field Survey,” pages 52–70 in J. Clinton McCann Jr. (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. JSOTSup 159. Sheffield: JSOT Press. – (1997): The Structure of Psalms 93–100. BJSUCSD 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. – (1998): review of R. Norman Whybray, Reading the Psalms as a Book. RBL, n.p. – (1999a): “Psalm 94 among the Kingship-of-Yhwh Psalms.” CBQ 61, 667–85. – (1999b): “Recent Trends in Psalms Study,” pages 329–68 in David W. Baker & Bill T. Arnold (eds.), The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. – (2005): “The Psalms in Current Study,” pages 23–40 in David G. Firth & Philip S. Johnston (eds.), Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Humbert, Paul (1965): “Yahvé dieu géniteur?” AS 18/19, 247–51. Hunger, Hermann (1968): Babylonische und Assyrische Kolophone. AOAT 2. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

430

Bibliography

Hunter, Richard (1996): Theocritus and the Archaeology of Greek Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hurtado, Larry W. (2006): The Earlies Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hutter, Manfred (2011): “Sammeltafeln – Zufallsprodukt von Schreibern oder Ausdruck von hethitischem Literaturverständnis?” pages 115–28 in Manfred Hutter & Sylvia HutterBraunsar (eds.), Hethitische Literatur: Überlieferungsprozesse, Textstrukturen, Ausdrucksformen und Nachwirken: Akten des Symposiums vom 18. bis 20. Februar 2010 in Bonn. AOAT 391. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Høgenhaven, Jesper (2001): “The Opening of the Psalter: A Study in Jewish Theology.” SJOT 15/2, 169–80. – (2007): “The Literary Character of 4QTanhumim.” DSD 14/1, 99–123. Illman, Karl-Johan (1976): Thema und Tradition in den Asaf-Psalmen. Åbo: Publications of the Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation. Jacobson, Rolf A. (2014): “Imagining the Future of Psalms Studies,” pages 231–46 in Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms: The Current State of Scholarship. AIL 20. Atlanta: SBL Press. Jain, Eva I. (2012): Psalmen oder Psalter? Materielle Rekonstruktion und inhaltliche Untersuchung der Psalmenhandschriften aus der Wüste Juda. PhD Diss: Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. – (2014): Psalmen oder Psalter? Materielle Rekonstruktion und inhaltliche Untersuchung der Psalmenhandschriften aus der Wüste Juda. STDJ 109. Leiden: Brill. Janko, Richard (1981): “The Structure of the Homeric Hymns: A Study in Genre.” Hermes 109/1, 9–24. – (1982): Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns: Diachronic Development in Epic Diction. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. – (1991): review of Jenny S. Clay, The Politics of Olympus: Form and Meaning in the Major Homeric Hymns. The Classical Review 41/1, 12–13. Janowski, Bernd (2010): “Ein Tempel aus Worten: Zur Theologischen Architektur des Psalters,” pages 279–306 in Erich Zenger (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters. Japhet, Sara (1993): I & II Chronicles. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Jeppesen, Knud (2002): “Salme 2 (case study),” pages 19–22 in Kirsten Nielsen & Else K. Holt (eds.), Dansk Kommentar til Davids Salmer II. Copenhagen: ANIS. Jeremias, Gert (1963): Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit. SUNT 2. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht. Jeremias, Joachim (1978): “Amen,” pages 386–91 in Gerhard Müller (ed.), TRE 2. Berlin: de Gruyter. Joffe, Laura (2002): “The Answer to the Meaning of Life, the Universe and the Elohistic Psalter.” JSOT 27/2, 223–35. Johns, Claude Herman Walter (1901): Assyrian Deeds and Documents Recording the Transfer of Property, Volume 2. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell. Johnson, J. Cale (2013): “The Origins of Scholastic Commentary in Mesopotamia: SecondOrder Schemata in the Early Dynastic Exegetical Imagination,” pages 11–55 in Shai Gordin (ed.), Visualizing Knowledge and Creating Meaning in Ancient Writing Systems. BBVO 23. Berlin: PeWe. Jones, Barry A. (2000): “The Book of the Twelve as a Witness to Ancient Biblical Interpretation,” pages 65–74 in James D. Nogalski & Marvin A. Sweeney (eds.), Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. SymS 15. Atlanta: SBL Press. Jones, Gwilym H. (1984): 1 and 2 Kings. 2 vols. NCB Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Bibliography

431

de Jonge, Marinus (1985): “Psalms of Solomon,” pages 159–177 in Marinus de Jonge (ed.), Outside the Old Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. – (1991): “The Expectation of the Future in the Psalms of Solomon,” pages 3–17 in Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Collected Essays of Marinus de Jonge. NovTSup 63. Leiden: Brill. Jonker, Louis C. (2004): “Revisiting the Psalm Headings: Second Temple Levitical Propaganda?” pages 102–22 in Dirk J. Human & Cas J. A. Vos (eds.), Psalms and Liturgy. JSOTSup 410. London: T&T Clark. Kagan, Zipora (1999): “Homo Anthologicus: Micha Joseph Berdyczewski and the Anthological Genre.” Prooftexts 19, 41–57. Kasser, Rodolphe & Michel Testuz, ed. (1967): Papyrus Bodmer XXIV: Psaumes XVII–CXVIII. Cologny Geneva: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana. Katzin, David (2004): “‘The Time of Testing’: The Use of Hebrew Scriptures in 4Q171’s Pesher of Psalm 37.” Hebrew Studies 45, 121–62. Kautzsch, Emil, ed. (1910): Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. 2 ed. Translated by Arthur E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon. Keel, Othmar (1997): The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. Translated by Timothy J. Hallett. Wiona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Keesmaat, Sylvia C. (2004): “The Psalms in Romans and Galatians,” pages 139–61 in Steve Moyise & Maarten J. J. Menken (eds.), The Psalms in the New Testament. NTSI. London: T&T Clark. Kidner, Derek (1975): Psalms 73–150: A Commentary on Books III, IV and V of the Psalms. TOTC. London: Inter-Varsity. Kimelman, Reuven (1994): “Psalm 145: Theme, Structure, and Impact.” JBL 113/1, 37–58. Kittel, Harald (1995): “International Anthologies of Literature in Translation: An Introduction to Incipient Research,” pages IX–XXVII in Harald Kittel (ed.), International Anthologies of Literature in Translation. Göttinger Beiträge zur Internationalen Übersetzungsforschung 9. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. Kleer, Martin (1996): “Der liebliche Sänger der Psalmen Israels”: Untersuchungen zu David als Dichter und Beter der Psalmen. BBB 108. Bodenheim: Philo. Klein, Anja (2014): Geschichte und Gebet: Die Rezeption der biblischen Geschichte in den Psalmen des Alten Testaments. FAT 94. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Klein, Ralph W. (2006): 1 Chronicles: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. – (2012): 2 Chronicles: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Kleinerman, Alexandra (2011): Education in Early 2nd Millennium BC Babylonia: The Sumerian Epistolary Miscellany. CM 42. Leiden: Brill. Koch, Klaus (1994): “Der Psalter und seine Redaktionsgeschichte,” pages 243–77 in Klaus Seybold & Erich Zenger (eds.), Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung: Für Walter Beyerlin. HBS 1. Freiburg: Herder. Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, & Johann J. Stam (1995): “‫הגה‬,” page 237 in HALOT. Translated by Mervyn E. J. Richardson. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill. Koenen, Klaus (1995): Jahwe wird kommen, zu herrschen über die Erde: Ps 90–110 als Komposition. BBB 101. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum. Koh, Yee Von (2010): “G. H. Wilson’s Theories on the Masoretic Psalter,” pages 177–92 in Katharine J. Dell, Graham Davies, & Yee Von Koh (eds.), Genesis, Isaiah and Psalms: A Festschrift to honour Professor John Emerton for his eightieth birthday. VTSup 135. Leiden: Brill. Koorevaar, Hendrik (2010): “The Psalter as a Structured Theological Story with the Aid of Subscripts and Superscripts,” pages 578–92 in Erich Zenger (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters.

432

Bibliography

Körting, Corinna (2010): “Text and Context: Ps 91 and 11QPsApa,” pages 567–77 in Erich Zenger (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters. – (2012): “Jerusalem, City of God (4Q380 1 I 1–11): Praise that Counteracts Lament,” pages 217–28 in Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, & Cecilia Wassén (eds.), Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday. STDJ 98. Leiden: Brill. Köstenberger, Andreas J. (2004): John. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Kramer, Samuel N. (1942): “The Oldest Literary Catalogue: A Sumerian List of Literary Compositions Compiled about 2000 B. C.” BASOR 88, 10–19. – (1961): “Kataloge,” pages 19–20 in Samuel N. Kramer & Inez Bernhardt (eds.), Sumerische Literarische Texte aus Nippur, Volume 1. TMH NF 3. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. – (1975): “Two British Museum ‘Iršemma’ Catalogues.” Studia Orientalia 46, 141–66. – (1982): “Three Old Babylonian balag-Catalogues from the British Museum,” pages 206– 13 in Muhammad A. Dandamayev et al. (eds.), Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of I. M. Diakonoff. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. Kratz, Reinhard G. (2004): “Das Schemaʿ des Psalters: Die Botschaft vom Reich Gottes nach Psalm 145,” pages 623–38 in Markus Witte (ed.), Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag, Volume 1. BZAW 345. Berlin: de Gruyter. – (2012): “‘Blessed Be the Lord and Blessed Be His Name Forever’: Psalm 145 in the Hebrew Bible and in the Psalms Scroll 11Q5,” pages 229–44 in Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, & Cecilia Wassén (eds.), Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday. STDJ 98. Leiden: Brill. – (2013): “Die Tora Davids: Psalm 1 und die doxologische Fünfteilung des Psalters,” pages 280–311 in Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels. FAT 42. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kraus, Hans-Joachim (1989): Psalms 60–150. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress. – (1993): Psalms 1–59. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress. Krebernik, Manfred (1994): “Zur Einleitung der zà-me-Hymnen aus Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ,” pages 151–58 in Peter Calmeyer et al. (eds.), Beiträge zur altorientalischen Archäologie und Altertumskunde: Festschrift für Barthel Hrouda zum 65. Geburtstag. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz. – (1998): “Die Texte aus Fā ra und Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ,” pages 237–427 in Josef Bauer, Robert K. Englund, & Manfred Krebernik (eds.), Mesopotamien: Späturuk-Zeit und Früh-dynastische Zeit. OBO 160/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Krecher, Joachim (1992): “UD.GAL.NUN Versus ‘Normal’ Sumerian: Two Literatures or One?” pages 285–303 in Pelio Fronzaroli (ed.), Literature and Literary Language at Ebla. Quaderni di Semitistica 18. Università di Firenze: Dipartimento di Linguistica. Kselman, John S. (1988): “Psalm 146 in Its Context.” CBQ 50, 587–99. Kugel, James (1997): “Wisdom and the Anthological Temper.” Prooftexts 17, 9–32. Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang (1966): Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil: Untersuchungen zu den Gemeindeliedern von Qumran mit einem Anhang über Eschatologie und Gegenwart in der Verkündigung Jesu. SUNT 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kühlewein, J. (1997): “‫ילד‬,” pages 544–46 in Ernst Jenni & Claus Westermann (eds.), TLOT. Vol. 2. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Lambert, Wilfred G. (1976a): review of Robert D. Biggs, Inscriptions from Tell Abū S ̣alābīḫ . BSOAS 39/2, 428–32. – (1976b): “A Late Assyrian Catalogue of Literary and Scholarly Texts,” pages 313–18 in Barry L. Eichler (ed.), Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer. AOAT. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker.

Bibliography

433

– (1980): “The Theology of Death,” pages 53–66 in Bendt Alster (ed.), Death in Mesopotamia. RAI 26. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. Lane, William L. (1982): “Paul’s Legacy from Pharisaism: Light from the Psalms of Solomon.” Concordia Journal 8, 130–38. (1991): Hebrews 1–8. WBC 47A. Dallas: Word. Langdon, Stephen H. (1913): Babylonian Liturgies: Sumerian Texts from the Early Period and from the Library of Ashurbanipal, for the Most Part Transliterated and Translated, with Introduction and Index. Paris: Geuthner. – (1925): “A List of the Known Titles of Sumerian Penitential Psalms (Eršagḥunga), Arranged in Alphabetical Order.” RA 22/3, 119–25. Lange, Armin (1998): “Die Endgestalt des protomasoretischen Psalters und die Toraweisheit: Zur Bedeutung der nichtessenischen Weisheitstexte aus Qumran für die Auslegung des protomasoretischen Psalters,” pages 101–36 in Erich Zenger (ed.), Der Psalter in Judentum und Christentum. HBS 18. Freiburg: Herder. – (2009): Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer. Band 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Lange, Armin & Matthias Weigold (2011): Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature. Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements 5. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht. Lange, Armin (2012): “Collecting Psalms in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pages 297–308 in Eric F. Mason et al. (eds.), A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. Vanderkam. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 153. Leiden: Brill. Laughlin, Mark & Shani Tzoref (2011): “Theme and Genre in 4Q177 and its Scriptural Selections,” pages 169–89 in George J. Brooke & Jesper Høgenhaven (eds.), The Mermaid and the Partridge: Essays from the Copenhagen Conference on Revising Texts from Cave Four. STDJ 96. Leiden: Brill. Lee, Seong Hye (2011): The Psalter as an Anthology Designed to be Memorized. PhD diss: University of Bristol. LeFebvre, Michael (2005): “Torah-Meditation and the Psalms: The Invitation of Psalm 1,” pages 213–25 in Philip S. Johnston & David G. Firth (eds.), Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. – (2016): “‘On His Law He Meditates’: What is Psalm 1 Introducing?” JSOT 40/4, 439–50. Lemaire, André (2000): “Attestation textuell et critique littéraire: 4Q448 col. A et Psalm 154,” pages 12–18 in Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, & James C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Leonard, Jeffery M. (2008): “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case.” JBL 127/2, 241–65. Leonhardt, Jutta (2001): Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 84. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Leuenberger, Martin (2004): Konzeptionen des Königtums Gottes im Psalter: Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Redaktion der theokratischen Bücher IV–V im Psalter. AThANT 83. Zurich: TVZ. – (2005): “Aufbau und Pragmatik des 11QPsa-Psalters.” RevQ 22/2, 165–211. – (2011): Gott in Bewegung: Religions- und theologiegeschichtliche Beiträge zu Gottesvorstellungen im alten Israel. FAT 76. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Levenson, Jon D. (1987): “The Sources of Torah: Psalm 119 and the Modes of Revelation in Second Temple Judaism,” pages 559–74 in Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, & S. Dean McBride (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Jr. Philadelphia: Fortress. Levin, Christoph (1993): “Das Gebetbuch der Gerechten: Literaturgeschichtliche Beobachtungen am Psalter.” ZTK 90, 355–81.

434

Bibliography

– (2000): “Psalm 136 als Zeitweilige Schlussdoxologie des Psalters.” SJOT 14/1, 17–27. – (2004): “Die Entstehung der Büchereinteilung des Psalters.” VT 54/1, 83–90. Lichtenberger, Hermann (2002 “Consolations (4Q176 = 4QTanḥ),” pages 329–49 in James H. Charlesworth & Henry W. M. Rietz (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 6B: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. – (2003): “Ps 91 und die Exorzismen in 11QPsApa.” pages 416–21 in Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, & K. F. Diethard Römheld (eds.), Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Lichtheim, Miriam (1976): Ancient Egyptian Literature Volume. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lim, Timothy H. (2001): “The Alleged Reference to the Tripartite Division of the Hebrew Bible.” RevQ 20, 23–37. Lindars, Barnabas (1989): “The Structure of Psalm CXLV.” VT 29/1, 23–30. Lindström, Fredrik (1994): Suffering and Sin: Interpretations of Illness in the Individual Complaint Psalms. ConBOT 37. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Lohfink, Norbert (1990): Lobgesänge der Armen: Studien zum Magnifikat, den Hodajot von Qumran und einigen späten Psalmen. SBS 143. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Longman III, Tremper (1982): “The Divine Warrior: The New Testament Use of an Old Testament Motif.” WTJ 44, 290–307. – (1984): “Psalm 98: A Divine Warrior Victory Song.” JETS 27/3, 267–74. (2014 Psalms: An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC 15–16. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. Loretz, Oswald (1974): “Stichometrische und textologische Probleme der ThronbesteigungsPsalmen: Psalmenstudien (IV): Anhang I: Ps 2 und Ps 110.” UF 6, 230–32. López, García & Heinz-Josef Fabry (2006): “‫תּוֹרה‬,” ָ pages 609–49 in G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, & Heinz-Josef Fabry (eds.), TDOT. Vol. 15. Translated by David E. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Löning, Karl (1998): “Die Funktion des Psalters im Neuen Testament,” pages 269–95 in Erich Zenger (ed.), Der Psalter in Judentum und Christentum. HBS 18. Freiburg: Herder. Luckenbill, Daniel D. (1909): “A Neo-Babylonian Catalogue of Hymns.” AJSL 26, 27–32. Ludwig, Marie-Christine (2012): “BM 96740 - eine altbabylonische Liste von Textanfängen,” pages 201–15 in Catherine Mittermayer & Sabine Ecklin (eds.), Altorientalische Studien zu Ehren von Pascal Attinger: mu-ni u4 ul-li2-a-aš ĝ a2-ĝ a2-de3. OBO 246. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht. Lundbom, Jack R. (1999): Jeremiah 1–20. AB 21A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. – (2004): Jeremiah 21–36. AB 21B. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Lührmann, Dieter (1989): “Paul and the Pharisaic Tradition.” JSNT 36, 75–94. Macintosh, Andrew A. (1976): “A Consideration of the Problems Presented by Psalm II. 11 and 12.” JTS 27/1, 1–14. MacKenzie, Roderick A. F. (1970): “Ps 148,14bc: Conclusion or Title?” Biblica 51, 221–24. Magnus, Albertus (1651): Commentarii in Psalmos. Edited by Petrus Jammy. Opera Omnia 7. Lyon: NA. Main, Emmanuelle (1998): “For King Jonathan or Against? The Use of the Bible in 4Q448,” pages 113–35 in Michael E. Stone & Esther G. Chazon (eds.), Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May, 1996. STDJ 28. Leiden: Brill. Marböck, Johannes (1986): “Zur frühen Wirkungsgeschichte von Ps 1,” pages 207–22 in Ernst Haag & Frank-Lothar Hossfeld (eds.), Freude an der Weisung des Herrn: Beiträge

Bibliography

435

zur Theologie der Psalmen, Festgabe zum 70. Geburtstag von Heinrich Groß. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Martin, Lee Roy (2010): “Delighting in the Torah: The Affective Dimension of Psalm 1.” OTE 23/3, 708–27. Marttila, Marko (2006): Collective Reinterpretation in the Psalms: A Study of the Redaction History of the Psalter. FAT II 13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Mason, Eric F. (2009): “Interpretation of Psalm 2 in 4QFlorilegium and in the New Testament,” pages 67–82 in Florentino García Martínez (ed.), Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament. STDJ 85. Leiden: Brill. Mathys, Hans-Peter (1994): Dichter und Beter: Theologen aus spätalttestamentlicher Zeit. OBO 152. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Maul, Stefan M. (1988): “Herzberuhigungsklagen”: Die sumerisch-akkadischen Eršaḫ ungaGebete. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Mays, James L. (1987): “The Place of the Torah-Psalms in the Psalter.” JBL 106/1, 3–12. – (1991): “‘In a Vision’: The Portrayal of the Messiah in the Psalms.” Ex Auditu 7, 1–8. – (1993): “The Question of Context in Psalm Interpretation,” pages 14–20 in J. Clinton McCann Jr. (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. JSOTSup 159. Sheffield: JSOT Press. – (1994): The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psalms. Louisville: John Knox. – (2011): Psalms. IBC. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. McCann Jr., J. Clinton (1992): “The Psalms as Instruction.” Interpretation 46/2, 117–28. – (1993a): “Books I–III and the Editorial Purpose of the Hebrew Psalter,” pages 93–107 in J. Clinton McCann Jr. (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. JSOTSup 159. Sheffield: JSOT Press. – (1993b): (ed.) The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. JSOTSup 159. Sheffield: JSOT Press. – (1993c): A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as Torah. Nashville: Abingdon. – (1996): “The Book of Psalms,” pages 639–1280 in Leander E. Keck (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible. Volume 4. Nashville: Abingdon. – (2005): “The Shape of Book I of the Psalter and the Shape of Human Happiness,” pages 340–48 in Peter W. Flint & Patrick D. Miller (eds.), The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception. VTSup 99. Leiden: Brill. McCarter Jr., P. Kyle (1984): II Samuel. AB 9. New York: Doubleday. McConville, J. Gordon (2002): Deuteronomy. ApOTC 5. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Meador, Betty De Shong (2009): Princess, Priestess, Poet: The Sumerian Temple Hymns of Enheduanna. Classics of the Ancient World. Austin: University of Texas Press. Menken, Maarten J. J. (2004): “The Psalms in Matthew’s Gospel,” pages 61–82 in Steve Moyise & Maarten J. J. Menken (eds.), The Psalms in the New Testament. NTSI. London: T&T Clark. Menken, Maarten J. J. & Steven Moyise, ed. (2004): Psalms in the New Testament. NTSI. London: T&T Clark. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. (1976): King and Messiah. ConBOT 8. Lund: Gleerup. Metzger, Bruce M. (2005): A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2 ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Michalowski, Piotr (1980): “A New Sumerian ‘Catalogue’ from Nippur.” OrAnt 19, 265–68. – (1989): “Nisaba,” pages 575–79 in Erich Ebeling et al. (eds.), RlA. Vol. 9. Berlin: de Gruyter. Milgrom, Jacob (1990): Numbers. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

436

Bibliography

– (1991): Leviticus 1–16. AB 3. New York: Doubleday. – (2002): “Florilegium: A Midrash in 2 Samuel and Psalms 1–2 (4Q174 = 4QFlor),” pages 248–63 in James H. Charlesworth & Henry W. M. Rietz (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 6B: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Milgrom, Jacob & Lidija Novakovic (2002a): “Catena A (4Q177 = 4QCata),” pages 286–303 in James H. Charlesworth & Henry W. M. Rietz (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 6B: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. – (2002b): “Catena B (4Q182 = 4QCatb),” pages 305–7 in James H. Charlesworth & Henry W. M. Rietz (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 6B: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Milik, Jozef T. (1966): “Fragment d’une source du Psautier (4Q Ps 89) et fragments des Jubilés, du document de Damas, d’un phylactère dans la grotte 4 de Qumran.” RB 73, 94– 106. Millard, Matthias (1994): Die Komposition des Psalters: Ein formgeschichtlicher Ansatz. FAT 9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. – (1996): “Von der Psalmenexegese zur Psalterexegese: Anmerkungen zum Neuansatz von Frank-Lothar Hossfeld und Erich Zenger.” BibInt 4/3, 311–28. – (2007): “Die ‘Mitte des Psalters’: Ein möglicher Ansatz einer Theologie der Hebräischen Bibel,” pages 252–60 in Egbert Ballhorn & Georg Steins (eds.), Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung: Methodenreflexionen und Beispielexegesen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Miller, J. Maxwell & John H. Hayes (2006): A History of Israel and Judah. 2 ed. London: Westminster John Knox. Miller, Patrick D. (1986): Interpreting the Psalms. Philadelphia: Fortress. – (1990): Deuteronomy. Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. – (1993): “The Beginning of the Psalter,” pages 83–92 in J. Clinton McCann Jr. (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. JSOTSup 159. Sheffield: JSOT Press. – (1998): “The End of the Psalter: A Response to Erich Zenger.” JSOT 80, 103–10. – (2000): “Psalms and Inscriptions,” pages 210–32 in Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 267. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. – (2003): “The Psalter as a Book of Theology,” pages 87–98 in Harold W. Attridge & Margot E. Fassler (eds.), Psalms in Community: Jewish and Christian Textual, Liturgical, and Artistic Traditions. SymS 25. Atlanta: SBL Press. Mitchell, David C. (1997): The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms. JSOTSup 252. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. – (2006a): “‘God Will Redeem My Soul from Sheol’ The Psalms of the Sons of Korah.” JSOT 30/3, 365–84. – (2006b): “Lord, Remember David: G.H. Wilson and the Message of the Psalter.” VT 56/4, 526–48. Moberly, R. W. L. (1997): “‫אמן‬,” pages 427–33 in Willem A. VanGemeren (ed.), NIDOTTE. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Moi, Toril, ed. (1986): The Kristeva Reader. New York: Columbia University Press. Morawe, Günther (1961): Aufbau und Abgrenzung der Loblieder von Qumrân: Studien zur gattungsgeschichtlichen Einordnung der Hodajôth. Theologische Arbeiten 16. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Mosser, Carl (2005): “The Earliest Patristic Interpretations of Psalm 82, Jewish Antecedents, and the Origin of Christian Deification.” JTS 56/1, 30–74.

Bibliography

437

Movers, F. K. (1882): “Apokryphen-Literatur,” pages 1048–84 in Heinrich J. Wetzer & Benedikt Welte (eds.), Kirchenlexikon. 2 ed. Vol. 1. Freiburg: Herder. Mowinckel, Sigmund (1967): The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. Translated by D. R. ApThomas. 2 vols. Oxford: Blackwell. – (1980): Offersang og sangoffer: Salmedeiktningen i Bibelen. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co (W. Nygaard). Moyise, Steve (2004): “The Psalms in the Book of Revelation,” pages 231–46 in Steve Moyise & Maarten J. J. Menken (eds.), The Psalms in the New Testament. NTSI. London: T&T Clark. Mroczek, Eva (2011): “Thinking Digitally About the Dead Sea Scrolls: Book History Before and Beyond the Book.” Book History 14, 241–69. – (2012): Psalms Unbound: Ancient Concepts of Textual Tradition in 11QPsalmsa and Related Texts. PhD Diss: University of Toronto. – (2015a): “The Hegemony of the Biblical in the Study of Second Temple Literature.” JAJ 6, 2–35. – (2015b): “‘David did not ascend into the heavens’ (Acts 2:34): Early Jewish Ascent Traditions and the Myth of Exegesis in the New Testament.” Judaïsme Ancien 3, 219–52. – (2016): The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mulder, Martin J. (1998): 1 Kings. HCOT. Leuven: Peeters. Munnich, Olivier (1983): “La Septante des Psaumes et le Groupe Kaige.” VT 33/1, 75–89. Murnaghan, Sheila (2005): “Introduction,” pages vii–xxiii in Sarah Ruden (ed.), Homeric Hymns. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company. Murphy, Roland E. (1993): “Reflections on Contextual Interpretation of the Psalms,” pages 21–28 in J. Clinton McCann Jr. (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. JSOTSup 159. Sheffield: JSOT Press. – (1998): Proverbs. WBC 22. Nashville: Nelson. Myers, Jacob M. (1965): Ezra, Nehemiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB. New York: Doubleday. Nasuti, Harry P. (1988): Tradition History and the Psalms of Asaph. SBLDS 88. Atlanta: Scholars Press. – (2014): “The Editing of the Psalter and the Ongoing Use of the Psalms: Gerald Wilson and the Question of Canon,” pages 13–19 in Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms: The Current State of Scholarship. AIL 20. Atlanta: SBL Press. Ndoga, Sampson S. (2014): “Revisiting the Theocratic Agenda of Book 4 of the Psalter for Interpretive Premise,” pages 147–59 in Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms: The Current State of Scholarship. AIL 20. Atlanta: SBL Press. Neusner, Jacob (1987): The Mishnah before 70. Atlanta: Scholars Press. – (1988): The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press. Newsom, Carol A. (1988): “4Q370: An Admonition Based on the Flood.” RevQ 13, 23–43. Nickelsburg, George W. E. (1981): Jewish Literature Between the Bible and Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress. Niemeyer, Cornelis T. (1950): Het Probleem van de rangschikking der psalmen. Leiden: Luctor et Emergo. Nitzan, Bilhah (1994): Qumran Prayer & Religious Poetry. Translated by Jonathan Chipman. STJD 12. Leiden: Brill. Nogalski, James D. (1993a): Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin: de Gruyter. – (1993b): Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin: de Gruyter.

438

Bibliography

– (1996): “Intertextuality and the Twelve,” pages 102–24 in James W. Watts & Paul R. House (eds.), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Nünlist, René (2004): “The Homeric Hymns,” pages 35–42 in Irene J. F. de Jong, René Nünlist, & Angus Bowie (eds.), Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative. Memosyne Supplements 257. Leiden: Brill. Oswalt, John N. (1986): The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Otzen, Benedikt (1974): “‫א ַבד‬,” ָ pages 19–23 in G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, & Heinz-Josef Fabry (eds.), TDOT. Vol. 1. Translated by John T. Willis. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Pajunen, Mika S. (2008): “Qumranic Psalm 91: A Structural Analysis,” pages 591–605 in Anssi Voitila & Jutta Jokiranta (eds.), Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo. JSJS 126. Leiden: Brill. – (2012a): “From Poetic Structure to Historical Setting: Exploring the Background of the Barkhi Nafshi Hymns,” pages 355–76 in Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, & Cecilia Wassén (eds.), Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday. STDJ 98. Leiden: Brill. – (2012b): “The Textual Connection between 4Q380 Fragment 1 and Psalm 106,” pages 186–202 in Nóra Dávid et al. (eds.), The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 239. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. – (2014a): “4QPsx: A Collective Interpretation of Psalm 89:20–38.” JBL 133/3, 479–95. – (2014b): “Perspectives on the Existence of a Particular Authoritative Book of Psalms in the Late Second Temple Period.” JSOT 39/2, 139–63. Pajunen, Mika S. & Hanne von Weissenberg (2015): “The Book of Malachi, Manuscript 4Q76 (4QXIIa), and the Formation of the ‘Book of the Twelve’.” JBL 134/4, 731–51. Pardee, Dennis G. (1976): “The Preposition in Ugaritic.” UF 8, 215–322. Parpola, Simo (1983): “Assyrian Library Records.” JNES 42/1, 1–29. Patterson, Richard D. (2007): “Singing the New Song: An Examination of Psalms 33, 96, 98 and 149.” BSac 164, 416–34. Paul, Shalom M. (1991): Amos. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Pearl, Chaim (1991a): “The Theology of Psalm 145: Part II.” JBQ 20, 73–78. – (1991b): “The Theology of Psalm 145: Part I.” JBQ 20, 73–78. Pedersén, Olof (1998): Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East 1500–300 B.C. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Penchansky, David (2012): Understanding Wisdom Literature: Conflict and Dissonance in the Hebrew Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Petersen, David L. (2000): “A Book of the Twelve?” pages 3–10 in James D. Nogalski & Marvin A. Sweeney (eds.), Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. SymS 15. Atlanta: SBL Press. Peterson, Jeremiah (2010): “A New Old Babylonian Sumerian Literary ‘Catalog’?” ZA 100, 169–76. Petrany, Catherine (2014): “Instruction, Performance, and Prayer: The Didactic Function of Psalmic Wisdom,” pages 87–103 in Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms: The Current State of Scholarship. AIL 20. Atlanta: SBL Press. Pfeiffer, August F. (1779): Über die Musik der alten Hebräer. Erlangen: Walther. Phillips, Anthony (1973): Deuteronomy. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pietersma, Albert (1980): “David in the Greek Psalms.” VT 30, 213–26.

Bibliography

439

– (2001): “Exegesis and Liturgy in the Superscriptions of the Greek Psalter,” pages 99–138 in Bernard A. Taylor (ed.), X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998. SBLSCS 51. Atlanta: SBL Press. – (2005): “Septuagintal Exegesis and the Superscriptions of the Greek Psalter,” pages 442– 75 in Peter W. Flint & Patrick D. Miller (eds.), The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception. VTSup 99. Leiden: Brill. Pohl, Alfred (1937): Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden der III. Dynastie von Ur. TMH NF 1– 2. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Popović, Mladen (2010): “De Receptie Van Het Psalmenboek in Qumran: Psalmen en Psalmencitaten in de Dode Zeerollen.” Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese van de Bijbel en zijn Tradities 25, 67–82. Porter, Stanley E. (2006): “Further Comments on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” pages 98–110 in Thomas L. Brodie, Dennis R. MacDonald, & Stanley E. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice. New Testament Monographs 16. Sheffield: Phoenix. Preuß, Horst Dietrich (1959): “Die Psalmenüberschriften in Targum und Midrasch.” ZAW 71/1–4, 44–54. Price, Leah (2004): The Anthology and the Rise of the Novel: From Richardson to George Eliot. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Prinsloo, Willem S. (1997): “Ps 149: Praise Yahweh with Tambourine and Two-edged Sword.” ZAW 109/3, 395–407. Pritchard, James B., ed. (1969): Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3 ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Propp, William H. C. (1999): Exodus 1–18. AB 2. New York: Doubleday. Puech, Émile (1988): “Quelques aspects de la restauration du Rouleau des Hymnes (1QH).” JJS 39, 38–55. – (1990): “11QPsApa: Un Rituel d’Exorcismes. Essai de Reconstruction.” RevQ 14, 377– 403. – (1992): “Les deux derniers psaumes davidiques du rituel d’exorcisme, 11QPsApa IV 4–V 14,” pages 64–89 in Devorah Dimant & Uriel Rappaport (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. STDJ 10. Leiden: Brill. – (2000): “Hodayot,” pages 365–69 in Lawrence H. Schiffman & James C. VanderKam (eds.), EDSS. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press. – (2001): “Un autre fragment du Psaume 122 en 4Q522 (4Q522 26).” Revue de Qumran 20/1, 129–32. – (2003): (ed.) Qumran Cave 4. XVIII: Textes Hébreux (4Q521–4Q528, 4Q576–4Q579). DJD XXV. Oxford: Clarendon. (2005 review of Ulrich Dahmen, Psalmen- und PsalterRezeption im Fühjudemtum. Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Struktur und Pragmatik der Psalmenrolle 11QPsa aus Qumran. RevQ 22, 280–81. Qimron, Elisha & John Strugnell (eds.) (1994): Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqs ̣at Ma ʿaś e Ha-Torah. DJD X. Oxford: Clarendon. Rad, Gerhard von (1975): Old Testament Theology: The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. London: SCM. Rahlfs, Alfred & Detlef Fraenkel (2004): Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments: Band I, 1: Die Überlieferung bis zum VIII. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Rappaport, Uriel (2007): “Solomon, Psalms of,” pages 766–67 in Fred Skolnik & Michael Berenbaum (eds.), EncJud. 2 ed. Vol. 18. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA. Rawlinson, Henry C. (1891): The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, Volume IV: A Selection from the Miscellaneous Inscriptions of Assyria. 2 ed. London: British Museum.

440

Bibliography

Redditt, Paul L. (2000): “The Production and Reading of the Book of the Twelve,” pages 11– 33 in James D. Nogalski & Marvin A. Sweeney (eds.), Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. SymS 15. Atlanta: SBL Press. – (2003): “The Formation of the Book of Twelve: A Review of Research,” pages 1–26 in Paul L. Redditt & Aaron Schart (eds.), Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Berlin: de Gruyter. Reed, Annette Yoshiko (2009): “The Modern Invention of the ‘Old Testament Pseudepigrapha’.” Journal of Theological Studies 60/2, 403–36. Reeves, John C. (1999): “Exploring the Afterlife of Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Medieval Near Eastern Religious Traditions: Some Initial Soundings.” JSJ 30/2, 148–77. Reif, Stefan C. (1984): “Ibn Ezra on Psalm I 1–2.” VT 34/2, 232–36. Reindl, Joseph (1981): “Weisheitliche bearbeitung von Psalmen: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Sammlung des Psalters,” pages 333–56 in J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume, Vienna 1980. VTSup 32. Leiden: Brill. Reiser, Marius (1990): Die Gerichtspredigt Jesu: Eine Untersuchung zur eschatologischen Verkundigung Jesu und ihrem fruhjudischen Hintergrund. NTAbh 23. Munster: Aschendorff. Renaud, Bernard (2004): “Le Psautier sous le signe du jugement de Dieu: L’unité rédactionelle des Ps 1 et 2,” pages 225–42 in Eberhard Bons & Claude Coulot (eds.), Le jugement dans l’un et l’autre Testament: Mélanges offerts à Raymond Kuntzmann. 2 vols. Lectio Divina 197. Paris: Cerf. Rendtorff, Rolf (1996): “Anfragen an Frank-Lothar Hossfeld und Erich Zenger Aufgrund der Lektüre des Beitrages von Matthias Millard.” BibInt 4/3, 329–31. – (2005): “The Psalms of David: David in the Psalms,” pages 53–64 in Peter W. Flint & Patrick D. Miller (eds.), The Book of Psalms: Composition & Reception. VTSup 99. Leiden: Brill. Richardson, Nicholas, ed. (2010): Three Homeric Hymns: To Apollo, Hermes, and Aphrodite. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richardson, Seth F. C. (2006): “Gir3-gen-na and Šulgi’s ‘Library’: Liver Omen Texts in the Third Millennium BC (I).” Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2006/3, 1–9. Riedel, Wilhelm (1899): “Zur Redaktion des Psalters.” ZAW 19, 169–72. Ringgren, Helmer & A. Negoita (1978): “‫הגָ ה‬,” ָ pages 321–24 in G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, & Heinz-Josef Fabry (eds.), TDOT. Vol. 3. Translated by John T. Willis, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, & David E. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ringgren, Helmer (1987): Psaltaren 1–41. Kommentar till Gamla Testamentet. Uppsala: EFS. Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, & A. Cleveland Coxe (1885a): “The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus,” Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, & A. Cleveland Coxe (eds.), ANF 1. Accordance: OakTree Software. – (1885b): “Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Four; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second,” Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, & A. Cleveland Coxe (eds.), ANF 4. Accordance: OakTree Software. – (2016): ANF. Accordance: OakTree Software. Roberts, J. J. M. (2002): “Melchizedek (11Q13 = 11QMelchizedek = 11QMelch),” pages 264–73 in James H. Charlesworth & Henry W. M. Rietz (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 6B: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Robinson, Alan (1977): “Deliberate but Misguided Haplography Explains Psalm 2 11–12.” ZAW 89/3, 421–22. Robson, Eleanor (2001): “The Tablet House: A Scribal School in Old Babylonian Nippur.” RA 93, 39–66.

Bibliography

441

Rogerson, John W. & John W. McKay (1977): Psalms 1–50. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rösel, Christoph (1999): Die messianische Redaktion des Psalters: Studien zu Entstehung und Theologie der Sammlung Psalm 2–89*. CThM A.19. Stuttgart: Calwer. Rubio, Gonzalo (2003): “Early Sumerian Literature: Enumerating the Whole,” pages 197– 210 in Antonino González Blanco, Juan P. Vita Barra, & José Á. Zamora Lopez (eds.), De la Tablilla a la Inteligencia Artificial: Homenaje al Prof. Jesús-Luis Cunchillos en su 65 aniversario. 2 vols. Zaragoza: Instituto de Estudios Islámicos y del Oriente Próximo. – (2009): “Sumerian Literature,” pages 11–76 in Carl S. Ehrlich (ed.), From an Antique Land: An Introduction to Ancient Near Eastern Literature. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. – (2011): “Gods and Scholars: Mapping the Pantheon in Early Mesopotamia,” pages 91–116 in Beate Pongratz-Leisten (ed.), Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Ruden, Sarah, ed. (2005): Homeric Hymns. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company. Ryle, Herbert E. & Montague R. James (1891): ΨΑΛΜΟΙ ΣΟΛΟΜΩΝΤΟΣ Psalms of the Pharisees, Commonly Called the Psalms of Solomon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sanders, James A. (1964): “Two Non-canonical Psalms in 11QPsa.” ZAW 76/1, 57–75. – (1965): (ed.) The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa). DJD IV. Oxford: Clarendon. – (1966): “Variorum in the Psalms Scroll (11QPsa).” HTR 59/1, 83–94. – (1967): The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. – (1969): “Cave 11: Surprises and the Question of Canon,” pages 101–16 in David N. Freedman & Jonas C. Greenfield (eds.), New Directions in Biblical Archaeology. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. – (1974): “The Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa) Reviewed,” pages 79–99 in Matthew Black & William A. Smalley (eds.), On Language, Culture, and Religion: In Honor of Eugene A. Nida. The Hague: Mouton. – (1993): “Psalm 154 Revisited,” pages 296–306 in Georg Braulik, Walter Groß, & Sean McEvenue (eds.), Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Für Norbert Lohfink, SJ. Freiburg: Herder. – (1997): “A Liturgy for Healing the Stricken (11QPsApa = 11Q11),” pages 216–33 in James H. Charlesworth & Henry W. Rietz (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 4A: Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. – (1999): “The Scrolls and the Canonical Process,” pages 1–23 in Peter W. Flint & James C. Vanderkam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, Volume 2. Leiden: Brill. – (2003): “The Modern History of the Qumran Psalms Scroll and Canonical Criticism,” pages 393–411 in M. Paul Shalom et al. (eds.), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill. Sanders, James A., James H. Charlesworth, & Henry W. L. Rietz (1997): “Non-Masoretic Psalms (4Q88=4QPsf, 11Q5=11QPsa, 11Q6=11QPsb),” pages 155–215 in James H. Charlesworth & Henry W. L. Rietz (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 4A: Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Sanders, Paul (2010): “Five Books of Psalms?” pages 677–87 in Erich Zenger (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters. Sarna, Nahum M. (1979): “The Psalm Superscriptions and the Guilds,” pages 281–300 in Siegfried Stein & Raphael Loewe (eds.), Studies in Jewish Religious and Intellectual His-

442

Bibliography

tory: Presented to Alexander Altmann on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Alabama: University of Alabama Press. – (1993): On the Book of Psalms: Exploring the Prayers of Ancient Israel. New York: Schocken Books. Saur, Markus (2004): Die Königspsalmen: Studien zur Entstehung und Theologie. BZAW 340. Berlin: de Gruyter. – (2010): “Die Theologische Funktion der Königspsalmen Innerhalb der Komposition des Psalters,” pages 689–99 in Erich Zenger (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters. Sautermeister, Jochen (2000): “Psalm 149,6 und die Diskussion um das sogenannte waw adaequationis.” BN 101, 64–80. Sawyer, John F. A. (1970): “An Analysis of the Context and Meaning of the Psalm-headings.” TGUOS 22, 26–38. Schaper, Joachim (1995): Eschatology in the Greek Psalter. WUNT 76. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. – (1998): “Der Septuaginta-Psalter: Interpretation, Aktualisierung und liturgische Verwendung der biblischen Psalmen im hellenistischen Judentum,” pages 165–83 in Erich Zenger (ed.), Der Psalter in Judentum und Christentum. HBS 18. Freiburg: Herder. Schmidt, Hans (1934): Die Psalmen. HAT 15. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Schmutzer, Andrew J. (2013): “Psalm 91: Refuge, Protection, and Their Use in the New Testament,” pages 85–108 in Andrew J. Schmutzer & David M. Howard Jr. (eds.), The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul. Chicago: Moody Press. Schmutzer, Andrew J. & Randall X. Gauthier (2009): “The Identity of ‘Horn’ in Psalm 148:14a: An Exegetical Investigation in the MT and LXX Versions.” BBR 19/2, 161–83. Schneider, Dale A. (1979): The Unity of the Book of the Twelve. Yale: Yale University Press. Schnocks, Johannes (2002): Vergänglichkeit und Gottesherrschaft: Studien zu Psalm 90 und dem vierten Psalmenbuch. Berlin: Philo. Schreiner, J. & G. Johannes Botterweck (1990): “‫יָ ַלד‬,” pages 76–81 in G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, & Heinz-Josef Fabry (eds.), TDOT. Vol. 6. Translated by David E. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Schuller, Eileen M. (1992): “4Q380 and 4Q381: Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran,” pages 90–99 in Devorah Dimant & Uriel Rappaport (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. STDJ 10. Leiden: Brill. – (1994a): “The Cave 4 Hodayot Manuscripts: A Preliminary Description.” JQR 85/1/2, 137–50. – (1994b): “Prayer, Hymnic, and Liturgical Texts from Qumran,” pages 153–71 in Eugene C. Ulrich & James C. Vanderkam (eds.), The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series 10. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. – (1997): “Qumran Pseudepigraphic Psalms (4Q380 and 4Q381),” pages 1–39 in James H. Charlesworth & Henry W. Rietz (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 4A: Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. – (1998): “The Use of Biblical Terms as Designations for Non-Biblical Hymnic and Prayer Compositions,” pages 207–22 in Michael E. Stone & Esther G. Chazon (eds.), Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May, 1996. STDJ 28. Leiden: Brill. – (2003): “Some Reflections on the Function and Use of Poetical Texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pages 173–89 in Esther G. Chazon (ed.), Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of

Bibliography

443

the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19–23 January 2000. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 48. Leiden: Brill. – (2006): “Prayers and Psalms from the Pre-Maccabean Period.” DSD 13/3, 306–18. – (2011): “Recent Scholarship on the Hodayot 1993–2010.” CurBR 10, 119–62. Schuller, Eileen M. & Carol A. Newsom (2012): The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Psalms): A Study Edition of 1QHa. EJL 36. Atlanta: SBL Press. Schüpphaus, Joachim (1977): Die Psalmen Salomos: Ein Zeugnis Jerusalemer Theologie und Frömmigkeit in der Mitte des vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts. ALGHJ 7. Leiden: Brill. Schürer, Emil (1973): The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.– A.D. 135). Vol. 3:1. 2 ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Seely, David R. (1999): “4Q437: A First Look at an Unpublished Barki Nafshi Text,” pages 147–60 in Donald W. Parry & Eugene C. Ulrich (eds.), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Leiden: Brill. Seidel, Hans (1993): “Bemerkungen zur Formel ‘amen, ‘amen in Qumran.” Mitteilungen und Beiträge der Forschungsstelle Judentum 7, 56–58. Seybold, Klaus (1990): Introducing the Psalms. Translated by R. Graeme Dunphy. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. – (1996): Die Psalmen. HAT 15. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. – (2004): Der Segen und andere liturgische Worte aus der hebräischen Bibel. Zürich: TVZ. – (2010): “Dimensionen und Intentionen der Davidisierung der Psalmen: Die Rolle Davids nach den Psalmenüberschriften und nach dem Septuagintapsalm 151,” pages 125–40 in Erich Zenger (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters. – (2013): “The Psalter as a Book,” pages 168–89 in Susan E. Gillingham (ed.), Jewish and Christian Approaches to the Psalms: Conflict and Convergence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seybold, Klaus & Erich Zenger, ed. (1994): Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung: Für Walter Beyerlin. HBS 1. Freiburg: Herder. Shaffer, Aaron (2000): “A New Look at Some Old Catalogues,” pages 429–36 in Andrew R. George & Irving L. Finkel (eds.), Wisdom, Gods and Literature: Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W. G. Lambert. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Sheppard, Gerald T. (1980): Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament. BZAW 151. Berlin: de Gruyter. – (1992): “Theology and the Book of Psalms.” Int 46, 143–55. Sherman, William H. (2011): “The beginning of ‘The End’: Terminal Paratext and the Birth of Print Culture,” pages 65–87 in Helen Smith & Louise Wilson (eds.), Renaissance Paratexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shin’an, Avigdor (2005): “King David of the Sages,” pages 53–78 in Hanne Trautner-Kromann (ed.), From Bible to Midrash: Portrayals & Interpretative Practices. Lund: Arcus. Shipp, R. Mark (1993): “‘Remember His Covenant Forever’: A Study of the Chronicler’s Use of the Psalms.” ResQ 35, 29–39. Silberman, Lou H. (1956): “Language and Structure in the Hodayot (1QH3).” JBL 75/2, 96– 106. Sjöberg, Åke W. & Eugen Bergmann, ed. (1969): The Collection of Sumerian Temple Hymns. TCS 3. Locust Valley, NY: Augustin. Skehan, Patrick W. (1973): “A Liturgical Complex in 11QPsa.” CBQ 34/2, 195–205. – (1978): “Qumran and Old Testament Criticism,” pages 163–82 in Mathias Delcor (ed.), Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu. BETL 46. Leuven: Leuven University Press. – (1980): “The Divine Name at Qumran, In the Masada Scroll, and in the Septuagint.” BIOSCS 13, 14–44.

444

Bibliography

– (1981): “Gleanings from Psalm Texts from Qumrân,” pages 439–52 in André Caquot & Mathias Delcor (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles. AOAT 212. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Skehan, Patrick W., Eugene C. Ulrich, & Peter W. Flint (1995): “Two Manuscripts of Ps 119 from Qumran Cave 4.” RQ 16/4, 477–86. – (1998): “A Preliminary Edition of 4QPsk (4Q92).” JSS 43/2, 259–63. Slomovic, Elieser (1979): “Toward an Understanding of the Formation of Historical Titles in the Book of Psalms.” ZAW 91/3, 350–80. Smith, Gary V. (2007): Isaiah 1–39. NAC 15A. Nashville: Broadman & Holman. Smith, Mark S. (1991): “The Levitical Compilation of the Psalter.” ZAW 103/2, 258–63. – (1992): “The Theology of the Redaction of the Psalter: Some Observations.” ZAW 104/3, 408–12. – (1994): The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Volume 1: Introduction with Text, Translation & Commentary of KTU 1.1–1.2. VTSup 55. Leiden: Brill. – (2001): “Taking Inspiration: Authorship, Revelation, and the Book of Psalms,” pages 244– 73 in Stephen Breck Reid (ed.), Psalms and Practice: Worship, Virtue, and Authority. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Sommer, Benjamin D. (1998): A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Spieckermann, Hermann (1989): Heilsgegenwart: Eine Theologie der Psalmen. FRLANT 148. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht. – (1990): “Barmherzig und gnädig ist der Herr.” ZAW 102, 1–18. Srivastava, Neelam (2010): “Anthologizing the Nation: Literature Anthologies and the Idea of India.” Journal of Postcolonial Writing 46/2, 151–63. Stähli, H.-P. (1997): “‫פלל‬,” pages 991–94 in Ernst Jenni & Claus Westermann (eds.), TLOT. Vol. 2. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Stec, David M., ed. (2004): The Targum of Psalms. ArBib 16. London: T&T Clark. Stegemann, Hartmut (1990): “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls from Scattered Fragments,” pages 189–220 in Lawrence H. Shiffman (ed.), Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin. JSPSup 8. Sheffield: JSOT Press. – (2003): “The Number of Psalms in 1QHodayota and some of their Sections,” pages 191– 234 in Esther G. Chazon (ed.), Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium of the Orion Center, 19–23 January 2000. STDJ 48. Leiden: Brill. Stegemann, Hartmut, Eileen M. Schuller, & Carol A. Newsom (eds.) (2009): Qumran Cave 1.III: 1QHodayota with Incorporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota–f. DJD XL. Oxford: Clarendon. Steinberg, Julius (2006): Die Ketuvim: Ihr Aufbau und ihre Botschaft. BBB 152. Hamburg: Philo. Stern, David (1997): “The Anthological Imagination in Jewish Literature.” Prooftexts 17, 1– 7. – (1999): “Afterword.” Prooftexts 19, 83–86. – (2004a): “Anthology and Polysemy in Classical Midrash,” pages 108–39 in David Stern (ed.), The Anthology in Jewish Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. – (2004b): (ed.) The Anthology in Jewish Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. – (2004c): “The Anthology in Jewish Literature: An Introduction,” pages 3–14 in David Stern (ed.), The Anthology in Jewish Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Steudel, Annette (1989): “Eschatological Interpretation of Scripture in 4Q177 (4QCatenaa).” RevQ 14, 473–81.

Bibliography

445

– (1994): Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschata.b): Materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 (“Florilegium”) und 4Q177 (“Catena A”) repräsentierten Werkes aus den Qumranfunden. STDJ 13. Leiden: Brill. Steuernagel, Carl (1912): Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Mit einem Anhang über die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Stone, Michael E. (1990): Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Stordalen, Terje (2000): Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature. CBET 25. Leuven: Peeters. – (2013): “Ancient Hebrew Medidative Recitation,” pages 17–31 in Halvor Eifring (ed.), Meditation in Judaism, Christianity and Islam: Cultural Histories. London: Bloomsbury. – (2014): “Fra en åpen himmel til en lukket kanon? Profetenes kritikk av the establishment i kanonteoretisk fugleperspektiv.” Teologisk Tidskrift 2/3, 116–35. Strugnell, John (1956): “Le travail d’édition des fragments manuscrits de Qumrân.” RB 63, 49–67. – (1969): “Notes en marge du volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan’.” RevQ 7, 163–276. – (1974): “‘Amen, I Say unto You’ in the Sayings of Jesus and in Early Christian Literature.” HTR 67, 177–90. Strugnell, John, Daniel J. Harrington, & Torleif Elgvin (eds.) (1999): Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2: 4QInstruction (Mûsār Lě Mēvîn): 4Q415 ff. DJD XXXIV. Oxford: Clarendon. Sukenik, Eliezer L. (1948): ‫מגילות גנוזות – מתוך גניזה קדומה שנמצאה במדבר יהודה סקירה שניה‬. Jerusalem: Bialik Foundation. – (1954): ‫אוצר המגילות הגנוזות‬. Jerusalem: Magnes. – (1955): The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University. Jerusalem: Magnes. Sweeney, Marvin A. (2000a): “Sequence and Interpretation in the Book of the Twelve,” pages 49–64 in James D. Nogalski & Marvin A. Sweeney (eds.), Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. SymS 15. Atlanta: SBL Press. – (2000b): The Twelve Prophets. 2 vols. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Swete, Henry B. (1900): An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Talmon, Shemaryahu (1966): “Pisqah Beʾems ̣aʿ Pasuq and 11QPsa.” Text 5, 11–21. – (1999): “Hebrew Fragments from Masada,” pages 1–149 in Shemaryahu Talmon & Yigael Yadin (eds.), Masada VI: Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports. The Masada Reports. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Tate, Marvin E. (1990): Psalms 51–100. WBC 20. Nashville: Nelson. Terrien, Samuel (2003a): The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary Volume 1: Psalms 1–72. ECC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. – (2003b): The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary Volume 2: Psalms 73–150. ECC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Thirtle, James W. (1904): The Titles of the Psalms: Their Nature and Meaning Explained. London: Henry Frowde. Thompson, John A. (1980): The Book of Jeremiah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. – (1994): 1, 2 Chronicles. NAC 9. Nashville: Broadman & Holman. Tinney, Steve (1999a): “On the Curricular Setting of Sumerian Literature.” Iraq 61, 159–72. – (1999b): “Ur-Namma the Canal-Digger: Context, Continuity and Change in Sumerian Literature.” JCS 51, 31–54. – (2000): “Notes on Sumerian Sexual Lyric.” JNES 59/1, 23–30. Torres-Guerra, José B. (2003): “Die Anordnung der Homerischen Hymnen.” Philologus 147/1, 3–12.

446

Bibliography

Tournay, Raymond J. (1985): “Le Psaume 149 et la ‘vengeance’ des pauvres de YHWH.” RB 92, 349–58. Tov, Emanuel (1998): “The Rewritten Book of Joshua as Found at Qumran and Masada,” pages 233–56 in Michael E. Stone & Esther G. Chazon (eds.), Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May, 1996. STDJ 28. Leiden: Brill. – (2004): Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. STDJ 54. Leiden: Brill. Trafton, Joseph L. (1992): “Solomon, Psalms of,” pages 115–17 in David N. Freedman (ed.), ABD. Vol. 6. New York: Doubleday. Trafton, Joseph L. (1994): “The Psalms of Solomon in Recent Research.” JSP 12, 3–19. Tucker, Gene M. (1977): “Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of a Canon,” pages 56– 70 in George W. Coats & Burke O. Long (eds.), Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress. Tucker Jr., W. Dennis (2014): Constructing and Deconstructing Power in Psalms 107–150. AIL 19. Atlanta: SBL Press. Tueller, Michael A., ed. (2014): The Greek Anthology. Translated by W. R. Paton. 5 vols. LCL 67. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ulrich, Eugene C. (1999): “The Oldest Psalms Manuscript: 4QPsa (4Q83),” pages 72–92 in Donald W. Parry & Eugene C. Ulrich (eds.), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, & Reformulated Issues. Leiden: Brill. – (2003): “The Non-attestation of a Tripartite Canon in 4QMMT.” CBQ 65, 202–14. Ulrich, Eugene C. et al. (eds.) (1994): Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers. DJD XII. Oxford: Clarendon. – (2000): Qumran Cave 4.XI: Psalms to Chronicles. DJD XVI. Oxford: Clarendon. Van Dam, Cornelis (1997): “‫אבד‬,” pages 223–25 in Willem A. VanGemeren (ed.), NIDOTTE. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Van den Hout, Theo (2008): “Sammeltafel. B. Bei den Hethitern,” pages 627 in Erich Ebeling et al. (eds.), RlA. Vol. 11. Berlin: de Gruyter. VanderKam, James C. (1995): review of Annette Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschata.b). CBQ 57/3, 576–77. Van der Ploeg, Johannes P. M. (1965): “Le Psaume XCI dans une Recension de Qumran.” RB 72, 210–17. – (1971): “Un petit rouleau de psaumes apocryphes (11QPsApa),” pages 128–39 in Gert Jeremias, Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, & Hartmut Stegemann (eds.), Tradition und Glaube: Frühe Christntum in seiner Umwelt: Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht. – (1981): “Le sens et un problème textuel du Ps LXXXIX,” pages 471–81 in André Caquot & Mathias Delcor (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles. AOAT 212. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Van der Toorn, Karel (2006): “From Catalogue to Canon? An Assessment of the Library Hypothesis as a Contribution to the Debate about the Biblical Canon.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 63/1–2, 5–16. Van der Valk, Marchinus (1976): “On the Arrangement of the Homeric Hymns.” L’Antiquité Classique 45/2, 419–45. Van der Woude, Adam S. (1997): “‫אמן‬,” pages 134–57 in Ernst Jenni & Claus Westermann (eds.), TLOT. Vol. 1. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Van Dijk, Johannes J. A. (1989): “Ein spätaltbabylonischer Katalog einer Sammlung sumerischer Briefe.” Orientalia 58/4, 441–52.

Bibliography

447

Van Haelst, Joseph (1976): Catalogue des papyrus littéraires juifs et chrétiens. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. Vanoni, Gottfried (1991): “Zur Bedeutung der althebräischen Konjunktion w•=: Am Beispiel von Psalm 149,6,” pages 561–76 in Walter Groß, Hubert Irsigler, & Theodor Seidl (eds.), Text, Methode und Grammatik: Wolfgang Richter zum 65. Geburtstag. St. Ottilien: EOS. Van Pelt, M. V. & W. C. Kaiser Jr. (1997): “‫הגה‬,” pages 1006–8 in Willem A. VanGemeren (ed.), NIDOTTE. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Vanstiphout, Herman L. J. (1999): “‘I Can Put Anything in its Right Place’: Generic and Typological Studies as Strategies for the Analysis and Evaluation of Mankind’s Oldest Literature,” pages 79–100 in Bert Roest & Herman L. J. Vanstiphout (eds.), Aspects of Genre and Type in Pre-Modern Literary Cultures. Comers Communications 1. Groningen: Styx. – (2003): “The Old Babylonian Literary Canon: Structure, Function, and Intention,” pages 1–28 in Gillis J. Dorleijn (ed.), Cultural Repertoires: Structure, Function, and Dynamics. Leuven: Peeters. Veldhuis, Niek C. (2004): Religion, Literature, and Scholarship: The Sumerian Composition “Nanše and the Birds.” CM 22. Leiden: Brill. Verhoef, Pieter A. (1997): “Prayer,” pages 1060–66 in Willem A. VanGemeren (ed.), NIDOTTE. Vol. 4. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Vermes, Geza (2004): The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. London: Penguin. Vos, Cas J. A. (2005): Theopoetry of the Psalms. London: T&T Clark. Wacholder, Ben Zion (1988): “David’s Eschatological Psalter 11Q Psalmsa.” HUCA 59, 23– 72. Wallace, Robert E. (2007): The Narrative Effect of Book IV of the Hebrew Psalter. StBibLit 112. New York: Lang. – (2014): “Gerald Wilson and the Characterization of David in Book 5 of the Psalter,” pages 193–207 in Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms: The Current State of Scholarship. AIL 20. Atlanta: SBL Press. Wallraff, Martin (2013): “The Canon Tables of the Psalms: An Unknown Work of Eusebius of Caesarea.” DOP 67, 1–14. Walsh, P. G., ed. (1990): Cassiodorus: Explanation of the Psalms, Volume 1: Psalms 1–50 [Psalms 1–51 (50)]. 3 vols. Ancient Christian Writers 51. New York: Paulist. Waltke, Bruce K. (1991): “Superscripts, Postscripts, or Both.” JBL 110/4, 583–96. Waltke, Bruce K., James M. Houston, & Erica Moore (2010): The Psalms as Christian Worship: An Historical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Walton, John H. (1991): “Psalms: A Cantata About the Davidic Covenant.” JETS 34/1, 21–31. Watson, Wilfred G. E. (1981): “Reversed Rootplay in Ps 145.” Bib 62, 101–2. Watts, James W. (1992): Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative. JSOTSup 139. Sheffield: JSOT Press. – (1993): “‘This Song’: Conspious Poetry in Hebrew Prose,” pages 345–58 in Johannes C. de Moor & Wilfred G. E. Watson (eds.), Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose. AOAT 43. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Watts, John D. W. (2000): “Superscriptions and Incipits in the Book of the Twelve,” pages 110–24 in James D. Nogalski & Marvin A. Sweeney (eds.), Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. SymS 15. Atlanta: SBL Press. Watts, Rick (2004): “The Psalms in Mark’s Gospel,” pages 25–45 in Steve Moyise & Maarten J. J. Menken (eds.), The Psalms in the New Testament. NTSI. London: T&T Clark. Weber, Beat (2001): “Der Asaph-Psalter – eine Skizze,” pages 117–41 in Beat Huwyler, Hans-Peter Mathys, & Beat Weber (eds.), Prophetie und Psalmen: Festschrift für Klaus Seybold zum 65. Geburtstag. AOAT 280. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

448

Bibliography

– (2006): “Psalm 1 and Its Function as a Directive into the Psalter and Towards a Biblical Theology.” OTE 19/1, 237–60. (2007 “Psalm 78 als ’Mitte’ des Psalters? – ein Versuch.” Bib 88, 305–25. – (2010): “Von der Psaltergenese zur Psaltertheologie: Der nächste Schritt der Psalterexegese?! Einige grundsätzliche Überlegungen zum Psalter als Buch und Kanonteil,” pages 733–44 in Erich Zenger (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters. Weidner, Ernst F. (1941): “Die astrologische Serie Enûma Anu Enlil.” AfO 14, 172–95. Weinfeld, Moshe (1991): Deuteronomy 1–11. AB 5. New York: Doubleday. Weiser, Artur (1962): The Psalms: A Commentary. Translated by Herbert Hartwell. OTL. London: SCM. Weitemeyer, Mogens (1990): “Babylonian and Assyrian Catalogues,” pages 379–90 in Egon Keck, Svend Søndergaard, & Ellen Wulff (eds.), Living Waters: Scandinavian Orientalistic Studies Presented to Dr. Frede Løkkegaard on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday January 27th 1990. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum. Weitzman, Steven (1997): Song and Story in Biblical Narrative: The History of a Literary Convention in Ancient Israel. Indiana: Indiana University Press. Wenham, Gordon J. (2007): “Prayer and Practice in the Psalms,” pages 279–95 in Bob Becking & Eric Peels (eds.), Psalms and Prayers. OtSt 55. Leiden: Brill. – (2012): Psalms as Torah: Reading Biblical Song Ethically. STI. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. West, Martin L. (1970): “The Eighth Homeric Hymn and Proclus.” ClQ 20/2, 300–304. – (2003): (ed.) Homeric Hymns, Homeric Apocrypha, Lives of Homer. LCL 496. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Westermann, Claus (1962): “Zur Sammlung des Psalters.” ThViat 8, 278–84. – (1964): “Zur Sammlung des Psalters,” pages 336–43 in Forschung am Alten Testament. TB 24. – (1969): Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary. Translated by David M. G. Stalker. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster. – (1977): Lob und Klagen in den Psalmen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. – (1981): Praise and Lament in the Psalms. Translated by Keith R. Crim & Richard N. Soulen. Atlanta: John Knox. Whybray, R. Norman (1975): Isaiah 40–66. NCB Commentary. London: Oliphants. – (1996): Reading the Psalms as a Book. JSOTSup 222. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Wilcke, Claus (1972): “Der aktuelle Bezug der Sammlung der sumerischen Tempelhymnen und ein Fragment eines Klageliedes.” ZA 62, 35–61. – (1973): “Sumerische literarische Texte in Manchester und Liverpool.” AfO 24, 1–18. – (1976): Kollationen zu den sumerischen literarischen Texten aus Nippur in der HilprechtSammlung Jena. Abhandlungen der sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 65. Berlin: Akademie. – (1987): “Die Inschriftenfunde der 7. und 8. Kampagnen (1983 und 1984),” pages 83–120 in Barthel Hrouda (ed.), Isin-Išān Baḥrīyāt III: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1983– 1984. Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Willgren, David (2009): “Psalmsång i Förändring: Angående Olikheterna i Ps 14, 53.” Master’s Thesis, Örebro Teologiska Högskola. – (2015): review of Susan E. Gillingham, A Journey of Two Psalms: The Reception of Psalms 1 & 2 in Jewish & Christian Tradition. SEÅ 80, 235–38. – (2016a): “I Will Wait at the Fords of the Wilderness (2 Sam 15:28): Mapping Land and Resistance in the ‘Biographical’ Notes of the ‘Book’ of Psalms” (paper presented at IOSOT, Stellenbosch, September 2016). – (2016b): “Ps 72:20 – A Frozen Colophon?” JBL 135/1, 49–60.

Bibliography

449

– (2016c): “An Authoritative Collection of Psalms? On the Significance of the Selection and Use of Psalms in 4QMidrEschata.b” (paper presented at OTSEM, Tartu, August 2016). – (Fca): “Antwort Gottes: Isaiah 40–55 and the Transformation of Psalmody,” in Greger Andersson, Tommy Wasserman, & David Willgren (eds.), Studies in Isaiah: History, Theology, and Reception. LHBOTS. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. – (Fcb): “Did David Lay Down his Crown? Reframing Issues of Deliberate Juxtaposition and Interpretive Contexts in the ‘Book’ of Psalms with Psalm 147 as a Case in Point,” in Mika S. Pajunen & Jeremy Penner (eds.), Functions of Psalms and Prayers in Late Second Temple Period. BZAW 486. Berlin: de Gruyter. Williams III, H. H. Drake (2004): “The Psalms in 1 and 2 Corinthians,” pages 163–80 in Steve Moyise & Maarten J. J. Menken (eds.), The Psalms in the New Testament. NTSI. London: T&T Clark. Williamson, Hugh G. M. (1982): 1 and 2 Chronicles. NCB Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Willis, John T. (1973): “The Song of Hannah and Psalm 113.” CBQ 34, 139–54. – (1979): “Psalm 1 – An Entity.” ZAW 91/3, 381–401. – (1990): “A Cry of Defiance – Psalm 2.” JSOT 47, 33–50. Wilson, Gerald H. (1983): “The Qumran Psalms Manuscripts and the Consecutive Arrangement of Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter.” CBQ 45, 377–88. – (1984): “Evidence of Editorial Divisions in the Hebrew Psalter.” VT 34/3, 337–52. – (1985a): The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. SBLDS 76. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. – (1985b): “The Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate.” CBQ 47, 624–42. – (1985c): “The Use of ‘Untitled’ Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter.” ZAW 97/3, 404–13. – (1986): “The Use of Royal Psalms at the ‘Seams’ of the Hebrew Psalter.” JSOT 35, 85–94. – (1992): “The Shape of the Book of Psalms.” Int 46, 129–42. – (1993a): “Shaping the Psalter: A Consideration of Editorial Linkage in the Book of Psalms,” pages 72–82 in J. Clinton McCann Jr. (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. JSOTSup 159. Sheffield: JSOT Press. – (1993b): “Understanding the Purposeful Arrangement of Psalms in the Psalter: Pitfalls and Promise,” pages 42–51 in J. Clinton McCann Jr. (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. JSOTSup 159. Sheffield: JSOT Press. – (1997): “The Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa) and the Canonical Psalter: Comparison of Editorial Shaping.” CBQ 59, 448–64. – (2000): “A First Century C.E. Date for the Closing of the Book of Psalms?” JBQ 28/2, 102–10. – (2002a): Psalms. 2 vols. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. – (2002b): “Psalms and Psalter: Paradigm for Biblical Theology,” pages 100–109 in Scott J. Hafemann (ed.), Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. – (2005a): “King, Messiah, and the Reign of God: Revisiting the Royal Psalms and the Shape of the Psalter,” pages 391–406 in Peter W. Flint & Patrick D. Miller (eds.), The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception. VTSup 99. Leiden: Brill. – (2005b): “The Structure of the Psalter,” pages 229–46 in Philip S. Johnston & David G. Firth (eds.), Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Wilson, J. V. Kinnier (1956): “Two Medical Texts from Nimrud.” Irak 18/2, 130–46. Winninge, Mikael (1995): Sinners and the Righteous: A Comparable Study of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Letters. ConBNT 26. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Wittman, Derek E. (2014): “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 Nancy L. de-

450

Bibliography

Claissé-Walford (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms: The Current State of Scholarship. AIL 20. Atlanta: SBL Press. Woan, Sue (2004): “The Psalms in 1 Peter,” pages 213–29 in Steve Moyise & Maarten J. J. Menken (eds.), The Psalms in the New Testament. NTSI. London: T&T Clark. Worthington, Martin (2008): “Sammeltafel. A. Mesopotamien,” pages 625–27 in Erich Ebeling et al. (eds.), RlA. Vol. 11. Berlin: de Gruyter. Wright, Robert B. (1983): “Psalms of Solomon,” pages 639–70 in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2. Peabody: Hendrickson. – (2007): The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. T&T Clark Jewish and Christian Texts Series 1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Wright, Robert B. (2009): “Solomon, Psalms of,” pages 327–30 in Katharine Doob Sakenfeld (ed.), NIDB. Vol. 5. Nashville: Abingdon. Wyckoff, Chris (2006): “Have We Come Full Circle Yet? Closure, Psycholinguistics, and Problems of Recognition with the Inclusio.” JSOT 30/4, 475–505. Yadin, Yigael (1966): “Another Fragment (E) of the Psalms Scroll from Qumran Cave 11.” Textus 5, 1–10. Yarchin, William (2015a): “Is there an Authoritative Shape for the Hebrew Book of Psalms? Profiling the Manuscripts of the Hebrew Psalter.” RB 122/3, 355–70. – (2015b): “The Shaping of the Biblical Psalter: Reconsidering the Status Quaestionis in the Light of Medieval Manuscript Evidence” (paper presented at SBL Annual Meeting in Atlanta, November 2015). – (2015c): “Were the Psalms Collections at Qumran True Psalters?” JBL 134/4, 775–89. Yassif, Eli (1997): “The Hebrew Narrative Anthology in the Middle Ages.” Prooftexts 17, 153–75. Zenger, Erich (1986): “‘Wozu tosen die Völker’: Beobachtungen zur Entstehung und Theologie des 2 Psalms,” pages 495–511 in Ernst Haag & Frank-Lothar Hossfeld (eds.), Freude an der Weisung des Herrn: Beitrage zur Theologie der Psalmen: Festgabe zum 70. Geburtstag von Heinrich Gross. Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge 13. Stuttgart: Katolisches Bibelwerk. – (1991): “Was wird anders bei kanonischer Psalmenauslegung?” pages 397–413 in Friedrich V. Reiterer (ed.), Ein Gott, eine Offenbarung: Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese, Theologie und Spiritualitat: Festschrift für Notker Füglister OSB zum 60. Geburtstag. Würzburg: Echter. – (1993): “Der Psalter als Wegweiser und Wegbegleiter: Ps 1–2 als Proömium des Psalmenbuchs,” pages 29–47 in Arnold Angenendt & Herbert Vorgrimler (eds.), Sie Wandern von Kraft zu Kraft: Aufbrüche - Wege - Begegnungen: Festgabe für Bischof Reinhard Lettmann. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker. – (1994a): “Das Weltenkönigtum des Gottes Israels (Pss 90–106),” pages 151–78 in Norbert Lohfink & Erich Zenger (eds.), Der Gott Israels und die Völker: Untersuchungen zum Jesajabuch und zu den Psalmen. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 154. Stuttgart: Katolisches Bibelwerk. – (1994b): “Zion als Mutter der Völker in Psalm 87,” pages 117–50 in Norbert Lohfink & Erich Zenger (eds.), Der Gott Israels und die Völker: Untersuchungen zum Jesajabuch und zu den Psalmen. SBS 154. Stuttgart: Katolisches Bibelwerk. – (1994c): “Zur redaktionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung der Korachpsalmen,” pages 175–98 in Klaus Seybold & Erich Zenger (eds.), Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung: Für Walter Beyerlin. HBS 1. Freiburg: Herder. – (1997a): “Der jüdische Psalter – ein anti-imperiales Buch?” pages 95–108 in Albertz Reiner (ed.), Religion und Gesellschaft: Studien zu ihrer Wechselbeziehung in den Kulturen des Antiken Vorderen Orients. AOAT 248. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Bibliography

451

– (1997b): “Die Provokation des 149. Psalms: Von der Unverzichtbarkeit der Kanonischen Psalmenauslegung,” pages 181–94 in Rainer Kessler et al. (eds.), ‘Ihr Völker alle, klatscht in die Hände!’ Festschrift für Erhard S. Gerstenberger zum 65. Geburtstag. Exegese in unserer Zeit 3. Berlin: LIT. – (1997c): “‘Dass alles Fleisch den Namen seiner Heiligung segne’ (Ps 145,21): Die Komposition Ps 145–150 als Anstoß zu einer christlich-jüdischen Psalmen-hermeneutik.” BZ 41, 1–27. – (1998a): “The Composition and Theology of the Fifth Book of Psalms, Psalms 107–145.” JSOT 80, 77–102. – (1998b): “Der Psalter als Buch: Beobachtungen zu seiner Entstehung, Komposition und Funktion,” pages 1–57 in Erich Zenger (ed.), Der Psalter in Judentum und Christentum. HBS 18. Freiburg: Herder. – (1998c): (ed.) Der Psalter in Judentum und Christentum. HBS 18. Freiburg: Herder. – (1999): “Der Psalter als Heiligtum,” pages 115–30 in Beate Ego, Armin Lange, & Peter Pilhofer (eds.), Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. WUNT 118. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. – (2002): “‘Es sollen sich niederwerfen vor ihm alle Könige’ (Ps 72,11): Redaktionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Psalm 72 und zum Programm des messianischen Ps 2– 89,” pages 66–93 in Otto Eckhart & Erich Zenger (eds.), ‘Mein Sohn bist du’ (Ps 2, 7): Studien zu den Königspsalmen. SBS 192. Stuttgart: Katolisches Bibelwerk. – (2003): “‘Durch den Mund eines Weisen werde das Loblied gesprochen’ (Sir 15,10): Weisheitstheologie im Finale des Psalters Ps 146–150,” pages 139–55 in Irmtraud Fischer, Ursula Rapp, & Johannes Schiller (eds.), Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen: Festschrift für Johannes Marböck anlässlich seiner Emeritierung. Berlin: de Gruyter. – (2005): “Teophanien des Königsgöttes JHWH: Transformationen von Psalm 29 in den Teilkompositionen Ps 28–30 und Ps 93–100,” pages 407–42 in Peter W. Flint & Patrick D. Miller (eds.), The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception. VTSup 99. Leiden: Brill. – (2010a): (ed.) The Composition of the Book of Psalms. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters. – (2010b): “Psalmenexegese und Psalterexegese: Eine Forschungsskizze,” pages 17–65 in Erich Zenger (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters. – (2011): Psalmen: Auslegungen in zwei Bänden. 2 vols. Freiburg: Herder. Zenger, Erich et al. (2012): Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 8 ed. Edited by Christian Frevel. KStTh 1,1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Zimmerli, Walther (1972): “Zwillingpsalmen,” pages 105–13 in Joseph Schreiner (ed.), Wort, Lied, und Gottesspruch: Beiträge zu Psalmen und Propheten: Festschrift für Joseph Ziegler, Volume 2. FB 1–2. Würzburg: Echter. – (1979): Ezekiel 1. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress. Zimmern, Heinrich (1913): Sumerische Kuitlieder aus altbabylonischer Zeit. VAS 10. Leipzig: Hinrichs. – (1930): “Ein Zyklus altsumerischer Lieder auf die Haupttempel Babylonians.” ZA 39/4, 245–76.

Index of Passages Hebrew Bible Gen 1 1:2 1:6–8 1:14–18 1:16–18 1:21 1:24–25 2:4b 4:21 6:8 7:22 12:1–3 22:18 28:14 31:27 37:9

262, 270 261 261 234 261 261, 261 261 262 273 351 274 207 207 207 273 261

Exod 3:15 4:14 13:9 15 15:2 15:20 19:5 32:1 32:4 32:8 32:11 32:23 34:6

296 296 143 310 310 272 233 310 310 310 296 310 248, 248, 310

Lev 11:45 25:6

310 271

Num 5 5:11 5:19–23 5:22 6:24 10:1–10 10:35 11:33 12:9 14:18 21:21–35 21:33 25:3 32:10 32:13

220, 222 218 218 218 340 272 311 296 296 310 235 296 296 296 296

Deut 1:4 2–3 3:3 4 4:7–8 4:34 5:15 6 6:6–9 6:7 6:13 7:4 7:6 9:26–29 10:12 10:17 10:17–18 10:20

296 235 296 259 258 311 311 379 141 138, 141 153 296 233 332 153 149 254 153

454

Index of Passages

11:17 14:2 17:19 20:1 26:8 26:18 26:19 27 27:15–16 29:6 29:26 31:25–29 32 32:36 33 33:17 33:29 34:10–12

296 233 141 310 311 233 264 217, 222 216 296 296 380 294 296 319 262 166 294

Josh 1:8 3:13 7:1 9:10 12:4 13:30 23:16 24:14 24:17

143, 144, 170 149 296 296 296 296 296 153 310

Judg 2:14 2:20 3:8 5:4–5 5:5 5:11 5:16 6:34 10:7 11:34

296 296 296 296 296 268 248 271 296 272

1 Sam 2:1 2:8 10:5 10:24 12:24 13:3

262 296 273 207 153 271

15:1–6 17 18:6 19:9ff 21:10 21:10–15 22 22:9ff 23:19ff 24 24:4ff 30:25 2 Sam 5:2 6:5 6:7 6:15 7 7:10–11a 7:14 7:27 8ff 12:1ff 15–18 15:13ff 16:14 16:16 21–24 22

254 186 272 185 185 185 185, 185 185 185 185 185 150

22:3 22:7–9 22:31 23 23–Ps 151B 23:1

150 272 296 272 150, 157, 186, 319 160 150 376 185 185 185 185 185 207 293 185, 293–95, 296 300, 301, 313, 331 374, 390 331 331 301 96 126 293

1 Kgs 1 1:25 1:34–39 1:35 1:36–37 1:36 4:19 8 8:9

222 207 207 218 217 216 296 302 310

Index of Passages 8:28 8:29 8:38 8:45 8:49 8:52a 8:53 8:54 9:3 10:12 11:15 12:28 13:3

376, 377 376 376, 377 376, 377 376, 377 378 302 376, 377, 378 376, 377, 378 272 185 310 296

2 Kgs 2:24 10:31 11:12 15:19 16:7 17:3 17:7 17:36 18–20 18:7 19:4 20:5 23:34 24:17 25:22

150 143 150 150 153 153 310 310 186 153 377 377 150 150 150

Isa 1:15 1:24 2:1–5 2:3 5:12 5:24 5:25 6:10 8:11 11:3–5 11:12 11:16 12 12:2 12:4 16:5 17:13

377 149 156 253 272 143 296 320 161, 319 254 257 310 296, 304, 310, 311 310 297 254 139

24:8 27:13 29:5 29:13–14 30:9 30:12–14 30:32 31:1–3 32:7 37:4 37:30 38:5 38:9 40–55

40–66 40:1–5 40:26 40:27 40:28 40:29–31 41:8–9 41:10 41:14 41:15 41:18 41:26 42:1 42:7 42:9 42:10 42:10–17 43:1–7 43:12 44:3 44:8 45:14 46:3–13 49–54 49:7 49:13–17 49:14 51:22–23 51:23 52:1–3 52:10 54:4–10 54:11–14

455 273 272 139 349 143 151 273 258 319 377 319 377 184 266, 303, 305, 313 326, 326, 374, 380 382 259, 267, 269, 278 325 257, 296 303 248, 303 303 325 325 299, 303 139 296 259 266 254 259 266, 311 266 325 259 325 259 267 303 258 325 325 303 325 325 325 296 325 258

456 55 55:1–5 55:3 55:5 55:10–11 56:7 56:8 60:9 61 61:1–3 61:3 62:7 65:16 Jer 2:6 2:20 4:2 4:5 5:5 6:25 7:16 8:8 10 10:11 10:13 10:25 11 11:5 11:14 13:11 17 17:5–8 17:7 17:7–8 17:8 17:11 18 18:18 19:1–13 20:3 20:10 20:13 22:2–3 22:15b–16a 28 28:6 30:8

Index of Passages 303, 304, 305, 313 374 304 302 266 258 377, 378, 378 257 266 267 254 266 264 216, 218, 219, 222 223 310 149 250 271 149 311 377 143 298, 304 297 234, 234, 297 298 222 216 377 264 154 145 145 145 146 268 320 320 151 311 311 258 254 254 218, 222 216 149

31:4 31:7 32:21 33 33:9 33:11 40:5 46:5 49:29 50–51 51:16

272 258 311 306 264 305, 306 150 311 311 175 297

Ezek 1:22–26 20:33 20:34 22:20 22:31 25:8 33:32 37:23 47:12

270 311 311 320 296 320 273 161 146

Hos 2:17 13:3

310 139

Joel 2:13

310

Amos 2:4 2:10

143 310

Jonah 2:4 2:8 4:2

297 377 310, 312

Mic 1:1 2:10–11 4:1–2 4:2 4:11–13 6:4 13

51 320 156 253 152 310 149

Index of Passages Nah 1 1:3 1:6 1:13

144 310 139, 139 149

Hab 3 3:3

172 264

Zeph 2:2 3:8 3:18–20

139 296 264

Zech 2:4 3:9 13:9

262 320 325

Mal 1:11 3 3:17–18 Ps (MT) 1

1–2

1–5 1–41 1–69 1–72 1–89

296 144 233

4, 6, 10, 16, 19, 55 103, 137–47, 149 152, 154, 194, 241 254, 277, 277, 284 319, 321, 346, 351 352, 354, 354, 359 361, 366, 371 379–81, 381–82 385, 388, 389 13, 16, 17, 19, 110 135, 136–71, 252 275, 277, 284, 322 324, 354, 369, 371 373, 374, 375, 387 389 112 12, 94, 101, 102 114 113 324 8, 18, 85, 89, 97 106, 113, 115, 116 116, 117, 118, 159

1–119 1–145 1–150 1/2–135/136 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:5 1:6 2

2–17* 2–89 2–136 2:1 2:2 2:6 2:9 2:11 2:12 2:12bd 3 3–4 3–6 3–14 3–41 3–89 3–90 4 4–88 4–109 4:1 4:2 4:5 4:8 5

5–6

457 172, 190, 192, 285 372, 379, 380 379–81, 386 244 382–84 381–82, 388 97, 151, 153, 284 319, 356 149, 388 153, 337 356 151, 153, 249 5, 10, 13, 19, 93 97, 103, 142, 144 146, 147–54, 194 240, 241, 253, 268 269, 277, 304, 319 321, 349, 350, 354 354, 358, 381–82 346 152, 300, 380 228 267 267 267 267 267 146, 371 241, 242, 284, 286 371, 373 16, 103, 111, 152 184 110 9 321 4, 5, 19, 174, 203 4 175, 192 103, 182 183, 192 379 359 376 359 359 85, 101, 103, 161 182, 319, 321, 324 374 111

458 5:4–6 5:10 6

6–12 6–116 6:2–4 6:2–6 6:2–7 6:10 7 7:7–8 8 8:5 9 9–10 9:2 9:8–13 9:15 9:16 10 10–13 10:2 10:3 10:7–11 10:11–12 11 11–14 11:1–2 11:1–4 12 12–14 12:1 12:2 12:7 13 13:2–3 13:5 14 14–17

Index of Passages 139 321 85, 101, 102, 103 111, 161, 182, 320 321, 324, 374 112 102 320 320 337 376 103, 184, 322, 323 324, 374 322, 322 103, 182, 299, 305 349, 349 298 9, 97, 102, 103 111, 175, 182, 338 160, 190 248 84 245 331 9, 103, 161, 174 175, 197, 320, 321 324, 374 319 250 319 303 103, 161, 320, 321 321 320 84 97, 103, 161, 182 195, 320, 321, 321 111 320 356 320 97, 103, 161, 320 321, 321 320 320 97, 103, 299, 304 313, 321, 322 112

15 15:2–3 16 16–17 16:3 17 17–18 17:1 18

18–19 18–22 18:3 18:7 18:7–9 18:26–29 18:31 19 19–24 19:2 19:15 20 20–21 20:2 20:8 21 21:8–12 21:10 22

22:2 22:4 22:4–13 22:7 22:14 22:26 23 23–26 24 24:6 25

103, 175, 179, 321 322, 338 335 99, 103, 161, 320 321, 349, 358, 361 324, 374 320 94, 97, 99, 103, 161 320, 321, 361, 361 94, 111 320, 376 94, 97, 99, 102, 103 111, 148, 183, 184 293, 295, 296, 300 301, 305, 313, 331 331, 338, 361, 361 16 112 331, 331 331 331 102 301 17, 97, 103, 143, 379 179 271 165 103, 148 110 253 258 103, 148, 338 139 331 88, 89, 89, 103 111, 112, 116, 182 313, 314, 349, 349 361 303 245 84 299, 303 296 245 103, 112, 375 112 103 253 16, 85, 97, 103

Index of Passages 26 26–30 26:7 27 27–28 28 29 29:1 29:11 30 30:1 31

31:14 32 32–33 33

33:1 33:3 33:8 33:9 33:13 33:15 33:17–18 34 34–35 34:1 34:2 34:20 35 35:5 35:13 35:28 36 36–37 37

37:5–6 37:7 37:8–9a 37:9b

93, 103, 337, 375 111 248 93, 99, 103, 361 111 93, 99, 103, 226 93, 103, 300, 305 374, 380 271 356 93, 103, 184, 375 364 85, 93, 99, 103, 110 112, 113, 116, 176 311, 358, 361 311 85, 104, 110, 113 119, 190 9 85, 93, 99, 110, 112 113, 116, 174, 176 179, 190, 197, 259 259, 262, 278, 355 245, 255 266 122 261 93 356 258 85, 184, 349 112 250 245 350 85, 93, 99 139 376 141, 245 85, 102, 183, 361 375 112 99, 102, 111, 317 318, 324, 338, 374 375 317 317 317 317

37:10 37:11 37:12 37:12–13 37:13 37:14–15 37:15 37:16 37:17–18 37:19a 37:19b–20a 37:20b 37:20c 37:21–22 37:23–24 37:25–26 37:28 37:29 37:30–31 37:32–33 37:34 37:35–36 37:37 37:38 37:39–40 38

38–44 39 39–40 39–47 39:13 40 40–41 40:2–3 40:3 40:4 40:6 40:14–18 41

41–42 41–43

459 317 317 356 317 149 317 334 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 85, 85, 111, 112 113, 116, 183, 190 195 318 102, 111, 182, 182 112 181 376 102, 111, 179, 300 304 179, 301 337 356 245, 266 248 300 14, 110, 179, 203 205, 206, 211, 224 225, 240, 241, 242 285, 349, 372, 373 382 17, 17 181

460 41:14 42 42–43 42–44 42–49 42–53 42–70 42–72 42–83 42:5 42:8 42:9 43 43:2 43:5 43:15 44 44:25 45

45:1a 45:1b 45:2 45:9 46 46:5 46:8 46:12 47 47–51 47:6 48 48:2 48:11 48:12 49 49–53 50 50:1 50:5 51 51–63 51–70

Index of Passages 4, 202, 203, 225 250, 375, 382 9, 99, 190, 299 361, 375 361 16 174, 197 99 112 89, 114, 197 5, 196 101 297 376 9, 17, 17, 102, 111 174, 190, 192, 299 299 299 266 98, 99, 361 303 99, 102, 111, 148 182, 194, 318, 324 350, 361, 374, 375 317 317 317 273 99, 110, 182 146 253 253 85, 361 9, 179, 180 271 89, 304, 374, 380 311 245, 264 301 89, 99, 361 112 93, 99, 174, 192 197, 354, 361, 372 296 356 89, 99, 184, 187 332–34, 338, 361 186, 192 174

51–71 51–72 51–100 51:17 52 52–55 53 53–54 53–62 54 54:3 54:4 55 55:2 55:24 56 56–59 56–60 57

57–59 57:1 57:4 57:6 57:8–12 57:12 58 59 59:6 59:9 60

60:7–14 60:8–9 60:9 61 61–64 61:2 61:8 62 62–68 62–69 62–70 63 63:2

174 186, 197, 198 178 245 99, 184 178 85, 99, 182, 299 304, 313 112 183 85, 182, 184, 304 300 376 110, 182 376 356 85, 182, 184 178 179 110, 182, 184, 300 304, 313, 314, 324 374, 380 178 317 317 300 300 300 110, 182 102, 111, 182, 184 361 225 149 178, 182, 184, 300 304, 313, 314, 324 374, 380 300 317 102 110, 178, 181, 182 178 376 149 85, 182, 361 9, 178, 179, 180 112 181 85, 181, 184, 338 335

Index of Passages 63:7 63:9 64 64–65 65 65–68 65:2 65:3 65:10 66 66–67 66:1 66:2 66:7 66:8 66:19–20 67 68 68:2 68:8–11 68:9 68:12–13 68:24–26 68:25–26 68:26 68:26–27 68:27 68:30–31 68:35 69 69–71 69:5 69:7 69:14 69:21 69:25 69:31 70 70–72 71 71:2–19 71:6 71:8 71:14 71:17

335 335 85, 85 110 85, 187, 375 178 245 376 146 85 174, 180, 197 273 245 271 245, 250 376 85, 182 85, 102, 111, 317 324, 361, 374 311 296 225, 296 317 271 274 273 317 356 317 225 85, 182, 187, 338 349, 356, 358, 361 301 331 225 376 331 296 331 110, 116, 183, 300 304 180 85, 111, 112, 113 116, 190, 195, 197 303 245 245 245 248

71:18 71:23–24 72

72–73 72:18 72:18f 72:18–19 72:20

73 73–74 73–83 73–89 73:22 74 74:19 75 75:2 75:10 75:11 76 76–78 76–118 76:7 76:9 77 77–78 77:7–13 77:13 78

78:4 78:11 78:32

461 271 141 9, 10, 13, 14, 93 104, 110, 115, 117 148, 174, 181, 187 202, 205, 206–7 211, 216, 224, 225 234, 239, 242, 248 285, 301, 351, 354 361, 372, 382 17 234, 248 250 4, 202, 203, 220 225 16, 32, 32, 59 135, 196–201, 285 323, 346, 372 376–79, 379, 381 382 9, 10, 16, 16 110, 139, 180 16 174, 198 112, 114 301 110, 354 303 110, 182 248 253 262 100, 182, 331, 338 354 112 113 253 331 97, 100, 182, 338 354, 375 95, 97, 128 303 335 16, 94, 97, 100 102, 111, 349, 349 351, 354, 361 245, 248 248 248

462 78:36–37 79 78:1–3 79:2–3 79:6–7 79:13 80 80:5 81 81–85 81:2 81:3 81:4 81:5 81:11 82

82–85 82:1 82:2 83 84 84–85 84–88 84:9 85 86

86:1 86:6 86:10 86:14 86:15 86:16a 86:16b 86:16c 86:17a 86:17c 87 87–88 87–89 88 88:3 88:14

Index of Passages 94, 102 110, 304, 325, 326 338, 356 325 356 298 245 110, 182, 354, 375 376 97, 100, 102, 111 182, 184, 354, 360 112 253 273 271 253 310 97, 184, 322, 323 323, 324, 346, 354 356, 360, 374, 375 9, 180 322, 356 322, 323 97 97, 182, 354, 375 174 5 253, 376 97, 354 90, 100, 102, 111 174, 175, 192, 301 304, 338, 371 376 376 248 300 310 331 331 331 331 331 110 174 180, 180 9, 100, 174, 178 182, 184, 354 376 376

88:15–17 88:17–18 89

89–90 89–150 89:7 89:8a 89:10 89:11 89:12a 89:12b 89:14a 89:14b 89:18 89:47–106:32 89:53 90

90–106 90–119 90–150

90:1 91

91–93 91–119 91–137 92 92:5–9 92:11 92:14 93

101 101 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 86 87, 93, 100, 111, 117 118, 174, 174, 192 203, 205, 208, 211 223, 225, 225, 240 242, 285, 303, 304 313, 314, 338, 351 354, 358, 372, 374 380, 381, 382 17 183 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 262 83 4, 202, 225, 250 375, 382 10, 95, 110, 114 175, 179, 180, 190 228, 361, 380, 381 90, 114, 228, 307 192, 285, 372, 379 380, 388 4, 8, 12, 18, 106 114, 115, 116, 116 118, 159, 172, 192 307, 308, 309 376 10, 99, 102, 112 113, 117, 176, 190 220, 339–41, 358 361 112 192 175 90, 99, 184, 372 248 262 356 90, 96, 99, 104, 112 116, 117, 188, 189

Index of Passages 93–99 93–100 93:1 93:1–3 94 94:1 94:7 94:12a 94:24 95 95–96 95:1 96

96:1 96:3 96:3–4 96:4 96:6 96:13 97 97:8 98 98:1 98:3 98:4 98:5–6 98:6 98:9 99 99–100 99:1 99:1–5 99:2 99:4 99:5 100 100–101 100:1 100:4 100:4–5 101

307 12 271 248 90, 99, 112, 375 267 253 337 364 90, 348, 355 112 273 90, 99, 211, 213 215, 269, 278, 295 296, 300, 304, 314 355, 361, 363, 381 266, 311 248 248 311 271 301 90, 304, 350 301 90, 99, 269, 278 304 248, 266, 311 296 273 271 246, 273 301 90, 91, 99, 112 176, 180, 355, 361 112 91 248 89 271 89 95, 99, 183, 278 306, 308 227 273 245, 250, 307 305, 306 95, 95, 97, 104 117, 125, 125, 128 148, 174, 308, 375

101–102 101–148 102 102–103 102:1 102:2 102:12 102:18 102:22 103

103–104 103–106 103:1 103:1–4 103:2 103:3 103:6 103:6–10 103:8 103:19–21 103:22 104

104–105 104–106 104–111 104–150 104:1 104:1–4 104:3 104:13–14 104:27 104:33 104:35 105

463 112 126 95, 96, 99, 183 350, 354, 361 111 376 376 248 376 245 16, 95, 96, 98, 100 100, 112, 113, 174 279, 280, 308, 334 338 9, 312 112, 131 252, 279, 311, 334 344 279, 311 334 254 334 310 261 100, 100, 279, 311 311, 334 88, 90, 96, 98, 100 112, 119, 122, 176 188, 189, 252, 258 259, 276, 279, 280 283, 334, 338, 350 355 175 9, 112, 187, 188 278, 307, 373 99, 113 192 100, 252, 279, 311 311, 334 261 257 257 249 252 250, 252, 280, 311 311, 334 95, 96, 100, 112 122, 188, 188, 189 203, 211, 215, 258

464

105–107 105:1 105:2 105:5 105:25 105:45 106

106–107 106–118 106–136 106:1 106:2 106:7 106:12 106:22 106:28 106:37 106:40 106:40–41 106:47 106:47–48 106:48

107

107–108 107–136 107–145 107–150 107:1 107:8 107:15

Index of Passages 276, 279, 280, 283 295, 296, 297, 304 329, 381 309, 314 100, 297 248 248 95 279, 280 10, 10, 14, 88, 93 96, 100, 112, 188 189, 202, 209–10 212–15, 216, 224 225, 228, 240, 241 241, 242, 258, 276 280, 283, 285, 295 296, 306, 307, 309 309, 327–31, 338 372, 381 17 96 227, 374 241, 242, 279, 280 305, 312, 373 245, 271 248 245 248 356 337 296 337 245 212, 307 4, 202, 203, 205 217, 225, 250, 279 279, 279, 373, 375 10, 10, 14, 88, 89 96, 111, 112, 116 189, 203, 241, 248 280, 283, 299, 304 307, 309, 309, 330 111 228, 237, 238 15 6, 114, 308 227, 305, 312 248 248

107:21 107:24 107:26–27 107:28–119:44 107:31 107:35 107:40 107:42–43 108

108–109 108–110 108:2–6 108:7–14 108:8–9 109

109:1 109:4 109:7 109:18 110

110–112 110–117 111 111–112 111–113 111–116 111–117 111–118 111:1 111:4 111:10 112

112–113 112:1 112:9 113

248 248 337 83 248 296 299 249 89, 96, 110, 174 177, 300, 304, 313 324, 372, 374 112 174, 308 300 300 318 89, 95, 97, 100 112, 113, 131, 183 358 100, 245 376 376 356 95, 110, 125, 148 280, 348, 349, 349 350, 352, 358 112 95, 96, 126 96, 110, 188, 189 258, 279, 280, 283 308 187 373 9, 188, 255, 278 280, 307, 309 227 279 248, 310 245 86, 96, 99, 112 113, 189, 258, 279 280, 283, 354 111 279 262 96, 99, 188, 188 189, 227, 232, 239 241, 258, 279, 279 280, 354, 375

Index of Passages 113–114 113–117 113–118 113:1 113:3 113:7 113:9 114 114–115 114:8 115

115–116 115–117 115:3 115:4–8 115:8–11 115:9–13 115:12–13 115:15 115:17–18 115:18 116

116–118 116:5 116:9 116:10–19 116:19 116:19ab 117

117–118 117:1 117:2 117:2b 118

112 95, 125 122, 122, 227, 308 359, 365 232, 280 296 296 280, 359 91, 96, 100, 189 279, 281, 283 111, 160 359 91, 96, 99, 100 102, 111, 188, 189 227, 227, 236, 237 239, 258, 279, 280 283, 300, 304, 307 314, 354, 374, 381 111 187 234 235, 300 252 237, 300, 372 238 253 279 250, 279, 280 91, 96, 99, 100 102, 111, 188, 188 189, 258, 279, 280 283, 354 91, 111 310 91 91 280, 279 280 96, 99, 110, 121 188, 189, 258, 280 283, 307 308 258, 280 280, 280 280 95, 96, 99, 100 100, 112, 122, 188 189, 237, 247, 253 283, 297, 307, 308

118–119 118–148 118:1 118:1–3 118:1–4 118:2–4 118:4 118:8–9 118:9 118:14 118:15–16 118:20 118:29 119

119:18 119:27 119:99 119:126 119:171 120 120–119 120–125 120–132 120–134 120–145 120–150 121 121:2 122 123 123:2 124 124:8

465 310, 313, 324, 349 349, 350, 354, 358 359, 361, 374 16, 112, 131 128 96, 97, 187, 227 305, 312 227 308 237, 372 305, 312 96, 187 252 310 96, 97, 187 318 96, 187, 227, 305 312 5, 17, 26, 90, 92 94, 96, 97, 96, 101 110, 112, 121, 136 143, 189, 190, 228 258, 259, 283, 308 354, 379–81, 385 248 248 356 356 245 96, 100, 112, 179 192, 276 98 112 112, 176, 180, 182 191, 192, 382 4, 5, 98, 179, 227 308, 382 126, 128 190, 192, 259, 285 372 95, 96 253 84, 96, 174, 308 339 96, 176, 179, 180 354 337 96, 174, 308 253

466 125 125–130 126 126:2 127 127–129 127:2–3 127:3a 127:3b 127:5 128 128:1 128:2 128:5 129 130 131 131:1 132

132:1 132:4 132:8 132:8–10 132:16 132:17 133 133–134 133–150 134

134–136 134:1 134:2a 134:3 135

Index of Passages 96, 100 111 96, 98, 100, 354 361 296 96, 98, 100, 125 318, 324, 374 318 318 318 318 318 96, 98, 100, 324 338, 354, 374 336 356 238 96, 100, 324, 374 96, 100 96, 174, 308 248 96, 112, 148, 302 303, 305, 310, 312 313, 354, 374, 378 382 303 296 311 301, 302 302 262 96, 97, 112, 174 180, 308 128, 182 112, 131 88, 96, 112, 125 179, 180, 192, 232 233, 239 227 232 233 238, 253 9, 90, 91, 96, 112 122, 187, 188, 188 189, 226, 228–29, 242, 258, 278, 280, 281, 283, 285, 297, 298, 300, 304, 307,

308, 314, 354, 372, 373, 374, 381–82 135–136 118, 226–42, 250 268, 285, 308, 372 372, 374, 375 381–82 135–145 127 135:1 279, 373 135:3 259 135:7 297 135:11 296 135:11–12 91 135:13–14 296 135:15–18 300 135:18 252 135:19–20 300 135:21 242, 250, 280, 373 136 90, 91, 96, 96, 112 122, 187, 189, 190, 226, 229–31, 247 281, 283, 307, 308 312, 313, 360, 373 381–82 136:1 305 136:2–26 305 136:4 248 136:8–9 261 136:12 311 136:20 296 136:22a 88 136:23–24 91 136:26 91 137 90, 90, 96, 112 190, 308, 330 137–138 111 137:3 312, 313 138 90, 90, 96, 112 245, 308 138–145 112, 174, 175, 244 245, 245, 308 138–150 192 139 96, 112, 183 139:14 248 140 96, 112, 125, 183 141 96, 97, 112 141–150 128 141–Hymn to the Creator 126 141:2 376

Index of Passages 141:5 142 142–143 142:1 143 143:1 144 144–150 144:1–11 144:9 145

145–150 145.146–150

145:1 145:3 145:8 145:8–9 145:9 145:11–12 145:12 145:14 145:15 145:20 145:21 145:21a 146

146–148 146–150

376 96, 184, 185 112 376 92, 96, 112, 276 376 10, 96, 97, 112 176, 247 17 148 266 10, 96, 112, 122, 180 180, 244, 245–51 254, 257, 257, 259 275, 275, 277, 278 280, 281, 286, 307 308, 309, 310, 310 312, 327, 373, 382 16, 128, 244, 275 383 13, 19, 135, 241 244, 275–78, 281 282, 286, 369, 373 382, 389 245 311 310 310 122 271 122 254 254 257 245, 275 251 96, 100, 112, 122 188, 189, 190, 244 247, 251–54, 251 255, 255, 258, 259 260, 275, 276, 277 278, 283 277 9, 112, 187, 227 239, 241, 243, 244 250, 251, 252, 256 258, 258, 263, 263 270, 275, 276–78 280, 281, 281, 286

146:1 146:2 146:3–4 146:6 146:7 146:7–8 146:8 146:9 146:9–?–10 146:10 147

147–150 147:1 147:4 147:13 147:15 147:16–17 147:18 147:18–19 147:18–20 147:19–20 147:20 148

148:1 148:6b 148:14 148:14a 148:14bc 149

149–150 149:1 149:2 149:3 149:4 149:5 149:6

467 307, 335, 338, 373 375, 383 280 259 258, 259 335 259 335 249 257, 259 122 88, 259, 277, 280 88, 92, 96, 100, 112 122, 188, 189 254–60, 275, 276 283 92, 112, 188, 251 245, 278, 280 296 282, 373, 383 261 261 261 92 261 277 280 92, 96, 112, 122 188, 189, 190, 220 233, 258, 259 260–65, 270, 275 276, 277, 283, 355 280 277 245, 277, 280 281 270, 278, 281, 373 92, 96, 112, 122 188, 189, 190, 257 258, 259, 263, 263 265–70, 276, 276 278, 281, 283, 373 111, 276 245, 259, 280, 311 259 259, 272 259 258 262

468 149:9 149:9a 149:9bc 150

150:1 150:6

Index of Passages 259, 264, 280 277 264 6, 16, 92, 96, 112 113, 122, 122, 188 189, 226, 244, 255 258, 260, 270–74 276, 277, 281, 282 283, 373, 383, 389 280 251, 262, 278, 280

… 151 151A 151B 154 154–93 154–137 155

194, 276, 341, 353 96, 105, 112 96, 105 87, 88, 96, 105 127, 110, 112, 247 126, 128 127 96, 105, 112

Ψ (LXX) 1:6 2:10–12 3–14 3–89 4 7 9 10 13 17:45–53:5 23 24 26 26:9–14 28 29 30 32 37 39–40 42 42–43 44 44:4–8 45

160 160 179, 182 175 179 179, 182 175 179, 193 179, 193 83 179, 184, 372 193 186 83 184 183 184 175 184, 372 179 175, 371 193 178 83 178

47 47:13–15 48:6–21 49:2–16 55:8–88:10 63:6–64:5 65 66 70 76 80 89 90 90–103 91 92 92–98 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 101 103 104 104–106 105 106 110 110–118 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 121 123 134 135 136 138 139 142 143

179, 184, 372 83 83 83 83 83 175, 184 175 175 186 186, 193 175 175 175 175 184, 189, 372 175 184, 372 193, 348 186 186, 186 179 176, 193 175 175 189, 283 175, 189, 283 188 189, 283 189, 283 189, 283 188 189, 283 189, 283 188, 189, 283 188, 189, 283 189, 283 188, 189, 283 188, 189, 283 189, 283 175, 193 175, 193 189, 283 188, 189, 283 175 179 179 186 186

469

Index of Passages 144 145 145–148 146 146–149 146:1 147 148 149 150

186 189, 283 175, 190, 256 260 189, 254, 256, 283 252 255 189, 256, 283 189, 283 189, 283 189, 283

Prov 1:1–6 6:4 8:23 11:28–30 15:8 15:29 28:9 30 30:1–3 30:2a 30:4 30:5 30:5–6 30:6 30:7–9

168 297 150 145 377 377 377 301, 305 301 301 301 301 301 301 301

Job 7 7:17–18 8:21 12 12:21 12:24 16:17 19:9 21:12 21:18 24:12 24:19 25:6 30:31 31:40b 37–39 38 38:14

305 298 296 304 299 299 377 299 273 139 377 268 299 273 197 259 258 258

Lam 2:16 2:17 3:8 3:44 3:46

296 262 377 377 296

Dan 2:18 3:33 3:52–90 4:31 6:27 9:3 9:17 9:21 12:10

238 248 260 248 248 377 377 377 161

Ezra 1:2 3 3:10–13 3:11 5:1 5:12 6:9 6:14 9:9

238 306 306 305 175, 252 238 238 175, 252 153

Neh 1:4 1:6 1:11 2:4 4 5 5:13 7:73b–8:12 8 8:1–12 8:6 9 9:1–5 9:3 9:5 9:6 9:17 11:17 12:24

238 377 377 238 269 218, 222 216, 217 218 219, 222 380 218 332 380 143 250 261 310 378 326

470 12:36 12:44–47 12:46 1 Chr 13:8 13:10 15 15:20–21 15:28 16

16:4 16:5 16:8–36 16:34 16:34–36 16:36 16:40 16:41 21–22 25 25:3 25:5 28:4

Index of Passages 326 312 312, 313, 379

2 Chr 5:12–14 5:13 6

273 296 183 182 272 205, 210 211–16, 217, 222 224, 240, 242, 295 300, 302, 314, 374 381, 381, 390 306 272 211 305, 306 212–15 216, 250 143 305, 306 184 124 182 262 266

6:19 6:20 6:29 6:35 6:39 6:40 6:41–42 7:1 7:3 7:6 7:12 7:12–15 7:13–14 7:15 8:14 12:8 15:14 17:9 20 20:21 20:21–22 30:9 30:27 31:3 33:13–19 34:14 35:26

272 306 302, 304, 310, 312 313, 374, 378, 382 376, 377 376 376, 377 376, 377 376, 377 378 302, 378, 381 376, 378 306 306 377, 377, 378 377 378 377 326 153 272 143 269 306 306 214, 310 378 143 377, 378 143 143

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Egyptian Sources

Greek Sources

Chester Beatty 73–74, 78 Songs of Isis and Nephtys 168 Instruction of Amen-em-Opet 4 1–12 145

Greek Anthology Homeric Hymns 1 1–7 2 2:495 3 3–33 3:1–55 3:1–186

Hittite Sources Daily Prayer of the King

205

22 49, 65, 67 49 49, 64, 64 66 64, 64, 66 49 49 49

471

Index of Passages 3:546 4 4:580 5 5:293 6:19–20 6:21 7 8 8–18 9–18 9:9 10 10:6 11 12 13 16:1–3 17 18 18:11 19–33 19:49 25:7 26:12–13 27 27:22 28:4 28:18 29:14 30 30:19 31 32 33 33:19 34

66 64 66 64 66 67 66 65 49 49 49 66 49 66 49 48 64 66 64 64, 65 66 49 66 66 66 64 66 49, 49 66 66 64 66 66 66 64 66 48

Mesopotamian Sources A šir-namursag̃ a to Inana for Iddin-Dagan 204 B1–B7 398 B3 396 B4 40, 76, 397 B5 400 B6 401

The Building of Ninĝirsu’s temple CUNES 50-07-013 The Decad

204 400 39–41, 74, 76 390, 395, 401 Enûma Anu Enlil 399 Gilgameš and Ḫuwawa Version A 398 Version B 398 Herbert Clarc Cylinder 400 I1 398 Keš Temple Hymn 40, 58 400 L 40, 41, 54, 76, 76 Maqlû 399 N1 395 N2 39, 41, 54, 76, 76 398 N4 396 N6 398, 400 P335710 400 P335775 399, 400 P335869 399, 400 P336221 400 P392617 399 P392618 399 S1 41, 76 Sumerian TH 47, 54, 56–59 61–62, 168, 198 199, 200, 399 U1 41, 76, 400 U2 41, 54, 76 U3 76, 398 Uk1 398 VAT 13723 399 Y1 401 Y2 41, 76 The Zà-Mì Hymns 50–51, 56, 58, 60–61 72, 78, 168, 390

Ugaritic Sources KTU 1.14 I 1 1.16 I 1 1.19 I 1 1.16 I 1

177 177 177 177

472

Index of Passages

Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature 1Q10 1Q11 1Q12 1Q16 1Q30 14 1QHa 1–8 5 12 7 21 9 9–12 9–17 9–20 9 1–10 4 9 35 9 35–36 9 36c–41 10–17 10–17 10 32 12 6–13 6 13–16 13 36 17–20 17 38–19 5 18–28 18 27 19 6–28 20 6 20 7 25 34 1QHb 1QIsaa 1QM 14 2 1QpHab 11 4–6 1QS 1 19–20 1 24 2 10

90, 107–9, 110, 112 113, 115 98, 110, 344, 344 98, 110 317, 324 98, 98, 204, 344 346 344 41, 42, 43, 44, 44 52, 63, 64 41, 43, 44, 45, 62 63 55 55 45 46 44, 45 46 52, 168 53 52, 53 52 43 43 337 42 46 337 46 63 43, 45 337 62 55 55 55 44, 45 200 342 327 43 210, 219, 221, 223 219 336 219

2 18 6 6–8 2Q14 3Q2 4Q12a 4Q83

4Q84 4Q85 4Q86

4Q87

4Q88

4Q89 4Q90 4Q91 4Q92

4Q93 4Q94 4Q95 4Q96 4Q97 4Q98

219 141 98, 110, 344 93, 101, 110 46 85–86, 93, 93 99, 104, 107–9 110, 110, 111, 113 115, 176, 190, 195 375 99, 107–9, 110, 111 113, 115, 189, 279 99, 107–9, 110, 110 111, 112, 115 88, 100, 107–9 110, 112, 113, 115 176, 189, 191, 212 256, 276, 279, 283 373, 375 99–100, 107–9 110, 112, 113, 115 116, 116, 117, 128 176, 189, 191, 256 276, 279, 283, 318 341, 374, 375, 391 88–89, 107–9 110, 110, 111, 113 115, 116, 176, 191 315, 324, 345, 363 101, 110 92, 110 89, 110 89–90, 91, 107–9 110, 111, 113, 176 191, 341 90, 110 90, 110 91, 107–9, 110 112, 113, 115 91, 107–9, 110 111, 113, 115, 281 92, 110 85, 92–93, 107–9 110, 112, 113, 115 176, 341, 375

Index of Passages 4Q98a 4Q98b 4Q98c 4Q98d 4Q98e 4Q98f 4Q98g 4Q98h 4Q160 3–5 ii 2–3 4Q171 4Q173 4Q174 4Q175 4Q176 4Q177 4Q178 4Q179 4Q182 4Q183 4Q213a 4Q216 4Q221 42 4Q243 13 2–3 4Q244 12 2 4Q286 1i8 5 a–c 8 7 i 5–7 7i7 7 ii 1 7 ii 5 7 ii 6 7 ii 10 93 4Q287 1 4 43 5 11 61 64 66 69 72 4Q289 2 4

93, 107–9, 110 111, 115 101, 107–9, 110 111, 115 101, 110 91, 101, 110 86, 91, 102, 110 176, 341 86, 110, 189, 279 86–87, 110 84 337 194, 317–18, 324 334 318, 324 160–62, 165, 317 319–22, 375 317 324–26, 338 161, 319–22 319 317 319 319 336–37, 338 336 223 220 337 337 327 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219 219

4Q290 11 4Q292 2 5 4Q292–293 4Q293 2 2 4Q370 4Q378 4Q378 19 ii 5 4Q379 4Q380 4Q380–381 4Q381 4Q381 24 4 4Q392 4Q393 4Q397 4Q397 14–21 10 4Q400 2 4 4Q403 1i1 1i6 1 ii 1 1 ii 31–41 32 4Q404 4Q404 1 1 4Q405 18 5 4Q418 1 3–4 4Q434 4Q434–438 4Q438 4Q448 4Q491 4Q491 17 4 4Q503–504 4Q504 1–2 i 7 1–2 vii 2 1–2 vii 9 3 ii 3 4 15 17 ii 5 4QBerakhot 4Q507 3 2 4Q507–509 4Q508 20 1

473 219 219 220 223 220 336–37, 338 339 337 339 6, 212, 326–32 338, 346 326–32, 338 342, 375 6, 331–32, 338 341 332 332, 332–34, 338 375 343 327 327 342 342 327 342 327 327 342 327 327 337 334–35 334–35, 338 334–35 87–88, 110 327, 342, 346, 375 342 327 223 220 220 220 220 220 220 219, 221, 223 220 221, 223 220

474 4Q509 4 5 49 ii 1 131–132 ii 3 4Q510 4Q510–511 4Q511 63 iv 3 111 9 4Q521 4Q522 4Q525 4Q528 4QapocrJosha.b 4QHa 4QHb 4QHc 4QHd 4QHe 4QHf 4QMa 4QMidrEscha.b 4QMMT 4QNumb 4QpaleoParaJosh 4QpapHf 5Q5 5Q9 5/6Ḥev1b pap6Q5 6Q7 8Q2 11Q5

Index of Passages 220 220 220 327, 340 340 223, 327, 340 220 220 335–36, 338 84, 338 335–36, 338 335–36, 338 332 44, 44, 45, 63, 78 44, 45, 63, 64 44, 45 44, 45 44, 44, 45 44, 45 342 161, 318, 319, 321 321, 324, 354, 365 319, 319, 343, 344 351, 365 344, 344 339 43, 44, 45 94, 110 339 102, 107–9, 110 111, 115, 175 94, 110 94 94, 110 6, 8, 18, 31, 32 83, 87, 87, 89 94–96, 98, 100 100, 102, 104, 105 105, 106, 106, 107–9 110, 111, 113, 115 116, 116, 117, 118 121–30, 131, 176, 180, 188, 189, 191, 232, 238, 246, 247 247, 250, 251, 256 264, 265, 276, 279 283, 289, 307, 315 318, 324, 336, 338 340, 341, 345, 362

363, 366, 373, 374 376, 391 15 4–5 238 18 1–16 87 19 15–16 336 26 1 265 26 3 264 26 9–15 336 26 11 337 26 13 337 27 340, 345, 348, 348 353 27 3–5 327 27 4 342 27 9–10 340 28 3 205 28 4 273 11Q6 95, 96, 107–9, 110 112, 113, 115, 116 116, 122, 128, 176 315, 336, 374, 391 11Q7 93, 97, 107–9, 110 110, 111, 115, 159 11Q8 102, 107–9, 110, 111 113, 115, 189, 279 11Q9 93, 110 11Q11 102, 107–9, 110, 112 113, 115, 118, 176 176, 221, 223, 315 324, 332, 339–41 345 53 220 63 220 6 14 220 11Q13 322–23, 324, 354 366, 375 11Q17 327 11QPse 341 Apostrophe to Zion 89, 96, 97, 112, 113 Apostrophe to Judah 89 CD 1 11–12 43 1 20 337 DavComp 96, 123–26, 127 177, 340 Eschatological Hymn 89 Hymn to the Creator 96, 112, 122, 276 337, 338 Hymn to the Creator–Ps 151B 128

475

Index of Passages Mas1e Mas1f

97, 107–9, 110, 112 115 92, 104, 107–9, 110 111, 113, 115, 116 189, 256, 276, 375 383

MasParaJosh Plea for Deliverance XQPs A XQPs B XQPs C

339 96, 97, 336, 338 84 84 84

New Testament Matt 3:17 4:6 4:9 5:18 5:26 6:2 6:5 6:16 8:10 10:15 10:23 10:42 11:11 13:17 13:35 16:28 17:5 17:20 18:3 18:13 18:18–19 19:23 19:28 21:1–11 21:16 21:21 21:31 21:42 22:41–46 22:44 23:36 24:2 24:34 24:47 25:12 25:40

350 352 340 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 349 223 350 223 223 223 223 223 223 349 349, 352 223 223 349, 356 348 349 223 223 223 223 223 223

25:45 26:13 26:21 26:30 26:34

223 223 223 359 223

Mark 1:11 3:13 3:22 3:28 4:11 4:14 4:15 4:24 8:12 9:1 9:7 9:41 10:15 10:19 11:1 11:23 12 12:10 12:12 12:35–37 12:43 13:30 14:9 14:18 14:25 14:26 14:30 15:34

350 351 361 223 361 354, 361 361 361 223 223 350 223 223 223 349 223 348, 352 356 349 348 223 223 223 223 223 359 223 350

476

Index of Passages

Luke 3:22 4:10 4:24 9:35 12:37 13:22 18:17 18:29 19:28–40 19:38 20:17 20:41–44 20:42 23:43 23:46 24:44 24:44–49

350 358 223 350 223 359 223 223 349 358 358 348 358, 375 223 358 357, 365 350

John 1:51 2:17 3:3 3:5 3:11 5:19 5:24–25 5:39 6:26 6:31 6:32 6:47 6:53 8:34 8:51 8:58 10:1 10:7 10:34 12:12–19 12:24 12:34 13:16 13:18 13:20–21 13:38 14:12 15:24–25 15:25

223 350, 352 223 223 223 223 223 350 223 352 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 223 356 349 223 356 223 349 223 223 223 350 356

16:20 16:23 19:24 19:28 19:36 21:18 24:44 Acts 1:16 1:20 1:20–26 2:29–31 2:34–36 3:18 4:24 4:25–26 4:25–28 13 13:33

223 223 349 349 349 223 343

13:35 17:2–3 18:24–28

348 358 350 349 350 350 350 157, 354 350 358 162–63, 164, 166 195, 358, 361 358 350 350

Rom 1:25 3:4 3:10 3:10–18 3:19 8:36 9:5 11:36 15:3–4 15:9–11 15:33 16:27

223 352 352 351 356 350, 352 223 223 350 350 223 222, 223

1 Cor 3:20 10:26 14:21 14:16 15:25

350 350 356 222, 223 350

2 Cor 1:20 4:13

222, 223 356

477

Index of Passages 9:9

356

Gal 1:5 6:18

223 223

Eph 3:21 5:19

223 350

2:12–13 3:7–11 3:11 4:7 5:5–6 10:5–7 13:6 13:21

352 348 348 355, 357 350, 352 350, 352 350 223

350 351, 352 350 223 223

Phil 4:20

223

Col 3:16

350

1 Pet 2:4–8 2:6–8 3:8–12 4:11 5:11

1 Thess 3:13

223

2 Pet 3:18

223

1 Tim 1:17 6:16

223 223

Jude 1:25

223

Rev 1:6 3:14 5:14 7:12 19:4 22:20

223 223 223 223 223 223

2 Tim 4:18

223

Hebr 1 2:6

350 350

Deuterocanonical Works and Pseudepigrapha Tob 8 8:5 8:8 14 14:15

223 221 221 223 221

Jdt 13 13:17–20 13:20 15 15:10

223 221 221 223 221

Sir 14:20–15:1 16:18 38:34–39:11 39:15 49:10 50:28 51 51:1–11 51:12 51:23

360 148 360 273 46 360 83, 112, 125 125 360 125

1 Bar 5

69

478

Index of Passages

1 Macc 7:16–17

356

2 Macc 1:10b–2:18 2:13

358 358, 365

Pr. Man. 15

222, 223

3 Macc 7 7:23

223 222

4 Macc 18 18:10–19 18:24

223 350 222

4 Ezra 14:45–48

360

Jub 1:4–25 1:20

2:18–21 33:13

337 220

4 Ezr 14

46

Psalms of Solomon 1 2 2:26–27 4 7 8 8:16–19 10:7 11 15 17 17:16 18

53, 54 54, 68, 69, 70 69 69, 70 70 53, 69, 69, 70 69 69 69 70 53, 68, 70, 70 69 53, 53, 54, 69

T. Levi 2:7–10

261

332 336

Philo and Josephus Josephus

Philo

C. Ap. 1.8 1.40

360 46

A.J. 7.12.3 8.3.8 8.4.1 8.7.1 9.1.2 9.1.3 9.13.3 11.3.8 11.4.2 14.4.2 20.9.6

353 353 353 353 353 353 353 353 353 69 353

Agr. 50

351, 352, 353

Conf. 39 52 149

353, 353, 357 357 353

Contempl. 25 80

357 361

Deus 74 74–85

351 351

479

Index of Passages Fug 59

357

Gig 17

351, 352

Her. 29

351, 354

Migr. 157

357

Mut 115

357

Plant. 29 39

353, 357 353, 353

Somn. 1.75 2.242 2.245

357 357 357

Mishnah, Talmud, and Related Literature Mishnah

m. Pesaḥ. 5:7 9:3 10:6–7

122, 359 359 359

356 356 356 356 356

m. Qidd. 4:14

356

m. Roš. Haš. 1:2 4:7

356 359

m. Ber. 7:3 9:6

356 356

m. Šabb. 9:4

356

m. Bik. 3:4

364

m. Sanh. 10:3

356

m. Maʿaś. Š. 5:15

364

m. Soṭah 5:4 9:12

359 356

m. Meg. 2:5

359

m. Mid. 2:5

m. Sukkah 3:9–11 5:4

359 360

357, 360

m. Miqw. 9:2

356

m. Taʿan 3:9 4:4–5

360 359

m. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:3

356

m. ʾAbot. 2:9 3:2 3:6 4:1 5:19

480

Index of Passages

m. Tamid 7:4

184, 360

m. ʿUq 3:12

356

Talmud

b. Pesaḥ. 117a 117b

196 194

y. Ber. 4:3 8a

164 164

164

b. ‘Abod. Zar. 19a

142

y. Taʿan. 2.2.65c

b. B. Bat. 13b 14b 14b–15a

46 46 355

Midrash Tehillim

b. Ber. 4b 9b–10a 56a

247 164 359

1 3

166, 204 186

Targum Pss 1 2

139 160

Apostolic Fathers Barn. 2:10 5:13 6:4–6 6:16 9:1 10:10 11:6–7 12:10 1 Clem. 14:4–5 15:3–4 16:15 18:2–17 22:1 22:8

352 351 351 352 351 351, 354 354 352

352 352 352 351 352 352

28:2–3 35:7–12 36:3 36:4–5 46:2–3 48:2 52 52:2–4

352 356 352 352 352 352 353 351

Did. 12:1

350

Herm. 34

354

Ign. Magn. 9

351

481

Index of Passages

Church Fathers Basil of Cæsarea Homilies on the Psalms 165

6.16 7.10

Cassiodorus

Eusebius

Clement of Alexandria

Hist. Eccl. 4.26.14 6.25.1–2

Exc. 52

351

Hippolytus

Paed. 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.10 2.8 2.11

351, 354 351, 354, 354 351, 354, 351 351, 354 351, 352 351, 355

Protr. 8

353, 354

Strom. 1.1 2.13 2.15 3.4 3.16 4.17 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.8 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 6.1 6.3 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.10 6.11 6.15

353 352, 354, 356 352, 354 351, 354 351 351, 354 357 357 351 352 351 351 351 359 351 351, 354 356 351, 351 351, 354 351, 352, 354 351, 354 351 352

Explanation of the Psalms 166

Fr. Ps. 1 4 8

351, 353, 354 351

359 359

355, 359 361 361

Irenæus Haer. 1.14.8 2.2.5 3.5.1 3.6.3 3.8.3 3.9.2 3.10.1 3.10.3 3.10.5 3.11.8 3.12.2 3.12.5 3.16.3 3.17.2 4.2.1 4.3.1 4.9.1 4.11.3 4.17.1 4.28.1 4.31.2 4.41.1 4.41.3 5.7.1 5.17.3 5.18.3 5.31.1 5.33.1

351 355, 356 354 351, 354 351, 354, 355 351, 354 351 351, 355 351 351, 354 351 351, 354 351, 354 351 351 361 355 351, 356 351, 361 351 357 355 351 351 351 351, 354 351 351, 355

482

Index of Passages

Jerome Homily on Ps 1 Psalt. Hebr.

165 359

Justin 1 Apol. 40 41 42 45 2 Apol. 45 Dial. 22 28 29 32 34 36 37 42 55 56 63 64 73 79 83 85 86 87 88 97 121 124 127

163, 351, 354 351 352 351 351

351, 354, 361 351 357 351 351, 354 352 352, 361 351 353, 356 352 351 351, 351, 354, 355 361, 363 351, 355 351 351, 357 351, 354 357, 357 351, 354 351, 361 351, 354 351, 354 351

Origen Comm. Jo. 1.30 1.34 1.39 1.42 2.8 2.18 2.19 2.23

361 354 355 361 355 361 354 361, 361

5.3.4 6.10 6.18 10.19 10.20 12.23

350 354 361 361 361 354

Comm. Matt. 14.1

361

Or. 1 5 17

361, 361 354 354

Princ. 2.4.4

163

Selecta in Psalmos

163

Tertullian Adv. Jud. 5 8 9 10 12 13

351, 357 351, 357 351, 354, 354 351, 352, 357, 361 357 351, 357

Carn. Chr. 20

362

Cor. 10

351, 354

Herm. 34

351

Idol. 4 20

354 351, 355

Marc. 2.27 3.13 3.14 3.17 3.19 3.22

357 354 351 351 352, 361 361

483

Index of Passages 3.23 4.14 4.15 4.35 4.42 5.18 Res. 20 22 26

361 351, 354, 354 351, 352, 361 351, 354 361 351

351 351 352, 355

Scorp. 2 6 8 10

351, 354 351 351, 354 357

Spect. 3

354, 361

Theophilus Autol. 2:35 2:38

351 351

Index of Authors

Alden, Robert L. 265 Allegro, John M. 317, 319, 325 Allen, Leslie C. 209, 210, 227, 231, 232, 233, 236, 238, 252, 253, 255, 256, 257, 258, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 272, 274, 279, 296, 299, 302, 310, 311 Allen, Thomas W. 48, 65, 67 Alster, Bendt 72 Alter, Robert 206 Alvarez, Andrea E. 85 Andersen, Francis I. 310 Anderson, Arnold A. 149, 185, 187, 210, 231, 232, 294, 295, 342, 357 Angel, Joseph 340 Antonelli, Roberto 26 Arbez, Edward P. 139, 142 Athanassakis, Apostolos N. 48, 66, 67 Atkinson, Kenneth 53, 69, 71 Attinger, Pascal 72 Attridge, Harold W. 348, 350 Auffret, Pierre 148, 152, 158, 211, 260 Auwers, Jean-Marie 136, 142, 143, 144, 153, 155, 169, 198 Ayres-Bennett, Wendy 23, 29 Baillet, Maurice 93, 94, 98, 220, 342, 344 Bakhtin, Michail 290 Ballhorn, Egbert 12, 185, 186, 192, 203, 209, 210, 227, 232, 232, 233, 237, 244, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 252, 254, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 274, 275, 277, 278, 305, 309 Barbiero, Gianni 12, 144, 155, 156, 158, 162, 169, 197, 198 Barré, Michael L. 188, 267 Barstad, Hans M. 266

Barth, Christoph 5 Barthélemy, Dominique 42, 98, 317, 344 Barton, John 358 Bauckham, Richard 351 Baumgartner, Walter 140 Baumgärtel, Friedrich 210 Bayer, Bathja 126, 172, 173, 182, 183, 184, 185, 191, 247, 323 Beardslee, William A. 217 Becker, Joachim 3 Becker, Jürgen 42 Beckwith, Roger T. 124 Begrich, Joachim 3, 4, 148, 263, 342 Bellinger Jr., William H. 138, 142, 155, 156, 197, 231, 232, 234, 236, 238, 250, 253, 256, 257, 260, 261, 262, 265, 268, 270, 273, 274, 312 ben Zvi, Ehud 52 Berger, Klaus 222 Bergmann, Eugen 47, 57, 58, 61 Berlin, Adele 245, 246 Berman, Joshua 269 Berrin, Shani L., 316 Berry, George R. 172 Bertholet, Alfred 151, 152, 153 Beyerlin, Walter 209 Biggs, Robert D. 50, 51, 58, 61 Black, Jeremy 39, 40, 41, 204, 398, 399 Blaising, Craig A. 165 Blau, Josua 255 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 219, 297, 303, 311, 312 Bock, Darrell L. 348 Bons, Eberhard 153 Booij, Thijs 245, 249, 251, 265, 266 Botha, Philippus J. 142 Botterweck, G. Johannes 150 Bouzard Jr., Walter C. 343

Index of Authors Braude, William G. 161, 166, 167, 186, 196, 204, 371 Braun, Joachim 182, 272, 273, 274 Braun, Roddy 215 Brennan, Joseph P. 155 Brettler, Marc Zvi 149, 254 Briggs, Charles A. 152, 216 Briggs, Emilie G. 152 Bright, John 217 Brisch, Nicole, 61, 204, 205 Brock, Sebastian P. 53, 69 Brooke, George J. 160, 161, 316, 318, 319, 322, 326, 327, 330, 343, 349, 350, 356, 357 Brown, Francis 216 Brown, William P. 155, 169, 206 Brownlee, William H. 149 Brueggemann, Walter 16, 138, 142, 155, 156, 197, 198, 231, 232, 234, 236, 238, 250, 253, 256, 257, 260, 261, 262, 265, 267, 268, 270, 271, 273, 274, 294, 295 Budd, Philip J. 311 Budde, Karl 293 Buss, Martin J. 176 Butler, Trent C. 144, 211, 212, 215 Carr, David M. 343 Carroll, Robert P. 217 Càssola, Filippo 48, 49, 66 Cazelles, Henri 152 Ceresko, Anthony R. 266, 269 Chae, Young S. 291 Charlesworth, James H. 87, 102, 103, 125, 336 Chazon, Esther G. 42, 44, 45, 52, 63, 64, 87, 223, 291, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335 Childs, Brevard S. 5, 6, 7, 10, 136, 184–85, 186, 187, 294 Chyutin, Michael 124 Civil, Miguel, 61 Clay, Jenny S. 48, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 Clifford, Richard J. 264, 301 Clines, David J. A. 140, 149, 216, 217, 219, 264, 273, 274, 299, 312 Cohen, Mark E. 50, 56 Cole, Robert L. 138, 139, 142, 144, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 158, 159, 162, 343, 357 Collins, C. John 137

485

Colomo, Daniela 83 Compagnon, Antoine 290–92 Coxe, A. Cleveland 163, 164, 351 Craigie, Peter C. 137, 139, 140, 148, 149, 150, 152, 177, 187, 206, 216, 217, 294, 297, 298, 300, 311 Creach, Jerome F. D. 15, 146, 153, 155, 156, 158, 170, 192, 197, 349 Crudden, Michael 48, 64, 66 Crüsemann, Frank 210 Dahmen, Ulrich 18, 95, 96, 100, 106, 116, 122, 123, 128, 264 Dahood, Mitchell 150, 266 Daly-Denton, Margaret 348, 349, 350, 356 Danby, Herbert 356 Davis, Kipp 6, 90, 326 Day, John 197 deClaissé-Walford, Nancy S. 7, 13–14, 15, 19, 136, 142, 148, 151, 155, 158, 169, 192, 198, 208, 209, 244, 246, 247, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 265, 266, 267, 270, 275, 278, 381 Deißler, Alfons 26, 27 Delitzsch, Franz 5, 150, 152, 163 Dell, Katharine J. 299 Delnero, Paul 40, 41, 76, 395, 396, 398, 400 Dimant, Devorah 64, 316, 339, 356 Dillard, Raymond B. 302, 303 Doble, Peter 350 Donaldson, James 163, 164, 351 Doran, Robert 356, 358 Douglas, Michael C. 43, 45, 52 Drinkard Jr., Joel F. 297, 298 Driver, S. R. 216 Duhm, Bernh D. 140, 256 Dupont-Sommer, André 70 Durham, John I. 311 Dwight, Walter S. J. 28 Ego, Beate 52 Eichrodt, Walther 311 Eissfeldt, Otto 69, 185 Elgvin, Torleif 337 Eliot, T. S. 3 Epstein, Isidore 142, 164

486

Index of Authors

Eshel, Esther 87, 88, 219, 326, 327, 331, 340, 341, 342 Eshel, Hanan 87, 88 Evans, Craig A. 316, 317, 348 Evelyn-White, Hugh G. 64, 67 Ewald, Heinrich 52 Ewald, Marie L. 165 Fabry, Heinz-Josef 18, 84, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 98, 99, 100, 101, 117, 118, 119, 125, 143, 340, 344, 376, 377 Falk, Daniel K. 332, 333 Faulkner, Andrew 48, 49, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 Faulkner, Raymond O. 168 Ferry, Anne 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 386, 387 Feuer, Avrohom Chaim 196 Fincke, Jeanette C. 398 Flint, Peter W. 7, 18, 31, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 110, 111, 113, 114–17, 118, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 212, 280, 316, 317, 318, 319, 321, 340, 342, 343, 344, 350, 356, 358, 360, 362 Fokkelman, Jan P. 209 Foster, Benjamin R. 47 Fox, Michael V. 73 Frayne, Douglas R. 50, 61 Fraenkel, Detlef 412 Freedman, David N. 51, 310 Füglister, Notker 265, 266, 268, 269 Furley, William D. 48, 66, 67 Gadotti, Alhena 400 Gamble, Harry Y. 199 García Martínez, Florentino 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 102, 322, 323, 340 Gardiner, Alan H. 73, 74 Garnett, Richard 22 Gauthier, Randall X. 262 Gärtner, Judith 209, 210, 212, 214, 215, 227, 231, 232, 234, 235, 237, 238, 308 Geller, M. J. 399 Gelzer, Thomas 49, 66 Genette, Gérard 26, 29–31, 33, 167, 168, 172, 178, 194

Gerstenberger, Erhard S. 15, 17, 19, 152, 153, 183, 185, 197, 210, 219, 232, 233, 238, 239, 256, 257, 259, 260, 262, 263, 265, 266, 267, 269, 270, 278, 311, 329, 376, 377 Gese, Hartmut 5, 198, 203, 213, 225, 226 Gevaryahu, Haim M. I. 172 Gillingham, Susan E. 139, 156, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 253, 289, 318, 345, 348, 349, 350, 353, 356, 362, 380 Ginsberg, Harald L. 178 Glassner, Jean-Jacques 58 Goldingay, John 17, 137, 138, 139, 146, 148, 149, 150, 153, 175, 183, 185, 197, 206, 207, 209, 210, 233, 234, 235, 237, 238, 245, 247, 252, 253, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 272, 274, 294, 296, 298, 301, 302, 303, 311, 329, 378 Goldstein, Jonathan A. 356, 358 Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. 105, 122, 125 Gosse, Bernard 15, 267 Goulder, Michael D. 5, 176, 226 Gragg, Gene B. 51, 58, 400 Grant, Jamie A. 14, 15, 16, 17 Gray, John 217, 299 Gregory, Elizabeth 292 Griffiths, Paul J. 23, 28 Guillory, John 22, 76 Gunkel, Hermann 3–4, 5, 6, 12, 19, 20, 148, 208, 263, 265, 342 Halliday, William R. 48, 65, 67 Hallo, William W. 41, 47, 58, 62, 75, 204, 395, 396, 397, 401 Hann, Robert R. 53, 70 Hardin, Carmen S. 165 Harkins, Angela K. 42, 43, 44, 46, 49, 53, 55, 56, 62–64, 78 Harrington, Daniel J. 337 Hartenstein, Friedhelm 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 144, 145, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 156, 158, 159, 162, 169, 274 Hartley, John E. 299 Hasler, Victor 222 Hasselbalch, Trine Bjørnung 42, 43 Hayes, John H. 150 Hays, Richard B. 291 Heimpel, Wolfgang 57

Index of Authors Hengstenberg, Ernst Wilhelm 5 Henry, W. Benjamin 83 Henze, Matthias 340 Herbert, Danby 218 Hertzberg, Hans W. 294 Hever, Hannan 28 Hilgenfeld, Adolphus 53 Hill, Robert C. 164 Hillers, Delbert R. 261 Holladay, William L. 217, 297, 298, 310, 311, 348, 350, 352 Holm-Nielsen, Svend 43, 53, 63, 69, 337 Holt, Else K. 156 Horgan, Maurya P. 317, 318 Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar 12–13, 14, 15, 137, 138, 139, 141, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 162, 169, 175, 178, 179, 183, 185, 186, 187, 197, 198, 207, 208, 209, 226, 227, 228, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 277, 296, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 304, 311, 321, 329, 342 House, Paul R. 52 Houston, James M. 152 Houston, Walter 176 Howard Jr., David M. 7, 12, 17, 19, 169 Humbert, Paul 150 Hunger, Hermann 198–200 Hunter, Richard 68 Hurtado, Larry W. 83, 412 Hutter, Manfred 72, 75 Høgenhaven, Jesper 142, 164, 165, 169, 325, 326 Illman, Karl-Johan 176 Jacobson, Rolf A. 14, 19, 136, 142, 148, 151, 158, 169, 208, 209, 246, 247, 250, 251, 252, 254, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 265, 266, 267, 270, 275 Jain, Eva I. 18, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 116, 117, 118, 121, 122, 126, 128, 129, 343, 344, 356, 358, 360 James, Montague R. 53, 55, 69 Janko, Richard 65, 67

487

Janowski, Bernd 13, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 144, 145, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 156, 158, 159, 162, 169, 197, 274, 275 Japhet, Sara 211, 214, 378 Jeppesen, Knud 151, 156 Jeremias, Gert 42 Jeremias, Joachim 218, 222 Joffe, Laura 197 Johnson, Cale J. 60, 61 Jones, Barry A. 52 Jones, Gwilym H. 217 Jonker, Louis C. 176, 182 de Jonge, Marinus 53, 69 Kagan, Zipora 25 Kaiser Jr., W. C. 140 Kasser, Rodolphe 83, 362 Katzin, David 318 Kautzsch, Emil 255, 266 Keel, Othmar 272, 273 Keesmat, Sylvia C. 350 Kelley, Page H. 297, 298 Kennicott, Benjaminus 163 Kidner, Derek 274 Kimelman, Reuven 246, 247, 248, 251 Kittel, Harald 21 Kleer, Martin 185 Klein, Anja 209, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 227, 231, 232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 309, 329 Klein, Ralph W. 302, 303 Kleinerman, Alexandra 72, 75, 400 Koch, Klaus 19, 192, 207, 212, 224, 225 Koehler, Ludwig 140 Koenen, Klaus 210 Koh, Yee von 181 Koorevaar, Hendrik 198 Körting, Corinna 329, 330, 331 Köstenberger, Andreas J. 356 Kramer, Samuel N. 40, 396, 398, 399 Kratz, Reinhard G. 19, 128, 138, 142, 143, 144, 169, 206, 212, 213, 214, 215, 225, 227, 244, 245, 246, 247, 249, 305, 307–8, 309 Kraus, Hans-Joachim 152, 162, 206, 209, 210, 231, 255, 256, 258, 262, 263, 269, 272, 294, 302, 311, 342 Krebernik, Manfred 50, 51

488

Index of Authors

Krecher, Joachim 50, 61 Kristeva, Julia 290 Kselman, John S. 251, 252 Kugel, James 26, 27 Kühlewein, J. 150 Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang 42, 43 Lambert, Wilfred G. 51, 61 Lane, William L. 53, 69, 348 Lange, Armin 18, 84, 85, 86, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 119, 126, 128, 129, 155, 156, 291, 292, 318, 321, 336, 337, 341 Laughlin, Mark 316, 317, 319, 320, 322 Lee, Seong Hye 21 Lejeune, Philippe 30 LeFebvre, Michael 140, 141, 143 Lemaire, André 87, 88 Leonard, Jeffery M. 291 Leonhardt, Jutta 351, 352, 353, 357 Leuenberger, Martin 12, 17, 18, 95, 96, 106, 128, 212, 213, 227, 256, 275, 276 Levenson, Jon D. 141 Levin, Christoph 198, 212, 215, 225, 227, 263, 308 Lichtenberger, Hermann 325, 341 Lichtheim, Miriam 73 Lim, Timothy H. 343, 344 Lindars, Barnabas 246, 247 Lindström, Fredrik 206, 299 Lohfink, Norbert 251, 252, 254, 256, 265, 268 Longman III, Tremper 16, 136, 137, 148, 150, 169, 225, 266 López, García 143 Loretz, Oswald 153 Löning, Karl 350, 353, 357 Lührmann, Dieter 69 Lundbom, Jack R. 298, 310, 311 Macintosh, Andrew A. 152 MacKenzie, Roderick A. F. 263, 264 Main, Emmanuelle 87 Marböck, Johannes 136 Martin, Lee Roy 140 Marttila, Marko 260, 263, 360 Mason, Eric F. 160, 161 Mathys, Hans-Peter 211, 212, 213, 214, 215

Mays, James L. 16, 136, 138, 141, 142, 148, 149, 155, 156, 157, 169, 177, 197, 198, 233, 251, 253, 253, 256, 258, 259, 260, 262, 265, 266, 267, 268, 270, 274, 275, 329 McCann Jr., J. Clinton 3, 7, 16, 19, 136, 138, 141, 142, 155, 156, 158, 207, 237, 251, 253, 268, 274 McCarter Jr., P. Kyle 294 McConville, J. Gordon 217 McKay, John W. 153 Meador, Betty De Shong 47, 57, 58 Menken, Maarten J. J. 348, 349, 350, 352 Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. 150, 151 Metzger, Bruce M. 162, 163, 164 Michalowski, Piotr 58, 400 Milgrom, Jacob 310, 311, 319 Milik, Jozef T. 42, 86, 93, 94, 98, 317, 344 Millard, Matthias 14, 15, 16, 122, 124, 136, 141, 142, 144, 155, 156, 162, 164, 190, 197, 223, 226, 244, 275, 278, 281, 300, 312, 344, 357, 359 Miller, J. Maxwell 150 Miller, Patrick D. 7, 11, 16, 136, 137, 139, 141, 142, 155, 156, 178, 198, 212, 217, 233, 244, 249, 250, 251, 259, 281 Mitchell, David C. 7, 11, 15, 17, 29, 156, 158, 176, 196 Moberly, R. W. L. 216, 218 Moi, Toril, 290 Moore, Erica 152 Morawe, Günther 42 Mosser, Carl 322 Movers, F. K. 68 Mowinckel, Sigmund 4–5, 6, 12, 136, 176, 184, 197 Moyise, Steve 348, 350, 352 Mroczek, Eva 18, 32, 43, 95, 117, 119, 123, 125–26, 162, 177, 324, 342, 343, 344, 348, 353, 358, 360 Mulder, Martin J. 217 Munnich, Olivier 383 Murnaghan, Sheila 48, 66, 68 Murphy, Roland E. 14, 301 Myers, Jacob M. 217, 219, 312 Nasuti, Harry P. 141, 176 Ndoga, Sampson S. 17 Negoita, A. 140

Index of Authors Neusner, Jacob 356, 359 Newsom, Carol A. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 53, 55, 337 Nickelsburg, George W. E. 69 Nielsen, Kirsten 156 Niemeyer, Cornelis T. 5 Nitzan, Bilhah 219, 220 Nogalski, James D. 46, 47, 52 Novakovic, Lidija 319 Nünlist, René 65 Oswalt, John N. 311 Otzen, Benedikt 139 Pajunen, Mika S. 18, 32, 46, 87, 128, 194, 326, 327, 330, 334, 337, 341, 344, 345, 346 Pardee, Dennis G. 177 Parpola, Simo 400 Patterson, Richard D. 266 Paul, Shalom M. 310 Payne, David 303 Pearl, Chaim 246 Pedersén, Olof 398 Penchansky, David 150 Petersen, David L. 46, 47, 72 Peterson, Jeremiah 401 Petrany, Catherine 19 Pfeiffer, August F. 273 Phillips, Anthony 216, 217 Pietersma, Albert 177, 182 Popović, Mladen, 87 Porter, Stanley E. 291 Preuß, Horst Dietrich, 354 Price, Leah 21 Prinsloo, Willem S. 265, 269 Pritchard, James B. 145, 150, 151, 205, 254 Propp, William H. C. 310, 311 Puech, Émile 42, 43, 44, 53, 55, 64, 95, 96, 102, 335, 336, 339, 340, 341 Qimron, Elisha 343 Rad, Gerhard von 235 Rahlfs, Alfred 412 Rappaport, Uriel 53, 69 Redditt, Paul L. 46 Reed, Annette Yoshiko 27

489

Reeves, John C. 361 Reif, Stefan C. 138 Reindl, Joseph 5 Reiser, Marius 53, 69 Renaud, Bernard 153 Rendtorff, Rolf 15, 185 Richardson, Nicholas 48, 49, 64, 65, 66, 67 Richardson, Seth F. C. 395 Riedel, Wilhelm 227, 228 Rietz, Henry W. L. 87, 125 Ringgren, Helmer 140, 152, 153 Roberts, Alexander 163, 164, 351 Robets, J. J. M. 322 Robinson, Alan 152 Robson, Eleanor 40 Rogerson, John W. 153 de Rossi, Giovanni Bernardo 163 Rubio, Gonzalo 50, 61, 173, 204, 205 Ruden, Sarah 48 Ryle, Herbert E. 53, 55, 69 Rösel, Christoph 12, 153, 192 Sanders, James A. 6, 18, 87, 94, 102, 104, 105, 113, 115, 116, 123, 125, 131, 210, 339, 340, 341 Sanders, Paul 203, 205, 238 Sarna, Nahum M. 142, 176, 182 Saur, Markus 149, 150, 151, 156, 169, 197, 207, 209, 210 Sautermeister, Jochen 268, 269 Sawyer, John F. A. 184 Schaper, Joachim 184, 383 Schmidt, Hans 140 Schmutzer, Andrew J. 262, 340 Schneider, Dale A. 52 Schnocks, Johannes 212 Schreiner, J. 150 Schuller, Eileen M. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 52, 53, 55, 63, 64, 87, 323, 326–27, 329, 331, 332, 334, 337, 342, 343, 344, 345 Schüpphaus, Joachim, 69 Schürer, Emil 69 Seely, David R. 334, 335 Seidel, Hans 224 Seybold, Klaus 7, 136, 142, 144, 155, 169, 196, 197, 206, 216, 217, 218, 222, 225, 232, 281, 356, 357, 358, 379 Shaffer, Aaron 400

490

Index of Authors

Sheppard, Gerald T. 144, 157, 159, 160, 162, 294 Sherman, William H. 30 Shin’an, Avigdor 380 Shipp, R. Mark 212, 215 Sikes, Edward E. 48, 65, 67 Silberman, Lou H. 42 Sjöberg, Åke 47, 57, 58, 61 Skehan, Patrick W. 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 92, 95, 96, 99, 101, 105, 106, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 212, 337, 340 Slomovic, Elieser 175, 184, 185, 186, 212, 252 Smith, Gary V. 310 Smith, Mark S. 17, 173, 177, 182, 183, 237, 302, 342, 358, 380 Sommer, Benjamin D. 303 Spieckermann, Hermann 232, 260, 263, 264, 299, 305, 310 Srivastava, Neelam 22 Stamm, Johann J. 140 Stähli, H.-P. 376, 377 Stec, David M. 139, 160, 268 Stegemann, Hartmut 42, 43, 44, 46, 53, 56, 95 Steinberg, Julius 197, 198 Steiner, Till Magnus 342 Stern, David 21, 22, 25, 26, 27 Steudel, Annette 160, 161, 319, 320, 321, 322 Steuernagel, Carl 52 Stone, Michael E. 360 Stordalen, Terje 140, 141, 145, 193, 194 Strugnell, John 44, 222, 320, 321, 333, 337, 343 Sukenik, Eliezer L. 41, 42, 45, 46 Sweeney, Marvin A. 47, 51, 52 Swete, Henry B. 383 Talmon, Shemaryahu 92, 97, 105, 124 Tanner, Beth LaNeel 14, 136, 142, 148, 151, 158, 169, 208, 209, 246, 247, 250, 251, 252, 254, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 265, 266, 267, 270, 275 Tanzer, Sarah 62 Tate, Marvin E. 137, 139, 140, 148, 149, 150, 152, 177, 187, 197, 198, 206, 294, 298, 300, 311

Terrien, Samuel 206, 231, 232, 237, 238, 253, 266, 268, 274 Testuz, Michel 83, 362 Thirtle, James W. 172 Thompson, John A. 214, 217 Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. 83, 94, 95, 96, 97, 102, 322, 323, 340 Tinney, Steve 39, 40, 72 Torres-Guerra, José B. 48, 49 Tournay, Raymond J. 265, 268, 269 Tov, Emanuel 43, 55, 92, 199, 200, 339, 344 Tucker, Gene M. 51 Tucker Jr., W. Dennis 15, 17, 235, 237, 248 Tueller, Michael A. 22 Tzoref, Shani 316, 317, 319, 320, 322 Ulrich, Eugene 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 99, 100, 101, 116, 256, 279, 280, 339, 343, 344 Van Dam, Cornelis 139 Van den Hout, Theo 72 VanderKam, James C. 321 Van der Ploeg, Johannes P. M. 86, 87, 340, 341 Van der Toorn, Karel 77 Van der Valk, Marchinus 48, 65, 68 Van der Woude, Adam S. 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 102, 216, 322, 323, 340 Van Dijk, Johannes J. A. 41, 47, 58, 62 Van Haelst, Joseph 412 Van Leeuwen, Raymond 301 Vanoni, Gottfried 268, 269 Van Pelt, M. V. 140 Vanstiphout, Herman L. J. 74, 75, 76, 77, 398, 399 de Vaux, Roland 93, 94, 98, 344 Veldhuis, Niek C. 39, 40 Verhoef, Pieter A. 376 Vermes, Geza 219 Volpilhac-Auger, Catherine 23, 29 Vos, Cas J. A. 178, 185 Wacholder, Ben Zion 95, 106, 124, 125, 297, 341 Wallace, Robert E. 14, 17 Wallraff, Martin 362

Index of Authors Walsh, P. G. 166 Waltke, Bruce K. 152, 172 Walton, John H. 14 Watson, Wilfred G. E. 246 Watts, John D. W. 51, 52 Watts, James W. 212, 214, 215, 293, 294 Watts, Rick 348, 349, 350 Weber, Beat 16, 136, 140, 142, 169, 176 Weidner, Ernst F. 399 Weigold, Matthias 291, 292 Weinfeld, Moshe 311 Weiser, Artur 177, 258, 260, 262, 265, 268 Weissenberg, Hanne von 46 Weitemeyer, Mogens 40, 399 Weitzman, Steven 215 Wenham, Gordon J. 21 West, Martin L. 48, 49, 64, 66, 67 Westermann, Claus 3, 5, 6, 10, 136, 303, 377, 379 Whybray, R. Norman 17, 142, 143, 170, 303 Wilcke, Claus 39, 57, 59, 61, 62, 395 Wildberger, Hans 217 Willgren, David 31, 32, 144, 162, 171, 185, 187, 196, 208, 266, 276, 299, 303, 321, 323 Williams III, H. H. Drake 350 Williamson, Hugh G. M. 211, 214, 302, 303 Willis, John T. 149, 150, 155, 162, 163, 164, 296 Wilson, Gerald H. 3, 5, 6, 7–11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 40, 41, 47, 55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 75, 77, 95, 96, 105, 110, 113–14, 115, 116, 117, 122, 125, 126–27, 129, 131, 136, 137, 140, 141, 142, 148, 150, 151, 159, 162, 169, 172, 174, 180–82, 183, 185, 190, 192, 194, 196, 197, 203, 206, 212, 238, 241, 244, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 275, 278, 307, 308, 309, 340, 388, 390, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 401 Winninge, Mikael 53, 69 Wittman, Derek E. 278 Woan, Sue 350 Wolf, Friedrich A. 66 Worthington, Martin 72 Wright, Robert B. 53, 55, 68, 69, 71 Wyckoff, Chris 247

491

Yadin, Yigael 94, 97 Yarchin, William 163, 190, 281, 362 Yassif, Eli 24, 25 Zenger, Erich 7, 12–13, 15, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 144, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 158, 162, 167, 169, 175, 176, 178, 179, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 192, 197, 198, 207, 208, 209, 212, 226, 227, 228, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276–77, 279, 281, 296, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 304, 308, 309, 311, 321, 329 Zimmerli, Walther 5, 158, 311 Zimmern, Heinrich 57, 58, 61