Pedagogy, Prayer and Praise: The Wisdom of the Psalms and Psalter (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161542725, 9783161542732, 316154272X

Citation preview

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

83

Catherine Petrany

Pedagogy, Prayer and Praise The Wisdom of the Psalms and Psalter

Mohr Siebeck

Catherine Petrany, born 1981; MA in Systematic Theology and PhD in Biblical Studies at Fordham University in the Bronx, New York; currently Assistant Professor of Theology at St. Vincent College in Latrobe, PA.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-154273-2 ISBN 978-3-16-154272-5 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.

© 2015 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.

Preface

This study presents a revised version of my doctoral dissertation submitted to the Department of Theology in 2014 at Fordham University in the Bronx, New York. A portion of chapter three appeared previously in The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms: The Current State of Scholarship, edited by Nancy deClaissé-Walford. I am grateful to Professor Konrad Schmid, Professor Mark S. Smith and Professor Hermann Spieckermann, editors of the Forschungen zum Alten Testament II series, for accepting this work for publication. I especially would like to thank Professor Smith for his detailed comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. I am also grateful to Dr. Henning Ziebritzki, Editorial Director for Theology and Jewish Studies at Mohr Siebeck, for his help throughout the publication process. Many thanks as well to Susanne Mang and Tobias Stäbler for their help in the preparation of this volume. I would like to acknowledge the Catholic Biblical Association of America for awarding me the Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., Scholarship during my graduate studies. This scholarship made my doctoral research possible, and I am very grateful for the association’s generosity and support. Many individuals at Fordham University contributed to this study. First, I am deeply grateful to Professor Harry Nasuti, my mentor, for his essential guidance throughout this research project and for inspiring me to love and study the psalms in the first place. In addition, Professor Mary Callaway and Professor Karina Martin Hogan, members of my dissertation committee, provided thoughtful comments throughout the dissertation process and have been truly generous dialogue partners. Thanks are also due to Professor Larry Welborn and Fr. Joseph Lienhard, S.J., for their kindness and support throughout my time at Fordham. Lastly, Anne-Marie Sweeney and Joyce O’Leary helped me in innumerable ways during my graduate studies and I am so thankful to them. In addition, I would like to express my gratitude to my current colleagues and wonderful support system at St. Vincent College, especially Dr. Jason King, Dr. Christopher McMahon, Fr. Nathan Munsch, O.S.B., and Dr. Patricia Sharbaugh. I am also grateful to Fr. Rene Kollar, O.S.B., for his encour-

VI

Preface

agement and his generous offer to obtain funding for the indexing of this manuscript. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude and love to my family and friends, particularly my parents Stephen and Nancy-Ann and my grandparents John and Geraldine. Thank you to Nicholas for being my everyday joy. I dedicate this book to my grandparents, Ronald and Grace, who experienced every part of my graduate studies with me and made writing this book possible.

Contents Preface ....................................................................................... V  Contents ................................................................................... VII  Introduction ................................................................................ 1  Chapter 1 ..................................................................................................... 5 

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship on Wisdom in the Book of Psalms ................................................................. 5  1. Wisdom in Individual Psalms ...................................................................... 5  Twentieth Century Foundations: Hermann Gunkel and Sigmund Mowinckel .................................................................................................. 5  Form-Critical Debate: Wisdom Psalms ..................................................... 13  2. Wisdom in the Psalter ................................................................................ 21  Redaction-Critical Approaches: The Psalter as a Wisdom Book .............. 22  Canonical Approaches: Multivalent Functionality of the Psalter.............. 28  3. The Present Approach ............................................................................... 34  Identifying Modes of Speech in the Psalms: Recent Approaches ............. 35  Aims and Method of the Current Study .................................................... 38  4. Conclusion ................................................................................................. 41  Chapter 2 ................................................................................................... 42 

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation: Wisdom and the Psalms .......................................................................... 42  1. Speaker and Audience in Biblical Wisdom ................................................ 44  Horizontal Orientation: Parental Imperative ............................................. 45   Horizontal Orientation: Third-Person Statements ..................................... 53  Vertical Orientation: Agur’s Prayer .......................................................... 59   Vertical Orientation: Prayer and Praise in Ben Sira .................................. 62  2. Speaker and Audience in the Book of Psalms ............................................ 69  Vertical Orientation: Supplication and Prophetic Address ....................... 70  Horizontal Orientation: Identified Audience ............................................. 74 

VIII

Contents

Third-Person Statements in the Psalms ..................................................... 78  Ambiguous Orientation of Speech ............................................................ 80  3. Conclusion ................................................................................................. 83  Chapter 3 ................................................................................................... 85 

Chapter 3: Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms .... 85  1. Psalm 25: Wisdom in an Individual Lament Psalm ................................... 88  2. Psalm 62: Wisdom in a Psalm of Trust ..................................................... 96  3. Psalm 92: Wisdom in a Thanksgiving Psalm........................................... 103  4. Psalm 94: Wisdom in a Mixed Genre Psalm ........................................... 109  5. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 116  Chapter 4 ................................................................................................. 119  Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms ........... 119  1. “Recite Aloud, Day and Night”: Psalm 1 ............................................... 120  Didactic Profile of Psalm 1 as an Individual Composition ..................... 131 Didactic Profile of Psalm 1 within its Immediate Context ...................... 131  2. “Be Silent and Wait for the Lord”: Psalm 37 ......................................... 137  Didactic Profile of Psalm 37 as an Individual Composition ................... 131 Didactic Profile of Psalm 37 within its Immediate Context .................... 146  3. “Hear This…My Mouth Utters Wisdom”: Psalm 49 ............................... 155  Didactic Profile of Psalm 49 as an Individual Composition ................... 155  Didactic Profile of Psalm 49 within its Immediate Context .................... 161  4. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 168  Chapter 5 ................................................................................................. 171 

Chapter 5: Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter .................... 171  1. Analysis of Psalm 73 ............................................................................... 173  The Problem: Verses 1–12 ...................................................................... 176  The Response: Verses 13–16 .................................................................. 179  The Encounter: Verse 17 ......................................................................... 184  The Change: Verses 18–28 ..................................................................... 186  Communicative Structure and Pedagogical Profile of Psalm 73 ............. 189  2. Psalm 73 and the Psalter ......................................................................... 193  Psalm 1 to Psalm 73 ................................................................................ 195  Psalm 73 to Psalm 145 ............................................................................ 200  Psalms 146–150 ...................................................................................... 205  3. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 208 

Contents

IX

Chapter 6 ................................................................................................. 210 

Chapter 6: Conclusions ............................................................ 210  Bibliography ............................................................................ 215 Indexes ..................................................................................... 229

Introduction The Psalter begins with a lesson on the value of a righteous life. Psalm 1 bestows its instruction simply, with rich metaphors and a third-person discourse that veils both the identity of the speaker and the audience. Thus, the book of Psalms, the liturgical songbook of diverse religious communities both present and past, commences not with a song-poem directed toward the divine, but with a descriptive and didactic reflection about the life-giving way of righteousness. Psalm 1 is wisdom, humanly provided and anthropologically concerned, situated outside of the voluble triangle of psalmist, congregation, and deity that comprises so much of the psalms’ communicative environment. This kind of wisdom, in various formulations, appears at different points throughout the Psalter. It contrasts with the dominant psalmic genres of lament and praise and it suggests a distinct provenance and function in the ancient world.1 Consequently, sapiential language in the psalms can seem like a kind of interloper, a didactic sidebar, rather than an integral part of the human-divine verbal encounter that constitutes the unique character of the Psalter. Due to this peculiarity, the role of human wisdom within the book continues to be a rich and evolving question. The present study attempts to contribute to this question of wisdom in the Psalter by approaching it from the vantage point of speech orientation, or more precisely, the distinctive interaction between horizontally oriented, inter-human speech and vertically oriented, human-divine speech in the psalms. One of the primary differences between the book of Psalms and the books of the wisdom corpus is the variegated communicative landscape that characterizes the former. The diverse cast of the psalmic audience extends beyond the foremost divine Addressee to a variety of respondents, including the congregation, evildoers, the self, the heavens, and many others. The direction of the psalmist’s address, as well as the shape of the invitation to respond, constantly changes. The rapid interchange of first-, second-, and thirdperson speech conjures an interactive verbal environment, and uniquely involves those who engage the text, offering not only the “you” but also the “I” 1 Claus Westermann identifies the primary modes of psalmic speech this way, writing that “in the Psalter there are two dominant categories, the hymn (including the Psalm of thanks) and the lament.” See his Praise and Lament in the Psalms (trans. Keith R. Crim and Richard N. Soulen; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981), 18.

2

Introduction

for the reader/hearer’s appropriation. Within this context, the pedagogical process cannot simply be identified with biblical wisdom but only emerges through the powerful interplay of constantly shifting speech. Thus, this study aims to constructively identify the psalms’ unique instructional function, one that relates to but ultimately moves beyond the content oriented issue of wisdom as such. To this end, chapter one situates the question of wisdom’s role in the book of Psalms by outlining the dominant historical-critical and canonical perspectives that have dictated the character of the inquiry in contemporary scholarship. Modern scholars have dealt with the presence of wisdom language in the book of Psalms in two primary ways. In the formidable wake of Hermann Gunkel, form-critical scholars have attempted to define the parameters of a wisdom psalm genre and identify its Sitz im Leben. As this scholarly quest floundered due to a lack of consensus regarding which psalms are wisdom psalms, redaction-critical scholars have shifted emphasis to the question of wisdom’s role in the shape of the Psalter as a whole. Exemplified in the work of Gerald Wilson, this approach sees wisdom as the dominant influence that transforms the Psalter from a liturgical collection into a didactic guidebook at the time of its final redaction. Canonical approaches to the final form of the Psalter likewise highlight the wisdom influenced instructional function of the book, while also stressing that the Psalter functions in multiple ways, with no one function being determinative. In conjunction with the latter, this chapter argues for a new approach to the question of psalmic wisdom that, rather than simply isolating wisdom passages, contextualizes wisdom’s presence in the psalms and Psalter according to its constant interaction with other types of discourse. Recent rhetorical and theological studies on the psalms from Carleen Mandolfo, Derek Suderman, and Beat Weber are consulted to situate the present approach. Chapter two examines the communicative environment of representative texts from the biblical wisdom corpus to provide the background for a comparison with the psalms. It is argued that biblical wisdom texts, despite a great deal of rhetorical and formal diversity, primarily present the pedagogical process as a horizontally oriented human discourse directed towards a human (student) audience. Exceptions to this arrangement are noted and analyzed, including Agur’s prayer in Proverbs 30:7–9 and three prayer texts in Sirach 22:27–23:6, 36:1–22, and 51:1–12. It is argued that such exceptions, particularly in the book of Sirach, clearly separate the teaching process from the prayer, and thereby differ from the integration of the two discourses in the psalms. This chapter concludes by outlining the many different configurations of the speaker-audience relationship that permeate the psalms, in contrast with the comparatively uniform speaker-audience relationship found in the biblical wisdom books.

Introduction

3

With this difference in mind, this study analyzes wisdom and instruction in the book of Psalms according to three distinct but related levels of interpretation. First, chapter three analyzes the role of wisdom elements in representative psalms of other genres, namely Psalm 25 (lament), Psalm 62 (confidence), Psalm 92 (thanksgiving), and Psalm 94 (mixed). What is found here is that the instructional value of these psalms is not isolated to the passages that reflect the wisdom tradition, but rather emerges through the integrated relationship between horizontal wisdom speech addressed to a human audience and the psalmist’s vertical addresses to the divine. In this way, the psalmist acts both as a lecturer to be heard and a model to be imitated, as the audience is invited not only to listen as the addressed “you” but also to take up the role of the “I” who addresses God, and the “we” who speak together in the congregation. Thus, it is argued here that the instructional import of these psalms is as much shaped by the speaker’s turn to prayer and worship as it is by the content of third-person statements and horizontal, second-person exhortations. In a second level of interpretation, the fourth chapter examines three psalms that bear a wisdom signature throughout and are comprised entirely of horizontally directed speech (Pss 1, 37, 49). First, the didactic profile of each individual psalm is drawn, noting both the parallels and divergences from resonant wisdom texts. This leads to the conclusion that each psalm, despite a strong affiliation with the wisdom tradition, also echoes other biblical frameworks and includes components that one does not usually find in sapiential texts. Second, this chapter examines each psalm within the context of its immediately surrounding psalms. When thus contextualized, the lexical, thematic, and communicative relationships that build among neighboring psalms re-introduce the patterns of instruction discerned in chapter three within individual psalms that contain wisdom sections. A theocentric focus in these groups of psalms converges with a communicative development that emphasizes once again the move into vertically oriented address, and the gradual drawing of the horizontally addressed “you” into the vertical life of the “I” and “we” who address God. Chapter five extends beyond the examination of wisdom’s role in individual psalms and small groups of psalms and moves into a third level of interpretation by asking how wisdom contributes to the shape and function of the Psalter as a whole. To do this, the chapter focuses on Psalm 73, a psalm with strong wisdom affiliations that scholars also have pinpointed as a significant turning point within the Psalter. Psalm 73 stands at the midpoint of the Psalter between Psalm 1 and Psalm 145, which initiates the Psalter’s conclusion of praise in Psalms 146–150. Both Psalm 1 and Psalm 145 also show an association with wisdom language. The development of wisdom’s role in these psalms (with reference to wisdom Psalms 37 and 49 as well) showcases the role of psalmic wisdom in the passage from the beginning to the end of the

4

Introduction

Psalter. It is argued that the hymnic contextualization of wisdom speech in Psalm 145, as well as the concluding “coda” of Psalms 146–150, substantiates wisdom’s role in the service of the unique psalmic invitation not only to listen, but to speak in prayer and praise as the psalmist does, and thereby inculcate the lesson of how to be righteous. Finally, this study concludes with a brief final chapter that summarizes and draws out the theological implications of the previous chapters. The different levels of psalmic analysis in chapters three, four and five reveal a flexible but identifiable pattern of pedagogy, one related to but distinct from the pedagogical strategies employed in the biblical wisdom corpus. Ultimately, the psalms teach by offering an invitation to take up the psalmist’s vertically oriented “I” within a communal context, that is, by forming their hearers into addressers of God.

Chapter 1

History of Scholarship on Wisdom in the Book of Psalms The role that biblical wisdom plays in the Psalter remains a lively and continuing subject of research in psalms scholarship. While the psalms contain many moments of wisdom-like teaching and piety, scholars cannot agree when and how these wisdom moments appeared in the psalms, or what effect seemingly sapiential elements have on individual psalms and the shape of the book as a whole. The significance of the issue is obvious by its staying power; different methodologies and scholarly emphases have variously shaped the contours of the question, but the basic problem remains the same. What role does the didactic wisdom tradition play in this seemingly liturgical collection or book of prayer-poems? A problematic but evident contrast exists between the “lessons” of the psalms and the more traditionally acknowledged expressions of supplication and worship. This question has developed in two primary ways in contemporary scholarship. First, scholars have dealt with the form-critical question of the “wisdom” genre of individual psalms. Second, studies on the final form of the Psalter have examined the influence of wisdom on the function of the Psalter as a whole. Both of these approaches have maintained a general bifurcation of the book’s didactic and liturgical functions, and defined psalmic wisdom as a post-exilic addition that promotes an individualized and reflective function distinct from the psalms’ original function as the spoken words and vocalized songs of Israel’s ritual life.

1. Wisdom in Individual Psalms 1. Wisdom in Individual Psalms

Twentieth Century Foundations: Hermann Gunkel and Sigmund Mowinckel The characterization of the Psalter as a disparate collection of liturgical poems stems from the emphasis on the cultic dimension of the psalms initiated by Herman Gunkel and magnified by his student Sigmund Mowinckel. Gunkel’s form-critical enterprise, which dominated psalms scholarship for much of the twentieth century, concentrates on interpreting psalms as individual compositions whose forms originated in the cult. While Gunkel holds that

6

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

various Gattungen originally had ties with the cultic activity of the Temple, he also stresses the “decisive change” by which psalmody came into the hands of pious individuals. These pious songwriters, influenced by the prophets, utilized traditional cultic forms but surpassed them by creating “spiritual poetry” geared towards an individual, rather than public, encounter with God. For Gunkel, this “spiritual poetry” is the “particular treasure of the psalter,” even as he recognizes that the ancient cultic forms remain.1 Gunkel’s acknowledgement that wisdom plays a significant, if limited, role in the historical development of psalmody initiated many years of scholarly effort to form-critically define psalmic wisdom and locate the ancient context of its composition. Gunkel himself sees wisdom not only as a distinct genre of poetry represented by entire psalms, but also as a consistent influence in psalms of other genres. Gunkel initiates his treatment of Weisheitsgedichte in the psalms by briefly examining the character of wisdom “outside the psalter.”2 Thus, his analysis of the topic begins with the idea that wisdom, insofar as it appears within the psalms, is an importation from another thought world rather than a fundamental aspect of psalmody in its origins.3 Gunkel identifies what he sees as the main stages of sapiential thought in the biblical wisdom books, from short sayings to more extensive poetry and then, ultimately, reflection on the question of divine retribution.4 Subsequently, he identifies these stages in various psalms throughout the Psalter, classifying Psalms 1, 37, 49, 73, 91, 112, and 128 as wisdom poetry.5 In addition to these psalms, Gunkel also sees wisdom as an identifiable influence in psalms of other genres, including thanksgivings, hymns, complaints, and mixed poetry.6 1

Hermann Gunkel and Joachim Begrich, Introduction to the Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel (trans. James D. Nogalski; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998), 20. 2 Ibid., 293. 3 Ibid., 298. Gunkel does briefly suggest, however, that the influence of “lyric poetry” can also be seen in wisdom, such as the hymns and individual complaints in the book of Job, as well as in the book of Sirach. 4 Scholars now commonly reject the notion that wisdom developed from shorter to longer poetic forms. See James L. Crenshaw, “Wisdom Psalms?” CurBR 8 (2000): 9. 5 Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 295–297. It should be noted, with Roland Murphy, that Gunkel is not absolutely clear about which psalms he considers to be wisdom poetry. As Murphy points out, perhaps this is related to the subsequent difficulty scholars have had reaching a consensus. See Roland Murphy, “A Consideration of the Classification ‘Wisdom Psalms’,” in Congress Volume Bonn 1962 (ed. G.W. Anderson et al; VTSup 9; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 157. 6 Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 297. According to Gunkel, the “lyric genres” that show a wisdom influence include the following: Pss 25:12f; 31:24f; 32:6f, 8–10; 33:16–18; 34:12–22; 39:6c, 7; 51:15; 62:9–11; 73:1f; 92:7; 94:8–11, 12f; 97:10; 107:43; 111:10ab; 119:1–3, 21, 118, 119a. Gunkel seems to distinguish here between lyric genres that include

1. Wisdom in Individual Psalms

7

Gunkel identifies wisdom in the psalms by appealing primarily to content, in much the same way that he identifies royal psalms. First, he cites terminological indicators, namely wisdom/‫( חכמה‬Pss 49:4; 37:30; 111:10), instruction/‫( תורה‬Pss 78:1; 94:12), riddle/‫( חידה‬Pss 49:5; 78:2), and proverb/‫( משׁל‬Pss 49:5; 78:2).7 Second, he cites content such as references to the “fear of the Lord,” the “terrible fate of the godless,” the “doctrine of retribution,” and the contrast between the righteous and the wicked. He also cites a number of different forms associated with wisdom, such as the direct address of father to son, admonitions, short instructional sayings such as the numerical saying, “better than” sayings, and ‫ אשׁרי‬sayings.8 Perhaps most significantly, Gunkel declares in relation to identifying wisdom elements in psalms of other genres: In general, even if not in every particular case, wisdom components (mostly sayings) stand out in the particular psalms by the fact that they speak about YHWH in the third person, 9 and thus do not exhibit the form of a prayer.

Of course, this statement does not stand in actuality; many psalms speak about God in the third person within the clear boundaries of cultically derived genres that he himself outlines, such as the hymn or even the lament. However, the idea that wisdom elements are simply not prayerful seems an intuitive part of the identification for Gunkel. Gunkel vacillates regarding the Sitz im Leben of wisdom psalms, and does not explicitly link wisdom poetry in the psalms with one particular setting. He rejects any notion that these psalms were originally composed for worship, but acknowledges that wisdom poetry could have been introduced to worship services at a later point. So, for example, he argues that Psalms 49 and 91 may have been performed with music and even in worship. But he denies that such poems were originally created for this, but rather “were at home elsewhere,” without identifying this original “home.”10 He argues that wisdom poetry was adopted in cultic settings at a later point “because they were so loved by the laity that they could not do without them in cultic performances.”11 In the end, however, Gunkel admits the futility of assigning a setting for the late adoption of such poems, writing that one “cannot determine at which occasion these wisdom poems would have been performed in “wisdom sayings” and mixed psalms that show a more distinct, and perhaps extended, alternation of genre. In the latter category, he seems primarily to be referring to Pss 94 and 119 (Ibid., 298; 308–310). However, this distinction does not seem to be rigid, as he talks about wisdom mixtures, for example, represented in single verses in hymns (e.g. Pss 107:43; 111:10). 7 Ibid., 299. 8 Ibid., 299–302. 9 Ibid., 298. 10 Ibid., 303. Here, he notes the “overwhelmingly secular” content of Pss 49, 127:3–5, and 133. 11 Ibid., 303.

8

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

the worship service.”12 Despite this indeterminacy, his acknowledgment that psalmic wisdom could have had a secondary use in the cult points to the fluidity of function associated with different kinds of biblical poetry. This secondary role for psalmic wisdom does not, for Gunkel, obscure wisdom’s key role in the gradual historical shift by which cultic poetry became “spiritual poetry which was free from the cult.”13 Generally, Gunkel identifies the wisdom tradition as a late, non-cultic influence on the book of Psalms.14 It represents the “penetration of reflection” into cultic poetry, and the separation of the psalms from the particular worship events that gave stiff form to the psalmic genres. That is, such wisdom elements are indicative of the historical development in psalmody that ultimately concludes with the severance of a particular genre from its cultic setting. While later scholars question Gunkel’s understanding of the boundaries of “cult,” his work instilled a scholarly idea that continues to float implicitly through commentaries and studies, namely that wisdom elements stand distinct from cultic elements in the psalms. In contrast with Gunkel, Sigmund Mowinckel held that the majority of the psalms were composed for the “congregational cult,” and so were essentially public in character rather than private poetry that imitated older, cultic motifs.15 He engages in “cultic interpretation,” boldly linking the psalms to a festival setting in ancient Israel. However, Mowinckel himself acknowledges that a few psalms stubbornly refuse to cooperate with his overarching, cultic vision of the Psalter, that indeed, a problem arises when we find in the Psalter some poems which do not seem to have been composed for cultic use. The problem in psalm exegesis is not the cultic psalms, but the non-cultic ones.16 By emphasizing the cultic character of the psalms, Mowinckel effectively cements the “outsider” status of “non-cultic,” wisdom-like psalms. With regard to the nature of wisdom poetry’s composition, Mowinckel admits that a fluid line separated the Israelite wise from Temple personnel, and that the “psalmists have learnt from the learned men, and the learned men have learnt

12

Ibid., 303. Ibid., 306. 14 Not completely, however. Gunkel (Ibid., 305) does not deny the possible “early placement” of poems like Pss 49 and 127:3–5, but he does think that acrostics are late, as well as Torah piety, references to the walls in Ps 128, commercial (not agricultural) activity in Ps 112 and the “language” of Ps 73. 15 Gunkel (Ibid., 21) writes that “Mowinckel’s fundamental error appears to consist of undervaluing the spiritual heights of the psalmist, and Israel’s spiritual life in general. He conceives of the psalmist in particular as too primitive.” This illuminates rather clearly the ideological presuppositions guiding Gunkel’s definition of cult. 16 Sigmund Mowinckel, “Psalms and Wisdom,” VTSup 3 (1955): 205. 13

1. Wisdom in Individual Psalms

9

from the psalmists.”17 In addition to redacting the psalms, Israel’s wise men “became psalmists” themselves, and composed their own brand of poetry that eventually, but not originally, came to be included in the Psalter. While these men were “traditionalists” and their poetry is earmarked by the inheritance of Temple psalmody, they ultimately created something fundamentally different and unattached to specific cultic circumstances.18 Unlike “genuine psalmography,” this “learned psalmography” was private and didactic.19 According to Mowinckel, the beginnings of this kind of wisdom poetry as found in the psalms came to full fruition in later Jewish psalmography, such as one finds in Sirach and the Psalms of Solomon.20 Mowinckel identifies “learned psalmography” by vaguely pointing to style and content shared with the wisdom tradition, such that to “a greater or lesser degree the psalm becomes a didactic poem.”21 He lists Psalms 1, 19B, 34, 37, 49, 78, 105, 106, 111, 112 and 127 in this category. The main characteristic seems to be some presence of human instruction, which Mowinckel cannot find a place for in Israel’s public experience of temple worship. He points to wisdom’s influence on the thanksgiving psalm, which led testimony to become admonition, and worship to become religious/moral instruction. For Mowinckel, this dynamic simply becomes amplified in “learned psalmography,” where the admonition/warning form prevails. The subject of the wicked and the righteous (Pss 1; 112) and the issue of retribution (Ps 49) become prominent, often embroiled in the problem of theodicy (Pss 78; 105; 106).22 Like Gunkel, Mowinckel is willing to supply a secondary, limited cultic function for this kind of private poetry (such as the personal thanksgivings Pss 34, 37, 49, and 73). However, he suggests that some psalms (e.g. Pss 1, 127) may never have functioned ritually and were simply added at the time of the book’s redaction.23 One gets the sense that Mowinckel simply cannot accept 17 Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (trans. D.R. Ap-Thomas; 2 vols.; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962), 2:106. 18 Ibid., 2:106. 19 Ibid., 2:106–109. 20 Ibid., 2:116–118. In this, Mowinckel generally aligns with two oft-cited studies from 1937 by M. Ludin Jansen and P.A. Munch, who attempted to lend definition to the setting of such psalms. See H. Ludin Jansen, Die spätjüdische Psalmendichtung: Ihr Entstehungskreis und ihr “Sitz im Leben,” (Oslo: Norske videnskaps-akademi, 1937); P.A. Munch, “Die jüdischen ‘Weisheitspsalmen’ und ihr Platz im Leben,” Acta Orientalia 15 (1937): 112–140. For a brief but helpful summary of these two studies, see Roland Murphy, “A Consideration of the Classification,” 158. See also, James Crenshaw, “Wisdom Psalms?,” 10. 21 Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2:112. 22 Ibid., 2:112. 23 Ibid., 2:114. Of the wisdom-inflected thanksgivings listed, Mowinckel suggests that they “may have been deposited as a votive and memorial gift to Yahweh and a testimony to future generations, and on a later occasion have been included in the treasury of psalms,

10

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

the idea that these poems were included in this deeply “cultic” collection of psalms, primarily because of what he sees as their didactic and private character. In this way, Mowinckel explicitly ties the wisdom character of these compositions to an evident didacticism that he sees as fundamentally non-cultic. However, he does distinguish the didactic character of “learned psalmography” from its purely educational counterpart in biblical wisdom due to what he sees as its prayerful dimension. In spite of the didactic character of the ‘learned psalmography,’ it has one characteristic in common with genuine psalmography: these poems are, and must be considered as, prayers. 24 Like every real psalm, they address God, even though they often address men as well.

Grammatically, of course, not all didactic psalms actually address God or contain any explicit prayer language at all, but Mowinckel seems unconcerned by this.25 For him, while the didactic character of wisdom poetry does fasten it with a “non-cultic” designation, it does not preclude its essential character as a poetic vehicle for communication with the divine. In general, Mowinckel defines prayers as spontaneous, connected with a home-bound and ultimately synagogal piety that might have appealed to psalm stylistics without bearing any actual attachment to the Temple cult.26 Thus, with the statement above, he differentiates “learned psalmography” from wisdom literature while maintaining its fixedly non-cultic character. This poetry, while indicative of an inter-human didactic encounter, still has an ambiguously-defined vertical (human-divine) dimension, but not a cultic one.27 Despite this caveat, Mowinckel essentially constructs a barricade between “genuine” and “learned” psalms, based precisely on the idea that the latter are didactic. So, while he has a fundamentally different understanding of the Psalter than Gunkel, the two scholars agree that wisdom is an external, noncultic, and late influence on the psalms. Moreover, both scholars associate the composition of wisdom/non-cultic psalms and psalm passages with private devotion and an instructional function. This view of how psalm composition the transmission of which was the duty of the temple singers and the temple poets.” So, while originally private, such poems might still have secondarily been taken up into public worship. 24 Ibid., 2:108. 25 Psalm 1 is the first and perhaps most obvious example of this phenomenon. 26 Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2:108. 27 According to Mowinckel (Ibid., 2:110–111), the “learned psalmist” had two objectives, namely to honor and call upon God and to teach the young to honor God. It is the latter objective that he refers to as the “true religious element,” as a personal “witness” and “example” that leads the young on the right path. With this dual objective of the “learned psalmist,” Mowinckel holds together both the divine and human encounters and thereby essentially distinguishes “learned psalmography” from wisdom literature, which has the sole objective of teaching the young, that is, solely human communication.

1. Wisdom in Individual Psalms

11

and use developed draws a historical and stylistic divide, then, between the cultic and didactic functions of the psalms. In this way, psalmic pedagogy, insofar as these scholars treat it as a possibility, is relegated to a setting separate from that of worship, and is seen as more wisdom-like in its manifestation than truly psalm-like.28 The foundation built by these two scholars set the stage for the rather significant question of what makes a psalm a psalm, and whether didactic poems truly belong to the collection in which they are found. Must a psalm bear some kind of connection with the Jerusalem Temple to be considered “cultic” and even “psalmic”? Is didactic poetry fundamentally “non-cultic” and even “non-psalmic”? In the wake of Mowinckel’s emphasis on the cultic character of the psalms, some came to prize the Psalter’s ritual setting as the primary context for understanding all of the psalms, including those Mowinckel excluded as “non-cultic.”29 Ivan Engnell, for example, not only rejects the notion that any psalm is “non-cultic,” but also argues that all psalms originated in the pre-exilic period.30 He confidently affirms that “we cannot doubt for a moment that we are dealing with ritual texts here.” 31 This position leads him to the famous statement that, “The truth of the matter is that the Book of Psalms does not contain any ‘wisdom poems,’ at all.”32 For Engnell, any appeal to “wisdom psalms” involves a “didactic interpretation” that he finds

28

The closest either scholar comes to assigning an instructional function to the ancient cult lies in their respective treatments of the thanksgivings, that both acknowledge as the first line of cultic defense to cave to wisdom forces. Gunkel (Introduction to the Psalms, 209) locates this didactic element in the “confession” of the psalmist, which could take “the form of wise doctrine and the festival guests become students to whom the instructor now proclaims his wisdom” (here, he cites Pss 31:24; 32:6ff; 34:12ff; 51:15). The psalmist may also engage in admonitions, another common component of wisdom poetry (here, he cites Pss 31:24a, 25; 32:8f; 34:12–15; Sir 39:6). While Mowinckel (Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2:77) believes that such testimony “according to its true nature also seeks to be a confession to Yahweh,” he ultimately avers that the influence of wisdom poetry often turned this element into “sermons in verse.” Thus, while both acknowledge that thanksgiving psalms sometimes involve a didactic dimension, both also ultimately explain this phenomenon by appealing to wisdom’s influence. 29 For a helpful summary of research on this issue between the period of 1955 and 1965, see David J.A.Clines, “Psalm Research since 1955: I. The Psalms and the Cult,” in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, 1967–1998 (JSOTSup 293 vol. 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 639–664. 30 Ivan Engnell, “The Book of Psalms,” in A Rigid Scrutiny: Critical Essays on the Old Testament (ed. and trans. John T. Willis; Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1969), 68–122. This article originally appeared under the title “Psaltaren,” in Svenkst Bibliskt Uppslagsverk,(eds. I. Engnell and A. Fridrichsen; vol. 2; Gävle: Skolförlaget, 1952), 787– 832. 31 Engnell, “The Book of Psalms,” 76. 32 Ibid., 99.

12

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

wrong in principle due to its non-cultic or “anti-cultic” associations.33 For him, this position relies on faulty historical perspective that relegates socalled wisdom elements to a late date in the development of the Psalter.34 Instead, Engnell rejects Gunkel’s “expression of an evolutionistic, wishful dream” and claims that passages that seem like wisdom in the psalms were psalmic in origin, and only taken up by the wisdom tradition afterwards.35 Other scholars define the Israelite cult differently in their determination of wisdom’s place in the psalms. For example, Svend Holm-Nielson rejects an understanding of the Israelite cult that depends entirely on a connection with pre-exilic, ritual activities of the Jerusalem Temple. While he admits that late psalmody may have become separated from its original cultic setting, he sees no reason to presume that it therefore had no cultic significance at all, but may have been reinterpreted for developing understandings of the cult in the post-exilic era. He writes, To me, it only makes sense to use the word psalm if it is connected with divine service, thus cult. Thus, the question should rather be asked radically like this: Is there in the canonical collection any poems which cannot be denoted as psalms?36

Here, Holm-Nielson pinpoints the main issue arising out of the respective positions of Gunkel and Mowinckel regarding sapiential psalmody; the question of wisdom’s role in the psalms ultimately involves the question of psalmic identity itself.37 For Holm-Nielson, the very identity of a psalm lies in its connection with “divine service.” Consequently, he argues that we cannot call any canonical psalm “non-cultic,” an adjective that, for him, really means “non-psalmic.” Holm-Nielson advocates for an expanded view of cult that could include both Torah instruction and worship as legitimate forms of cultic activity. Moreover, he rejects the idea that instruction was simply a post-exilic activity that had no place in worship services. Instead, he argues that late instructional psalmody could have been fashioned intentionally, according to the way that instruction originally functioned as part of the pre-exilic temple cult. Because 33

Ibid., 98. Ibid., 100–101. Thus, passages that seem non-cultic or anti-cultic or wisdom-like, we must first see through the lens of the cult. For example, he sees Ps 1 as a “Torah-liturgy type originally connected with the king.” The “two ways” imaged in the psalm, rather than being a proverbial import, represent “a definite cultic situation in which the so-called ethical requirements were cultivated.” Similarly, Engnell sees no reason why the acrostic psalms must be late compositions; rather, they derive from the cult and are a “hymnicparenetic type” that ultimately influenced wisdom poetry, rather than vice versa. 35 Ibid., 75–76. So, Engnell does not deny that wisdom circles may have had a hand in the redaction of the Psalter, but he thinks the case has been overstated. 36 Svend Holm-Nielson, “The Importance of Late Jewish Psalmody for the Understanding of Old Testament Psalmodic Tradition,” ST 14 (1960): 10. 37 See Clines, “Psalms Research,” 642–643. 34

1. Wisdom in Individual Psalms

13

of this expanded view of cult, Holm-Nielson is able to preserve the “cultic” and therefore the “psalmic” nature of every canonical psalm. So, though by way of a different route, Holm-Nielson attempts to preserve the “psalmic” character of every psalm just as Engnell does. However, though both scholars call for a broader understanding of cult, Engnell’s study lacks the definitional elasticity of the latter; he rejects the idea that psalms could have been didactic in much the same way as Mowinckel, simply denying that seemingly didactic songs were originally composed for didactic purposes. Engnell’s attempt, then, to preserve the psalmic character of every psalm is once again predicated on the idea that instruction was alien to the Jerusalem cult. The respective analyses of these two scholars highlight the stakes for the question of psalmic wisdom as it emerges from the foundational research of Gunkel and Mowinckel. The constructed divide between cult and instruction, based on a particular understanding of the Psalter’s historical development in relation to presumed divisions of Israelite society, would shape the way that scholars approached any psalm that resonated with biblical wisdom. Within this framework, the presence of didactic discourse in the psalms, whether construed as a pre- or post-exilic phenomenon, whether a cultic or non-cultic expression, raises the question of psalmic identity as such. Form-Critical Debate: Wisdom Psalms The methodological predilections of Gunkel’s form-critical approach eventually led to the issue being framed as a matter of identification. Are wisdom psalms a distinct genre found within the Psalter and, if so, what is the Sitz im Leben of such psalms? In certain studies, the scholarly ambition to spell out the historical implications of wisdom elements in the psalms initially glossed over the difficulty of simply recognizing which passages in the Psalter betray a connection with the sapiential tradition. Indeed, the intricate difficulty of isolating “wisdom” in the psalms often obscures the knottier obstacle of defining “wisdom” itself in the first place.38 Conflicting reports arose; scholars cannot agree which psalms are properly “wisdom psalms,” due to differing sets of criteria and the general difficulty of separating the terminology and themes represented in the wisdom literature from terminology and themes found throughout the Hebrew Bible. Still, this did not impede many scholars from optimistically venturing into a vigorous form-critical quest to define the parameters of a wisdom psalm. 38

James L. Crenshaw notes the diversity of biblical wisdom as such, and the difficulty of constructing a definition that is neither too broad nor too narrow. See his “Method in Determining Wisdom Influence Upon ‘Historical’ Literature,” JBL 88 (1969): 130–132. See also R.N. Whybray, The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974), 2–5.

14

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

Roland Murphy, one of the early proponents of the classification of “wisdom psalm,” attempts to fill the form-critical gap created by Gunkel’s imprecise categorization by offering “acceptable criteria” for identification. Murphy lists seven formal characteristics, namely ‫ אשׁרי‬formulas, numerical sayings, ‘better’ sayings, father/son address, alphabetic structure, simple comparisons and admonitions. In addition to formal criteria, Murphy cites content that marks wisdom, namely the contrast between the wicked and the righteous, the two ways, the concept of divine retribution, behavioral advice, and fear of the Lord.39 In accordance with these criteria, Murphy decides that seven psalms can be called wisdom psalms, namely Psalms 1, 32, 34, 37, 49, 112, and 128.40 In addition, he lists a number of psalms that include wisdom elements, namely Psalms 25:8–10, 12–14; 31:24–25; 39:5–7; 40A: 5–6; 62:9– 11; 92:7–9; 94:8–15.41 Of the latter, Murphy sees no reason why the psalmists could not have borrowed from the wisdom tradition. Though Murphy seems willing to accept the basic position that wisdom psalms derive from the sages and a general milieu sapientiel, he does not thereby rule out the possibility that such psalms had a place in Israel’s liturgical tradition.42 So, while he adheres to the notion that such psalms were composed in wisdom circles, he sees no reason to suppose that these poems did not subsequently find a home in the cult. Building on threads in Gunkel’s work, Murphy finds the best evidence for possible cultic use in the testimony/Bekenntnis of thanksgiving psalms, which gradually took on a “didactic character.”43 Of the psalms he cites as containing wisdom elements, the thanksgiving presents an opportunity for “teaching” a lesson drawn from experience. As such, it provides a liturgically based opportunity for instruction, and an access point for both partial and complete works of wisdom poetry to gain admission into the Psalter. While acknowledging this possibility, however, Murphy ultimately remains skeptical about the determination of Sitz im Leben for wisdom psalms as such, admitting that “the precise life-setting of these psalms eludes us.”44 Thus, Murphy, despite his more explicit criteria for categorization, does not stray too far from the insights of Gunkel and seems to accept wisdom as derived from wisdom schools, and a late import that gained entry into the psalms through the thanksgiving testimony. His liberality on the question of possible cultic use echoes Gunkel’s own admission that certain wisdom poems could have secondarily been used in the cult. 39

Murphy, “A Consideration of the Classification, ‘Wisdom Psalms’,” 159–160. Here, he differs from both Gunkel (Pss. 1, 27, 49, 73, 91, 112, 128) and Mowinckel (Pss. 1, 19B, 34, 37, 49, 78, 105, 106, 111, 112, 127). 41 Murphy, “A Consideration of the Classification, ‘Wisdom Psalms’,” 165. Murphy acknowledges that this list is representative rather than comprehensive. 42 Ibid., 160–161. 43 Ibid., 161. 44 Ibid., 161. 40

1. Wisdom in Individual Psalms

15

J. Kenneth Kuntz offers perhaps the most optimistic voice in the formcritical debate about wisdom psalms, building on Murphy’s article but also attempting to expand on it by gathering a more detailed collection of evidence to support the idea of a separate wisdom psalms category. In an early essay, Kuntz identifies seven rhetorical devices found in psalmic wisdom: the “better” saying, numerical saying, admonition, parental address, ‫ אשׁרי‬formula, rhetorical question, and simile.45 He also vigorously engages terminological evidence, using R.B.Y. Scott’s list of terms particularly associated with wisdom literature to discover which psalms have a high frequency of “wisdom” terms.46 Lastly, Kuntz identifies the thematic elements of psalmic wisdom, namely fear of the Lord/Torah veneration, the contrast between the righteous and wicked, the concept of retribution, and behavioral advice.47 This conglomeration of evidence leads Kuntz to affirm the seven psalms Murphy identifies as wisdom psalms, and to add Psalms 127 and 133.48 Subsequently, Kuntz divides these wisdom psalms into three subgroups, namely sentence psalms (Pss 127, 128, 133), acrostic psalms (Pss 34, 37, 112), and integrative psalms (Pss 1, 32, 49), the last of which seems to be simply those wisdom psalms that do not fit into the first two categories.49 Kuntz, like Murphy, demurs with regard to the question of setting, and suggests that the identified wisdom psalms may have functioned either cultically or outside of the cult. For Kuntz, these lessons may have occurred in any number of places, whether “home, street, city gate, court, synagogue, and multi-faceted cult.”50 In this way, the generating principle of Kuntz’s project remains at least partially veiled, though in this early essay, he seems concerned to present psalmic wisdom as a definitive, didactic impulse within the psalms even if it is impossible to isolate where and how it was used. The difficulty in establishing the Sitz im Leben of wisdom psalms turns once again on the notion that didactic speech had no place in the Jerusalem cult, and either belonged to another context entirely (e.g. a school) or was only introduced in a ritual context in the post-exilic era, when the Jewish 45

J. Kenneth Kuntz, “The Canonical Wisdom Psalms of Ancient Israel – Their Rhetorical, Thematic and Formal Dimensions,” in Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (ed. J.J. Jackson and M. Kessler; PTMS 1; Pittsburg: Pickwick, Wipf and Stock, 1974), 191–199. 46 Ibid., 200–211. See R.B.Y. Scott, The Way of Wisdom in the Old Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1971), 121–122. 47 Kuntz, “The Canonical Wisdom Psalms of Ancient Israel,” 211–215. 48 Ibid., 186–222. 49 Ibid., 217–220. Of course, Kuntz identifies these subgroups only subsequent to his conclusion about which psalms are wisdom psalms. This leads to interesting methodological difficulties that other scholars point out, such as the fact that he only sees some acrostic psalms as wisdom psalms. 50 Ibid., 222.

16

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

concept of cult underwent a fundamental change. While certain scholars shape the nature of the problem in different ways, this basic framework persists. One can see this in the work of a scholar like Leo Perdue, who identifies the psalms as an important locus of interpretation for the much larger question of wisdom and cult as such. His point is that the sages were, in fact, both connected to and interested in cultic matters. Despite this liberality, he distinguishes between didactic poetry in the psalms and “wisdom psalms,” only the latter of which he sees as composed for cultic purposes, thereby once again siphoning off certain psalms as not truly “psalmic” in much the same way that Mowinckel does.51 Like his predecessors, Perdue’s identification of wisdom psalms relies on formal critera, namely forms, terminology, thematic content, and also structure. He divides wisdom psalms into “proverb poems” (Pss 1, 34, 37, 73, 112, 19B, 127), “‘ashrê poems” (Pss 32, 119) and “riddle poems” (Pss 49, 19A). While he finds that all these psalms contain wisdom forms and content, he argues that only Psalms 19A, 19B and 119 were composed by sages for cultic purposes in the pre-exilic era. Psalms 32, 34, and 73 were not composed for cultic use, but “broach the cultic realm” in their dealings with the “lament-thanksgiving cycle” as the appropriate “response to suffering.”52 Perdue contends that the other compositions listed above belong to a third category, namely “didactic poems” composed and used for educational purposes and possibly in wisdom schools. On the question of use, he believes that some didactic poetry, as found in the psalms, was simply intended for education and found its way into the Psalter through late redactors (Pss 1; 37; 49; 112; 127).53 Perdue’s analysis challenges the notion that all wisdom psalms must have been composed by a sage for a school. However, while he allows that the sages may have had a significant interest in the cult, he ultimately upholds the essential separation between the two realms from the perspective of function.54 Perhaps the sages taught about the virtues of prayer; the cult, however, remains primarily free from the permeation of instructional import. For Perdue, truly didactic poems in the Psalter reflect post-exilic, redactional activity that had its own purposes and ends apart from the cult.

51

Leo Perdue, Wisdom and Cult: A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the Wisdom Literatures of Israel and the Ancient Near East (Missoula, MN: Scholars Press, 1977), 261. 52 Ibid., 324. 53 Ibid., 324. 54 Katharine Dell extends and nuances some of Perdue’s ideas about the crosspollination of temple circles and sapiential circles in the pre-exilic era, and suggests that an early “creation tradition” with links to wisdom might be found in pre-exilic, cultic psalms. See her, “‘I will solve my riddle to the music of the lyre’ (Psalm XLIX 4 [5]): A Cultic Setting for Wisdom Psalms?” VT 54.4 (2004): 445–458.

1. Wisdom in Individual Psalms

17

Erhard Gerstenberger departs from this bifurcation of wisdom and cult by explicitly assigning a liturgical function to wisdom psalms that instruct. He cites the typical markers of the sapiential stamp, namely acrostics (Pss 9/10; 25; 34; 37; 111–112; 119; 145), didactic/meditative language (acrostics and Pss 1; 39; 90; 139), fate of the righteous/wicked (Pss 1; 37; 49; 73), and emphasis on Torah (Pss 1; 19B; 119). Moreover, he appeals to the familiar wisdom forms of the proverb, saying, admonition, prohibition, paradigm, and beatitude. However, Gerstenberger differs from previous studies in that he sees wisdom psalms as “liturgical instruction” that was a “vital part of early Jewish worship” akin to homiletic speech meant to edify a congregation. With this argument, he does accept that this poetry shows the effects of altered “conditions of worship” in the exilic and post-exilic eras, and so maintains the notion that this is late poetry.55 What is interesting about Gerstenberger’s analysis is that it represents a break with the common idea that didactic poetry is non-cultic while maintaining the form-critical platform that wisdom in the Psalter is simply a late incursion that only arose when psalmody entered the exilic and mainly post-exilic era. In other words, his work uniquely emphasizes the integral function of instruction within the cult, even if he refers only to the post-exilic cult. Avi Hurvitz is another significant voice in the form-critical debate on wisdom psalms because he significantly narrows the parameters of the genre’s designation, and does not enter into the on-going debate about its Sitz im Leben. Taking a purely linguistic approach, Hurvitz uses three “rules” for identifying wisdom psalms. First, he defines the texts that provide the foundation for isolating wisdom components in a “minimalist” way, namely the books of Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes. Second, he states that only terms and phrases that are found “exclusively or predominantly” in this corpus constitute meaningful linguistic evidence. Third, only psalms that show a “significant accumulation” of such terms and phrases can be designated as wisdom psalms.56 Hurvitz’s “rules” lead him to two wisdom terms, namely the noun hōn (Pss 112:3 and 119:14) and the imperative sūr mērā‘ (Pss 34:15 and 37:27), neither of which are commonly cited wisdom markers in other form-critical studies.57 In this article, then, Hurvitz only identifies these four psalms as wisdom psalms. His work is important because it shows that, even 55 Erhard Gerstenberger, Psalms Part 1 with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry (FOTL 14; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 19–21. 56 Avi Hurvitz, “Wisdom Vocabulary in the Hebrew Psalter: A Contribution to the Study of ‘Wisdom Psalms’,” VT 38.1 (1988): 43–44. It is on these grounds that Hurvitz (see especially note 10) rejects the sapiential quality of terms that other scholars (e.g. Murphy, Kuntz) identify as wisdom markers. The most telling is the term ‫אשׁרי‬, which, as Hurvitz notes, occurs forty-five times throughout the Bible, with only ten of its occurrences in wisdom books. 57 Ibid., 45–49.

18

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

with the methodological strictures that he imposes, one can still identify some connection between biblical wisdom texts and the psalms.58 Overall, despite the careful scholarship of Hurvitz and the other scholars outlined above, form-critical studies have failed to generate a consistent list of wisdom psalms, which underscores the difficulty of defining wisdom’s role in the psalms.59 R.N. Whybray famously offers a telling image of this conundrum when he writes, To write about ‘the wisdom psalms’ is a different proposition, somewhat akin to making bricks without straw, for there is no scholarly agreement at all about the number or the 60 identity of such psalms, or even about the existence of such a category.

In response to this situation, James L. Crenshaw offers perhaps the most vociferous skepticism and delineates the inherent problems that plague the quest for wisdom psalms. He points out that many of the identifying characteristics of wisdom in the psalms are not exclusive to the wisdom tradition, but rather belong to a “common ideology in the ancient world.”61 Crenshaw particularly takes Kuntz’s project to task, and points, for example, to the fallacy of using terminology to determine wisdom influence. Crenshaw objects on the grounds of broad use; he believes that many “wisdom terms” are simply terms that could also belong to priestly or prophetic circles, or simply represent the everyday vernacular.62 He finds Kuntz’s study problematic because 58

In another article, Hurvitz examines the relationship between two sets of oppositional terms, namely the common ‫צדיק‬/‫ ערשׁ‬and the wisdom terms ‫חכם‬/‫כסיל‬. He notes the relationship that develops between these sets of terms in the wisdom literature, such that ‫ חכם‬is sometimes parallel to ‫( צדיק‬e.g. Prov 9:9; Eccl 7:16) and ‫ כסיל‬is sometimes parallel to ‫ערשׁ‬ (e.g. Eccl 7:17). This parallel use of terms occurs only once in the Psalter, in Ps 37:30, where the righteous/‫ צדיק‬are said to speak wisdom/‫חכמה‬. This contrasts with typical psalmic language, which echoes non-wisdom biblical texts in associating the term ‫ צדיק‬with ‫ישׁר‬ (e.g. Ps 32:11; 119:37). For Hurvitz, this linguistic peculiarity reliably cements the wisdom character of Ps 37. See his, “ ‫‘ =צדיק‬wise’ in Biblical Hebrew and the Wisdom Connections of Ps 37,” in Goldene Äpfel in silbernen Schalen: Collected Communications to the XIIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Leuven 1989 (eds. Klaus-Dietrich Schunk and Matthias Augustin; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992), 109–112. 59 As early as Murphy’s article in the early 1960’s, scholars noticed that no two lists of wisdom psalms were the same. 60 R.N. Whybray, “The Wisdom Psalms,” in Wisdom in Ancient Israel (ed. John Day, Robert P. Gordon and H.G.M Williamson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 152. Despite Whybray’s skepticism, he too develops a list of sorts in this article, writing that Pss 34, 37, 49, 78, 94:8–14 and possibly Ps 90 have an association with biblical wisdom literature. 61 James Crenshaw, “Wisdom Psalms?” CurBS 8 (2000): 11. 62 With regard to this issue, Crenshaw (Ibid., 14–15) notes the study of Hurvitz with approbation yet still concludes that he has come “to question the very category of wisdom psalms.” Crenshaw’s skepticism regarding the usefulness of terminological clues is not

1. Wisdom in Individual Psalms

19

no reliable cross section of psalms emerges that unequivocally meet a high degree of Kuntz’s formal, terminological, and thematic wisdom markers in any uniform way. In addition to these methodological issues, Crenshaw also briefly but insightfully challenges the dissociation of instruction and cult fundamental to most wisdom psalms studies, writing that “the belief that instruction has no place in cultic liturgy appears wrong in principle.”63 These issues lead Crenshaw not only to deny the existence of wisdom psalms, but also to question the interpretive virtues of the inquiry itself. Crenshaw’s approach to the question of wisdom in the psalms injects an uncompromising skepticism into a problem with no clear answer. This is a debate without a punch-line; even many who accept the possibility of wisdom psalms cannot establish a Sitz im Leben for them. In a more recent essay, Raymond C. Van Leeuwen addresses this problem by rethinking the formcritical approach to Sitz im Leben. He rejects the traditional link between genre and institutional setting by arguing that the relationship between text and life, while meaningful, is not simple or direct. In between the literary genre and its oral life setting lie a series of other settings.64 He writes, Literary production permits the adaptation of primary genres to new contexts, functions and the creation of new genres based on the extension and combination of primary oral or inscriptional genres, or of previous literary genres. This generic fecundity is rampant in 65 Scripture, both on the micro- and macrolevels.

Due to these complexities, the value of form criticism lies in a fundamental, rather than institutional, relationship between genre and setting. Van Leeuwen asserts that “The power of genres is that even when modified and adapted, their original, primal force is evoked.”66 He defines this “primal without precedent, even among those who accept the category of wisdom psalms. Roland Murphy (in an article that post-dates his article on wisdom psalms) points out that wisdom itself can be an ambiguous term, and cannot be thought of as just a “form of instruction and language” but rather constitutes a “movement.” Thus, he writes that “Wisdom language does not constitute wisdom.” See his “Assumptions and Problems in Old Testament Wisdom Research,” CBQ 29 (1963): 410. 63 Crenshaw, “Wisdom Psalms?,” 9. See also Walter Brueggemann, “Response to James L. Mays, ‘The Question of Context’,” in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter (ed. J.C. McCann; JSOTSup 159; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 31. 64 Recent studies have shown the important “other” setting of scribal production. See William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007); David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). 65 Van Leeuwen, “Form Criticism, Wisdom, and Psalms 111–112,” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century (ed. Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 79–81. 66 Ibid.,” 81.

20

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

force” according to the basic “human function,” or the “end,” the “common human problem or function” of a particular genre.67 With this framework in mind, Van Leeuwen disassociates the question of wisdom in the psalms from the question of genre. He acknowledges that the generic features of wisdom appear in some psalms, but he denies that such features thereby define the function of that particular psalm. Psalms 111–112 illustrate this dynamic. Psalm 111 is a thanksgiving and Psalm 112 is a wisdom psalm and yet both participate in a unified “conceptual whole,” one Sitz im Leben identified according the “common human problem or function” of the imago et imitation dei.68 Van Leeuwen’s study frees the question of wisdom psalms from the problem of deciphering an institutional Sitz im Leben. Ultimately, however, the article does not address those moments in the psalms that are clearly educational, and functionally distinct from other kinds of psalmic discourse. He acknowledges the “common educative function” of the biblical wisdom genres, but does not comment on whether the psalms can also function instructionally, particularly if they include such wisdom genres.69 If the “primal force” of a particular genre is persistent, then what of the educative capacity of, for example, the “saying” in Psalm 111:10a? The value of twentieth-century form-critical scholarship on wisdom psalms for this study is the way that it has more clearly defined what it is that makes some psalms seem not like the others, so to speak. In response to the criticisms of Crenshaw, Kuntz contends that the presence of wisdom psalms in the Psalter reveals a voice distinct from that of the hymnist or the supplicant, a voice that Van Leeuwen does not fully acknowledge. These psalms, the “product of teaching poets,” address a human rather than divine audience with the purpose of “imparting lessons on the good life.”70 For Kuntz, the virtue of the quest to categorize wisdom psalms lie precisely here, in the revelation of their didactic import. This kind of form-critical research illuminates that the psalms seem not only to pray and praise, but to teach, and to teach (seemingly) in much the same way as the wisdom books teach. Still, establishing this kind of language as fundamentally different from the language of worship in all its forms fortifies the idea that psalmic wisdom, rather than playing an integral role in the unique rhetorical and theological identity of the book of Psalms, diverges from its most basic function, namely, a patterned encounter between the human and divine. This explanation fails to suffice unless one accepts that these compositions are not really psalms, 67

Ibid., 72–73, 82. Ibid., 80. 69 Ibid., 83. 70 J. Kenneth Kuntz, “Reclaiming Biblical Wisdom Psalms: A Response to Crenshaw,” CurBR 1.2 (2003): 151. 68

2. Wisdom in the Psalter

21

but rather generically and/or functionally connected with wisdom literature. Thus, the wisdom psalms debate, while useful for identifying parallels with the wisdom tradition in the psalms and emphasizing the psalms’ instructional potential, indirectly contributes to the endemic notion that didactic discourse is a secondary, and functionally distinct, part of the Psalter. Thus, one can draw several conclusions about form-critical scholarship on wisdom in the psalms. First, simply identifying the wisdom tradition in the psalms is a difficult, and contestable, endeavor. Second, with a few important exceptions, the majority of scholars either explicitly argue or implicitly assume the historical and literary priority of the “traditional” psalms over those poems that betray a connection with sapiential thought. Because of this, the wisdom tradition plays the role of an intruder, whether pejoratively viewed or not, in the book of psalms. Wisdom has an “effect” on the psalms, rather than being a “native” or even “authentic” feature of psalmic identity. Third, the way that scholars have understood the wisdom tradition in the psalms has largely determined the way that scholars have understood instruction in the psalms. The conflation of the wisdom tradition with the didactic function of the psalms has deep roots in modern scholarship.

2. Wisdom in the Psalter 2. Wisdom in the Psalter

Form-critical studies of the twentieth century interpreted individual psalms as such and displayed little interest in the Psalter as a book with a potentially meaningful structure. In the latter part of the twentieth century, research on the psalms took a decisive turn toward the latter.71 Instead of probing the patterned forms of individual psalms for clues about distinct settings, scholars began to explore the idea that the psalms exhibit meaningful relationships with each other and that the Psalter itself has a shape, a pattern, a comprehensive Sitz im Leben. This new focus on the Psalter’s shape takes different forms. Some scholars work on the relationships between smaller groups of psalms while others look for comprehensive clues about the book itself. Some scholars investigate these clues as evidence of the book’s redaction and historical development, while others use these indicators to shed light on the book’s continuing use and relevance as scripture.

71 Two collections particularly captured this shift: J.C. McCann, ed., The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter (JSOTSup 159; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger, eds., Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung (eds. Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger; HBS 1; Freiburg: Herder, 1994). See also Mark S. Smith, “The Levitical Compilation of the Psalter,” ZAW 103 (1991): 258–263, and “The Theology of the Redaction of the Psalter: Some Observations,” ZAW 104 (1992): 408–412.

22

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

In addition to becoming a heated form-critical debate about genre, the question of wisdom’s influence on the book of Psalms has had perhaps a more lasting and fruitful life within the context of this major scholarly shift toward the book itself. The significance of wisdom’s role in the redaction of the Psalter was recognized by modern scholars from an early stage, but not yet fully explored.72 The increasing emphasis on the shape of the book’s final form in the past thirty to forty years has brought the question of wisdom’s place in the Psalter to the forefront of study. Scholarly concern has expanded from an emphasis on defining a wisdom genre to defining a pervasive and potentially controlling wisdom presence throughout a multi-genre book.73 The historical, literary, and theological implications of this scholarly shift were and are innovative and wide-ranging. However, certain interpretive tendencies persist, namely a more or less explicit division of the sapiential and cultic/liturgical traditions in the psalms, and the assumption of an exclusive correspondence between wisdom and the pedagogical capacity of the psalms. Thus, with regard to psalmic wisdom, the shift is one of perspective rather than paradigm, as scholars became more interested in the post-exilic wisdom mechanisms that Gunkel, Mowinckel and others had already identified. Redaction-Critical Approaches: The Psalter as a Wisdom Book From a redaction-critical perspective, the mere whisper of wisdom language in any psalm can become a significant clue into the minds and hearts of sages who seemingly imposed a non-cultic agenda onto an originally cultic book.74 Several studies are pivotal for this shift in the way that scholars approached psalmic wisdom. In an essay from the early 1980’s, Joseph Reindl differentiates between the psalms’ original, cultic setting and the non-cultic setting

72 So, for example, Mowinckel (“Psalms and Wisdom,” 206) acknowledges the role of “learned writers” who collected and preserved the psalms, and added superscriptions. 73 Emphasis on the Psalter’s shape as a whole coincided with a growing emphasis on wisdom’s redactional “influence” throughout the entire Old Testament. See James L. Crenshaw, “Method in Determining Wisdom Influence upon ‘Historical’ Literature,” 129– 142; N. Gerald T. Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament (BZAW 151; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980); Notker Füglister, “Die Verwendung und das Verständnis der Psalmen und des Psalters um die Zeitenwende,” in Beiträge zur Psalmenforschung: Psalm 2 und 22 (ed. J. Schreiner; Würzburg: Echter, 1988), 354–360. 74 My understanding of the overarching distinction between redaction-critical and canonical research on the shape of the Psalter has been significantly informed by the forthcoming article by Harry Nasuti entitled “Redaction-Critical and Canonical Approaches to the Psalms and Psalter,” in Cambridge Methods in Biblical Interpretation: The Book of Psalms (ed. Esther M. Menn; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).

2. Wisdom in the Psalter

23

imposed on the Psalter through a post-exilic wisdom editing.75 He sees Psalm 1, in both form and content, as an introductory didactic poem spoken by a teacher, encouraging his student to take up the Torah-infused wisdom that emerges in post-exilic Israel’s sapiential circles. As a preface, Psalm 1 emphasizes the written Torah (here, Reindl cites verse 2b) that has an effect on the way that the redactor intended the book to be approached, that is, studied.76 Reindl finds further clues of redactional intent in sapiential glosses and textual expansions that similarly substantiate the idea of a governing wisdom agenda.77 In addition, he examines the relationship between Psalms 90 through 92. Here, he finds that a shared theology based in the two ways of the righteous and the wicked both ties these psalms together in a meaningful way and provides a reference back to a similar theme in Psalm 1. Psalms 90–92 come at a pivotal point in the Psalter, at the conclusion of the Elohistic and Davidic collections, and the break between Books III and IV. For Reindl, these connections are purposeful and meaningful, revealing the heavy hand of a sage with an editorial, and ultimately theological, mission. Reindl characterizes this mission according to a shift in use or function. The psalms’ original function as cultic poems becomes subsumed into a new, integrated function as parts of a literary whole. Wisdom editors intended this “whole” for teaching and meditation on the Torah. Reindl does acknowledge the persistence of a cultic dimension in the psalms, but only in a limited way. He writes that “The psalms are and remain prayer formulas; but they serve now also as teaching and instruction and thus obtained a function that approached sapiential forms.”78 Despite this acknowledgment of both functions, he clearly favors the latter, also writing, “The original Sitz im Leben fades (not disappears!) before the new Sitz im Leben, which the Psalter has received.”79 Thus, for Reindl, the wisdom tradition represents the last and privileged context for interpretation. Rather than appearing as an isolated anomaly in individual psalms, sapiential redactors provide the governing voice in the book as a whole. From this purview, the Psalter essentially becomes a wisdom book.80 The shift apparent in Reindl’s study becomes explicit and expanded in the work of Gerald Wilson, whose book, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter,

75

Joseph Reindl, “Weisheitliche Bearbeitung von Psalmen: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Sammlung des Psalters,” in Congress Volume: Vienna, 1980 (ed. John A. Emerton; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 338–354. 76 Ibid., 338–339. 77 Ibid., 344–350. He analyzes glosses in Pss 50, 104, and 146. 78 Ibid., 341. (my translation) 79 Ibid., 340. 80 Ibid., 356.

24

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

represents a pivotal moment in twentieth-century psalms scholarship.81 Wilson develops a detailed analysis of the shaping of the Psalter, and the role of wisdom in that shaping is a prominent aspect of his research. Like Reindl, Wilson sees the identification of psalmic wisdom less as a matter of identifying the form/setting of individual psalms in relation to their cultic/non-cultic status, and more a matter of identifying the way that wisdom influences did or did not transform the character of the Psalter as a whole. His interest lies in uncovering the historical processes that governed the editorial shaping of the Psalter and are thereby reflected in it. To that end, Wilson cites three types of evidence that illuminate the editor’s hand, namely the introductory role of Psalm 1, the five book division, and the concluding role of the final Hallel (Pss 146–150). All three reveal the redactor’s almost narrative schema that deals with the end of the Davidic monarchy and the theological crisis of exile. Structurally, this gets worked out through a set of competing frames that are manifest at key points in the Psalter, namely a “royal-covenantal frame” and a “wisdom frame.” The former, concentrated in the first three books of the Psalter, traces the initiation of the Davidic monarchy (Ps 2), the transmission of the monarchy to David’s successors (Ps 72), and the failure of the Davidic hopes in the exile (Ps 89). In contrast, the “wisdom frame” shapes the fourth and fifth books, beginning with Psalms 90 and 91 and concluding with Psalm 145. These books point readers away from errant human kingship toward the divine reign of God, thereby providing a response to the crisis of the first three books. According to Wilson, each frame extends into the other, with the royal Psalm 144 found in Book V and the “wisdom frame” extending into the first three books at Psalm 73 and Psalm 1. For Wilson, the “wisdom frame” ultimately proves to be the dominant impulse within the Psalter’s final form, and the key in the Psalter’s transformation into a book of instruction.82 Wilson connects this developmental schema with particular historical processes that culminated with the establishing of the final form of the Psalter in the first century C.E.83 81

Gerald Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS 76; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985). 82 Gerald Wilson, “The Shape of the Book of Psalms,” Interpretation 46 (1992): 134. 83 Gerald Wilson, “A First Century C.E. Date for the Closing of the Hebrew Psalter?” JBQ 28.2 (2000): 102–10. In conjunction with manuscript evidence from Qumran, he cautiously suggests that the context of the first Jewish war against Rome in 66–70 C.E. and the ensuing events involving Johanan ben Zakkai shaped the final form of the Psalter. As he writes (p. 108), “The shift from public, communal performance in the cult to individual meditation and appropriation of the Psalms through study and prayer is entirely compatible with the post-war program of Johanan ben Zakkai and the Yavneh Academy. The Temple and its rites are ended and the authority of the priest is passing into the hands of the sages, for whom study of Torah represents the proper response of faith.” Thus, Wilson connects what he sees as the wisdom signature of the Psalter with a historical shift in authority, from priest to sage, in ancient Judaism.

2. Wisdom in the Psalter

25

Like Reindl’s study, Wilson’s schema distinguishes between two primary contexts, namely the individual psalms’ “original use in the cult” and the “new context” of the Psalter’s final form.84 Psalm 1 has this effect: The emphasis is now on meditation rather than cultic performance; private, individual use over public, communal participation. In a strange transformation, Israel’s words of re85 sponse to her God have now become the word of God to Israel.

This move from public to private, from human words to God’s words, changes the way one should approach the final form the Psalter, that now “it is a book to be read rather than to be performed; to be meditated over rather than to be recited from.”86 The psalms/Psalter distinction thereby translates into a functional distinction between public and private use, between performance and meditation.87 Wilson’s intriguing outline of the theological crisis and resolution recounted from the beginning to the end of the Psalter demands reflection, careful and sustained attention to the manner in which psalms and books relate to each other in a linear fashion. Recent German scholarship has also produced a wealth of material on the shape of the Psalter, in most cases echoing the general tenor of Wilson’s scholarship but with different emphases.88 The focus on the Psalter’s redaction has been taken up particularly in the influential work of Erich Zenger, who states the main question this way:

84

Gerald Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 143. Ibid., 206. 86 Ibid., 207. 87 Wilson (Ibid., 143) points to the individualizing superscriptions as well, as offering “another avenue of private, individual access to these largely public communal hymns.” In later work, Wilson more carefully indicates that, while the final editing of the Psalter may reflect a sapiential and individualizing agenda, that shape also “legitimates” the psalms’ continued use in worship settings. With different emphasis, he cites the superscriptions, as well as plural references in the psalms, as markers of a preserved cultic past and continuing invitation to communal worship. He also allows that the final shape allows for personal prayer and study. See his “The Structure of the Psalter,” in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches (ed. David Firth and Philip S. Johnston; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 244. 88 This interest often begins with an emphasis on the relationships that build through concatenation and juxtaposition of terminology and themes among neighboring psalms, beginning with twin psalms such as Pss 111–112 and moving on to larger clusters of psalms, that is, from micro-relationships to macro-relationships. See G. P. Braulik, “Psalms and Liturgy: Their Reception and Contextualization,” VEccl 24.2 (2003): 318; Erich Zenger, “Psalmenexegese und Psalterexegese: Eine Forschungskizze,” in The Composition of the Book of Psalms (ed. Erich Zenger; BETL 238; Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 27, 36–40. 85

26

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

Ist das Psalmenbuch als liturgische Sammlung, gar also Jerusalemer Kultliederbuch, oder 89 ist es als eher privates, nicht-liturgisches Meditations-und Lesebuch enstanden?

The great breadth of Zenger’s work leads him to a nuanced and complex answer over the course of some years; however, he does associate the Psalter’s shape with a non-cultic, meditative function in connection with his focus on the historical processes that molded the book’s final redaction.90 Zenger sees the Psalter as “flooded with wisdom,” stating that many psalms manifest a clear wisdom redaction.91 For him, the theme of the righteous/wicked divide provides the surest evidence, particularly as it appears in Psalms 1 and 146. Moreover, he cites the meaningful placement of wisdom psalms at the beginnings and endings of subsections as further evidence of redactional intent. So, for example, subsections of the Korahite psalms in Psalms 42–49 and Psalms 84–88 conclude with wisdom themes. More importantly, he argues that the third, fourth and fifth books of the Psalter all open with wisdom compositions with Psalms 73, 90–92 and 107.92 In addition, Zenger sees the center and hermeneutical key to all five books in Psalm 119, which “defines the Psalter almost as a non-cultic medium of encounter with YHWH.”93 Psalm 119 reiterates Psalm 1’s emphasis on Torah in prayer form, and elevates a life lived according to the Torah to the “precondition” for the “universal reign” of God that the fifth book emphasizes. 94 For Zenger, these kinds of clues all point toward the moment of the Psalter’s final redaction, a moment in which David the poet-psalmist was transformed into David the scribe and wisdom teacher (here, he cites Sir 47:1–11; 38:34–

89

Erich Zenger, “Der Psalter als Buch. Beobachtungen zu seiner Enstehung, Komposition und Funktion,” in Der Psalter in Judentum und Christentum (ed. Erich Zenger; HBS 18; Freiburg: Herder, 1998), 1. 90 Zenger differentiates between a cultic function and a prayer function. So, despite the fact that he sees the theological culmination of the Psalter in the fifth book as “post-cultic,” for him this means the substitution of prayer for sacrifice. That is, he discerns the Psalter’s shape in relation to a time period in post-exilic Israel when prayerful meditation, a “spiritual pilgrimage,” overtook cultic performance. While it is not absolutely clear, he seems to see this meditative function in light of the individual and private, rather than communal, which echoes scholars such as Wilson. See his “The Composition and Theology of the Fifth Book of Psalms, Psalms 107–145,” JSOT 80 (1998): 100. 91 Zenger, “Der Psalter als Buch,” 43–44. 92 Ibid., 44. 93 Ibid., 44. For Zenger’s more detailed treatment of the fourth book, and specifically Pss 90–92, see his “The God of Israel’s Reign over the World (Psalms 90–106),” in The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms (trans. Everett R. Kalin; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1989), 161–190. 94 Erich Zenger, “The Composition and Theology of the Fifth Book of Psalms, Psalms 107–145,” 96.

2. Wisdom in the Psalter

27

39:11).95 Zenger dates the final redaction to the time period between 200 and 150 B.C.E. but admits that it might have taken final form even earlier, perhaps the third century.96 Overall, this idea of the functional transformation of the Psalter at the time of its final editing sustains the dualistic approach to psalmic wisdom that has prevailed in psalms scholarship since the time of Gunkel. While scholars like Reindl and Wilson introduce innovative interpretative frameworks, these frameworks rely on functional opposites in much the same way that formcritical scholarship does. The “old context” gives way to the “new context,” the former being public and cultic while the latter is private and sapiential. The distinctions form-critical scholars make between cultic and non-cultic poetry in the psalms are thereby often reified in the work of redaction critics. The difference between a scholar like Wilson and the form critics is that Wilson intensifies the significance of the “non-cultic”; rather than an isolated phenomenon within the Psalter, he sees wisdom as its central principle. Moreover, in such studies, this magnification of wisdom’s influence in the Psalter coincides with a magnification of the Psalter’s instructive function. Rather than individual wisdom psalms offering a didactic message, the entire Psalter is viewed as an instructional book due to the sapiential agenda of its final redactors. Significant for the purposes of this study is the continuing scholarly optimism with regard to the identification of wisdom components in the psalms, whether from an explicitly historical or literary perspective. The question of psalmic wisdom, in both form-critical and redaction-critical studies, is shaped according to a particular understanding of historical priority, and the implicit or explicit value judgments that follow from it. While redaction-critical inquiry and studies on the shape of the Psalter step away from the form-critical quest to define a “wisdom psalm,” these studies, at the most basic level, continue to rely on the assumption that wisdom elements in the psalms are separable, identifiable, late, and didactically motivated.97 Moreover, the intense 95

Zenger, “Der Psalter als Buch,” 44. Zenger’s approach to psalmic wisdom stands within his much larger and complex understanding of the Psalter’s shape, which is impossible to summarize here. Methodologically, it should be noted that, despite the historical focus of his redaction-critical prowess, Zenger (“Psalmenexegese und Psalterexegese: Eine Forschungskizze,” 64–65) also notes the book’s continuing relevance for confessing communities. 96 Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101– 150 (ed. Klaus Baltzer; trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 7. 97 Despite the overriding tendency to focus on post-exilic wisdom circles as the context for the final redaction of the Psalter, certain scholars take issue with this claim on the historical level. Susan Gillingham, for example, argues that “the editors of the Psalter belonged to Temple circles, and that the Temple and its liturgy was of paramount influence throughout the whole process of editing.” See her “The Zion Tradition and the Editing of

28

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

focus of redaction-critical scholars on wisdom’s influence tends to drown out other psalmic voices, and thereby to undervalue the continuing and pervasive presence of overtly cultic language and performative sensibilities. 98 Such scholars essentially tie the very idea of the Psalter as a meaningful whole, as a book, to sapiential redactors who intended it to have an instructive function that thereby overpowers the psalms’ “continuing function” as prayers for worship performance.99 Because of this, the very concept of psalmic instruction in such studies takes on a decidedly non-liturgical character. Canonical Approaches: Multivalent Functionality of the Psalter In contrast with the historical probing of redaction-critical scholarship, canonical research on the psalms has likewise taken up the question of the Psalthe Hebrew Psalter,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (ed. J. Day; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 310. 98 The implications of the Psalter’s redactional history for contemporary liturgical use is a common and perhaps developing question in German scholarship. See G. P. Braulik, “Psalms and Liturgy: Their Reception and Contextualization,” 318–22; Norbert Lohfink, “Psalmen im Neuen Testament: Die Lieder in der Kindheitsgeschichte bei Lukas,” in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung (ed. Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger; HBS 1; Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 106–07; Erich Zenger, “Psalmenforschung nach Hermann Gunkel und Sigmund Mowinckel,” in Congress Volume: Oslo 1998 (ed. A. Lemaire and M. Saebo; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 430. Norbert Lohfink notes, with regard to the Psalter’s final shape, that “we are led from one psalm to the next,” and that this “redactional linking” of psalms aids the user/reader in the task of meditation. The leads him to associate contemporary reform of piety with some kind of continuous reading dictated by the Psalter’s redactional shape. See his In the Shadow of Your Wings: New Readings of Great Texts from the Bible (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2003), 75. Similarly, G.P. Braulik (“Psalms and Liturgy,” 321) argues that, rather than isolating individual psalms for ritual practice, a continuous recitation according to “numerical sequence” allows the concatenating resonances to build and coalesce within the mind of the user. Both scholars appeal to early monastic practice as an exemplification of this meditative use, which fulfills the potential of the Psalter’s carefully constructed final form. Thus, these examples show the attempt to hold together the historical-critical and contemporarytheological moment; such scholars see a particular, wisdom-influenced (through Psalm 1) function given to the Psalter at its final redaction, and they call for that particular function to be re-applied in the contemporary life of faith. 99 On the “continuing function” of the psalms as liturgical poems, see Nasuti, “Redaction-Critical and Canonical Approaches to the Psalms and Psalter,” forthcoming. There, he writes, “the Psalter’s editors may have added wisdom glosses and psalms in order to shape that work into a book for meditation and reflection, but the continued usage of the psalms in contexts of prayer and liturgy has had the opposite effect. Because of such usage, the Psalter has continued to function as a ‘hymnbook,’ even if it may have been redacted for other purposes. Indeed, the fact that it has continued to be seen in this way even meant that texts that were not composed as liturgical texts took on liturgical functions, and that texts redacted in non-liturgical directions continued to be used in liturgical settings.”

2. Wisdom in the Psalter

29

ter’s shape and instructional import, but with a somewhat different focus. Brevard Childs and other canonical scholars, while significantly interested in the final form of the Psalter, are skeptical that one can precisely unearth either the specifics of the Psalter’s historical development or the editorial intention that molded it.100 In describing the difference between the two approaches, Harry Nasuti writes that redaction-critical scholars are historicallyoriented, bound to the ancient context and editorial intentions associated with the Psalter’s various redactional layers, while canonical scholarship tends to be “more a literary and theological endeavor, one which is both descriptive of past attempts to understand the text and constructive in its openness to new understandings.”101 In other words, as Nasuti notes, both approaches begin with the present shape of the Psalter; redaction critics move backwards from there, while canonical scholars move forward.102 Beyond this important distinction, one must note that canonical methodology exists in different formulations as well, and continues to develop both in North American and European scholarship.103 So, for example, while this “move forward” in Childs’ 100

Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 512, and “Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis,” JSS 16.2 (1971): 137– 150. 101 Nasuti, “Redaction-Critical and Canonical Approaches to the Psalms and Psalter,” forthcoming. 102 Ibid. Of course, the distinction between the two approaches is not always hard and fast. A good example of this can be found in the work of Erich Zenger. While primarily working as a redaction critic interested in discovering the historical layers behind the text’s editing (as shown above), he does not dismiss more forward-looking approaches, and declares his wish to hold diachronic and synchronic perspectives together, expressly defining Psalterexegese according to the integrated use of both. See his “Psalmenexegese und Psalterexegese: Eine Forschungskizze,” 64–65. Moreover, he does, at times, deal with the continuing significance of the book as Scripture. See, for example, his “Kanonische Psalmenexegese und christlich-jüdischer Dialog: Beobachtungen zum Sabbatpsalm 92,” in Mincha: Festgabe für Rolf Rendtorff zum 75. Geburtstag (ed. Erhard Blum; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000), 243–260. In addition, his commentary (written with Frank-Lothar Hossfeld) on the psalms includes a section on “Context, Reception, and Significance” for each psalm, which typically treats the Septuagint text and, occasionally, other examples of early reception history. See Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2 and Psalms 3 (ed. Klaus Baltzer; trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005, 2011). 103 So, at the inception of this critical method, James A. Sanders developed a different approach than Brevard Childs. See J. A. Sanders, Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984). The persisting interest in the canonical approach can be seen in two recent publications that exemplify its development: Egbert Ballhorn and George Steins, eds., Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung. Methodenreflexionen und Beispielexegesen (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007); Georg Steins and Johannes Taschner, eds., Kanonisierung – die Hebräische Bibel im Werden (BTS 110; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2010).

30

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

work often emerges through a methodological commitment to the history of interpretation, more recent canonical scholarship, particularly in Germany, tends to focus on reader-response from a more theoretical point of view. 104 Canonical scholarship on the shape of the Psalter relates to the question of psalmic wisdom in two important ways. First, this approach often emphasizes the instructional value of the Psalter in its final form in a way that at least partially resonates with the redaction-critical concept of the book’s functional transformation into a book for instruction and meditation. Here, Psalm 1 provides the scholarly linchpin for questions of the Psalter’s instructive function due to its introductory character, lack of direct address to God, and emphasis on Torah piety as a reflection oriented entrance into the rest of the Psalter.105 Preceding redaction-critical scholars such as Reindl and Wilson, Childs sees this psalm as the “heading” of the entire Psalter and appeals to the 104

This insight comes from Daniel R. Driver in his review of Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung, edited by Ballhorn and Steins, RBL (03/2008). Additionally, Beat Weber, a German scholar, characterizes the development of Psalterexegese as a move from a mix of redaction-critical and canonical methodologies to a mix of canonical and receptionaesthetic methodologies. Weber, who himself seems to subscribe to a canonical approach, does note the danger of the “heteronomy” of the reader in the latter studies that too far diminish the “methodological control” of historical-critical integrity. See his “Kanonische Psalterexegese und –rezeption: Forschungsgeschichtliche, hermeneutische, und methodologische Bemerkungen,” in Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung: Methodenreflexionen und Beispielexegesen (eds. Egbert Ballhorn and Georg Steins; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007), 86, 92. For examples of the canonical/reception-aesthetic mix, see Georg Steins, Die “Bindung Isaaks” im Kanon (Gen 22): Grundlagen und Programm einer kanonischintertextuellen Lektüre; mit einer Spezialbibliographie zu Gen 22 (HBS 20; Freiburg: Herder, 1999); G. Barbiero, Das erste Psalmenbuch als Einheit: Eine sychrone Analyse von Psalm 1–41 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999); Egbert Ballhorn, Zum Telos des Psalters: Der Textzusammenhang des Vierten und Fünften Psalmenbuches (Ps 90–150) (BBB 138; Berlin: Philo, 2004), and “Das historische und das kanonische Paradigma in der Exegese: ein Essay,” in Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung: Methodenreflexionen und Beispielexegesen (eds. Egbert Ballhorn and Georg Steins; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007), 9–30. 105 For just a few treatments of this widely discussed issue, see Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 513–14; G.T. Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 137–44; Patrick Miller, Interpreting the Psalms (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 81–86; Füglister, “Die Verwendung und das Verständnis der Psalmen und des Psalters um die Zeitenwende,” 361–365; J. Clinton McCann, A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as Torah (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1993), 25–27, 81–86; Egbert Ballhorn, “‘Glücklich der Mensch…’: Weisung und Gebrauchsanweisung für den Psalter,” Pastoralblatt für die Diözesen Aachen, Berlin, Essen, Hamburg, Hildesheim, Köln, Osnabrück 55 (2003): 12–16; Beat Weber, “‘Herr, wie viele sind geworden meine Bedränger…’ Psalm 1–3 als Overtüre des Psalters unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Psalm 3 und seinem Präskript,” in Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung: Methodenreflexionen und Beispielexegesen (ed. Egbert Ballhorn and Georg Steins; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007), 231–251.

2. Wisdom in the Psalter

31

“hermeneutical shift” that this psalm enacts on the book as a whole by allowing the words of Israel to become God’s word to Israel.106 He even states that this transformation is analogous to the function of biblical wisdom, as it becomes a “guidebook along the path of blessing.”107 Other scholars refine and extend this understanding of Psalm 1. J. Clinton McCann, for example, characterizes the psalms themselves as God’s Torah, following from the express reference in Psalm 1 (and also Psalms 19 and 119).108 In a similar vein, Beat Weber sees the reference in verse 2 as a “reading instruction” that guides the reader not only into a particular way of life, but into the Psalter itself. He echoes Childs’ emphasis on the theological significance of the psalm’s Torah initiative; while individual psalms may be used as words of the individual to God, the Psalter as a whole, under the influence of the Torah reference, is the divine word. This Torah signal in Psalm 1, according to Weber, is what “points toward the authoritative-canonical status of the Psalter.”109 This recalls Childs’ idea of the “hermeneutical shift” that the placement of the psalm enacts, a shift that is “forward-looking” in the sense that Nasuti attributes to canonical scholars generally, as noted above. Still, at some level, the association of the Psalter’s instructive function with Psalm 1 seems to parallel those studies with redaction-critical interests in terms of the transformative and “didacticizing” effect of Psalm 1 on the function of the psalms that follow it. In this vein, David G. Firth makes a broad argument for the teaching function of all psalms, regardless of genre classification. He isolates three experientially based instructional strategies in the book of Psalms, namely testimony, admonition, and observation. Firth incisively points here to the experiential aspect of psalmic instruction, which goes beyond the genre or even content of a particular psalm. For Firth, it is the psalms’ scriptural status that confers this most basic didactic function.110 He writes that,

106

For Childs (Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 512), other important “elements” of final form are the five book division, the concluding five psalms, and the superscriptions. 107 Ibid., 513. 108 McCann, A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms, 20. 109 Beat Weber, “Psalm 1 and Its Function as a Directive into the Psalter and Towards a Biblical Theology;” OTE 19 (2006): 248–249. Canonically, Weber associates this “directive” of Ps 1 with Moses’ giving of the law and the five books of the Pentateuch, translated into the giving, so to speak, of the five books of the Psalter and the “Torah of David” in this case. See his “‘Herr, wie viele sind geworden meine Bedränger…’,” 232. 110 David G. Firth, “The Teaching of the Psalms.” in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches. (eds. David Firth and Philip S. Johnston; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), 162.

32

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

through the compilation of the canon every psalm is in some sense mimetic, in that it has an underlying truth or insight that it seeks to communicate. At the most basic level, the majority of psalms offer instruction on how to pray, simply because they are examples of 111 prayer in action.

For Firth, the psalms’ capacity to shape their readers and hearers derives from the fundamentally formative implications of the canon as such. It should be emphasized that these canonically minded studies often connect the Psalter’s instructional value with the theological reality of divine instruction or teaching, which is different from the human teaching that dominates the wisdom literature.112 Thus, canonical research tends to focus on the Torah psalms due to this focus on the “scriptural” transformation of the Psalter, but the role of other didactic psalms that seem most explicitly pedagogical human teaching receive less emphasis.113 The Torah psalms, unlike many of the wisdom psalms, extol the idea of “divine teaching,” namely the scriptural reality of God’s word to the faithful. Psalmic instruction, from this perspective, refers to the overarching didactic function for the Psalter in relation to the divine word or revealed teaching of Torah, rather than the mechanics of human teaching, or horizontally directed didactic material in individual psalms. Despite this focus on the function of the Psalter as divine instruction spearheaded by Psalm 1, canonical approaches also appeal to the functional openness and multivalence of the book as a whole, which contrasts with redaction-critical approaches. As Childs famously writes, The most characteristic feature of the canonical shaping of the Psalter is the variety of different hermeneutical moves which were incorporated within the final form of the collection. Although the psalms were often greatly refashioned for use by the later generations, no one doctrinaire position received a normative role. The material was far too rich and its 114 established use far too diverse ever to allow a single function to subordinate all others.”

111

Ibid., 163–164. In this way, canonical approaches implicitly expose a problem in redactional studies that associate the functional transformation of the Psalter both with wisdom circles and with the idea that the Psalter transitions into divine teaching thanks to the editing process. While the concept of divine wisdom and words do appear in the wisdom corpus, Roland Murphy argues that this is a late and limited phenomenon that is not representative of biblical wisdom overall (Prov 8; Sir 24). See his “Assumptions and Problems in Old Testament Wisdom Research,” 104–105. 113 See, for example, James Luther Mays, “The Place of the Torah-Psalms in the Psalter,” JBL 106.1 (1987): 3–12; Egbert Ballhorn, “Der Torapsalter: Vom Gebetbuch zum Buch der Weisung,” BK 1 (2010): 24–27. 114 Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 522. This sentiment is plainly echoed in the study of Firth, despite his focus on the overall instructional capacity of the book of Psalms. Firth writes that the redactional “orientation given by Ps. 1 has become 112

2. Wisdom in the Psalter

33

Thus, one can see the canonically minded willingness to uphold the book’s functional multivalence as a constitutive factor of its transformation into sacred scripture.115 In other words, Childs does not see this functional transformation prompted by Psalm 1 as tied to a specific historical moment that dictates the privileged arena of use for the Psalter, but rather as that which lends the Psalter its enduring capacity to function in settings other than ancient Israel.116 This canonical emphasis on the Psalter’s multiple functions allows for the “mutuality” of human and divine voices, both of which permeate the psalms and Psalter, to receive a hearing. For example, Patrick Miller identifies four functions of the Psalter: liturgical, devotional, pastoral, and theologicalhomiletic.117 Rather than focusing on a shift in audience due to the Psalter’s final redaction, Miller has an inclusive understanding of the Psalter’s dual directionality, in that these poems speak “both for us as they express our thoughts and feelings, fear and hopes, and to us as we hear in them direction for the life of faith and something of God’s way with us.” 118 Similarly, Beat Weber contends that a “canon-theological” reading specifically demands that one reckon with this convergence of human and divine word, inaugurated in Psalm 1 and realized in the back and forth of addresses and responses that follow it. He writes,

disoriented within the Psalter itself,” and that “No new orientation is final.” See his, “The Teaching of the Psalms,” 173–174. 115 On the “scripturalization” of the psalms, see James Kugel, “Topics in the History of the Spirituality of the Psalms,” in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible Through the Middle Ages (ed. Arthur Green; New York: Crossroad, 1986), 113–144. 116 Roland E. Murphy questions the value of “contextual interpretation” because of its seemingly limitless possibilities, writing that “What is desirable, even necessary, is a certain continuity between contexts…with the pluriformity of contexts, some kind of criterion is called for if interpretation is not to be anarchy.” For Murphy, that criterion can be found in the concept of “continuity” between the “literal historical sense” and other contextual interpretations. See his “Reflections on Contextual Interpretation of the Psalms,” in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter (ed. J.C. McCann; JSOTSup 159; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 24, 28. 117 Miller, Interpreting the Psalms, 20. In a similar but less specific fashion, James L. Mays cites the three primary functions of the psalmody as prayer, praise and instruction. See his, The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psalms (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 6. 118 Miller, Interpreting the Psalms, 21. Likewise, despite the fact that J. Clinton McCann clearly emphasizes the psalms’ instructive function as God’s word/Torah, he also argues that psalmic instruction can be a function of both private prayer and public liturgy, and concludes his book with an appendix on the “The Singing of the Psalms.” So, at the same time that he de-emphasizes the historical-critical focus on ancient liturgy, he calls for a contemporary revival of psalmody, which probably results from his contention that liturgy itself is instructive. See his A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms, 176–181.

34

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

Die Verknüpfung der Sprachmodi von Lehre und Gebet, von vertikaler und horizontaler Kommunikation macht das Proprium des Psalters aus. Diese Wechselseitigkeit von Wort zu Gott und Wort von Gott ist innerhalb des Kanons einzigartig und theologisch, liturgisch und spirituell von weitreichender Bedeutung. Mit Psalmen und Psalter verbinden sich 119 Dichtung, Gebet und Gesang sowie Rezitation, Meditation und Instruktion.

This confluence begins with the reference to the divine word/Torah in Psalm 1 by a human pedagogue. Childs himself notes that the title ‫ תהלים‬is fitting in its reference to human praise since the “hermeneutical shift” of Psalm 1’s reference to Torah, divine word, does not simply obscure human and, indeed, communal voices, but lends those voices a theocentric focus. As he writes, “The title correctly bears witness to the conviction that the voice is that of Israel, but it is only an echo of the divine voice which called his people into being.”120 Thus, canonical approaches strive to heed both voices, to account for the confluence of human and divine speech that uniquely characterizes the psalms and Psalter.

3. The Present Approach 3. The Present Approach

The historical untangling of various compositional and redactional layers of wisdom influence in the psalms, while useful for understanding the historical development of the Psalter, has in some ways obscured the unique pedagogical implications of these poems as they stand. Emphasis on defining and isolating psalmic wisdom, both in the psalms and in the Psalter, has led to a deemphasis on the way that suspected wisdom passages fit within the complex rhetorical matrix of the psalms. Is wisdom language so fundamentally unlike the other kinds of poetic discourse one finds in the Psalter as a whole that it could change the function of the entire book, that it could be responsible for so significant a transformation? The recent privileging of the final redactional moment has the tendency to mute the possibility of mutual effect among the diverse kinds of speech in the psalms, and the possibility that wisdom elements and wisdom psalms can be not only transforming, but also transformed, one part of a broader pedagogical dialect unique to the Psalter. Canonical studies have emphasized the confluence of divine and human voices in the psalms and Psalter, but the precise mechanics of pedagogy within this distinctive communicative environment still remain an area for further exploration.

119 Beat Weber, “Von Der Psaltergenese zur Psaltertheologie: Der Nächste Schritt der Psalterexegese?!” in The Composition of the Book of Psalms (ed. Erich Zenger. Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 743. 120 Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 514.

3. The Present Approach

35

Identifying Modes of Speech in the Psalms: Recent Approaches Methodologically, several recent works in particular deserve note as influential for this study’s focus on shifting orientations of speech as a way to talk about wisdom and instruction in the psalms and the Psalter. Carleen Mandolfo, in God in the Dock: Dialogic Tension in the Psalms of Lament, offers a socio-rhetorical analysis of the lament genre as “dialogic” speech.121 She argues that the grammatical shifts and ambiguities that particularly characterize the lament psalms stem from the interactive rhetoric of multiple (rather than one) speakers, a phenomenon she calls “multi-voicing.” She identifies two main voices, namely the petitioning voice of the supplicant and the instructive voice of another speaker she calls the “didactic voice” or DV. She uses the work of Mikhail Bakhtin to establish the parameters of the interaction between these two voices, or two worldviews, constantly conditioning each other in lament psalms.122 For Mandolfo, this multi-voiced, or dialogic, reading of the laments accounts for abrupt shifts in the psalmist’s speech from supplication to confidence. Rather than attributing both to one speaker, she posits that these shifts represent two speakers, and two worldviews. To identify this dialogue, Mandolfo attends to grammatical as well as content-based evidence to establish the domain of each speaker. She analyzes grammatical shifts in person as a way of identifying the two voices of the lament, namely the supplicant and the “didactic voice.” She identifies the former according to the use of first-person language that establishes the voice of the supplicant. This kind of discourse traverses a vertical plane from human to the divine. The “didactic voice,” in contrast operates horizontally from human to human. She associates this voice primarily with third-person “interjections” though it can also present itself through imperative exhortations, such that it can be either descriptive or commanding.123 With this premise and in conversation with Bakhtin, Mandolfo draws conclusions about the socio-rhetorical function of laments psalms as cultic texts that provide an institutionally acceptable space for doubt and protest while simultaneously maintaining the “theological status quo.” She suggests that “dialogic reading” grants the “weaker” supplicating voice a more prominent value in interpretation and use.124 For the purposes of this study, the novelty of Mandolfo’s approach lies in the way that she separates didactic speech in the psalms from any sustained appeal to the wisdom tradition, using grammatical criteria instead to distinguish the “didactic voice” from the supplicant’s voice in laments. In so doing, 121

Carleen Mandolfo, God in the Dock: Dialogic Tension in the Psalms of Lament (JSOTSup 357; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002). 122 Mandolfo includes two thanksgivings in her study, Pss 32 and 34. 123 Ibid., 28–103. 124 Ibid., 195.

36

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

she both extricates the idea of psalmic instruction from the exclusive yoke of biblical wisdom and develops a dynamic picture of the Israelite cult as a context in which human-to-human speech played a fundamental role. She sees the “didactic voice” as an intrinsic aspect of the lament psalms’ ritual power and significance. Ultimately, her characterization of the “didactic voice” does limit her concept of psalmic instruction in that it exclusively associates it with a particular worldview, that, in the end, one might indeed call sapiential, or even proverbial. However, her sustained attention to shifts in the directionality of speech, from horizontal to vertical and vice versa, offers another way of conceptualizing the reality of didactic discourse in the psalms as something distinct but in constant relationship with the language of prayer and praise. Derek Suderman, in an unpublished dissertation, deals likewise with grammatical transitions in the laments, but focuses instead on the rhetorical significance of shifts in addressee rather than shifts in speaker. To establish these shifts, Suderman engages in a more detailed grammatical study, and relies on multiple criteria including person, gender, number, verbal forms, suffixed and independent pronouns, and nominatives.125 He also treats ambiguous or complex grammatical situations such as quotations, the vocative lamedh, blessings, and jussives in relation to the quest to identify shifting audiences. He identifies “single addressee,” “double addressee,” and “multiple addressee” laments in relation to his contention that certain forms of address are more explicit than others, and certain addressees more easily identified than others. In doing so, he exposes both the ambiguous audience of many psalm passages, as well as the diversity and complexity of the lament audience. For Suderman, these constant shifts in addressee signal the need for a more expansive understanding of the concept of prayer in relation to the psalms. While scholars have struggled to precisely define a concept of biblical prayer, attempts typically include some appeal to second-person address God.126 125

Weldon Derek Suderman, “Prayers Heard and Overheard: Shifting Address and Methodological Matrices in Psalms Scholarship,” (Ph.D diss.,Toronto School of Theology, 2007), 108. 126 A number of recent studies explore the theme of prayer in the Hebrew Bible but focus on prose prayer, taking for granted that the function of the psalms, as prayers, has already received due scholarly attention. Definitions of prayer in these studies tend to be nebulous, but commonly appeal to the vertical component of biblical prayer, often grammatically identified according to second-person address to God. Samuel Balentine, for example, defines prayer as involving “the mutual participation of both divine and human partners in the task of communication.” See his Prayer in the Hebrew Bible: The Drama of Divine-Human Dialogue (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 38. See also Moshe Greenberg, Biblical Prose Prayer: As a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983); Judith H. Newman, Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press,

3. The Present Approach

37

Suderman argues that this understanding is not adequate for the biblical depiction of prayer as expressed through the continual shifts of address in the laments. He contends that some laments are not only meant to be heard by the named addressees, but also overheard by others in the community. In other words, the multiple addressees of a lament remain “present” within the social context of the psalm even as another party is explicitly addressed. This situation entails the phenomenon of “over-hearing” such that an explicit address to one party may in fact carry a specific rhetorical function directed towards the present “over-hearing,” implicit addressee within the overall context of prayer.127 According to this approach, the psalms provide a communicative medium in ritual contexts for negotiating the relationship not only between God and Israel, but also the complex set of social relationships that comprise the faithful community itself, as well as its relationship with outsiders.128 Suderman argues that it is precisely the prevalence of grammatical shifts of address in the laments that illuminates this social reality. For Suderman, this “social address” element of laments, largely ignored, might transform the guiding scholarly conception of biblical prayer as a whole. Both Mandolfo’s and Suderman’s studies are rhetorical in nature, and provide a useful roadmap for revealing grammatical shifts in the psalms as an entrance into their significance as potentially multi-voiced and plurallyaddressed prayers. Both appeal, in more or less explicit terms, to the question of function over form and ultimately make socio-rhetorical claims about the significance of different modes of speech in an ancient ritual context. Of course, Mandolfo’s and Suderman’s distinct concerns lead them to focus on different grammatical criteria. Mandolfo focuses a great deal on third-person speech as an indication of a shift in voice from supplicant to didactic voice. 1999); Bilhah Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (trans. Jonathan Chipman; STDJ 22; Leiden: Brill, 1994). 127 Suderman, “Prayers Heard and Overheard,” 209. 128 Suderman expressly works in conjunction with an article by Gerald Sheppard entitled “‘Enemies’ and the Politics of Prayer in the Book of Psalms.” (In The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Norman K. Gottwald on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday [ed. David Jobling, Peggy Lynne Day, and Gerald T. Sheppard; Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1991], 61—82). In this article, Sheppard discusses the “enemies” portrayed in the psalms through the lens of the “socio-literary” theory of Norman Gottwald. He makes the argument, that Suderman subsequently takes up in his dissertation, that the “enemies” are not only addressed in the imprecatory psalms, but are present in the community during other addresses, and “overhear” the address to the Lord of the psalmist, and are thereby indicted indirectly (pp. 72–78). As Sheppard writes, “The presence of overhearing ‘enemies’ is integral to the prayer situation and influences the perceived function of prayer socially, rhetorically, religiously, and politically” (p. 72). This reshapes the notion of how prayer works in the lament psalms, and Suderman seeks to flesh out the implications of this article.

38

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

For Suderman, the shift from supplication language to third-person language is not as significant as grammar that points to a shift in addressee, such as second-person speech, vocatives, and pronominal suffixes that conclusively indicate a transition from one audience to another. He divides the rhetoric of the speaker into units of address to different addressees, and so third-person language is often included with supplication language as part of the supplicant’s address to God, or to another addressee. Despite such differences, the mutual attention of both studies to the grammatical details that establish the complex structure of psalmic speech highlights the performance oriented nature of these poems. In different ways, these scholars seek to refine the concept of cult and prayer in relation to the psalms by highlighting the constant grammatical and rhetorical shifts that characterize all psalmic speech as a central aspect of dynamic ritual experience. From the perspective of the question of wisdom in the Psalter, this shift is extremely useful, because it provides a new way of looking at psalms and psalm parts previously identified as sapiential through formal, terminological, and thematic characteristics. This focus on the grammatically revealed relationship between speaker and audience can highlight instead the process of pedagogy, as something related but not confined to an identifiable connection with wisdom literature. Aims and Method of the Current Study The methodological locus of this study lies in the midst of two converging juxtapositions, namely the horizontal/vertical dynamics of psalmic speech and the relationship between individual psalms and the Psalter as a whole. With regard to the first, the constant interaction between horizontal and vertical address in the psalms suggests that psalmic instruction, while indebted to the wisdom tradition, diverges from its most basic manifestation, namely as uninterrupted human-to-human dialogue.129 An examination of the presence of horizontal, or inter-human, speech in the psalms must necessarily involve the question of how it interacts with vertical, or human-divine, speech. While a horizontal orientation of speech in no way guarantees the didactic quality of a particular passage, it does provide one valuable indication of a particular text’s function because it illuminates the relationship between the speaker and the audience. In other words, the direction of speech ultimately relates not only to the speaker’s address, but also to the audience’s anticipated response, which likewise can signal a direction, whether or not the text actually shows the audience responding. Both aspects play a determinative role in comprehending the intertwining of worship and instruction in the psalms. What kind of speech anticipates or invites a ritual or liturgical re129

As chapter two will demonstrate, isolated incidences of vertical speech in the wisdom corpus provide exceptions to this general rule.

3. The Present Approach

39

sponse, and what kind of speech anticipates a reflective silence on the part of its recipient? What kind of speech invites a response to the speaker, and what kind of speech invites a response to a third party, another audience entirely? What kind of speech anticipates a similarly horizontal verbal response and what kind of speech anticipates a turn to vertical speech in its recipient? In other words, the invited orientation of audience response can shed light on the function of a particular text. Some texts very helpfully portray the fruition of invited response, and offer concrete literary evidence of the direction of a reply. Some texts, perhaps most, do not present the response of the addressee but often provide some evidence of the anticipated direction of audience response, whether vertical or horizontal. In addition, configuring a discussion about psalmic pedagogy in this way necessarily involves a theological component. A focus on the direction of discourse reveals how a speaker and audience relate to each other and how either or both relate to God through the act of speaking. Commentators on the “theology of the Psalms” or the “theology of the Psalter” have recognized the “I/Thou” aspect of the psalms as the linchpin of any such inquiry.130 The psalms uniquely offer the “I” that can be appropriated again and again, and are directed towards an Addressee who thus becomes present, known and relatable. Of course, in the midst of this theologically-freighted “I/Thou,” the psalmist engages multiple iterations of the “you,” one of which takes the form of the student. The latter engagement stands distinct from but constantly involved with the vertical, “I/Thou” speech (as well as non-didactic horizontal speech) that so heavily threads the Psalter. Therefore, in order to examine the relationship between the “I” and the “you” of psalmic instruction, one must account for the constant interactions between shifting orientations of speech, both with regard to the speaker and the anticipated response of the audience. In addition to the juxtaposition of horizontal and vertical speech in the psalms, this study understands the relationship between the psalms and the Psalter, between Psalmenexegese and Psalterexegese, to be hermeneutically significant. Beat Weber notes that the massive interest in the Psalter’s shape has diminished attention to the individual psalms’ role as “autonomous texts” and has subordinated individual psalms to the new role of “subtext of a new macro-text.”131 Weber wants to “extend the methodological paradigm” be130 Walter Brueggemann argues that it is the “Thou” of the psalms that shapes the entryway into the theological import of the psalms. See his The Psalms and the Life of Faith (ed. Patrick D. Miller; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 33–66. From the other side of the same coin, Harry Nasuti writes that “It is the continued power of the Psalms’ first-person speech that constitutes these texts’ distinctive theological contribution.” See his “God at Work in the Word: A Theology of Divine-Human Encounter in the Psalms,” in Soundings in the Theology of the Psalms: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship (ed. Rolf A. Jacobson; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 33. 131 Beat Weber, “Von Der Psaltergenese zur Psaltertheologie,” 738.

40

Chapter 1: History of Scholarship

yond this linear move from psalms to Psalter, and examine instead the movement between the two.132 He associates individual psalms with the vertical axis as poetic prayers, and the Psalter as a whole with a linear, narrative, and ultimately horizontal axis that is instructive. The latter context brings about an “inversion” by which individual prayer-poems are taken up into a macro-text, which thereby transforms them into instruction. 133 However, Weber does not see either framework as the privileged context of interpretation. Rather, he sees a dynamic relationship between the two interpretive axes that lends the text its capacity for use and re-use. Here, the horizontal/vertical dimension once again becomes significant, but rather than an explicit and grammatically mediated shift in speech between the “I/Thou” and the “I/you” in individual psalms, it involves the comprehensive function of Psalter as either divine or human words, or both. That is, the horizontal/vertical dynamic manifests itself in both interpretive contexts, namely the individual psalms and the Psalter as a whole.134 Like Weber’s study, this study will proceed by examining that interaction at both levels, namely the psalms and the Psalter, with reference to the question of how instruction functions in each. However, rather than associating each hermeneutical context with a particular direction (i.e. individual psalms as vertical/liturgical and Psalter as horizontal/instructional), this study will proceed with the premise that the interplay of vertical and horizontal speech operates at both levels, and one can inform the other.135 In other words, the interaction between horizontal and vertical address in individual psalms will be the “blueprint” or a rhetorical and theological “map” for the manner in which pedagogical strategies develop in relation to wisdom language, and can help us understand the selfsame interaction from the perspective of the book as a whole. By applying the insights of this horizontal/vertical dynamic in individual psalms to the question of the book itself, purely horizontally directed psalms, containing no address to the divine and therefore no interaction between horizontal and vertical speech, no longer simply represent the late-arriving stranger into a cultic collection, but rather an integral and fun-

132

Ibid., 737. Ibid., 743. 134 Ibid., 743–744. Weber contends that too great an emphasis on the psalms’ role as parts of a whole often leads to a diminishing of their liturgical potential to be used and reused in different settings. See his, “Kanonische Psalterexegese und –rezeption,” 91. 135 Nancy deClaissé-Walford, in a similar vein, talks about the distinction between “macro- and micro-rhetorical constructions of texts” and asks whether one finds the “macro-story” of the Psalter echoed in the “micro-story” of Ps 44, ultimately answering in the affirmative. See her “Psalm 44: O God, Why Do You Hide Your Face?” in My Words Are Lovely: Studies in the Rhetoric of the Psalms (ed. Robert Foster and David Howard; London: T & T Clark, 2007), 121–131. 133

4. Conclusion

41

damentally psalmic component of the larger interplay of discourses within the book.

4. Conclusion 4. Conclusion

Modern scholarship has, in many ways, failed to underline fully the possibility that psalmic wisdom, while it may bear a significant and meaningful formal connection with the biblical wisdom corpus, could function in a fundamentally different way.136 Both psalmic wisdom and proverbial wisdom sound similar, utilize parallel forms of address, and treat parallel themes. Therefore, from a historical perspective, didactic discourse in the Psalter is most often viewed as a late and generally non-liturgical importation from the sages rather an intrinsic component of psalmic identity. However, a “canontheological interpretation” can equalize the value of various kinds of poetic discourse in the psalms; it does not privilege “genuine psalmography” over “learned psalmography,” nor does it simply favor wisdom elements as hermeneutically determinative due to their potential redactional significance. 137 Nor does it give hermeneutical preference to the context of the Psalter over individual psalms. Psalmic wisdom becomes one of many different literary and theological impulses within the psalms and Psalter, simultaneously transformative and transformed in relation to the words of supplication or praise or condemnation of one’s enemies. It is wisdom, but a different kind of wisdom, inexorably conditioned by its own dynamic context of shifting speech, and, from a canonical perspective, exists as a “native” piece of the psalmic puzzle. An interpretive approach with this premise can not only more clearly distinguish psalmic wisdom as a unique phenomenon, it can reveal constructively the distinctive pedagogical strategies of the psalms and Psalter.

136

James L. Mays remarks on the instructional capacity of the psalms beyond an identifiable connection with biblical wisdom, writing that “All psalms have a pedagogical potential because they say things about God, world, and self…These and other instances of the developing instructional intent suggest that the groups of psalms usually classified as Wisdom and Torah psalms are not a different kind of species from the rest, but stand in continuity with a long and developing tendency.” See his “The Question of Context in Psalm Interpretation,” in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter (ed. J.C. McCann; JSOTSup 159; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 18. 137 The phrase “canon-theological interpretation” is taken from Weber, “Von Der Psaltergenese zur Psaltertheologie,” 744.

Chapter 2

Communicative Orientation: Wisdom and the Psalms Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

What makes the literature of the wisdom corpus, the acknowledged stronghold of biblical pedagogy, didactic? The great variety of rhetorical strategies used throughout this corpus indicates that the Israelite sages did not reduce the act of instruction to a particular form, setting, or topic. A number of factors, then, determine the didactic quality of a particular passage in relation to the context in which one interprets it. One undervalued but significant feature of any answer to this question lies in the predominantly horizontal orientation of didactic poetry in the wisdom books, that is, the general absence of a word to or from God. Words travel from Solomon to the Israelites, from father to son, from teacher to pupil. Wisdom pedagogy in all its forms is chiefly, even if not entirely, a human enterprise with regard to the act of communication as such. Yet, when wisdom forms and terminology appear in the psalms, the predominance of sustained horizontal discourse between teacher and pupil confronts a much more diverse communicative environment, one in which vertical address to a divine audience often arises, and the call for vertical praise from the audience often prevails. This difference is a key interpretive locus for discovering how wisdom genres work in the psalms and it can ultimately illuminate some part of the way in which the psalms construct a pedagogical moment. The nature of this inquiry, then, gives rise to the question of how communication works between speaker and audience in the text. At issue is the direction of speech, but the context for interpretation is primarily literary. This and the following chapters address texts that very often talk about speech. Indeed, in distinctive ways, both the biblical wisdom books and the psalms are poetic texts obsessed with various acts of speech, and what these communicative events imply for the moral and religious life of the righteous. Moreover, these texts very often provide an image of a particular act of speech, or communicative event between an identified speaker and audience. Speech in this context, whether vertically or horizontally inclined, does not refer to actual or ancient use, but to what Michael Fox calls the literary work’s own “self-presentation” of speech, or “performance setting.”1 In ref1

Michael V. Fox, “Wisdom and the Self-Presentation of Wisdom Literature,” in Reading from Right to Left: Essays in Honor of David J.A. Clines (ed. J. Cheryl Exum and H.G.M. Williamson; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 154.

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

43

erence to the wisdom literature, he means by this “the discourse setting in which the teachings are delivered.”2 This “self-presentation” is “the way that Wisdom books present themselves and define their speakers and audiences, the media by which their teachings are said to be communicated, and their purposes.”3 Addressing the question of oral and literary contexts of ancient proverbs, Fox points out that, regardless of whether proverbs were originally oral or written, the moment that these sayings became part of the “book” of Proverbs, they took on “a distinctively literary character.”4 However, because the text itself constructs the oral context of, for example, father/son speech in certain wisdom texts, one can justifiably introduce the idea of represented performance, in this case verbal performance, into a literary interpretation. The interpreter can engage the idea of a proverbial or even psalmic speech event, because the text itself does. Beyond the literary context, the text’s “self-presentation” translates into a particular experience for the hearer/reader in relation to the “I,” the “you,” and the “he/she/it” of the text. The question of how a particular poetic text constructs the relationship between speaker and audience ultimately moves beyond the question of literary context into the theological domain mentioned in chapter one. In other words, one moves beyond the question of how the “I” and the “Thou/you/she” interact in the presentation of the speech event of the text to the question of which identity the reader/hearer/user appropriates in subsequent use. After delineating the “self-presentation” of the text, one can ask how the text’s image of the speech event, whether instructional or liturgical or both, might be appropriated by the hearer, the pray-er, the student who takes it up subsequently. How does the literary shape of the written word open and limit the reader/hearer/user’s relationship to the first- and secondperson (and third-person) speech that shapes the text’s “self-presentation” of the communicative event? What kind of invitation does the represented communicative event make available to its future audience? Of course, any invitation of this kind can ultimately only be shaped by the decision of the one who takes up the book. But, as this chapter and the following chapters will show, the text imposes certain limits, as well as opens different possibilities, with regard to the relationship between the anticipated audience and the first and second person. This chapter proceeds with an examination of representative texts that demonstrate these aspects of the potentially instructional relationship between speaker and audience in its multiple elaborations. A full-scale review of the pedagogical strategies represented in the wisdom literature is obviously beyond the scope of this study, as is an exhaustive overview of the diverse and 2

Ibid., 154. Ibid., 155. 4 Ibid., 160. This follows for subsequent oral use of the text as well. 3

44

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

complex grammatical configurations of speech in the psalms.5 Rather, the purpose here is to outline directional trends of discourse, both in the words of the speaker and the invited response of his/her audience, in both wisdom literature and the psalms. Identifying these patterns of call and response, and further, how horizontal speech and vertical speech interact in different literary contexts, provides the foundation for comparing and contrasting dominant communicative tendencies in both wisdom books and the psalms.

1. Speaker and Audience in Biblical Wisdom 1. Speaker and Audience in Biblical Wisdom

With certain exceptions that will be noted below, biblical wisdom literature operates primarily as words emanating from a human speaker and directed towards a human recipient. These human words exhort, describe, admonish, count, narrate, allegorize and riddle in the pursuit of the inculcation of wisdom in the student-hearer.6 Within this diverse mix of literary forms, various elaborations of the speaker and addressee, the “I” and the “you,” emerge. A horizontal (that is, inter-human) orientation of speech predominates, but the didactic quality of these wisdom words appears in more and less explicit terms, both with regard to the situation of address and the content of the speech. While the text often overtly identifies the “I” and the “you” of the pedagogical moment, at other times the presence of both parties remains unexpressed, implied. Likewise, while terms that plainly reference the act of teaching often appear, at other times no mention of the teaching act itself is 5 Naoto Kamano, in his detailed monograph on the pedagogical strategies found in the book of Ecclesiastes, points out the helpful distinction between the “what” (or “message”) and the “how” of wisdom pedagogy. As he points out, the latter has received pointedly less attention than the former, and relies on a different set of questions. See his Cosmology and Character: Qoheleth’s Pedagogy from a Rhetorical-Critical Perspective (BZAW 312; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002). Other scholars have also tried to fill this gap. See also Michael V. Fox, “The Pedagogy of Proverbs 2,” JBL 113 (1994): 233–43; Daniel J. Estes, Hear, My Son: Teaching and Learning in Proverbs 1–9 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). 6 Gerhard von Rad identifies “didactic poetry” in the Bible according to formal criteria. Didactic poetry, so identified, comprises the literature of biblical wisdom, but appears also in other parts of the biblical canon including, but not exclusively, the book of Psalms. Von Rad relies primarily on literary form, but also appeals to content, to define his categories. He lists the following as belonging to the category of didactic poetry: the literary proverb, numerical sayings, autobiographical stylization, long didactic poem, dialogue, fable and allegory, didactic narrative, and prayers. See his Wisdom in Israel (Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, 1972), 25. In his introduction to the wisdom literature, James L. Crenshaw produces a similar list with slight variations: proverb, riddle, allegory, hymn, disputation/dialogue, autobiographical narrative, noun lists/onomastica and didactic narrative. See his Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 27.

1. Speaker and Audience in Biblical Wisdom

45

included. The pedagogical import of such passages remains, at times, ambiguous and potentially even absent. Thus, a preliminary sketch of the different kinds of horizontally oriented speech in wisdom texts can provide a platform for talking about seemingly similar kinds of speech in the psalms, and the didactic quality that one can attribute to more and less explicitly instructional forms of communication.7 Horizontal Orientation: Parental Imperative The clearest moments of biblical instruction appear in passages that present an identified speaker and audience, as well as overt references to the act of teaching, within the discourse. The most obvious example of teaching occurs as familial instruction, which dominates the first nine chapters of Proverbs.8 These initial nine chapters contain ten “instructions,” monologues spoken by an identified father figure to a youthful and silent son, interspersed with other forms of wisdom poetry.9 The instructions begin with a vocative address to “my son” or “my sons” which immediately and explicitly establishes the relationship between speaker and addressee. 10 This introductory address is 7 Generally, James L. Crenshaw suggests that the biblical wisdom corpus includes two primary “modes” of teaching. The first, which he calls “expository,” emphasizes the authority of the pedagogue and the “power of example” as found in the instructions and aphorisms. The second mode of teaching, which he calls “hypothetical,” emphasizes the student and the verbal interchange of question and answer. Crenshaw sees this latter mode exemplified in the book of Job. See his Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 27. 8 In general, scholars have divided the book of Proverbs into six major sections: Prov 1:1–9:18; 10:1–22:16; 22:17–24:22; 24:23–34; 25:1–29:27; 30:1–31:31. Scholars also subdivide these sections according to various emphases within them. See Michael Fox, Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 18A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 4–5. 9 The division of the ten instructions in chapters 1–9 is as follows: Prov 1:8–19; 2:1–22; 3:1–12; 3:21–35; 4:1–9; 4:10–19; 4:20–27; 5:1–23; 6:20–35; 7:1–27. See R.N. Whybray, Wisdom in Proverbs (SBT 45; London: SCM Press, 1965). The first nine chapters also include five “interludes” (Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 47): Prov 1:20–33; 3:13–20; 6:1–19; 8:1–36; 9:1–18. Two longer wisdom poems, in Prov 1:20–33 and 8:1–36, are comprised of the explicit address of personified Wisdom to those who would follow her teaching. While the pedagogical implications of these passages would no doubt be an interesting area of inquiry, this particular form of instruction is not one that is echoed in the psalms and so will not be treated here. 10 Fox (Proverbs 1–9, 81) calls this direct address to the son, or “my son,” a “genre formula.” See Prov 1:8, 10, 15; 2:1; 3:1, 11, 21; 4:10, 20; 5:1, 20; 6:1, 3, 20; 7:1. For the plural, “my sons,” see Prov 4:1; 5:7; 7:24. This form of address (in the singular) occurs also in other sections in Proverbs, as well as in Ecclesiastes and Sirach (τεκνον). See Prov 19:27; 23:15, 19, 26; 24:13, 21; 27:11; 31:2 (‫ ברי‬instead of ‫ ;)בני‬Eccl 12:12; Sir 2:1; 3:12; 3:17; 4:1; 6:18; 6:23; 6:32; 10:28; 11:10; 14:11; 16:24; 18:15; 21:21; 31:22; 37:27; 38:9; 38:16; 40:28. For the plural “my sons,” see Sir 23:7; 41:14.

46

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

often configured through imperatives that appeal to the senses, typically hearing. Hear, my child, the discipline of your father, 11 and do not forsake the instruction of your mother. (Prov 1:8) My child, listen to my wisdom, Incline your ear to my insight. (Prov 5:1)

The specific inclusion of teaching terms such as discipline/‫מוסר‬, instruction/‫תורה‬, and wisdom/‫ הכמה‬identifies this kind of adamant invitation as an unmistakable call to learn.12 Formally, the instructions primarily use this kind of command or admonition, through the use of the imperative or a negative particle with an imperfect or jussive verb. Command: My child, keep my words And store up my commandments with you. Keep my commandments and live, My instruction as the pupil of your eyes. Bind them on your fingers, Write them on the tablet of your heart. (Prov 7:1–3)

Negative admonition: My son, do not forget my instruction, But let my commandments guard your heart. (Prov 3:1)

These invitatory calls to the son/learner include very little grammatical variation beyond these two dominant forms of initiating address. 13 Third-person language enters into this invitation generally in support of the imperative, providing justification for the exhortation via a motivational kî clause.14 A condensed example:

11

Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are my own. R.N. Whybray shows that all ten instructions follow a basic pattern in their introductions: 1) all use “my son” (“my sons” in Prov 4:1) 2) all include a command to the student (conditional in Prov 2:1) 3) all make reference to the father’s authority 4) all stress the usefulness of father’s speech 5) the father is the only authority referenced 6) references to wisdom (Prov 5:1; 4:11) pertain only to human wisdom and not divine wisdom. See his The Composition of the Book of Proverbs (JSOTSup 168; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 13. 13 Whybray (Ibid., 47) argues that the most basic (and original) form of the instruction appears in Prov 1:8–19 and Prov 4:20–27. Here, one finds the “basic model of parental instruction” without any additions, consisting only of a father’s introductory commendation of his own teaching followed by a series of admonitions. 14 See Prov 1:9, 16, 17; 2:21; 3:2, 12, 26, 32; 4:2, 13, 16, 17, 22, 23; 5:3; 6:23, 26; 7:26. 12

1. Speaker and Audience in Biblical Wisdom

47

Hear, my child, the discipline of your father, and do not forsake the instruction of your mother. For they are a graceful wreath for your head, A necklace for your neck. (Prov 1:8–9)

For Michael Fox, this exordium (or this call to learn) itself typically includes three parts seen in the above quotation; the address, exhortation, and motivation.15 Beyond the call to learn, grammatical variations occur throughout the instructions without disturbing the horizontal orientation of speech or Fox’s overall schema of exordium (address-exhortation-motivation), lesson, and conclusion. The lesson itself often includes quotations (e.g. Prov 1:11–14; 5:12–14), jussives (e.g. Prov 4:25), extended first-person narrative (e.g. Prov 7:6–23), rhetorical questions (e.g. Prov 5:20; 6:28) as well as more and less extended third-person descriptions (e.g. Prov 2:6–8). These shifts represent a variegated rhetorical strategy that comprises the pedagogical toolbox of the speaker. In the midst of these shifts, the student/hearer, the “you” addressed by the father, at times fades from the immediate grammatical foreground. Explicit markers of the addressee such as the vocative, as well as verbal and pronominal markers of the second person, sometimes yield to less obvious formulations in which the fact of address, as such, recedes to some degree. So, for example, in the third instruction in Proverbs 3:21–35, the speaker shifts away from his/her admonitory language into third-person speech about God not immediately governed by a kî particle. The curse of the Lord is on the house of the wicked, But the dwelling of the righteous He blesses. At scoffers He scoffs, But to the lowly He gives favor. (Prov 3:33–34)

The speaker follows this third-person statement about how the Lord deals with the wicked and the righteous with an anthropological third-person statement about the same two groups of people. The wise will inherit honor, But fools take away dishonor. (Prov 3:35)

These kinds of shifts are significant in relation to the question of how the pedagogical process works in the psalms, because the question of audience there becomes much more ambiguous. Here, it is rather clear that the addressee has not changed, nor has the speaker discontinued the lecture. The 15 Fox (Proverbs 1–9, 45–46), who prefers to call the instructions of Prov 1–9 “lectures,” points out that parts of this genre appear in other sections of the book, particularly in Prov 22:17–24:22, but none follow the exact pattern of the genre as it appears in the first nine chapters.

48

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

“you” explicitly set forth by vocatives, verbal and pronominal constructions in Proverbs 3:21–31 grammatically recedes, but contextually remains clearly present, and obviously addressed. These kinds of third-person statements (and other grammatical variations) take on an expressly didactic character due to the call to learn that rhetorically governs all that follows. The indicative becomes, by association, an imperative to the initially addressed “you” to adopt the worldview that such statements describe. In this way, the common thread in these grammatical variations lies in the uniformity of the horizontally oriented relationship between the identified speaker and the identified audience.16 Only the father speaks, and only the son listens. Passages that do not set the “I” and the “you” in the grammatical foreground remain firmly under the influence of the initial imperative that characterizes the invitatory call to learn.17 Thus, descriptive passages that do not obviously command contribute to the lesson by imaging the affirmative or negative effects of heeding or not heeding the parental imperative that initiates the instruction. This underlines, of course, the importance of context in determining the didactic quality of any particular passage. Individual grammatical markers provide the basis for identifying an overtly horizontal relationship between speaker and addressee, but are ultimately insufficient for fully understanding the scope of didactic discourse without some reference to the way that different elaborations of the “I” and the “you” interact. Accordingly, it is the overall structure of the exhortation-motivation in the proverbial instructions that is expressly pedagogical, in relation to the father’s initial vocabulary, which often includes a literal reference to the act of teaching. This structure, the juxtaposition of direct address to an identified pupil followed by the third-person motivation clause, shapes the nature of the expected response from the “you” of the son/hearer. The father/speaker engages in some form of persuasion in his teaching, and the expectation is that the student/youth will act (imperative) because he/she intellectually grasps some truth in relation to that action (indicative/motivation). Daniel J. Estes calls this strategy “command with reasons,” and argues for the reciprocal activity of both teacher and pupil implied by this strategy.18 This stands in contrast 16

It is necessary to emphasize here that the directional designation “horizontal” simply refers to a situation in which a human speaks to another human. This does not mean that all horizontally oriented verbal relationships connote some kind of social equality between discourse partners. 17 This is, of course, if one accepts the division of the ten instructions that scholars have established (which I do in this study). For example, the third-person statements about God and the wise/fools in Prov 3:33–35 can only be called explicitly didactic instruction if one accepts that it does, in fact, conclude a self-contained literary unit categorized as an “instruction” in relation to the initial address/exhortation. 18 This is one of multiple strategies that Estes identifies in Prov 1–9 as a whole (including material not contained within the ten instructions). He contends that it is the most

1. Speaker and Audience in Biblical Wisdom

49

with those scholars who emphasize the authoritarian implications of the univocal parental instruction, and the silence of the son/learner.19 Indeed, scholars debate the level of involvement required by the addressed son/learner in the instructions, and thereby the very nature of the pedagogical enterprise represented there. The “missing voice” of the student figure suggests that learning wisdom could be a receptive and non-vocal affair, while the authority and verbal presence of the paternal pedagogue dominates and sublimates every other potential discourse.20 Estes claims that this particular strategy of “command with reasons,” as well as the other strategies he identifies in Proverbs 1–9, show “the learner as a direct participant in the learning process, for he is able to choose how he will act” and that, ultimately, “the responsibility for the decision belongs primarily to the learner.”21 He points to the incentive-based nature of proverbial teaching as indicative of the reciprocal process that occurs, and the active role that the student must take in order that the teaching not fall, so to speak, on deaf ears. For the purposes of this study, the question becomes whether the father’s discourse promotes a response with an identifiable direction, that is, whether it promotes a horizontally inclined verbal reply from the son. The instruction prevalent, and indeed, he primarily identifies this strategy with the formally identified instructions (Prov 3:1–12; 4:10–19; 4:20–27; 5:7–23; 9:7–12). The remaining strategies he lists are wisdom’s address (Prov 1:20–33; 8:1–11), description (Prov 6:12–19; 8:22–31), condition with command (Prov 6:1–5), command with reason and illustrations (Prov 1:10– 19; 7:6–23), command with consequences (Prov 1:8–9; 5:1–6; 2:1–22), command with rhetorical questions (Prov 6:20–35), incentive (Prov 3:13–18; 8:12–21), and invitation (Prov 9:4–6, 16–18). See his Hear, My Son: Teaching and Learning in Proverbs 1–9, 104– 124. 19 James Crenshaw (Education in Ancient Israel, 123), for example, writes that “Instructions do not leave interpretation to the student.” 20 Or, at least, is geared towards that end. Carol Newsom sees the instructions as speech that “seeks the hegemony of its own discourse,” though she convincingly argues that the authoritative claims of the central discourse are ultimately undercut by the text’s “selfconsciousness about the central role of discourses in competition” that allows the reader to “resist the patriarchal interpellation of the father as well.” See her “Woman and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom: A Study of Proverbs 1–9,” in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (ed. Peggy L. Day; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 142–160. Scott C. Jones offers a compelling addition to this characterization in his treatment of Prov 7. He argues that, here, the father’s pedagogy is descriptive, and thereby does not shy away from “indeterminacy.” It involves complex speech intended to teach the son how to deal with the intricacies of the strange woman’s dangers. Therefore, while the father represents one part of a “hierarchy of control,” the son must enter into the complexity of the father’s speech, so to speak, in order to actively discern the lesson and come to understand how to deal with “indeterminacy.” See his “Wisdom’s Pedagogy: A Comparison of Proverbs VII and 4Q184,” VT 53 (2003): 66–74. On the “missing voice” of the proverbial youth, see Crenshaw, Education in Ancient Israel, 187–203. 21 Estes, Hear, My Son: Teaching and Learning in Proverbs 1–9, 124.

50

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

in Proverbs 2:1–22 supports the idea that learning is not depicted as an entirely receptive process. This is both because of the passage’s unique grammatical structure as well as the content of what the father expresses.22 This instruction represents a unique call to learn because it comes in the form of a condition rather than some form of imperative exhortation or admonition.23 Verses 1–5 consist of a series of conditional statements followed by the expected kî clause in verse 6 My child, if you take my words, And store up my commandments with you, Making your ear attentive to wisdom, And your heart to understanding, If you call to understanding, And to understanding you give your voice, If you seek it like silver, And search it out like treasures, Then you will understand the fear of the Lord, And the knowledge of God, you will find. For the Lord grants wisdom, From His mouth are knowledge and understanding. (Prov 2:1–6)

Formally, this represents an exhortation similar to what one finds in the other instructions. However, the threefold use of the conditional highlights the persuasive character of the father’s instructions, which seek not simply to command. This construction generates a rhetorical moment unambiguously focused on uncertainty and possibility. It implies the fatherly awareness that these exhortations bear only the weight that the audience eventually will give to them. This text obviously lacks immediacy with regard to the expected response of the student beyond hearing or listening, but anticipates a comprehensive response nonetheless. The conditional points to an as-yet unrealized future, a possibility underscored by the youthfulness of the addressee. It is a future in which the student must speak. Proverbs 2:3–5 provides an unmistakable reference to the voice/‫ קול‬of the youthful audience with the second conditional. The father’s call to learn here demands a second call, a verbal response from the otherwise non-verbal student. This invitation to speech, the acknowledged domain of wisdom, makes plain the necessity of

22

Michael Fox notes that the exordium is unusually long in this instruction, comprising verses 1–11, and really carries the instruction’s central message rather than the lesson itself. See his “The Pedagogy of Proverbs 2,” 234, 241. 23 The second instruction is the only one of this genre that includes a conditional in its introduction. Prov 6:1 includes a conditional but Whybray does not include Prov 6:1–19 among the ten instructions. See his The Book of Proverbs (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 15–45.

1. Speaker and Audience in Biblical Wisdom

51

the child’s response.24 The use of the conditional in conjunction with the reference to crying out/‫ קרא‬for Wisdom (vs. 3) sketches the contours of the imagined future as one in which the child must unequivocally become a speaker, an agent in his or her own search for wisdom.25 The shape of the child’s speech remains undetermined here.26 The father does not attempt to provide it for him. Wisdom enters the scene through the student’s own seeking activity in the future. The prize for such activity is not only the life that wisdom brings, but also the knowledge of God (Prov 2:5).27 The character of this future agency, and eventual entrance into speech, maintains the primacy of horizontally oriented address as the privileged apparatus of proverbial pedagogy. The culmination of the child’s crying out and seeking in Proverbs 2 extends into the future, one prefigured in the instruction in Proverbs 4:1–9, which Whybray calls an “instruction within an instruction.”28 Here, the father/speaker relates that the teaching that he presently expounds was once taught to him by his own father, who used the same pattern of instruction that now frames his own teaching. Following the exordium and motivation, the father continues: When I was a son with my father, tender, and the only one before my mother, He taught me, and said to me, “Let your heart grasp my words; keep my commandments, and live. (Prov 4:3–4)

In the instruction that follows in verses 5–9, the substance of the lesson is a quotation of the father’s father. In other words, the pattern of speech is a repeated one, and the father says again the words once said to him. This fore24

Fox (“Pedagogy of Proverbs 2,” 237) shows that Prov 2:1–4 contains three conditional particles that demarcate the “learner’s task,” namely to do the following: 1) “absorb” the words of father (vs. 1) 2) “call” to wisdom (vs. 3) 3) “seek” wisdom (vs. 4). Similarly, Whybray (Composition of the Book of Proverbs, 15–17) thinks the first five verses point to three goals altogether: 1) for the child to receive the words of the speaker 2) to seek for wisdom 3) to gain fear of the Lord and knowledge of God. Unlike Fox, Whybray sees the last as very close, maybe even “identical” with both the words of the father and wisdom itself. 25 It is difficult to characterize the direction of this called-for address to Wisdom; while it is not vertical speech to God, nor is it horizontal speech to another human being. 26 This stands in contrast with Prov 5:12–14, where the father imagines the future speech of a son who has rejected wisdom. In that instance, the invitatory aspect is absent, as the father co-opts the potential future speech of the silent son as part of the lesson not to follow the way of the strange woman. 27 As noted, for Fox (“Pedagogy of Proverbs 2,” 242), Prov 2 emphasizes both the father’s teaching and the child/learner’s intellectual activity, both of which culminate in God’s gift of wisdom. Education, thus configured, is “a cooperative effort of child, parents, and God.” 28 Whybray, Composition of the Book of Proverbs, 57.

52

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

shadows a further stage of his own silent son’s path to speech, namely, his own entry into the world of teaching. In Proverbs 4, the child is implicitly called upon to become a teacher to his own son when the time arrives. The father’s call to learn thus extends into a mirroring future in which the words that demand no immediate response become the spoken words of the silent son, at that point a father himself. The will of the father figure is clear; the child should one day reinitiate the horizontal address that his father now addresses to him. Overall, the proverbial instructions supply a well-formed and well-filled portrait of the act of teaching, construed biblically as a lecture-like speech event that passes from father to son, teacher to pupil. While the rhetorical strategy of the lesson may include various grammatical shifts, wisdom teaching in this guise remains a horizontally inclined process dictated by the imperative of the call to learn that begins each instruction. Thus, the proverbial instructions do invite a response, a lifelong striving with wisdom that concludes with the student becoming a teacher him/herself. The speaker’s invitation calls precisely for another explicit, horizontal speech event: the son’s reiteration of the father’s discourse to the next generation. As Fox writes of the “self-presentation” of the text, “Future readers are to place themselves imaginatively in this setting, standing, as it were, in place of the son listening to his father. Then they can in turn replicate the father’s role in instructing others.”29 The “you” of the present discourse must eventually appropriate the “I,” but this shift takes place in an imagined, rather than immediate, future. The culminating image of this proverbial invitation envisions the hearer doing much later what the speaker does now. This horizontal orientation fully holds only for the mode of address; as seen briefly above, from the perspective of content, the instructions offer indicative statements both about humans and about God, which shows that talk about God comfortably fits within this didactic milieu. However, even those instructions that talk about God tend to stress the manner in which the student should relate to the divine in order to benefit from divine attention toward the righteous.30 The most overtly theological instruction in Proverbs 3:1–12 emphasizes certain postures in relation to God that will pave the way to grain-filled barns and vats bursting with new wine (Prov 3:10). Thus, a theological picture may develop incidentally and even be a significant aspect of the discourse, but the real focus remains anthropocentric, that is, how a person ought to position him/herself with respect to the fact of a divine presence in life.

29

Fox, “Wisdom and the Self-Presentation of Wisdom Literature,” 169. Of course, Prov 1–9 does include third-person theological statements (e.g. Prov 3:19– 20), but not within the context of the clearly horizontal address found in the instructions. 30

1. Speaker and Audience in Biblical Wisdom

53

This tendency towards the horizontal in both content and mode of speech is underscored by the absence of any mention of prayer or sustained attention to worship activity as essential aspects of moral behavior and development in the instructions.31 Nor is there any tangible hint of divine teaching or speech.32 What the proverbial instructions do not do is associate these teachings about the proper stance towards God with vertical speech or any reference to vertically inclined activity, with the possible exception of an advocated verbal relationship with Wisdom.33 Despite this caveat, the process of instruction remains firmly distinct from the process of prayer and praise. In fact, the instructions in Proverbs 1–9 do not even go so far as to teach about prayer, but rather implicitly suggest that the formation of character has to do with intellectual understanding and moral development. The goal of the instructions, the culminating image of intellectual and behavioral fulfillment, is that of a teacher speaking to his/her students. Horizontal Orientation: Third-Person Statements Unlike the instructions in Proverbs 1–9, most of the short sayings (though not all) in Proverbs 10–29 fail to identify so clearly the speaker and audience. Michael Fox divides the wisdom corpus into two basic kinds of “didactic wisdom” that parallel this divide in the book of Proverbs. He separates exhortations in the second person (as found mainly in the instructions) from thirdperson statements that take a variety of forms, but generally manifest as proverbs in couplets or slightly longer sayings such as riddles or numerical sayings.34 What is missing from the latter texts is the manifest relationship between the first-person “I” and the second-person “you” that emerges grammatically through the use of vocatives, pronouns, and second-person suffixes in the father/son constructions. Instead, the audience, and most often the speaker as well, remain grammatically unrecognized while third-person, in31 Leo Perdue argues that the instructions do contain sporadic references to cultic activity. He cites Prov 3:9–10 as a reference to Israelite agricultural festivals. He also sees the “strange woman” referred to in four instructions (Prov 2:1–22; 5:1–23; 6:24–35; 7:1–27) as a fertility goddess of the ancient Near East, though this argument is debatable. See his Wisdom and Cult, 142–155. Fox also sees references to cultic activity in Proverbs 3:9–10, though he acknowledges that “such concerns are not prominent in Proverbs.” See his Proverbs 1–9, 151–152. 32 Fox, “Pedagogy of Proverbs 2,” 238; Whybray, Composition, 31. Proverbs 2:6 does mention the idea of wisdom as divine gift, but this is an isolated instance, and includes no hint of divine speech. 33 In addition to Prov 2:3, see Prov 7:4, in which the speaker encourages the child/son to speak to Wisdom. 34 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 17–18. This subdivision of “didactic wisdom” that Fox sees in Proverbs and most of Qoheleth is distinguished from the “critical Wisdom” that he sees in Job, parts of Qoheleth, and Pss 49, 73, and 88.

54

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

dicative statements dominate the discourse. Because of this, these brief texts often lack the pedagogical clarity of the instructions’ exhortation-motivationlesson structure, buttressed by the text’s explicit rendering of the father/teacher-son/student relationship (whether fictional or not).35 Rather, the observational musings of Proverbs 10–29 ponder a variety of empirical and theological realities, yet fail to imbue those realities with a specific intellectual or behavioral imperative that explicitly translates into an invitation to the audience. 36 In such cases, the horizontal direction of discourse comes to light through different grammatical criteria, and the anticipated shape and direction of the audience’s response is defined less overtly. The memory of the righteous is a blessing, But the name of the wicked will rot. (Prov 10:7) Like snow in summer and rain at the harvest, So honor is not seemly for a fool. (Prov 26:1) A good name is better than oil, And the day of death better than the day of birth. (Eccl 7:1)

With couplets such as these, speaker and audience remain unidentified due to the absence of first- and second-person markers. Third-person indicative language, primarily concerned with the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, describes a particular reality that does not expressly involve the “I” or the “you.” Determining the direction of speech, though it seems an obvious task, at times demands a reliance on context, which is something that will become particularly important in the psalms. Some proverbs talk about God in the third person, which would exclude the deity as an object of address (e.g. Prov 10:3); however, many proverbs simply remark on human life. So, one must at least have recourse to the general literary milieu of short proverbs to unequivocally establish the horizontal direction of the speaker’s words. This grammatical and rhetorical ambiguity introduces the question of 35

Father-son address occurs outside of Prov 1–9, but not often. See Prov 19:27; 23:15, 19, (22), 26; 24:13, 21; 27:11; 31:2 (different term for son). Likewise, imperatives do occur in Prov 10–29, but are not as frequent as the indicative, and not dominant as they are in the instructions. Outside of Prov 1–9, both occur primarily in Prov 22:17–24:22, a collection with ties to the Egyptian text Instructions of Amenemope. For examples of admonitions and exhortations outside of Prov 22:17–24:22, see also Prov 25:6–10, 16f., 21f., 26:12; 27:1f., 10f, 13, 23. See von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 31. 36 On the distinction between the proverbial imperative and indicative, Mahnwort and Aussagewort, see R.N. Whybray, The Book of Proverbs: A Survey of Modern Study (HBI 1; New York: Brill, 1995), 43–47. Whybray offers an extensive survey of the progression of scholarly interest in the difference between both the form and “intention” of the statement and admonition (positively or negatively rendered), concluding that recent scholarship has registered dissatisfaction with the distinction in relation to rhetorical function as didactic versus observational.

1. Speaker and Audience in Biblical Wisdom

55

the identity of both speaker and audience, and indeed how each identify themselves in relation to the righteous and the wicked. Because these units of speech do not, on their own, “self-present” an explicitly (even if fictive) pedagogical environment, their implicitly horizontal direction of speech provides no guarantee of a didactic function. Indeed, some scholars have argued that short proverbs are not primarily didactic. For example, Gerhard von Rad claims that proverbs are, at the most basic level, not “directly didactic” and have a neutral quality “without any direct appeal to the listeners” and therefore “only empirical value.”37 For von Rad, the didactic value of these sentences is based on their universalistic tenor and dependent on the “human decision” of the student who is “in the position of being able to ‘get wisdom’.”38 James L. Crenshaw similarly argues that short proverbs, in and of themselves, are not inherently didactic. He more specifically contends that “pedagogic intent” emerged at a “secondary stage” in the composition of Proverbs.39 He sees a linear and seemingly time-bound “shift” from observation to exhortation/admonition that signaled the emergence of “a desire to teach.”40 However, not all scholars agree with this assessment, and point out that it is difficult to maintain that proverbs are simply “neutral.” William P. Brown, for example, rejects the common notion that the antithetical sayings of Proverbs 10:1–22:16 are merely descriptive, writing that “the mood is predominantly indicative and observational, though far from neutral: the tone is clearly prescriptive.”41 In other words, short proverbs carry an implicit imperative by describing the life of the wicked and the fool as undesirable. One sees this implicit didactic quality best perhaps in the “better-than” sayings and the ‫ אשׁרי‬formulas that often find an echo in the psalms. Better to be dishonored and have a servant Than to be self-important and lacking bread. (Prov 12:9) Happy is the one who is always trembling, But the one who hardens his heart falls into evil. (Prov 28:14)

37

Von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 31. Ibid., 57–58. 39 Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom, 27. 40 Ibid., 65. He writes, “The simple addition of motive clauses and energetic warnings signaled an unwillingness to allow the proverb to communicate its own message. The consequences of a given action come to the forefront, and direct address punctuates the discourse.” This is a developmental approach to the question of didactic wisdom in relation to verbal mood, from the “neutral observations” of the proverbial indicative to the didactic exhortations and admonitions. 41 William P. Brown, “The Pedagogy of Proverbs 10:1–31:9,” in Character and Scripture: Moral Formation, Community, and Biblical Interpretation (ed. William P. Brown; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 156. 38

56

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

Other formal variations of the proverb imply greater and lesser degrees of didactic import. While it is clear that these proverbs might well have pedagogical implications, what is not clear is the relationship between the speaker and the audience. These proverbs, in and of themselves, do not “self-present” the context of speech in which they occur, and in that sense their “performance meaning” carries only a “latent” potential to flexibly function in different contexts.42 In other words, these examples of implicit address in biblical wisdom do not plainly set forth the anticipated response of the hearer in the way that the proverbial instructions do. Third-person indicative proverbs, in various forms, lack an explicit invitation to an anonymous audience. While one can glean amidst the value-laden rhetoric and content a hidden urging towards a sapiential ethos, these poetic exercises do not image an inhabitable “you,” a persona never openly acknowledged within the couplet (and even some longer quatrain poetic units). The absence of first- and second-person speech suggests not only a greater flexibility of function, but also a greater responsibility on the part of the audience to make meaning. Von Rad, in addition to touting the basic “neutral” quality of proverbs, aptly describes the open nature of most proverbs in relation to audience response, writing, While the exhortation suggests a quite definite mode of behavior to the listener, statements, however forcefully presented, always have a characteristic openness, something that points 43 beyond themselves, an element which leaves room for all kinds of associations.

The “associations” that von Rad references are the hearer/reader’s to make, and the question of response takes on an added complexity because it could assume a number of different forms. With this poetic density and openness of meaning, the emphasis shifts from the discourse of the speaker to the active participation of the hearer/reader. The audience must participate in the making of meaning, the establishment of a worldview and behavioral framework implied by it. As von Rad writes, “The single line often enough makes higher claims and demands a greater degree of intellectual participation than a developed didactic poem.”44 In other words, the unacknowledged audience must 42

Fox, “Wisdom and the Self-Presentation of Wisdom Literature,” 153. Von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 31. A further area of debate concerns the epistemological implications of these statements, namely whether they arise empirically from particular human experiences or whether an implicit ideology guides their elaboration. Von Rad (Wisdom in Israel, 32) argues that experience itself would not be enough; a “fairly complex intellectual activity” was involved that ultimately entailed “the production of a pattern of humane behaviour.” Michael V. Fox, extending the argument of von Rad, argues that wisdom epistemology is not derived from experience. Rather, experiences are filtered through an ideological lens already in place. Intellectual, emotional, and aesthetic principles guided the way the sages saw knowledge. See his “The Epistemology of the Book of Proverbs,” JBL 126.4 (2007): 669–684. 44 Von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 27. 43

1. Speaker and Audience in Biblical Wisdom

57

transform the brief, poetic reflection into the didactic exhortation-motivation for him/herself. Michael V. Fox writes, The most a reader can do with regard to performance potential is imagine some of the ways a proverb could be used: how it might influence people, what goals it could serve, how it 45 could be slanted in different directions depending on the wishes of the user.

But do proverbs provide us with a further “self-presentation” beyond the father-son image, a literary context by which to more clearly determine not only the relationship between the speaker and audience in the sayings, but also more clearly to delineate the character of audience’s anticipated response? One way that scholars have dealt with this functional openness is to emphasize the particular pedagogical value of the sentence literature as a collection, finding meaningful connections beginning with the “pair” and “cluster,” and moving on to even larger principles of organization. From this perspective, the piling up of these pithy sayings can represent a pedagogical strategy geared towards pulling the reader/hearer into a particular worldview that builds as saying is added to saying.46 To this end, Christine Roy Yoder contends that Proverbs 10–30 necessitates a much more proactive participation on the part of the student than Proverbs 1–9, but that a definite pedagogy develops in the second major part of the book. In Proverbs 10–30, freed from the authoritative discourse of the father, the hearer/reader must now engage in “wisdom-making” for

45

Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10–31 (AB 18B; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 484. 46 Ibid., 478–480. For Crenshaw (Old Testament Wisdom, 56–57, 65), who is skeptical of the didactic value of individual proverbs in isolation, the accumulation of proverbial sayings engenders the formation of an ethos that binds together nature and society, tradition and present time. Richard Clifford similarly acknowledges the terminological and thematic connections between proverbs, but cautions against simply interpreting these couplets as parts of a greater whole. According to Clifford, each aphorism is “by definition concise and self-contained. Each must be allowed to have its own say.” See his Proverbs, A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999), 108. Likewise, Roland Murphy cautiously warns against too great a reliance on context when interpreting proverbs when he writes, “Is the meaning of a proverb changed or modified by its association with another saying? I think that the historical literal meaning is not changed. The meaning, as far as we can ascertain it, remains the same even in a new context. Deliberate proximity to another proverb does not give it a new meaning.” For Murphy, proverbs can be in conflict with each other, but only if their meaning stands on its own. They must “retain their independent meanings in order that there be conflict.” Further, “The interpretive context within a collection can provide perhaps another opportunity for the application of the basic meaning, but it does not really change it or provide new meaning.” See his “Proverbial Sayings/“Better”-Sayings in Sirach,” in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom: Festschrift M. Gilbert (eds. N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen; BETL 143; Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 32.

58

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

him/herself.47 Focusing on the pedagogical tools of repetition and contradiction, Yoder contends that “proverbs generate ‘patterns of experience’ that, as much as their content, instruct readers in the ways of wisdom.”48 Proverbs 1– 9 shapes the reader into a “seeker of wisdom” as a father figure controls the discourse while Proverbs 10–30 offers these “patterns of experience” that guide the reader to the “relativity of human wisdom.”49 This progression leads to the formation of “fearers of Yahweh.” Yoder’s approach relies on the assumption that the book of Proverbs has a meaningful shape and comprehensive function, a pedagogical strategy geared towards moral formation. It also relies on the assumption that the youthful “you” addressed in Proverbs 1–9 remains not only available, but the sustained identity of the hearer/reader who enters into Proverbs 10–30. In other words, Yoder’s analysis suggests that one can also probe the book as a whole for a broader “self-presentation” of the communicative event that develops the father-son image found predominantly in chapters one through nine. While third-person couplets lack an explicitly rendered moment of dialogue (or monologue), the shaping of the book as a whole not only engages in various rhetorical strategies geared towards instruction, but also lends definition to ambiguously directed speech. Like Yoder, William P. Brown attributes the instructional capacity of Proverbs 10:1–31:9 to the section’s shape as a whole, rather than the singular thrust of any specific proverb. However, instead of focusing simply on the rhetorical strategies of the different collections, he notes the editorial indications of shaping throughout the book, including the superscriptions and the contrast between the strange woman (Prov 7:6–27) and the strong woman (Prov 31).50 According to Brown, the book’s “pedagogical movement” as a whole reveals itself through the transformation of the youthful student of chapters one to nine into the kingly figure of chapter thirty-one.51 The introduction of the royal Lemuel character in chapter thirty-one is important for the book’s pedagogical value, because it lends the “implied reader” a “specific reference.”52 This allows the reader/hearer to enter into the instructional schema that develops in the book as a whole, even at those points when the explicit “I” and “you” virtually disappear from the discourse. In this way, Brown offers a broader “performance setting” that builds off the father-son instructions, but also moves beyond it to an image of 47 Christine Roy Yoder, “Forming ‘Fearers of Yahweh’: Repetition and Contradiction as Pedagogy in Proverbs,” in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (eds. Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 172. 48 Ibid., 172. 49 Ibid., 179–182. 50 William P. Brown, “The Pedagogy of Proverbs 10:1–31:9,” 150–182. 51 Ibid., 152. 52 Ibid., 178.

1. Speaker and Audience in Biblical Wisdom

59

the grown and royal son addressed by the queen mother (ch. 31). The audience thus makes the turn that the son figure makes through the development of the book as a whole; from child to king, from voiceless to the very cusp of horizontally inclined speech. Vertical Orientation: Agur’s Prayer While a considerable rhetorical diversity characterizes the biblical wisdom corpus, the represented modes of speech remain almost entirely vested in horizontally directed speech, whether explicitly or implicitly rendered.53 The book of Proverbs includes one exception: the prayer of Agur (Prov 30:7–9), a named sage who speaks in the first person and addresses at least two distinct audiences within the span of his speech in Proverbs 30:1–9.54 This brief instance of vertical address provides a noteworthy exception to the overall orientation of the book, but also further delineates the significant distinctions between the communicative context of Proverbs and the Psalter, even when seemingly comparable forms appear in the latter. Agur’s vertical address to God in Proverbs 30:7–9 is part of a longer speech that diverges from the overall tone and content of the book as a whole (Prov 30:1–9) and most likely maintains a horizontal orientation in verses 1– 6.55 Unfortunately, the text of verse 1 has numerous difficulties that leave 53

Moreover, prayer, as such, rarely occupies the content of the sages’ thought. For isolated references to prayer, see Prov 15:8, 29; 28:9; Job: 15:4; 16:16–17; 21:15; 22:27; 33:26; 42:8, 10. See James L. Crenshaw, “The Restraint of Reason, the Humility of Prayer,” in The Echoes of Many Texts: Reflections on Jewish and Christian Traditions: Essays in Honor of Lou H. Silberman (ed. William G. Dever and J. Edward Wright; BJS 313; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 91–92. Crenshaw argues that Eccl 5:1 refers to vows rather than prayer activity, and he agrees with von Rad that Qoheleth had “given up on trying to enter into dialogue with God.” 54 For some time, scholars popularized the idea that Prov 30:1–9 represents a conversation between Agur the skeptic (vss. 1–4) and a “pious Jew” with an orthodox worldview (vss. 5–9). Paul Franklyn attributes this reading to E.J. Dillon (The Sceptics of the Old Testament [London: Ibister, 1895], 137) originally. See Franklyn, “The Sayings of Agur in Proverbs 30: Piety or Scepticism?” ZAW 95 (1983): 238. However, scholars now tend to reject this reading. J. Kenneth Kuntz argues that Agur himself “draws upon existing instruction” in vss. 5–6 rather than interacting with another speaker. See his “Sighting the Stern: The Impact of Chs. 30–31 on the Book of Proverbs as a Canonical Whole,” PCSSBLASOR 4 (2001): 124. This reading is supported by the fact that the text does not clearly establish any shift in speaker. See Christine Roy Yoder, “On the Threshold of Kingship: A Study of Agur (Proverbs 30),” Interpretation 63.3 (2009): 255. Additionally, Richard Clifford (Proverbs: A Commentary, 256–257) argues vss. 1–10 can be taken as a unity due to “logically coherent” connection between vss. 1–5 and 7–9 and the syntactic mirroring in vss. 6 and 10. 55 Depending on one’s translation of vs. 1, Agur’s prayer may begin there, though it is unlikely. Some (Clifford, Fox, Yoder, NRSV) emend the text and translate Prov 30:1cd as

60

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

most commentators unwilling to firmly stand by one translation, or at the very least achieving a variety of results.56 What is clear is that in verse 2, Agur begins with a first-person account of his own weariness and lack of understanding, which contrasts with the generally confident worldview that dominates Proverbs.57 The rhetorical questions in verse 4 seem to maintain a horizontal orientation, each referring with the interrogative “who?” to the deity. The final question in verse 4 culminates with a challenge addressed to the second-person “you” (“Surely/if you know”/‫)כי תדע‬, and while it is unclear precisely who is being challenged, there is no indication that these questions are vertically addressed. Verse 5 cements the human identity of the addressee, as it is comprised of a third-person theological statement, and verse 6 introduces an unidentified but human “you” with a second-person singular imperfect, second-person pronominal suffix, and continuing thirdperson speech about the deity. The shift to a vertical orientation occurs in verses 7–9, which show Agur turning from his horizontally directed reflections and exhortations to a petitioner’s prayerful request. No vocative is used, but the content of the imperatives in verse 8 heavily suggest that the addressee is God.58 So, the passage in Proverbs 30:1–9 reliably demonstrates at least one shift from horizontal to vertical speech. Unlike the instructions in Proverbs 1–9 and the short sayings that predominate in Proverbs 10–29, this short passage transiently introduces the possibility that the sage does not simply engage with an undifferentiated human audience. That this shift coincides with a general shift toward a skeptical tone and emphasis on divine mystery in verses 2–6 strengthens the point; not only does Agur suggest the limits of human wisdom, he also suggests the limits of the method by which it is communicated, namely horizontal, didactic speech to a presently non-verbal audience. The episode strongly suggests that Agur has reached the limits of human

a complaint – “I am weary, God, I am weary, God. How can I prevail?” However, this translation is speculative and the most literal rendering of the Masoretic text of vs. 1 is “The words of Agur son of Yaqeh: the pronouncement, oracle of the man to Ithiel; to Ithiel and Ukhal,” a translation favored by McKane, as well as the RSV and JPS translations. 56 William McKane refers to the “insuperable difficulties” of vs. 1. See his Proverbs: A New Approach (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), 643. Clifford (Proverbs: A Commentary, 256) similarly avers that the verse’s uncertainty “taints the whole passage.” 57 From a thematic standpoint, scholars often connect Agur’s crisis of faith with Ps 73. See Rick D. Moore, “A Home for the Alien: Worldly Wisdom and Covenantal Confession in Proverbs 30:1–9,” ZAW 106 (1994): 99; Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary, 258; Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 861; Yoder, “On the Threshold of Kingship,” 259. 58 Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 859; James L. Crenshaw, “The Restraint of Reason, the Humility of Prayer,” 89. Crenshaw ultimately rejects what he sees as the plausible idea that the request is directed towards parents/teachers specifically because the biblical record contains no other instance of a son’s actual response.

1. Speaker and Audience in Biblical Wisdom

61

speech and its pedagogical potential, and thus turns his speech to God in prayer.59 Why is this seemingly strange speech included in the book of Proverbs, which but for these isolated verses contains no address to God? What response does Agur seek from his human audience, and does he present a lesson for the continuance of the proverbial son’s moral development? In a book that says very little about the act of prayer, Agur’s plea to God sounds almost jarring and discordant, a pedagogical hiccup frustrating the end of the sage’s lecture spanning the first twenty-nine chapters. The book’s optimistic presentation of a world and God accessible to human understanding and ethical imaginings suddenly yields to a stranger, skeptical of human wisdom’s reach and dependent on a divine answer to his requests. Fox goes so far as to declare that it is “out of place in a Wisdom book.”60 The brief references to prayer prior to this passage do little to prepare the way for it; Proverbs 15:8, 29 and 28:9 associate prayer with the righteous but do not connect it with an epistemological, or theological, crisis. Yet here, prayer appears in sapiential discourse at the moment when the latter becomes an insufficient mechanism for understanding and entering into the world. One way scholars have dealt with this strange prayer is to see it within the context of the book as a whole. If, as noted above, the book of Proverbs has a meaningful shape, Agur steps in at the moment of the audience/reader’s greatest confidence in his/her education following the father’s exhortations in chapters 1–9 and the variegated sayings of chapters 10–29. Christine Roy Yoder, in her work on the shape of Proverbs, interprets Agur’s prayer as another step in the progressive development of the reader from child to fullyformed practitioner of wisdom. Before one can “assume the throne” with Lemuel in Proverbs 31:1–9, one must experience Agur’s “warning” against premature satisfaction with one’s moral formation, a “warning” strategically accomplished through a very brief rejection of inter-human discourse in favor of divine encounter.61 Similarly, for William Brown, Agur’s prayer expands the breadth of the character-forming discourse, adding a complexity not present in earlier chapters. It becomes the penultimate step before the implied reader is able to finally identify with and appropriate the figure of the king in chapter 31.62 Agur’s prayer and subsequent reflection on the created world becomes a sort of lesson in humility: not an end in itself, but a precursor to the final culmination of the initial child’s journey with and towards royal wisdom.63 59

Ibid., 83, 90. Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 861. Brown (“Pedagogy of Proverbs 10:1–31:9,” 175), likewise, remarks this passage is “in a class by itself” and “bizarre.” 61 Christine Roy Yoder, “On the Threshold of Kingship,” 254–263. 62 Brown, “Pedagogy of Proverbs 10:1–31:9,” 176–180. 63 Ibid., 178. 60

62

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

Despite this possibility, the text’s swift return to more familiar ground in Proverbs 30:10, namely an admonition governed by a second-person imperative, reifies the notion that proverbial pedagogy operates almost exclusively within the context of horizontally oriented discourse, from human teacher to human student. Consequently, the brief interplay of horizontal and vertical orientations in Proverbs 30:1–9 ultimately accentuates the differences between the communicative environments of the book of Proverbs and the Psalter. The resumption of horizontally oriented speech in the latter half of Proverbs 30:10 and the whole of chapter 31 de-emphasizes the impact of Agur’s brief vertical turn. Indeed, the book ends with parental address in Proverbs 31:1–9, this time imaged by a queen mother speaking to her son, and finally concludes with a lengthy, descriptive poem on the “woman of strength” in Proverbs 31:10–30. This conclusion cements the audience’s identity as the addressed “you” meant to hear the words of the speaker and take confidence in their authenticity. Vertical Orientation: Prayer and Praise in Ben Sira Unlike the book of Proverbs, the book of Sirach explicitly treats the subjects of prayer and praise throughout the book, and includes examples of both genres.64 The relationship between instruction, prayer and praise in the book of Sirach represents an important counterpoint to the selfsame interplay of discourses in the book of Psalms.65 Examples of second-person address to the 64

For hymns of praise to God, see Sir 39:12–35; 42:15–43:33. The Hebrew MS B includes a hymn of thanksgiving (Sir 51:12e+-zj+) placed in between 51:1–12 and 51:13–30. Additionally, the book includes other passages that scholars have dubbed “hymns” but that are directed to wisdom (e.g. Sir 24:1–22) or Israel’s ancestors (Sir 44–50, which, interestingly, sometimes describes pious Israelite heroes as men who pray [e.g. Sir 46:5; 47:5]). Jan Liesen points out that no sufficient definition for what constitutes “praise” in Ben Sira exists. See his “‘With All Your Heart’: Praise in the Book of Ben Sira,” in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham-Ushaw College 2001 (BZAW 321; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 199–213. For a review of terminology related to praise in Sirach, see Michael Reitemeyer, Weisheitslehre als Gotteslob: Psalmentheologie im Buch Jesus Sirach (BBB 127; Berlin: Philo, 2000), 11–90. Scholarship on prayers, in distinction from praise, in the wisdom literature also exposes a lack of a unified definition. So, for example, some scholars include Ben Sira’s hymns as examples of prayers (Sir 39:12–35; 42:15–43:33). See Alexander Di Lella and Patrick Skehan, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 87. Gerhard von Rad (Wisdom in Israel, 47–50), though he classifies “prayers” as a form of “didactic poetry,” discusses primarily psalms without mentioning Proverbs 30:7–9, and only briefly notes the “hymns” in Sirach. 65 Some scholars even associate Ben Sira himself with the redactors of the Psalter. For a helpful summary of previous scholarship on the connection between Ben Sira and the Psalter, see Jan Liesen, “A Common Background of Ben Sira and the Psalter. The Concept of ‫ תורה‬in Sir 32:14–33:33 and the Torah Psalms,” in Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on

1. Speaker and Audience in Biblical Wisdom

63

deity in Sirach are limited, but present; Crenshaw only identifies two prayers in Sirach 22:27–23:6 and 36:1–22, while Maurice Gilbert also includes Sirach 51:1–12, which appears after the epilogue in 50:25–29.66 Still, the book demonstrates a definite interest in vertically oriented speech, albeit distinguishing the optimism of praise from the often troubled and individualistic tenor of supplication. Indeed, the sage teaches on the subject of praise, Praise is not lovely on the lips of a sinner, for it is not sent by the Lord. For praise must be spoken in wisdom, And the Lord will make it prosper. (Sir 15:9–10)

So, for Ben Sira, wisdom must accompany the act of praise. Prayer, on the other hand, he seems to approach somewhat differently, exhorting his audience, Return to the Lord and abandon your sins, Pray before Him and lessen your offenses. (Sir 17:25)

Ben Sira most often talks about prayer as something that arises in a time of need, such as illness or injustice or some other need.67 What is clear is that the sage does distinguish between the acts of prayer and praise. His describes Tradition, Redaction, and Theology (eds. Friedrich V. Reiterer, Beate Ego, and Tobias Nicklas; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 197. Alternatively, Maurice Gilbert suggests that the emphasis on praise in Sir 42:15–51:30 might represent the influence of the Psalter on the sage. See his “Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira: Function and Relevance,” in Yearbook 2004: Prayer from Tobit to Qumran (ed. Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 125. Crenshaw (“Wisdom Psalms?” 10), in contrast, dismisses the connection between the two texts, arguing that the similarities “obscure a significant time lapse.” 66 Crenshaw (“The Restraint of Reason, the Humility of Prayer,” 93–97) only recognizes the two prayers in Sirach (Sir 22:27–23:6 and 36:1–22), presumably because he sees 51:1–12 as “hymnic praise” instead, and not the work of Ben Sira himself. See his Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction, 155. Crenshaw’s reliance on form is thus apparent since 51:1–12 includes second-person address to God. See also Gilbert, “Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira,” 117–135. Manuscript complexities and textual difficulties also could influence how one develops this list, since the Greek and Hebrew versions of Sir 51:1–12 differ, and the Hebrew acrostic in Sir 51:13–30 may contain an instance of “my Lord” in vs. 51:15b. See Otto Mulder, “Three Psalms or Two Prayers in Sirach 51? The End of Ben Sira’s Book of Wisdom,” in Prayer from Tobit to Qumran: Inaugural Conference of ISDCL Salzburg, Austria, 5–9 July 2003 (eds. Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley.; DCLY 2004; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 171–201. 67 Crenshaw, “The Restraint of Reason, the Humility of Prayer,” 92–93. For examples of descriptions of prayer or second-person address to God in time of need, see Sir 4:6; 21:1, 5; 28:2, 4; 35:13–18; 38:9, 14; 39:5; 51:9. However, this is not the only way Ben Sira writes about prayer. Exceptions to this include the sage’s exhortation not to “grow weary” in prayer (Sir 7:10), and a verse that simply directs the hearer to pray to God for knowledge of the truth (Sir 37:15).

64

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

prayer according to various needs that give rise to it; he describes praise as an act of wisdom. The question is whether the actual examples of vertical address in the book function as an invitation to prayer, that is, to take up the “I” of the text and become the supplicant, or whether these prayers function in another way. In Sirach 22:27–23:6, the sage does, in fact, pray to God for help in avoiding sin by utilizing the vocative (Sir 23:1, 4) in a speech clearly directed from supplicant to deity.68 Various grammatical devices, including the rhetorical question (Sir 22:27; 23:2), negative request (Sir 23:2, 4, 6), the imperative (Sir 23:6), and first-person account (Sir 23:3) make up the prayer, but each remains subordinate to the influence of the prevailing vocative that addresses the Lord, the “Father and Master of my life” (Sir 23:1). Overall, the prayer divides into two parts, with Sirach 22:27–23:1 focusing on the dangers of unguarded speech, and 23:2–6 dealing with the dangers of excessive passions. Maurice Gilbert points out that these two topics are “typically sapiential in the sense that they can be assumed to apply to anyone.”69 Whether this universalism legitimately indicates a sapiential stamp is debatable, but one can at least say that both topics are eminently concerned with everyday life-in-theworld, rather than specifically liturgical concerns. Immediately following the conclusion of the prayer in Sirach 23:6, the unmistakable pedagogical stance of parental address emerges in Sirach 23:7. The clear change in audience and the reference to instruction/παιδεία alerts the hearer/reader of a clear shift in the mode of speech. The two major themes of the prayer in Sirach 22:27–23:6 are addressed separately in the following sections. Sirach 23:7–15 treats verbal sins, while Sirach 23:16–27 treats sexual sins.70 Thus, in the two teachings, a mix of horizontally oriented indicative language and exhortation deals with the very same topics addressed vertically in the prayer in Sirach 22:27–23:6. In other words, the sage effectively translates the prayer into a human teaching directed toward an audience presented as the object of a parent’s instructional address. The sage’s prayer asks God to protect and deliver him from two particular sins, yet the sage himself is the one who attempts to stay the selfsame sinful impulse in others. His vertical address ultimately results in a horizontal lesson that explicitly places the audience in the role of the “you”/children who listen to the words of the wise human teacher.71 The parent figure nowhere suggests in Sirach 23:7–27 that wisdom related to these persistent human problems emanates from any 68

This text is not extant in Hebrew. Gilbert, “Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira,” 117. 70 Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 321. 71 Here, my reading differs from Gilbert (“Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira,” 118), who asserts that the prayer “can be recited either by the master or by the disciple.” Because the prayer has been written down in the book and has “universal” value, Gilbert sees in it an invitation from Ben Sira to “assume its truth, before hearing his teaching.” 69

1. Speaker and Audience in Biblical Wisdom

65

place other than the human mouth of the human sage.72 So, while the thematic relationship between the prayer and the lesson shows that Ben Sira saw these as complimentary verbal postures, the invitation rests with the lesson; the sage prays so that he might teach his students. In contrast with the “sapiential” themes of Sirach 22:27–23:6, the prayer in Sirach 36:1–22 (1–13a, 16b-22) concerns Israel’s deliverance from foreign nations, and consequently sounds close to a communal lament.73 Like Sirach 22:27–23:6, the prayer includes the typical grammatical markers of the vocative (vss. 1, 5, 17, 22) that explicitly establish the vertical orientation toward the deity.74 Unlike Sirach 22:27–23:6, the speaker is often represented with the plural first person (vss. 1, 4, 5), just as the content concerns the entire people of Israel. The prayer asks God to lift a hand against the nations, to work wonders and destroy Israel’s adversaries, to gather the tribes of Jacob and have mercy on Israel, and reward those who place their hopes in Israel’s God. While the violence described in the prayer sounds out of place in a wisdom book, its national focus coheres with Ben Sira’s introduction of salvation history themes into a wisdom milieu.75 The prayer in Sirach 36:1–22 is less clearly related to didactic material than the prayer in Sirach 22:27–23:6, but once again, the function of this passage is conditioned by context. This prayer has a communal and national character, demanding that God destroy the wicked nations and have mercy on the tribes of Jacob.76 Maurice Gilbert argues that this passage works in tandem with what precedes, namely a reflection on sacrifice and prayer, and the Lord’s inevitable willingness to hear the oppressed.77 In this way, Gilbert helpfully highlights the pedagogical role of the prayer as that which lends credence to the lesson. This supports his overall contention that for Ben Sira,

72 The possible exception to this is the reference to “heed the commandments of the Lord” in 23:27, though it is still quite clearly a human teacher speaking about divine commands, and how a person should heed them. 73 Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 420. The poem is extant in Hebrew, but verse numbers 14 and 15 are not used due to dislocation in the Greek (though no text is missing) and vs. 11 is missing from the Hebrew MS B. 74 The Greek includes the vocative “Lord” in vss. 5, 17, 22, though it does not appear in the Hebrew. However, the vocative “God of all”/‫ אלהי הכל‬does appear in vs. 1. 75 On Ben Sira’s introduction of salvation history into a wisdom worldview, see von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 240–262; Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom, 140–142. 76 The nationalistic content of the poem has led some scholars to question whether it belongs to Ben Sira, but others have pointed out that it coheres with the sage’s historical interests throughout the book. See Crenshaw, “The Restraint of Reason, the Humility of Prayer” 96. 77 Gilbert (“Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira,” 120) dismisses any connection between the prayer and the following section (Sir 36:23–37:15), which reflects on the topics of trust and friendship.

66

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

“prayer is first of all a matter of teaching.”78 The prayer becomes a confirmation of the teaching in Sirach 35:14–26 by lending a profoundly historical example of prayer in action. That is, the prayer ostensibly “shows” the Lord doing what the sage says the deity does in chapter thirty-five, namely listening to the cry of the righteous who seek justice. However, one must note that the juxtaposition of vertical and horizontal speech in chapter thirty-six contrasts with what occurs in chapters twenty-two and twenty-three, since in the former the prayer follows the human lesson rather than the other way around. This structural detail, as well as the corporate references in chapter thirty-six, indicates that, in this prayer at least, the sage identifies his audience as those who can enter communally into a vertical encounter. For Gilbert, the effect of the prayer is primarily a broadening of the preceding lesson, the sage’s recollection of a communal experience that “brings out the full value of the teaching of the master.”79 What this reading fails to capture is the possibility that the shift may not only be the recollection of a “typical” lament of the poor but also an invitation to embrace the vertical stance that the sage himself models here and elsewhere. The plural first person in this poem suggests that the speaker may offer his audience the adoption of this particular posture as a way of reckoning with the human lesson that precedes it in chapter thirty-five. Ben Sira’s stated interest in the activities of prayer and praise throughout the book supports the poem’s invitatory potential. These aspects of Ben Sira’s wisdom reveal a much closer relationship between horizontal and vertical communication than one finds in the book of Proverbs in that the text clearly draws a connection between the acts of human instruction, prayer and praise. For this particular sage, a life of wisdom includes a vertical life of verbal engagement with God. But neither can one call the approach here “psalmic” in the sense of a consistently interactive communicative context. In both the aforementioned examples of prayer, the text binds together the vertical and horizontal acts of speech through shared content. Yet, the sage presents the two orientations of speech as unambiguously separate. In the prayers in Sirach 22:27–23:6 and 36:1–22, the vertical “I/Thou” relationship between the speaker and God remains constant and uninterrupted by ambiguously directed third-person reflection. Moreover, the attached lessons in Sirach 23:7–27 and 35:16–26 sustain an explicitly horizontal orientation throughout. In other words, Ben Sira sets vertical and horizontal discourse side by side as separate activities, rather than as part of a unified discourse. This textual practice befits the sage with a penchant for amalgamation, juxtaposing not only different concepts and traditions, but also distinct communicative postures without fully integrating them. 78 79

Ibid., 117. Ibid., 122.

1. Speaker and Audience in Biblical Wisdom

67

One can make a tentative argument that the final chapter of Sirach partially sustains this dynamic, displaying a definite interest in vertical discourse and more plainly addressing the relationship between instruction and praise. The significant differences in the Hebrew and Greek texts of chapter fifty-one complicate any attempt at interpretation, but the text shows a basic movement that supports the idea that the book ultimately puts vertical discourse in the service of its horizontal, and pedagogical, project even while closely affiliating the two modes of speech. Chapter fifty-one does indeed begin with a prayer in twelve verses that resemble an individual psalm of thanksgiving. The speaker begins with a direct address to God and transitions into a firstperson narrative before returning once again to explicit, vertical address. In the Greek version of the text, this thanksgiving incontrovertibly sustains the vertical address throughout, but the Hebrew does shift into third-person testimonial speech about God in verses 8, 11, 12. So, the Greek transforms verse 8 into second-person prayer, and omits verses 11d and 12b.80 Furthermore, the Hebrew MS B text then adds to verses 1–12 a hymn of praise, Sir 51:12e+-zj+, in which the speaker horizontally exhorts the audience to vertically thank and praise God, though neither the Greek nor the Syriac include this text. Thus, the first (or first two) sections of the chapter show the speaker engaging in vertical speech, mixing vertical and horizontal address in the Hebrew text of verses 1–12, and possibly also horizontally exhorting his audience to engage in vertical speech.81 The final section in Sirach 51:13–30, however, shifts back to a horizontal orientation with a poem about wisdom.82 Verses 13–22 open the poem with a first-person narrative of the sage’s desire for wisdom. In verse 13, the sage explicitly notes that he initiated his search for wisdom through prayer and a visit to the temple.83 In verse 17b, the speaker says that he will honor or praise “him” who gave him wisdom, though the text does not specify whether

80

Mulder, “Three Psalms or Two Poems,” 176–182. This is not the only example of a horizontal call to vertical speech in the book. Both hymns include this kind of address. See Sir 39:14–15, 35; 43:30. 82 Because the Hebrew text must be reconstructed, I will primarily reference the Greek text, citing significant differences with the Hebrew using Otto Mulder’s (“Three Psalms or Two Poems,” 191–192) reconstruction of the Hebrew text. Some scholars have seen this poem as the work of a different sage, but a consensus is growing that Ben Sira is the author of this poem. See Mulder, “Three Psalms or Two Poems,” 196; Eric Reymond, New Idioms Within Old: Poetry and Parallelism in the Non-Masoretic Poems of 11Q5(=11QPsa) (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011). For an analysis of the Greek text, see Silvana Manfredi, “The True Sage or the Servant of the Lord (Sir 51:13–30 Gr),” in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology (ed. Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia; DCLS 1; New York: de Gruyter, 2008), 173–195. 83 The Hebrew version includes a vocative “my Lord” in verse 15b. 81

68

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

this is a divine or human instructor.84 While these first ten verses focus exclusively on the first person and do not specify an audience, the horizontal orientation of the passage becomes clear with the third-person reference to the Lord in verse 22. The Lord has given me my tongue as a reward, And I will praise him with it. (Sir 51:22)

With this verse and verse 13, the poet bookends the narrative of his relationship to wisdom with two vertical events. His love for wisdom and progress in it commences with prayer (vs. 13) and ends with praise (vs. 22). Yet, in the Greek text at least, each reference to vertical speech is purely descriptive and addressed to a human audience, first implied (vs. 13–21) and then explicit (vs. 23).85 Indeed, rather than following verse 22 with a modeled example of the praise to which he refers, the sage cements the horizontal orientation of speech. The imperative and the vocative establish the address to the “uneducated” in verse 23, which introduces the explicitly pedagogical invitation to approach the sage and to dwell in his “house of instruction.” Verses 24–28 continue the horizontal orientation of admonitory speech, with the familiar sense reference to “See!”/ίδετε in verse 27, followed by an imperative exhortation in verse 28 to partake of the instruction that the speaker offers. 86 This series of exhortations focuses on acquiring wisdom specifically in relation to the person of the speaker himself. Indeed, he asks that his hearers “see” his own example and the “repose” that his relationship with wisdom has brought. In other words, the poem emphasizes the treasure of wisdom that one acquires through the gateway of the sage. The sage models himself as an intermediary, who has gained wisdom through vertical communication and now dispenses the knowledge he has gained to a human student. 87 The character of the invitation offered to the pupil in verses 13–28 focuses primarily on the speaker as the one who negotiates the relationship between human and divine through both his example and his wise words. Indeed, as Silvana Manfredi notes, spatial locations reveal this aspect of the poem; the sage positions him-

84

In the Hebrew version, it seems more likely a human teacher. Verse 17: “Her [Wisdom’s] yoke was honourable for me, and to my teachers I have offered a song of thanksgiving about her.” 85 The Hebrew vs. 22 closely echoes the Greek and likewise has horizontal orientation: “YHWH has given to me the reward of my lips, and with my tongue I will praise him.” 86 In the Hebrew text, vs. 28 further references the “Numerous things my disciples have heard from my youth,” introducing the sense reference to auditory learning so significant in the proverbial instructions and other wisdom texts. 87 Füglister. “Die Verwendung und das Verständnis der Psalmen und des Psalters,” 357–358.

2. Speaker and Audience in the Book of Psalms

69

self in between the Temple (vs. 14a) and the house of instruction (vs. 23a).88 The prevailing horizontal address in this final poem punctuates an emphasis on the words of the human speaker rather than universal access to divine instruction. Yet, the final words of the poem do intimate that the dialectic of human and divine instruction ultimately must govern every path to wisdom, even if it is the former that dominates the function of this particular book. May your souls rejoice in his compassion, and may you not be ashamed to praise him. Work at your task at the appointed time, And in his appointed time, he will give your reward. (Sir 51:29–30)

While the “he” is not explicitly identified as the Lord, this brief passage recalls verse 22, which connects the act of praise with the Lord who rewards the wise.89 This verse in many ways exemplifies the relationship that Ben Sira develops between God, sage, and student.90 Ultimately, Ben Sira tells his audience that prayer is necessary, that praise is the height of wisdom, that God hears the individual and the plural community who address the heavens. But the sage’s chief exhortation in this particular book is that the audience listen to his imperatives because he is a man who prays, who has access to the wisdom that is both divine gift and human discourse. Verses 29–30 are not a call to praise, but rather a reference to the benefits of praise in tandem with a life well-lived. The speaker/writer does not here demand a variegated response from his audience. There is no call yet to shift into the role of the “I” engaged in vertical communication, despite his speaking about and modeling of this stance at isolated moments throughout the book. While vertical engagement will inevitably be part of the life of any person who seeks wisdom, this particular poem and finale functions in service of the human side of the instructional dialectic.

2. Speaker and Audience in the Book of Psalms 2. Speaker and Audience in the Book of Psalms

As the preceding discussion shows, didactic discourse in the wisdom literature is a plural phenomenon, difficult to precisely define and inevitably tied 88

Manfredi, “The True Sage or the Servant of the Lord,” 182. The emphasis on prayer and praise comes through more strongly in the Greek text. The Hebrew text of vss. 29–30 maintains an overt emphasis on human instruction and the identity of the sage as such without the reference to the student’s engaging in praise: “I myself will rejoice in my house of studies, and you, do not be ashamed with my song. Do your work in righteousness and he will give you your reward in his own time!” 90 Manfredi (“The True Sage or the Servant of the Lord,” 178) refers to the “triple relationship” between God, worshipper, and student of wisdom. 89

70

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

to the question of literary context, and ultimately, use. Given that, certain principles guide its clearest elaboration in the wisdom corpus, namely a welldefined circumstance of the speech event, a horizontal orientation, and overt references to the acts of teaching and learning. With a few exceptions, this kind of discourse does not address God nor does it contain God’s address. Instead, this kind of speech teaches, instructs, conveys truths about the world and about God on a human level. It invites the hearer to listen, and to absorb the lesson intellectually before putting it into practice: to take on a particular worldview, and subsequently to live life according to it. It calls its hearer to an imagined future in which he/she transforms from the “you” to the “I,” from the listening student to the speaking teacher who reiterates the discourse to the next generation. In its different variations, this kind of speech also represents a significant communicative stance throughout the Psalter, both dominating individual psalms and playing a role in psalms governed by other communicative modes. It manifests itself at key points and in key psalms that scholars often believe to bear a wisdom signature. While the pedagogical implications of the following variations will only be fully examined in later chapters, what follows is a brief outline of the major communicative configurations found in the psalms, which will provide a springboard for investigating directional similarities and divergences with the wisdom literature. Untangling the complex web of speech that sounds aloud throughout the book of Psalms demands both precision and a recognition of inescapable ambiguities. Multiple characters speak and are spoken about. Multiple addressees listen and are invited to take up the call to participate in liturgical activity. Multiple subjects occupy the psalmist’s attention and multiple life situations give rise to his/her musings. Shifts in the direction of speech can occur at a rapid pace that confounds attempts to parse how it should be received, and what actions it demands. At the root of this cacophony of voices is a dynamic interaction among the gathering of the human faithful who inhabit the confines of this teeming psalmic world as well as the deity to whom they speak. So, before fully addressing the didactic implications of the interaction between various types of discourse in the psalms or engaging the question of context (whether individual psalms or the Psalter itself) in later chapters, the following section simply outlines the major directional trends represented in the psalms. Vertical Orientation: Supplication and Prophetic Address The often anguished, sometimes joyful, words of the psalmist’s “I” to the divine “You” provide the theological foundation of the psalms and the unquestioned exemplification of biblical prayer. The presence and function of this kind of address in the Psalter presumably calls for little comment; however, the basic variations of vertical communication exhibit important differ-

2. Speaker and Audience in the Book of Psalms

71

ences in the direction of speech. The most obvious and prevalent form of vertical expression appears, of course, when the speaker/I/human addresses the addressee/You/deity. My God, my God, why have you abandoned me? 91 Far from my salvation, from the words of my groaning? (Ps 22:2)

In addition to this kind of vertical entreaty through an interrogative, speech from supplicant to God can take different formulations, including the use of the imperative (e.g. Ps 4:2), third-person indicative (e.g. Ps 3:2), and jussives (e.g. Pss 79:11; 119:41).92 While each instance may represent a distinct rhetorical function of psalmic prayer, in every case the human speaker’s “I” and the divine “You” stand firmly at the forefront of the communicative moment, whether through a vocative, verbal construction, or the inclusion of first- and second- person pronouns or pronominal suffixes. In some instances, the “You” of the second-person is not explicitly identified as God through a vocative, yet the immediate content of the passage establishes its orientation. So I will praise your name, as I repay my vows day after day. (Ps 61:9)

Despite the divine vocative in verses 2 and 6 of Psalm 61, this verse follows third-person language for God in verse 7. Thus, one must appeal to the content of the statement to establish the identity of the “You” as divine, since grammatically it follows a speech about God that presumably is directed to a non-divine audience. 91 This is an example of what Derek Suderman (“Prayers Heard and Overheard,” 189) refers to as “direct address” in the lament psalms, which he distinguishes by the use of the second person and the vocative. It is not entirely clear how he differentiates this from “explicit address,” both of which are among the four kinds of address he identifies overall: direct, explicit, implicit, and embedded. 92 Jussives are particularly difficult to examine with respect to the question of who is being addressed, since most appear as third-person language yet often seem to be addressed to God (e.g. “Let Him…” or “May He…”) Suderman (“Prayers Heard and Overheard,” 168–171) includes a valuable excursus on this topic, and argues against Gunkel’s position that third-person jussives are “wishes” directed to God regardless of the specified or implicit audience of the jussive. Instead, Suderman claims that when one focuses on the identity of the addressed rather than form or subject, the rhetorical function of jussives often comes into a different interpretive relief. Suderman distinguishes between “direct” jussives that use second person for God, “indirect” jussives that reference God’s actions in the third person, and “implicit use” that uses third-person language in reference to something non-divine. So, for Suderman, the jussive, “May God be gracious to us and bless us; may He show us favor,” (Ps 67:2) would not constitute direct address to God, since God is the subject of speech, but not the expressed object of address. On the distinction between jussive and indicative imperfects, see Ahouva Shulman, “The Function of the ‘Jussive’ and ‘Indicative’ Imperfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose,” ZAH 13 (2000): 168–180.

72

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

The individual speaker sometimes becomes a plural speaker in communal complaints that operate vertically, underscoring the private/public divide that often pervades discussions about setting and function.93 Why do You hide Your face, Forget our affliction and distress? For our soul sinks down to the dry earth, Our body clings to the earth. (Ps 44:25–26)

Overall, the poem achieves this vertical directionality through the use of firstperson suffixes to establish the “we,” and the vocative as well as a secondperson verbal form (e.g. vs. 2), to establish the divine “You.” The shift from individual to plural speaker does not change the direction of address or the audience (e.g. the first person in vs. 7); both forms of communication represent an ascending vertical mode of communication.94 Like the explicitly represented relationship between the father and son in the proverbial instructions, ascending, vertical speech is constituted by an identified speaker and audience, and an expressed relationship between the two. Unlike the proverbial instructions, this kind of speech clearly operates on the vertical plane. In the instructions in Proverbs, the literary representation of the father/son relationship places the hearer/reader into the position of the “you,” the one addressed who must take up the teaching. The hearer/reader is called upon ultimately to take up the role of the speaker, the “I,” but only in a distant and imagined future beyond the parameters of the immediate discourse. In contrast, the supplication language of the psalm, while similarly offering an explicit speaker and hearer, offers the “I” for the audience to appropriate (since it would be rather difficult to take the part of God), and does so within the moment of the hearing. 93

Gunkel (Introduction to the Psalms, 83) lists the communal complaints as Pss 44; (58); 74; 79; 80; 83; (106); (125). Grammatically, Gunkel defines the communal complaint according to an introductory vocative invoking God, as well as the plural “we.” Of course, the plural first person can stand alongside the singular first-person in one psalm (e.g. Ps 44:6–7). Mowinckel (Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 46) understands frequent shifts between the “I” and the “we” to be quite natural in a cultic setting, evidence of the “corporate personality” by which a representative figure “embodies” the congregation within the “I.” 94 In addition to the two fundamental formulations of ascending vertical address (singular and plural speaker), the psalms also include limited examples of “vertical” address to heavenly figures, e.g. “Ascribe to the LORD, O heavenly beings, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.” (Ps 29:1; See also Pss 96:11a; 103:20–21; 148:1–5; Pss 82:1 and 89:8–9 reference the divine assembly in the third person, but do not contain an address to the assembly.) Functionally, it might be difficult to characterize such brief outbursts to angelic creatures as prayer language. Rather, these instances of “vertical” language represent a parallel to the call to praise directed toward a heavenly, rather than human, congregation. That the call to praise occasionally arises in this way suggests the interpenetration of the heavenly and human realms in the psalms, and the nuanced involvement of a vertical dimension in some instances of horizontal address.

2. Speaker and Audience in the Book of Psalms

73

In addition to supplication or complaint, vertical modes of speech in the psalms also proceed through descent, by way of oracular speech. Be still, and know that I am God! I am exalted among the nations, I am exalted on the earth. (Ps 46:11)

While a cultic functionary of some sort might be implied by such passages, this kind of address demonstrates that psalmic speech on the vertical plane is not simply directed in one way.95 Though it moves primarily from supplicant to deity, it can also travel vertically in the opposite direction, even if, in practice, this involves liturgical mediation through a human conduit of some kind. Such statements overtly emanate from the deity to a human audience, and demonstrate a descending, vertical mode of speech. The deity inhabits the “I,” while the “you” may be explicitly identified (e.g. Ps 2:7b-9) or simply implied (as above in Ps 46:11). Identifying prophetic address of this kind in the psalms often necessitates making interpretive judgments about ambiguous situations of address. Scholars rely on different criteria for establishing a prophetic element in a psalm and while some passages include explicit grammatical markers, others do not. With regard to this question, Susan Gillingham narrows the focus and uses the divine first person as her “sole criterion” for identifying oracular speech, which conservatively leads her to eleven psalms (Pss 2, 12, 50, 75, 81, 82, 89, 91, 95, 110, 132). Of this list, only Psalm 91 lacks an explicit statement announcing divine speech. 96 In the oracles of each of these psalms, God emerges unequivocally as the speaker, the “I” addressing a human “you.” However, the psalms do not always clearly introduce the divine first person. For example: Let me enlighten you and teach you the way which you will walk; Let me counsel, my eye is on you. Do not be like a horse or mule who does not understand, To be curbed by bit and bridle, his ornaments, Far be it from you. (Ps 32:8–9) 95

On cultic prophecy, see John Hilber, Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms (BZAW 352; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005). 96 Gillingham acknowledges that these eleven psalms do not exhaust the Psalter’s use of the divine first person, but sees these as the “most obvious” examples and devoid of dependency on “assumptions about the cult.” See her “New Wine and Old Wineskins: Three Approaches to Prophecy and Psalmody,” in Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel (ed. J. Day; London: T & T Clark, 2010), 279–280. Rolf Jacobson, who uses the term “God-quotation” instead of oracle, identifies twenty-seven quotes in eighteen psalms (Pss 2:4–6, 7–9; 12:6; 35:3; 46:10; 50:5, 7–15, 16–23; 60:6–8; 68:22–23; 75:2–5, 10; 81:6–16; 82:2–4, 6–8; 89:3–4, 19–37; 90:3; 91:14–16; 95:10–11; 105:11, 15; 108:7–9; 110:1,4; 132:11–12, 14–18) while admitting that scholars have identified passages that he also does not include. See his ‘Many are Saying’: The Function of Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Psalter (JSOTSup 397; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 82–83.

74

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

This passage could be a declaration from the divine speaker following the psalmist’s prayerful address to God in the previous verses.97 However, no grammatical markers confirm a shift in speaker with any certainty, so these verses more likely simply come from the human psalmist.98 Ultimately, many passages with similar characteristics simply remain relatively ambiguous with respect to speaker and, thereby, audience. As with the other modes of speech identified in this chapter, psalmic oracles or “God-quotations” perform a variety of distinct functions.99 One particular difficulty for the interpreter lies in defining the time frame of an oracular speech, whether it represents a present reality within the context of the psalm or a reiterated occurrence from the past imported into the psalm for effect. Gillingham distinguishes between “immediate prophetic speech” (or “direct quotation”) and “citations of earlier oracles” in the psalms, associating the former with early psalmody and original composition and the latter with a later, post-exilic use of prophetic material, often as a rhetorical device.100 At the very least, the presence of first-person divine speech, if one can attribute any immediacy to its presence in some cases, suggests that ethical content in the psalms extends well beyond an association with biblical wisdom.101 The ethical dimension of the cult comes into clearer focus when a divine imperative demands a specific kind of response from a congregation or hearer of a particular psalm. What is interesting for this study is that the Psalter is a book that includes both the prophetic imperative of the divine first person and the sapiential imperative of the human teacher, and both demand some kind of response. The variegated presence of both kinds of imperatives, as well as other kinds of discourse, makes plain the unique communicative environment of the psalms and Psalter. Horizontal Orientation: Identified Audience Of course, in addition to vertical address, the psalms include many different examples of horizontal address, in more or less precisely defined situations 97

Hans-Joachim Kraus, for example, takes this position. See his Psalms 1–59: A Commentary (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), 370. 98 Gunkel (Introduction to the Psalms, 209, 297–300) sees these verses as a wisdom teaching of the psalmist/instructor addressed to a youthful audience. Gerstenberger (Psalms Part I, 142) agrees, though he admits that there is a “liturgical break” between vss. 7 and 8. 99 For a detailed outline of these functions, see Jacobson, ‘Many are Saying,’ 124–130. 100 Gillingham, “New Wine and Old Wineskins,” 372–380. 101 Stephen Breck Reid, for example, points out the connection between oracular address in the psalms and prophetic/moral exhortation. See his “Psalm 50: Prophetic Speech and God’s Performative Utterances,” in Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker (ed. Stephen Breck Reid; JSOTSup 229; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 221.

2. Speaker and Audience in the Book of Psalms

75

with regard to speaker and audience. Once again, the “I” and the “you” appear with greater and lesser degrees of grammatical transparency through the use of the vocative, as well as a mix of first- and second-person indicators. What distinguishes horizontal speech in the psalms is the diversity of audiences addressed, sometimes even within an individual psalm. 102 Discovering an explicitly educational thread of speech in this midst of this communicative commotion is no small task, and will only be taken up fully in later chapters. Here, the different arrangements of horizontally oriented speech will be outlined to provide a foundation for examining the interactions between different kinds of speech, so that the implications that these interactions have for the presence of wisdom and human instruction in the psalms and Psalter can be discovered subsequently. The most prominent human object of the psalmist’s verbal attention is the congregation of the righteous. Fearers of the Lord, praise him! All offspring of Jacob, honor him! Fear him, all offspring of Israel! (Ps 22:24) Rejoice in the Lord and rejoice, O righteous, Shout for joy, all you upright in heart! (Ps 32:11)

Other examples may not confirm the identity of the audience with a vocative, but express the same call, typically by way of an imperative.103 The call to praise, like the call to learn, is often followed with a motivational kî clause.104 Therefore, with regard to rhetorical structure, this hymnic call in its basic model parallels the exordium of the instruction form in Proverbs. Both forms of address are indicated through a mix of imperatives, vocatives, and markers 102

Suderman (“Prayers Heard and Overheard,” 176) divides the laments into single, double and multiple addressee psalms. So, for example, in Ps 6, he sees address to God, the psalmist’s enemies, and a human audience who are not the psalmist’s enemies. 103 The call to praise usually occurs in the plural imperative, though it can also occur in the jussive (e.g. Ps 22:7, “Let them praise”) or the cohortative (e.g. Ps 95:1, “Let us exult”). See Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 23–24. Each case still has a horizontal directionality, but differs slightly from hymnic introductions that use the imperative. Once again, Suderman’s (“Prayers Heard and Overheard,” 168–171) work on jussives in the laments is instructive since he carefully distinguishes between subject and object. In the case of Ps 22:7, for example, the jussive might represent horizontally oriented speech, but the object of address is unclear since the congregation is referred to in the third person. In contrast, one might characterize the cohortative as a kind of reflexive, horizontal address in which each “I” of the congregation invites the communal “we” to lift their voices to the divine. For Gunkel (Introduction to the Psalms, 24) the common thread is that all three forms function as a “summons to a group.” 104 Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 29. Gunkel comments on the frequency of this element in hymns, writing that it is “one of the most certain and most easily recognizable characteristics of the hymn” and that it offers the “rationale for the summons.”

76

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

of the second person through pronouns, suffixes, and verbal forms. Both portray the horizontal address of a human speaker to a human audience. Like the exordium of the proverbial instructions, this hymnic introduction clearly outlines the dispositional and behavioral shape of the hearer’s anticipated response. However, the substance of the anticipated response obviously differs. Instead of calling for the audience to silently hear the words of the speaker, the call to praise demands that the righteous speak (or sing), that is, take up the words of praise in the almost present moment. The speaker’s call to praise insists that the audience appropriate the plural “you” of his/her imperative and transform it into the first-person “we” of communal praise to the divine. Therefore, not only does the call to praise require a shift from individual to communal speech, it also expressly precipitates a shift in the direction of speech, from the horizontal call of the liturgical/cultic leader to the vertical cry of praise. The proverbial father’s call to learn similarly calls for the hearer to speak and take up the “I” eventually. However, the father figure’s demand for speech points to a distant rather than immediate future, and it ultimately calls for the hearer to maintain the horizontal orientation of the father’s own discourse. The movement between address and invited response thereby diverges; the hymnic call in the psalms progresses from a horizontal summons to an anticipated vertical orientation. Indeed, at times this shift is not merely called for in the psalm, but expressly brought to fruition, which emphasizes the immediacy of the request. For example, Psalm 33 begins with a call to praise in verses 1–3 followed by the motivation clause in verse 4. Verses 5–19 are comprised primarily of thirdperson statements about God and the world (with a jussive in vs. 5 and an ‫ אשׁרי‬saying in vs. 12). While this middle section presumably comes from the “individual” psalmist as well, it is impossible to verify this with certainty. What is certain is that a shift occurs in verses 20–22 to a plural “we,” who first praise God/Him (vss. 20–21) and then offer a plural address the divine “You” in the last verse of the psalm (vs. 22). In other words, the psalm begins with the summons to the plural second person, presumably the same community who subsequently takes up, or is invited to take up, the act of praise as a “we” and engage in the vertical speech for which the hymn’s introduction initially called. In this way, the psalm explicitly shows the movement of call and response, from horizontal exhortation to vertical praise. In addition to the faithful congregation, the speaker of the psalms also calls out to a multitude of other addressees. Evildoers, for example, appear not only as a third-person subject of the supplicant’s distressed ruminations, but also as the second-person object of his/her incensed greeting.105 105

The psalmist often uses quotations of the enemies (and other human addressees such as the “self”) in the midst of a prayer or other element (e.g. Pss 10: 4b, 6, 11; 13:5; 35:21,

2. Speaker and Audience in the Book of Psalms

77

Turn aside from me, all you evildoers, For the Lord hears the sound of my weeping. (Ps 6:9) Turn aside from me, you evildoers, Let me keep the commandments of my God. (Ps 119:115)

Beyond the evil and the righteous, the psalms expressly address a number of other horizontal referents including the self (Pss 42:6a; 57:9, 103:1–2, 22b; 104:1a, 35; 116:7), inanimate objects (Pss 24:7, 9; 108:3), cities (Pss 87:3; 122:2; 137:5; 147:12), nations (Ps 137:8), princesses (Ps 45:1–13), kings (Ps 45:17), the inhabitants of the world (Ps 49:1), friends (Ps 55:14), fools (Ps 94:8), mountains, hills, and earth (Pss 114:5–7), among others.106 In addition to this sizeable cast of characters, the psalms often utilize the second person without naming the audience. While, obviously, it is not possible here to unpack the distinct literary functions of each example, the sheer number of the speaker’s conversation partners, even if some might simply arise from poetic license, demonstrates the inherent rhetorical intricacies that influence any instructional capacity the psalms may carry. Another figure the psalms address is the student(s), who rather remarkably resembles the son of the proverbial father. Come, children, listen to me, I will teach you the fear of the Lord. (Ps 34:12)

Not only does this example exhibit the grammatical markers of horizontal speech, it unmistakably portrays a didactic encounter that mimics a wisdom genre, namely the instruction. Here is the proverbial call to learn, including the familial vocative (though plural, not singular), the command to “listen,” and even an explicit reference to the instructional intent of the speaker (‫)למד‬. William P. Brown sees the rhetorical question that follows in verse 13 as a motivation clause, which also mirrors the structure of the wisdom instructions, and then the series of imperatives and observations as the substance of the lesson.107 25 etc.). While these instances have significant rhetorical interest, they do not represent a shift in the orientation of speech, since the speaker still controls the discourse and its direction. This occurs in the proverbial instructions as well, when the father figure quotes the wicked for his own strategic purposes. Regarding the latter, see Newsom, “Woman and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom,” 145. 106 An interesting and unique example of explicit “horizontal” address occurs in Ps 82, when God addresses the divine council. The use of this heavenly scenario, this heavenly horizontal address, enriches any vertical encounter that ultimately takes place by providing a divine perspective. Moreover, there is the presence of an implicit audience here, given that such speech has clearly not been preserved exclusively within the heavenly council, but is meant to be heard by human beings. 107 William P. Brown, “‘Come, O Children… I Will Teach You the Fear of the Lord’ (Psalm 34:12): Comparing Psalms and Proverbs,” in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birth-

78

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

In a similar vein, though it has no vocative for a son or children, Psalm 78 also begins with something akin to a call to learn. Give ear, my people, to my teaching, Incline your ear to the words of my mouth. Let me speak a saying, Let me pour forth the riddles from of old, Things we have heard and known, That our fathers recounted to us. We will not hide them from their children To the next generation recounting the praises of the Lord and strength, And the wonders he does. (Ps 78:1–4)

Though this call to learn does not precisely parallel the proverbial instructions, it does also ask its audience to listen (hiphil of ‫ אזן‬in vs. 1) and makes explicit reference to a teaching event through the use of a series of terms, particularly ‫( תורה‬vs. 1), ‫( משׁל‬vs. 2), ‫( חידה‬vs. 2) and ‫( ידע‬vs. 3).108 Moreover, while it might not replicate the rhetorical structure of the wisdom instructions precisely, this call to learn echoes the generational discourse that perpetuates the proverbial discourse of the father. Here, instead of a reiteration of creation-based moral exhortations concerning everyday life, the psalmist reiterates the narrative of Israel’s history. In this, the speaker’s discourse does not aim to compel the student to heed his/her moral exhortations, but to understand Israel’s story of defiance and then heed God’s commands (vs. 7). The psalm clearly aims to teach, but rather than demanding a repetition of the same discourse, it challenges the student to change the story, create a new narrative of obedience. Overall, the two “teaching” moments in Psalms 34 and 78 offer hints regarding the ways that wisdom motifs in the psalms can both closely mirror wisdom material, but also diverge from the basic tenets of its pedagogical goals. Third-Person Statements in the Psalms The psalms, like proverbs, include statements that do not define or, at times, acknowledge, the relationship between speaker and audience. There are some instances in which third-person reflections create a monologue directed towards no one in particular, with no immediately presented expectation of response, verbal or otherwise. Grammatically, the simplest way to identify a horizontal orientation of such statements is third-person speech about God that excludes the deity as a potential addressee. The clearest example of this day (eds. Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 90. 108 This is the only instance in the psalms where the term ‫ תורה‬is clearly used to refer to human, rather than divine, teaching. Indeed, in Ps 78 alone, the other two occurrences of the term refer to God’s instruction (vss. 5, 10).

2. Speaker and Audience in the Book of Psalms

79

phenomenon occurs in Psalm 1, which contains third-person language about God, the wicked, and the righteous without ever expressly addressing any person or thing through the use of the vocative, markers of the second person, or imperative verbal forms. As with third-person sayings in Proverbs, no explicitly drawn “performance setting” substantiates the didactic function of Psalm 1. It lacks even a superscription.109 Most psalms, however, do not sustain third-person discourse throughout, but rather use indicative passages to supplement address to various audiences. Third-person reflection often stands between or follows second-person address, whether horizontally or vertically directed, and is either guided by it or in conflict with it. Much third-person reflection in the psalms includes speech about God that implicitly exposes its horizontal orientation without the benefit of the second person or the vocative. When this type of discourse begins a psalm or follows a horizontally oriented second-person address, one can assume that no directional shift has taken place.110 So, in the case of many hymns, for example, third-person speech simply perpetuates the horizontally directed call of the speaker to the congregation, often following the kî clause, as mentioned above. All peoples, clap your hands, Raise a shout to God with a ringing sound. For the Lord Most High is awesome, Great king over all the earth; He subjugates peoples beneath us, peoples at our feet. He chose our heritage for us, The exaltations of Jacob whom he loved. Selah. (Ps 47:2–5)

The third-person speech about God in verses 4–5 is followed by another third-person declaration about God in verse 6 and a reiteration of the plural call to praise in verse 7. In this case, third-person reflection must function

109

Other examples of entire psalms with only third-person speech include Pss 112 and

133.

110

Carleen Mandolfo identifies third-person “interjections” in the laments as indications of a shift in speaker to the “didactic voice” that seeks to sustain the theological status quo and is often at odds with the voice of the protesting supplicant. She writes that “the third person voice is distinguished by a didactic quality” though she does not make it absolutely clear why. Moreover, in her treatment of various laments, she does not treat only purely third-person statements as indications of the “didactic voice,” but also imperative exhortations of various kinds to a human audience. Thus, she has a broad sense of what constitutes didactic language, seeming, at times, to equate it with horizontal address in the laments. For example, in her analysis of Ps 9, she sees vs. 12 as the “didactic voice” even though the psalmist there calls on his/her plural human audience to praise. See her God in the Dock, 5, 31.

80

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

differently than it does in Psalm 1, because of the second-person call that encases it. However, when third-person speech about God stands beside secondperson address to God, some kind of a directional shift has taken place. Derek Suderman emphasizes these moments as “explicit” shifts in address from one audience to another.111 While most examples of this shift include the first person in some capacity, purely descriptive accounts also surface. For the sake of your name, Lord, forgive my iniquity, for it is great. Who is the one who fears the Lord? He will instruct him in the way he should choose. (Ps. 25:11–12)

This is a brief example, but the back and forth of second-person address to God and third-person speech about God extends from verse 8 to verse 15, when the psalmist finally concludes with an extended second-person address to the divine. In the less common appearance of a third-person statement that does not talk about God, however, context must confirm the direction of the thirdperson passage that can either be horizontal or vertical. If bracketed by clear second-person language to a horizontal addressee, then one can conclude that the indicative passage operates horizontally, and vice versa (e.g. Ps 5:9–11). Ambiguous Orientation of Speech As the brief overview above shows, some modes of speech in the psalms indisputably identify the direction of discourse. However, the curiosity of the psalms is that a great deal of third-person speech, and first-person narrative as well, does not align with either a vertical or a horizontal orientation. The relationship between speaker and audience simply remains ambiguous. This occurs in two basic ways. First, first- and third-person interludes in the psalms simply lack the clarity provided by homogeneous bracketing, instead bracketed by address to different audiences. Second, first-person narrative or third-person reflection may begin or end a psalm, with no bracketing scheme available to identify an audience with certainty and/or no third-person language about God to suggest a horizontal orientation.112 This complicates the

111 While Mandolfo often sees such shifts (at least in the case of shifts from vertical second person to third-person statement about God) as indicative of a shift of speaker, Suderman (“Prayers Heard and Overheard,” 108) sees this particular shift as the most common indication of a shift in addressee, which is the approach that this study adopts. 112 The orientation of this kind of speech may still be determined if God is spoken of in the third person, since this presumably excludes a vertical orientation.

2. Speaker and Audience in the Book of Psalms

81

attempt to discern the orientation of a particular psalm or psalm part, and lends psalmic speech an ambiguity that is difficult to resolve.113 For example, I grow weary in my groaning, I flood my bed every night, I dissolve my couch with my weeping. My eyes waste away from anger, All my enemies advance. (Ps 6:7–8)

This is a first-person account of the psalmist’s suffering preceded by direct address to God in verses 1–5 and direct address to the “workers of evil” in verse 9. Thus, it stands in between not only a shift in addressee, but also a shift in orientation from vertical to horizontal.114 This juxtaposition leaves it unclear whom the speaker addresses with this intermediate, first-person account.115 In another example of a similar phenomenon, Day and night they surround it on its walls, and iniquity and trouble are in the midst of it. Threats are in the midst of it, Oppression and deceit do not depart from its square. (Ps 55:11–12)

Here, in contrast to the above example, one finds third-person speech about the speaker’s oppressive environment preceded by second-person address to God in verse 10 and second-person address to the psalmist’s friend and companion in verse 14. Moreover, this third-person speech seems to belong to a first-person account initiated in verse 10 directly after the divine vocative.116 But the grammatical issue is the same as in Psalm 6, namely a unit of speech 113 See Suderman, “Prayers Heard and Overheard,” 106. Suderman particularly emphasizes the difficulty of jussives and benedictions when trying to determine the identity of the addressee, as well as instances when God is both spoken to and about in parallel lines. 114 Suderman (Ibid., 107, note 13) assumes that an address to a particular addressee is sustained until an explicit shift of address takes place. Thus, “implicit address” passages would belong to the prior addressee, in this case, to God. However, nothing suggests that this assumption follows through in every case. Rather, the ambiguity of implicit address in the midst of heterogeneous addressees seems built in to the rhetorical structure of many psalms. 115 For Gunkel (Introduction to the Psalms, 178), this kind of shift is easily explained through the variations of the lament form. While the petition typically follows the complaint in laments, Gunkel avers that the order is not always fixed and either element can be repeated due to the fact that “Excitement causes the psalmists to wander, until it is expressed and finds peace.” Here, the complaint in vss. 7ff follows the petition, and sits in the “final position” even though the petition element usually assumes that role. 116 Gunkel (Ibid., 155) characterizes this as the “narrative” and the “portrayal” portions of the complaint, which he distinguishes from the thanksgiving due to its tense, which he defines as perfectum prasens. Thus, the first-person narrative is closely tied with the thirdperson portrayal, both of which Gunkel would link with the direct address to God as elements of the complaint.

82

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

devoid of a second-person/vocative/third-person (about God) enclosed by direct speech to different addressees. Because of this, the direction of the psalmist’s words becomes blurred, as if his/her dual audiences become simultaneously, yet still distinctly, addressed. Additionally, speech with an unidentified audience can either begin or end a psalm and this creates another kind of ambiguity. For example, The pastures of the wilderness drip, The hills gird themselves with joy, Pastures clothe themselves with sheep, Valleys wrap themselves with grain, 117 they shout for joy and sing. (Ps 65:13–14)

These two verses are the final two verses of the psalm and follow twelve verses of second-person address to God. Thus, while these two verses contain only third-person language about the created world, one could assume that the second-person vertical address to God continues, since no other addressee is explicitly offered. No grammatical evidence, however, would substantiate this claim. While this passage might more obviously belong with the secondperson address to God that dominates the rest of the psalm, it might also represent a shift in address, as indeed the content intimates a possible shift to a horizontal orientation. It could, in fact, represent a reflective and didactic turn to an audience who has witnessed the psalmist’s prayer. But the grammar itself remains unclear, ambiguous with regard to the direction of discourse.118 Of course, if one cannot define the identity and relationship between speaker and audience, it becomes much more difficult to discern the anticipated shape of audience response. These instances of rhetorical uncertainty suggest something about the way that discourse works in the psalms, and play a role in shaping their communicative potential. Many parts of the psalms straddle the demarcated lines of vertical and horizontal communication, and this grammatical verity affects the kind of audience response that these poems promote.

117

Other examples include Pss 7:14–16; 10:2. The presence of first-person plurals in vss. 4–5 intimates that an implicit, second addressee may be indicated even during the explicit address to God. These early indications of a community at large, through the use of the “we,” might also indicate a kind of rhetorical self-address operating alongside the prayer. Then again, the repetition of the root ‫רעף‬ might bind together vss. 12 and 13, which would support the notion that these two verses continue the address to God. 118

3. Conclusion

83

3. Conclusion 3. Conclusion

Human pedagogy in biblical wisdom literature tends toward both anthropological and theological ends, that is, toward the formation of character grounded in a particular concept of fear of the Lord. Instruction cultivates knowledge and behavioral norms, and is guided by the epistemological access points of the senses, primarily seeing and hearing. As shown above, the proverbial instructions have a recognizable didactic value established grammatically through the exhortation-motivation-lesson structure, and buttressed by the presentation of a father-son discourse that the hearer/son must take up in the distant future. Hence, the proverbial invitation to the student of wisdom remains on the level of horizontal speech, both from the perspective of the speaker as well as the anticipated response of the audience in the future. While other kinds of wisdom speech, such as short proverbs, show a less explicit relationship between speaker and audience, these examples of primarily third-person speech have a pedagogical force that particularly materializes when one extends the context of interpretation to clusters, collections, and the shape of the book as a whole. In this way, the book of Proverbs defines its audience as well as the invitation it presents: to learn, to struggle with wisdom and ultimately to take up vocally the horizontally directed discourse that generates the lesson. The book uses different rhetorical strategies to achieve its pedagogical aim, but the sustained direction of speech in both speaker and anticipated response is a fundamental component of its didactic dimension. The two verse exploration of vertical speech in Proverbs 30:7–9 introduces the possibility that address to God might represent one element of the sage’s progress in wisdom. However, in this book, the moment quickly yields to the dominant human discourse finally taken up by the queen mother figure in chapter thirty-one, and the expectation that the child-turned-king will finally take up the call to horizontal speech. The audience watches and hears Agur pray, but the shape of the text never suggests that the lesson itself invites a turn to vertical speech. The clearly defined audience of Proverbs as a whole, in relation to the consistency of the discourse’s direction, determines the reader/hearer’s sustained identification with the “you” addressed first by the father in chapter one. The contrasting emphasis on vertical discourse in another wisdom book, namely that of Ben Sira, emphasizes the plural nature of the wisdom tradition and complicates the proverbial image of pedagogy as horizontally inclined trafficking in wise words. Ben Sira displays a marked interest in the acts of prayer and praise and includes examples of each throughout the book. Here, the sage becomes one who not only appropriates a generational human discourse, but who receives the gift of divine wisdom through vertical encounter. The wise life, for Ben Sira, begins with prayer and culminates in the act of praise. Ultimately, however, the book itself is weighted primarily toward

84

Chapter 2: Communicative Orientation

the communicative process that comes in between, namely a horizontally oriented discourse that passes between human teacher and human student. The sage clearly distinguishes between the Temple and the house of instruction, and asks his students to occupy the latter, to sustain an identification with the student/you who hears and sees, and learns thereby. Unsurprisingly, the psalms present a vastly more variegated communicative landscape than what one finds in the wisdom books, even accounting for the diversity among the latter. The interaction between horizontal and vertical speech occurs frequently, and often the psalms do not absolutely distinguish between the two. Because of this, the identity of the audience in the book of Psalms constantly shifts and often resists any precise definition at all, therefore rendering any sustained invitation to one particular kind of audience response unlikely. When wisdom-like instruction from a teacher/speaker to a student/addressee does emerge, it only does so within the context of language that frequently transitions into other kinds of speech, whether within an individual psalm itself, or in larger groups of psalms and even the Psalter as a whole. The dominant presence of shifting address in the psalms, from human audience to divine audience, and the relative (though not complete) absence of this kind of shift in sapiential pedagogy, makes this an appropriate framework for inquiring about the functional similarities and differences that mark sapiential and psalmic instruction. One may ask, then, if wisdom speech in the psalms invites the same kind of response that the sages prompt in instructional literature. While wisdom forms generously dot the psalmic terrain, these elements have been isolated from the literary context that ultimately imparts didactic credence to certain genres of speech that might also simply be descriptive, or perform some other function. Poetic units in the psalms that formally and thematically resemble wisdom may not, given the vastly different “performance setting” and communicative framework, function didactically. The “you” whom the book of Proverbs so exclusively offers to the reader is not consistently available to the hearer/audience of the psalms. Rather, the grammar of the psalms promotes the expectation in its audience of constant shifts, between human and divine audiences, and between different human addressees. Because the frequent audience of the speaker/psalmist is God, the text often invites its audience/user to inhabit the “I” rather than the “you,” and to engage in discourse that is vertically directed, or to immediately appropriate the psalmist’s words as his or her own. So, the continual use of the psalms depends on a particular kind of adaptability in the audience, who must somehow inhabit both the “I” and the “you” at different times and in different ways according to the manner in which the text presents the speaker/audience relationship. Given this fundamental difference in the way the discourse operates, it is difficult to posit a simple continuity of function between wisdom elements in wisdom books and wisdom elements in the Psalter.

Chapter 3

Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms Chapter 3: Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms

In Psalm 34:12, the pedagogical implications of the speaker’s call are clear. Come, children, listen to me, 1 I will teach you the fear of the Lord. (Ps 34:12)

This is an exhortation that passes between a human teacher and human students, with the teacher calling upon the students to receive the knowledge spoken to them through the act of hearing. 2 As shown in chapter two, this call to learn echoes a specific kind of familial address found in biblical wisdom literature, most prominently in the book of Proverbs.3 Psalm 34:12, then, initiates the most explicit rendering in the Psalter of a pedagogical, seemingly proverbial, relationship between speaker and audience.4 This verse represents but one example of wisdom elements in less explicit forms scattered throughout the book of Psalms, elements that seemingly invite the faithful to reflect and learn rather than to participate in the language of prayer and praise. As shown in chapter one, scholars have struggled with the question of this kind of psalmic wisdom precisely because it seems to stand outside the cultic or liturgical context that the psalms primarily evoke,

1

As noted in chapter two, this kind of familial address is found predominantly in the singular (“son/child”). See Prov 1:8, 10, 15; 2:1; 3:1, 11, 21; 4:10; Sir. 2:1; 3:12; 4:1; etc. However, it is also found in the plural as in this psalm (“sons/children”). See Prov 4:1; Sir 3:1; 23: 7; 41:14. 2 Gunkel (Introduction to the Psalms, 297, 300) characterizes this verse as the penetration of a wisdom form into a thanksgiving. Gerstenberger (Psalms, Part 1, 148), despite his emphasis on the liturgical function of the psalms, sees vss. 12–22 as the lone example of “sapiential group teaching” in the Psalter. 3 It differs as well. For example, none of the instances of familial address in Proverbs use the term ‫למד‬, as Ps 34:12 does, in relation to the instruction to follow. In some sense, then, this call to learn emphasizes the pedagogy of the speaker even more strongly than the proverbial instructions, because the active teaching verb is in the first person. Moreover, only one instruction uses the phrase “fear of the Lord” (Prov 2:5). However, the initiation and goal of the pedagogical process, as outlined in Prov 1:7, is defined by this phrase “fear of the Lord,” and so does have obvious sapiential resonances in connection with the act of instruction. 4 Familial address does not appear anywhere else in the psalms, either in singular or plural form.

86

Chapter 3: Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms

and eludes characterization with regard to its setting.5 Rather than a temple, psalmic wisdom suggests a school. Rather than worship, it suggests proverbial pedagogy. Yet, the wisdom element in Psalm 34, as with many similar examples in the book, is situated within a psalm that also invites a plural audience to engage in the vertical speech of worship (vss. 3b-4).6 Because of this, the presence of sapiential elements and human instruction in the psalms and Psalter raises a series of questions. When do the human student and human teacher materialize in the psalms, and how are the two characters identified? Does the didactic potential of the psalms extend beyond passages that most clearly bring these two figures to mind? How do the psalms configure the process of instruction? To what extent does the psalmic presentation of human pedagogy coincide with an identifiable literary relationship with the biblical wisdom corpus? Poetic units associated with biblical wisdom appear in two primary ways in the psalms. First, wisdom elements emerge as brief, potentially didactic reflections in the midst of other, more easily established genres. For example, the form of a numerical saying may emerge in the midst of a psalm of trust (Ps 62:12), or an ‫ אשׁרי‬formula/beatitude may appear in an individual thanksgiving (Ps 40:5). An exhortation may arise in the midst of an individual complaint (Ps 31:24–25), or a hymn may use the acrostic form (Ps 145). In addition, the favored themes and terms of biblical wisdom may penetrate psalms of other genres, such as the conceptual parallel between Psalm 90:2 and Proverbs 8:22–31, or the psalm’s reference to human life as toil/‫( עמל‬Ps 90:10) that echoes a main theme of Qoheleth.7 Second, psalmic wisdom appears in the form of entire psalms that manifest significant formal and thematic affinities with the biblical wisdom corpus. Psalm 37, for example, often appears on scholarly lists of wisdom psalms, due to its acrostic form, consistent use of proverbial exhortations, and focus on the theme of the righteous and the wicked. This chapter will focus on the former, namely, individual psalms that exhibit wisdom moments within the context of poems that include other kinds of discourse. Three related issues underlie the present discussion. First, how does one identify a wisdom element in a psalm dominated by a different genre? As shown in chapter one, the identification of “wisdom” in the psalms is not a straightforward task. The highly stylized and diverse poetic language of the psalms makes it a challenge to distinguish wisdom language from language of a more liturgical bent. Despite this, it is impossible to deny that, at times, the psalms explicitly address a human pupil or talk about teaching or 5

Roland Murphy, “Consideration of the Classification,” 161. The plural jussives in vs. 3b, the plural imperative in vs. 4a, and the plural cohortative in vs. 4b establish this call to vertically oriented worship speech. 7 Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 418. 6

Chapter 3: Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms

87

about the intent to teach. At other times, the psalms explicitly address God in a moment of fear and suffering, with a desperate plea for help. These kinds of differences are tangible, and yet nearly impossible to codify. But they do exist. Outlining these differences here will include particular attention to the manner in which speech is directed and the kind of response that the speaker anticipates from the represented audience. The problem of identifying wisdom elements in the psalms raises the further question of how form relates to function. If it is indeed possible to isolate wisdom elements in the psalms, do such elements consistently function in a sapiential manner? That is, do such elements function in a manner consistent with the pedagogical thrust of the biblical wisdom corpus? The clarity of the relationship between speaker and audience in Psalm 34:12 rarely, if ever, appears again in other psalms. The identity of the audience in wisdom moments tends to be implied, and moreover, often connected or identified with a congregational audience explicitly identified in other parts of the psalm. This divergent contextualization suggests that wisdom in the psalms and wisdom in the book of Proverbs, for example, cannot simply be identified. While formal and thematic resonances that build between the two linger in each, one cannot simply draw a functional equivalence between them when the communicative context is so different. The attempt to isolate a “wisdom” presence, viewed as the primary signal of didactic functionality, may in fact obscure the unique pedagogical witness of the psalms and Psalter. This leads to a final, constructive issue regarding the character of psalmic instruction. Do the psalms present a distinctive approach to the process of instruction through the contextualization of human teaching (often undeniably infused with a sapiential flavor) with other kinds of discourse? How do the psalms configure the process of pedagogy within the context of a complex communicative environment that includes frequent shifts into vertical (as well as non-didactic horizontal) modes of speech? The particular focus of this study lies in the shifting directions of speech that condition the didactic import of the psalms, but the psalms also talk about teaching in ways that will be important for this aspect of the inquiry. To this end, what follows is a treatment of representative mixed-type psalms, each of which contains distinct, though not predominant, wisdom-like elements with horizontally oriented tendencies. Four representative texts will be examined, each generally categorized according to a different genre, namely individual lament (Ps 25), trust (Ps 62), thanksgiving (Ps 92), and mixed/lament (Ps 94).8 From a form-critical point of view, however, all four 8 Roland Murphy conservatively (though not exhaustively) identifies the following passages as wisdom elements in psalms of other genres: Pss 25:8–10, 12–14 (ind. lament); 31:24–25 (ind. lament); 39:5–7 (ind. lament); 40A:5–6 (thanksgiving); 62:9–11 (trust); 92:7–9 (thankgiving); 94:8–15 (lament). See his “A Consideration of the Classification”,

88

Chapter 3: Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms

psalms admit some uncertainty with regard to genre and contain a sapiential moment, an element that by way of form, theme, or sensibility echoes biblical wisdom and suggests a didactic quality.

1. Psalm 25: Wisdom in an Individual Lament Psalm 1. Psalm 25: Wisdom in an Individual Lament

Like each of the representative psalms examined in this chapter, Psalm 25 does not precisely conform to a particular genre, though it strongly suggests individual lament. Gunkel identifies it as an individual complaint psalm, though he admits that the psalm exhibits the infiltration of hymnic and wisdom influences at specific points.9 Roland Murphy also identifies the psalm as an individual lament, as does Mitchell Dahood.10 However, other scholars qualify this designation or, indeed, offer a different one. Hans-Joachim Kraus despairs of precise formal categorization, concluding that the psalm exhibits an “unevenness of forms” and emphasizes petitions and expressions of trust. He does emphatically reject Gunkel’s characterization of the psalm as an individual lament.11 Peter Craigie sees Psalm 25 as a psalm of confidence.12 Gerstenberger characterizes the psalm as a “congregational complaint,” though he acknowledges that it has elements of the individual complaint present throughout and derives from that genre.13 Carleen Mandolfo differs slightly from Gerstenberger and categorizes it as an individual lament that suggests the presence of a corporate audience but ultimately focuses on the individual.14 Whybray eschews caution and argues that the psalm “should be regarded as an integral wisdom psalm in which the psalmist has adopted the form of an individual lament.”15 This diversity of opinion underscores the unique features of the poem, namely its acrostic structure and two wisdom

165. J. Kenneth Kuntz varies slightly from Murphy and recognizes Pss 92:7–8, 13–15 and 94:8–11, 12–15 as wisdom elements without mentioning Ps 62. See his “Wisdom Psalms and the Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter,” in For a Later Generation: The Transforming of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (ed. R.A. Argall; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003), 149. It is possible to extend this list in a number of ways, depending on how one identifies a wisdom element in a non-wisdom psalm. 9 Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 192. 10 Murphy, “Consideration of the Classification,” 165; Mitchell Dahood, S.J. Psalms I: 1–50 (AB 16; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 155. 11 Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1–59 (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), 319. 12 Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50 (WBC 19; Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1983), 217. 13 Gerstenberger, Psalms Part 1, 119–120. 14 Mandolfo, God in the Dock, 55. 15 R. N. Whybray, Reading the Psalms as a Book (JSOTSup 222; Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 62.

1. Psalm 25: Wisdom in an Individual Lament

89

elements in verses 8–10 and verses 12–14, that most agree has at least some characteristics of a lament. With regard to the psalm’s acrostic form, scholars have argued that alphabetic poetry implies a literary, rather than liturgical, preoccupation due to the fact that its use of the alphabet appeals primarily to the sense of sight.16 Therefore, from a historical perspective, scholars have associated the acrostic with wisdom schools and a pedagogical aim.17 The implication is that such poems must be read rather than spoken in order to appreciate this device, and so must have been composed with this function in mind.18 Accordingly, the acrostic form itself suggests a distinct kind of consumption that differs from the oral settings implied by most psalmic language. That is, the personal and congregational flourishes in most psalms imply a vocal or liturgical setting that would contrast with the written or educational setting implied by the acrostic. However, acrostic poetry often contains just such flourishes, and therefore stands firmly entrenched within the problematic distinction between the literary and the liturgical. Psalm 25, for example, includes both the intimate personal discourse of the individual lament as well as congregational components, both wrapped up in the poetic structure of the acrostic. 19 When 16

As Gunkel (Introduction to the Psalms, 341) writes of acrostic poetry, “This embellishment can only be appreciated by the eye, not the ear.” See also Lothar Ruppert, "Psalm 25 und die Grenze kultorientierter Psalmenexegese," ZAW 84.4 (1972): 578. Acrostic poetry in the Hebrew Bible occurs in isolated places. See Pss 9/10, 25, 34, 37, 111, 112, 119, 145; Prov 31:10–31; Lam 1–4. For a survey of these texts, see Will Soll, Psalm 119: Matrix, Form, and Setting (CBQMS 23; Washington, DC: CBA, 1991), 11–20. Despite the long held notion that the prophetic books do not contain acrostic poetry, some categorize Nahum 1 as an acrostic. See Aron Pinker, “Nahum 1: Acrostic and Authorship,” JBQ 34.2 (2006): 97–103. 17 Michael L. Barré writes that “while not every acrostic must be classified as wisdom literature, the acrostic form itself appears to be intimately connected to wisdom and the scribal profession.” See his "`Terminative' Terms in Hebrew Acrostics," in Wisdom, You are My Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm., on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday (ed. Michael L. Barré; CBQMS 29; Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1997), 215. Similarly, Anthony R. Ceresko sees in Ps 25 the “alphabetic thinking” of Israel’s wisdom writers, that is, the attempt to bring “order and coherence” to disparate experience through the use of the written word. See his “The ABCS of Wisdom in Psalm XXXIV,” VT 35.1 (1985): 102. Dirk J. Human agrees, asserting that acrostics derive from a post-exilic wisdom context and that the acrostic “stresses the non-oral function of the text.” See his “The Tradition-Historical Setting of Psalm 25: How Wisdom Motives Contribute to Its Understanding,” SK 17 (1996): 77. 18 Ruppert, “Psalm 25,” 578. 19 For this reason, some scholars have argued for the liturgical setting of certain acrostic poems. For example, despite the fact that Gerstenberger (Psalms Part I, 121) calls the acrostic an “obtrusively literary form,” he rejects the notion that function necessarily followed form in an ancient context. Instead, Gerstenberger argues that acrostics are “liturgical texts,” that there is no disconnect between their literary form and a worship setting.

90

Chapter 3: Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms

mixed with formal components that suggest performance rather than reading/reflection, the poem’s Sitz im Leben becomes elusive. As a whole, Psalm 25 exemplifies the shifts in the relationship between speaker and audience that distinguish the poetry of the psalms from that of the wisdom literature. The psalm’s first seven verses explicitly sustain a firstperson discourse vertically directed towards the divine, but simultaneously introduce the theme of instruction that the psalm returns to in later verses. In verses 1–3, the psalm begins with a direct address to God, explicitly rendered with vocatives, a cohortative and series of jussives that reference the psalmist in the first person, the enemies in the third person, and exhort God in the second person. Here, the speaker asks God to act on his/her behalf, and to prevent the righteous from being subjected to shame at the hands of the wicked.20 Verses 4–7, as a unit, maintain the vertical direction of speech, with vocatives and a series of imperatives and second-person pronominal suffixes directed towards the divine. With regard to content, the psalm’s pedagogical concerns first appear in verses 4–5, in the midst of this ascending vertical speech. Overall, the imperatives in verses 4–7 address different aspects of the psalmist’s view of God and how God relates, or should relate, to the trusting speaker.21 These verses offer a sequence of different images for God, including deliverer (vs. 5), and a compassionate (vs. 6), merciful (vs. 7), and faithful judge (vss. 6–7). The first image presented in verses 4–5a, however, is that of God as teacher. Here, the speaker exhorts God to teach/‫ למד‬and to let know/‫( ידע‬in the hiphil) and to lead/‫( דרך‬in the hiphil). So, while ultimately these exhortations culminate with the explicit image of God as “deliverer” in 5b, the imperatives of verses 4–5a offer first the image of the divine pedagogue. Set within an explicit vertical address, these verses imply the psalmist’s concern to learn and gain understanding, yet firmly implant that concern within the context of prayer language to the divine teacher rather than entering into human pedagogy. In other words, the role of the teacher here belongs not to the human speaker, but to the divine addressee. The speaker desires a divine, rather than a human, perspective on the ways of the world. The human pupil, as it were, actively seeks to learn, to be shown the way/‫ ארח‬and thereby be saved. In this way, the speaker draws a correspondence between divine teaching and divine This allows him to categorize Ps 25 as a congregational complaint deriving from an earlier individual lament. He contends that “Differences between acrostics and traditional genre patterns are due mainly to the altered conditions of community life in late Israel.” In this way, he maintains that acrostic poetry represents a late form, but characteristically rejects the notion that it therefore had no place in the post-exilic cult. 20 Gerstenberger (Psalms Part 1 , 120) characterizes these verses as an “affirmation of confidence.” 21 Gerstenberger (Ibid., 120–121) characterizes these verses as the petition, which reemerges in vs. 11.

1. Psalm 25: Wisdom in an Individual Lament

91

deliverance. Deliverance or salvation depends on the speaker’s ability to see the world from a divine perspective, and to take up the path/‫ דרך‬that such a perspective demands.22 Thus, prior to the introduction of the psalm’s first wisdom moment, the speaker presents the image of the divine pedagogue, and exhorts this figure to instruct.23 This both differentiates the psalm from the wisdom corpus, where human teachers dictate the discourse, and makes plain the pedagogical aims of the psalm. Instead of receiving a word of response from this divine teacher, however, the human speaker shifts the direction of address from vertical to horizontal in verses 8–10, a unit characterized as the psalm’s first wisdom element. Formally, nothing distinguishes these verses as particularly wisdom-like; Roland Murphy admits that these verses are not as “clearly sapiential” as verses 12–14, but contends that they nonetheless are a “teaching,” characterized by sapiential “maxims.”24 Therefore, the primary indication that these 22

Kraus (Psalms 1–59, 321–322) concludes that the keyword ‫ דרך‬provides the entrance in the psalm’s main theme, which he sees as wisdom. He traces a threefold history of the term, from cultic to Deuteronomic to sapiential. Murphy (“Consideration of the Classification,” 166) likewise argues that the term provides the central concept of the psalm as a whole, and correlates with various rewards, citing Prov 2:20; 3:6; 11:20 etc. Ary A. Roest Crollius argues that the term has multivalent meanings, but carries with it covenantal connotations. His brief study underscores the theological foundation of the term as a concept about the relationship between God and humanity, however, he restricts his comments to the use of the term in the psalms. See his "DeReK in the Psalms," BTB 4.3 (1974): 312– 317. The question remains how the term’s use in this and other psalms compares with its use in wisdom literature. Given the multiple ways that the term functions throughout the Hebrew Bible, one cannot assume that its sapiential use holds sway in Ps 25 or, indeed, any psalm. 23 On the image of God as teacher, see Karin Finsterbusch, JHWH als Lehrer der Menschen: Ein Beitrag zur Gottesvorstellung der Hebräischen Bible (BTS 90; Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2007). In an article on the theological witness of the psalms, Harry P. Nasuti isolates the less prevalent metaphors of God as teacher and healer found in the book. Of the former, he points out that the metaphor is not restricted to Torah or wisdom psalms, but rather can be found throughout the Psalter. He further notes the significance of the metaphor for later interpreters of the psalms. See his “God at Work in the Word: A Theology of Divine-Human Encounter in the Psalms,” 38–39. 24 Murphy, “Consideration of the Classification,” 165. Gunkel (Introduction to the Psalms, 58, 192) characterizes vss. 8–10 as a hymnic infiltration into the form of an individual complaint. He writes that these verses “express the singer’s trust, and thus kindle the singer’s hope in a way designed to make God intervene.” Kraus (Psalms 1–59, 319) argues that vss. 8ff. represent a confession with a “decidedly didactic message” while Gerstenberger (Psalms 2, 121) sees this passage as a “congregational digression,” geared towards members of “early Jewish parishes.” Mandolfo (God in the Dock, 55–57) sees these verses as the interjecting “didactic voice,” that is, a separate speaker who perhaps provides an instructional “direct response to the plea” of the supplicant in vss. 1–7. She astutely notes that “we should be struck by the illogic of supposing the supplicant is answering her own request” in vss. 8–10.

92

Chapter 3: Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms

verses enact a shift is that the speaker alters the direction of his/her speech, abandoning the intimate “I/Thou” address of the initial seven verses, and launching a third-person reflection on God’s activity.25 That activity is once again illustrated through the image of the divine teacher as in verses 4–5a, but here in the midst of a descriptive discourse. Furthermore, the speaker describes the “paths of the Lord” in verse 10 in reference to “those who keep his covenant,” coupling the characterization of the righteous once again with the concept of salvation, here specifically joined with covenantal theology. 26 So, while this passage in verses 8–10 does represent a shift with regard to its addressee, it continues the thematic concepts initiated in verses 4–5, and adds an explicit covenantal reference to the psalm’s focus on divine salvation. Following the direct address to God in the central verse 11, verses 12–14 display more obvious wisdom associations, stemming not only from the turn to horizontally oriented, third-person speech, but also from other formal and thematic elements. Gunkel cites verses 12ff in his description of the way in which wisdom poetry infiltrates the individual complaint song. These are “thoughts of comfort” given to “pious ones” concerning the “rule of YHWH or about the futility of humanity and its wealth.”27 Murphy identifies verses 12–14 as a “‘who’ question in acrostic poem” that contains the themes of “fear of the Lord” and retribution.28 As Murphy writes, verses 12–14 are “centered upon the reward to be given to one who fears Yahweh: prosperity, inheritance for descendants, friendship with God. All this is good wisdom doctrine.”29 Gerstenberger characterizes verses 12–14 as “almost proverbial in style.”30 Kuntz contends that Psalm 25 contains twelve wisdom terms, all but four of which occur in verses 8–10 and 12–14.31

25

Murphy (“Ibid.,” 166) writes that “The interruptive presence of the wisdom elements is indicated by the absence of direct address to the Lord, which generally characterizes the complaint (vv. 1–7, 1, 16ff).” 26 Within the context of the unit as a whole, this coheres with Crollius’ (“DeReK in the Psalms,” 312–317) argument that the term ‫ דרך‬includes covenantal implications, though the root of the term is used in vs. 8, and twice in vs. 9, while the word for path here in vs. 10 is ‫ארח‬. In vs. 9, the term ‫ דרך‬is explicitly associated with divine teaching (also found in Pss 32:8 and 143:8). 27 Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 298. 28 Murphy, “Consideration of the Classification,” 165. 29 Ibid., 166. 30 Gerstenberger (Psalms Part 1, 121), keenly sensitive to the psalm’s liturgical potential, argues that these verses are “meant to teach and edify the worshiping community.” 31 Overall, Kuntz writes “The aphorisms in vss. 8–10, the ‘who among you’ inquiry in vss. 12–14 (cf. 34:13), the acrostic structure of the total psalm, and the high frequency of conjectured wisdom terminologies collectively testify to the authentic sapiential interests of Psalm 25.” See his “Canonical Wisdom Psalms,” 204. However, formally, he maintains that the psalm is an individual lament.

1. Psalm 25: Wisdom in an Individual Lament

93

Despite the grammatical parallels and shared sapiential tone of the psalm’s two wisdom moments in verses 8–10 and 12–14, the second passage enacts a distinct shift in focus while maintaining a connection with the themes of all that precedes it. The image of the divine teacher, prayerfully painted in verses 4–5a and descriptively expressed in verses 8–10, fades to the background without entirely disappearing. Instead, in verses 12–14, the righteous human being who fears the Lord comes into relief. The theological emphasis of the first wisdom moment gives way to an anthropological one here. The speaker images the outcome of divine teaching for the one who accepts divine counsel; a life fulfilled, and the reiterated covenantal promise (vss. 10 and 14) to the faithful. Following verses 12–14, the psalm shifts again and presents yet another configuration of the communicative relationship between speaker and audience. In verse 15, the speaker resumes first-person speech but joins it with third-person speech about, rather than to, God. While this verse may simply represent a continuation of the horizontal discourse to an unidentified audience in verses 8–10 and 12–14, the use of the first person alters the rhetorical effect. This reintroduction of the first person erects a bridge to a further shift in verse 16, where the speaker abandons third-person language about God and resumes a direct “I/Thou” address that extends through the final verse of the psalm. Grammatically, these verses recall the divinely directed imperatives of verses 4–7, but the content changes. Gone are the references to instruction and the guidance of the divine teacher. Instead, one finds a clear-cut petition, an intimate human-divine encounter focused on the speaker’s misery and the hope of divine mercy, divine deliverance. In this conclusion, the speaker abandons descriptive discourse, and likewise discards the image of the divine teacher.32 The constant shifts and resumptions of different modes of discourse and thematic foci may manifest, as Kraus writes, an “unevenness of forms” in Psalm 25, but this does not thereby indicate a lack of poetic or theological cohesiveness.33 In the poem’s concluding section, verse 21 provides a link between the intimacy of complaint and the third-person reflections found in the psalm’s two wisdom moments. The exhortation, “May integrity and uprightness watch over me,” represents a return to the concept of the righteous life following the speaker’s imperatives to God to relieve him/her of suffering in verses 16–19. Moreover, verse 21 includes two words associated with a

32

Because Mandolfo (God in the Dock, 57) sees this psalm as a dialogue between supplicant and the “didactic voice” promoting moral conduct, she interprets the shift in focus from instruction to deliverance in the supplicant’s address as indicative of the insufficiency of the didactic voice’s response, identified with the two wisdom elements. 33 Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 319.

94

Chapter 3: Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms

sapiential milieu, namely ‫ תם‬and ‫ישׁר‬.34 The speaker attaches this exhortative jussive to the causal clause “for I look to You” (‫ )כי קויתיָך‬in 21b. The concept of a righteous life is thereby joined with the speaker’s act of trust, manifested in his/her prayer. This reveals an intrinsic connection between reflection on the divinely-taught righteous life and the act of prayer as such. Moreover, in verse 22, the speaker concludes with a reference to the audience implied but not identified in the two wisdom moments by supplying a corporate dimension to the psalm as a whole. When the supplicant implores God to “redeem Israel from all its distress,” he/she shifts from offering this communal audience wise words to offering the community itself to God’s protection. The final verse, then, holds together the speaker’s two audiences, namely God and Israel, by addressing the former on behalf of the latter. Here, instead of implicitly addressing the community, the speaker asks God to act on the community’s behalf. The changing communicative make-up, in conjunction with the overall thematic cohesion, of Psalm 25 highlights the unique nature of psalmic instruction, as a multivalent phenomenon not solely tied to wisdom speech. This begins with the psalm’s acrostic form, which exhibits a relatively welldefined chiastic structure that revolves around verse 11, the central verse and interpretive key, as well as an explicit turn to vertical address to God.35 Psalm 25 is an atypical acrostic because it does not contain a wāw line, and finishes with an extra pe line.36 Lothar Ruppert suggests that the poet purposefully omitted the wāw line such that verse 11 becomes the literal midpoint of the poem, thus both structurally and thematically substantiated as the focal point.37 Thus, the acrostic itself, a form associated with the scribal culture of post-exilic wisdom circles, may direct attention to the vertical exchange, the verbal encounter between the speaker’s first person and the divine second 34 Ruppert, “Psalm 25 und die Grenze kultorientierter Psalmenexegese,” 581. Neither term occurs exclusively in the wisdom corpus. ‫ תם‬occurs most prevalently in the book of Proverbs, Psalms and Job. See Job 1:1, 8; 2:3; 4:6; 8:20; 9:20, 21, 22; 21:23; Prov 2:7; 10:9, 29; 13:6; 19:1; 20:7; 28:6; 29:10. Both terms, ‫ תם‬and ‫ישׁר‬, appear together in Ps 37:37, a psalm typically associated with wisdom as well. 35 Ruppert, “Psalm 25,” 579; Brian Doyle “Just you, and I, waiting – The poetry of Psalm 25,” OTE 14.2 (2001): 207–208. 36 Often scholars therefore see the final line as a later addition. See Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 241; Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 322– 333. 37 Ruppert, Psalm 25, 579. Will Soll (Psalm 119, 12) agrees that the omission of the line is deliberate, since it happens also in Ps 34, and very few words begin with wāw. Other peculiarities characterize the acrostic in Ps 25. For example, the psalm has an aleph at the beginning of vs. 2 rather than a bet. Moreover, vs. 18 should begin with a qoph, but begins instead with a resh. See David Noel Freedman, “Patterns in Psalms 25 and 34,” in Priests, Prophets, and Scribes: A Festschrift in Honor of Joseph Blenkinsopp (ed. Eugene Ulrich et al; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 125–126.

1. Psalm 25: Wisdom in an Individual Lament

95

person in verse 11. The psalm’s two horizontally oriented wisdom moments in verses 8–10 and 12–14 encase this “hermeneutical key” in verse 11. Moreover, verse 7 includes direct address to God immediately prior to verse 8. Likewise, after the transitional verse 15, verse 16 resumes the “I/Thou” address following verse 14. Each wisdom moment is thereby conditioned by the act of prayer, an intensely personal, confessional, and intimate encounter with the divine. Horizontally directed speech thus operates within a complex communicative environment in which the first, middle and last words of the discourse are vertically inclined. The psalm’s structural privileging of vertical speech coincides with a decided interest in the process of instruction, configured in a singularly psalmic manner. The image of the divine pedagogue first emerges in verses 4–5a as the supplicant engages in vertical address to the deity. Thus, prior to the introduction of the psalm’s wisdom moments, the speaker characterizes the act of instruction theologically. The supplicant images God as the divine teacher who dispenses the knowledge of truth. The supplicant pleads to become God’s student. Instruction, so imaged, begins not with the act of hearing, but with a vocal and vertical plea. The two wisdom moments support this concept of divine instruction, but also add an inevitable anthropological component to it. In verses 8–10, the speaker describes the divine teacher as the one who guides the righteous on the path/‫ דרך‬that he/she previously exhorted God to make known in verses 4– 5a. So, while the divine pedagogue remains the subject of the discourse, the intrusion of horizontal speech suggests that the instructional process includes more than the supplicant’s initial plea for knowledge. In verses 12–14, the speaker resolutely transitions to an anthropological focus while sustaining the concept of the divine teacher. These verses maintain third-person language to an unidentified audience about the righteous human being, who is described as one who accepts the instruction of the Lord and thereby prospers. Moreover, despite the initial vertical address in verses 4–5, the passages of verses 8–10 and 12–14 very much belong to a human, rather than divine, teacher due to the horizontal orientation of speech. These wisdom moments represent a teaching about learning, that is, a lesson in how to recognize, take up, and reap the benefits of life with the divine pedagogue. Indeed, in both wisdom moments, the description of the divine pedagogue belies the reality of the discourse as it stands. The speaker is not God. The addressee, whether it is a congregation or the speaker’s own self or some other audience, is not God. Thus, the actual mode of discourse involves a human speaker in some kind of instructional capacity, if only to shed light on the benefits of divine instruction. Teaching, so manifested, demands that its audience take up the implied but unidentified “you” and absorb the lesson by hearing it. The psalm differs from proverbial discourse in that this implicit invitation to listen coincides

96

Chapter 3: Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms

with the further invitation to take up the “I” and engage in vertical speech, to take up the vertical discourse that the human teacher/supplicant models, and that the poem emphasizes from a structural perspective. Instruction about the divine teacher begins in the midst of an “I/Thou” address, which shows that the proper stance of the deity’s student has a vertical orientation. Only by also taking up the “I” who pleads with the divine pedagogue can the student fully learn the lesson of verses 8–10 and 12–14. In doing so, the student becomes changed by the words that are no longer spoken to him/her but rather become his/her words, capable of transforming him/her not only in the moment but in the future. The divine teacher becomes manifest when addressed by the human student; it is not enough to simply listen to human words spoken about the deity. Wisdom discourse in the psalm, from a minimalist perspective (encompassing only verses 8–10 and 12–14), thus serves as a preamble and a postscript on the culmination of the “lesson” in the supplicant language of verse 11. The human addressee must take up not only the hearing “you” and the supplicating “I,” but also the communal “we,” and herein lies another important aspect of psalmic instruction as it emerges in Psalm 25.38 The overriding focus on the individual stands in tension with the unspoken but intimated presence of the congregation. This community becomes most visibly present precisely at those moments that resonate with a reflective and sapiential encounter among human beings. Despite no explicit addressee, verses 8–10 and 12–14 have an implied audience, and verse 22 concretizes the communal dimension of the poem. In other words, these wisdom passages, rather than detaching the psalm from the vertical movement of cultic or liturgical discourse, implicitly allow for or even promote the psalm’s use in the context of worship. From a broader perspective, one can envision the didactic import of the psalm as a whole in concert with its individual and corporate dimensions, as a lesson in trust and the life offered through prayer and worship.

2. Psalm 62: Wisdom in a Psalm of Trust 2. Psalm 62: Wisdom in a Psalm of Trust

Certain characteristics of Psalm 62, particularly its resonances with the wisdom tradition, lend it a unique profile.39 From a form-critical perspective, Psalm 62 occupies an intermediate position within Gunkel’s developmental schema for the psalms of confidence. As an outgrowth of the lament, psalms of confidence gradually begin to abandon the prayer form, or direct address to God, in favor of third-person speech about God. Psalm 62 includes both, and 38

This phenomenon most prevalently operates in psalms of thanksgiving, in which the speaker relates a personal experience to a plural audience. 39 Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 190–91.

2. Psalm 62: Wisdom in a Psalm of Trust

97

so stands between the two manifestations of the genre. Gunkel acknowledges the wisdom characteristics of Psalm 62 as another indication of the increasing freedom from the strictures of lament. According to Gunkel, one of the main indications of this kind of wisdom “infiltration” lies in the direct address that “presupposes a situation in which the father speaks to the son, the elder to the younger person, [Psalm 32:8] giving him sound teaching for life’s path.”40 So, while the psalm does not explicitly depict the father/son address, the presence of wisdom forms implicitly evokes the image for Gunkel. Overall, most scholars accept that Psalm 62 is a psalm of trust, but with different degrees of emphasis on its wisdom components. Dahood affirms that it is a psalm of trust and warns against too heavy an emphasis on the psalm’s didactic elements.41 In contrast, F. de Meyer, while likewise categorizing it as a psalm of trust, emphasizes the sapiential quality of the psalm as a whole.42 Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger agree that it is a psalm of trust, but stress the wisdom shaping in verses 9–13a.43 In contrast, Gerstenberger argues that the psalm is a “homily of confidence,” geared toward a plural audience. He sees verses 2–3 and 6–8 as a “strong, confessional, outreaching refrain” that indicates the psalm’s liturgical character. Didactic discourse thus stands in relation to a ritual context as homiletic speech. 44 This diversity of scholarly opinion reveals once again the difficulty that form-critical approaches have when dealing with wisdom forms and themes in the psalms, and this extends to the problem of assigning it to a particular Sitz im Leben. Some scholars emphasize the individual tenor of the poem and assign its function to a moment within, or seeking asylum within, the sanctuary.45 Others take issue with this assessment and emphasize the communal aspects of the poem. Gerstenberger sets the psalm within an “early Jewish congregation of Yahweh believers” beginning in the exile and continuing into assemblies at the synagogue.46 Likewise, Hossfeld and Zenger dismiss the individualistic interpretations of the psalm. They acknowledge its references to the concept of refuge, but argue that the sapiential tenor of the latter part lends the psalm a universal quality, a reflection on a “fundamental anthropo-

40

Ibid., 299. Of other poems similarly infiltrated, Gunkel cites Pss 32:8f; 34:12, 14f; 37; 49:2f, 5, 17; 62:9, 11; 78:1; 91:1–13; 94:8; 115:9–11; 127:2; 128:2f, 5f. 41 Mitchell Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100 (AB 17; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), 90. 42 F. de Meyer, “La Dimension Sapientiale Du Psaume 62,” Bijdragen 42 (1982): 364. 43 Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 112. 44 Erhard Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2001), 8–9, 11. 45 Weiser, The Psalms, 454; Kraus, Psalms 60–150 (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 13. 46 Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 2, 11–12.

98

Chapter 3: Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms

logical experience.”47 So, we find that the wisdom associations within a psalm complicate the attempt to establish a setting, here due particularly to the question of whether the psalm acknowledges the presence of a communal audience. Despite the varying degrees of emphasis scholars assign to the psalm’s wisdom affinities, the psalm operates according to a coherent rhetorical structure amidst a crowd of shifting addressees and subjects. In verses 2–3, the psalm opens with a personal account of the speaker’s understanding of God. It uses first-person singular speech coupled with third-person statements about God, and how God relates to the speaker. In these initial verses, no audience is specified. The only grammatically explicit aspect of these verses is that God is not the addressee, but rather the object of reflection. This implies that the speaker directs his/her words horizontally to an unidentified human audience, while maintaining the intimate use of the first person to describe an experience of God. This configuration shifts in verse 4, when the speaker directly addresses a plural audience, attackers or adversaries, who then are spoken about in the third person in verse 5. The speaker no longer uses the first person, so it is not immediately clear whether the speaker identifies him/herself with the one being persecuted, but the first-person references in the surrounding verses (vss. 2–3 and 6–8) suggest that this is a personal experience. The “How long?” (‫ )עד־אנה‬of verse 4 implies that the persecution continues, and the speaker does not use the “I” to describe it, but rather the third-person “man,” due to a kind of personal distancing. That is, while persecution may be a present reality for the speaker, the hope for and experience of God’s salvific presence (vss. 2–3, 6–8) determines his/her own self-understanding rather than the experience of victimhood. The speaker shifts again in verse 5, from a direct address to the plural adversary to third-person speech about these wicked oppressors. This description once again has an unidentified audience, though the absence of any explicit vertical address in this section suggests that it is horizontally directed. Finally, the psalm takes a further turn in verses 6–8, where the speaker resumes first-person discourse and addresses his/her own soul, engaging in a nearly parallel repetition of the third-person reflection on God that one finds in verses 2–3.48 Despite these swift transitions between implied and explicit audiences, verses 1–8 exhibit a clear unity with regard to subject matter; the psalm’s emphasis lies on the God who is a refuge (‫מחסה‬, vss. 8, 9), who offers the 47

Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 113. As noted, Gerstenberger (Psalms, Part 2, 9) does not see the psalmist’s self-address as a true internal dialogue (such as one finds in Ps 42/43) but rather suggests that it is a liturgical refrain due to this repetition. However, the differences between vss. 2 and 6, both grammatically and terminologically, militates against this reading. 48

2. Psalm 62: Wisdom in a Psalm of Trust

99

psalmist a safe haven even in the midst of admitted and seemingly immediate uncertainties, dangers, and persecutions. One grammatical thread remains consistent; the speaker only refers to God in the third person.49 Moreover, the foregrounding of the singular first person in verses 2–4 and 6–8 emphasizes the personal experience of God. In other words, these verses describe a vertical relationship but do not explicitly enact it through vertical address. The introduction of a wisdom moment in verses 9–11 (or vss. 9–13) does not stand out as a foreign element, but it does initially represent a shift in focus, resonating with biblical wisdom in several ways.50 Formally, it contains an admonition in verse 9, a proverb in verse 10, a negative warning in verse 11, and a numerical saying in verse 12, all with ties to biblical wisdom.51 Indeed, Roland Murphy writes that verses 10–11 have “the appearance of wisdom sayings” and he classifies the form of verses 9–11 as admonition according to the motif of testimony.52 J. Kenneth Kuntz argues that while the numerical saying in verses 12–13a (x/x + 1) is not solely derivative of the sages, its usage in Psalm 62 can be associated with wisdom due to the preceding wisdom component in verses 9–11, as identified by Murphy.53 With regard to content, verse 10 contains an anthropologically focused reflection on the futility and weightlessness of human life, underlined by the twofold use of the noun form of the root ‫( הבל‬that we find again in verbal form in verse 11). This abstract reflection, conceptually and terminologically akin to the discourse of Qoheleth, concludes with an empirical focal point, namely the speaker’s exhortation not to place one’s trust in extortion, robbery, and wealth (vs. 11).54 So, while the passage in verses 9–11 does not 49 As noted above, Gunkel (Introduction to the Psalms, 190) identifies this as a distinguishing mark of the psalms of trust that have let go of the prayer form. 50 There is disagreement among scholars as to where the wisdom element” begins and ends. Gunkel (Introduction to the Psalms, 297), Murphy (“Consideration of the Classification,” 165), and Dahood (Psalms II: 51–100, 90) cite vss. 9–11 as the wisdom section. In contrast, F. de Meyer (“La Dimension Sapientiale Du Psaume 62,” 357) and Hossfeld and Zenger (Psalms 2, 112) cite vss. 9–13 as the wisdom section. Verse 13 takes the form of a prayer, which would seem to distinguish it from what precedes with regard to any perceived wisdom influence. 51 Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 112. See also Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 300–301. 52 Murphy, “Consideration of the Classification,” 165–166. 53 Kuntz, “Canonical Wisdom Psalms,” 193. Kuntz concludes that it represents a “graded numerical wisdom saying,” and the only one of its kind in the Psalter. 54 On the use of the key term ‫ הבל‬in the book of Ecclesiastes, see Michael V. Fox, “The Meaning of Hebel for Qoheleth,” JBL 105.3 (1986): 409–427; John E. McKenna, “The Concept of Hebel in the Book of Ecclesiastes,” SJT 45.1 (1992): 19–28;Choon-Leong Seow, “Beyond Mortal Grasp: The Usage of Hebel in Ecclesiastes,” ABR 48 (2000): 1–16; Douglas B. Miller, Symbol and Rhetoric in Ecclesiastes: The Place of Hebel in Qohelet’s Work (AcBib 2; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002).

100

Chapter 3: Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms

explicitly identify a pupil, it does direct itself to a human audience and treat certain concrete realities of human life. This is not a prayer speech addressed to God, but rather a speech that asks its human audience to reflect on a particular reality and adopt certain empirical behaviors. In this, it is also distinguished from the earlier, reflective components of the psalm that focus on God, and God’s relationship to the human psalmist, rather than everyday life in-the-world. One cannot deny that these verses have a distinctly sapiential tone. But do these wisdom nuances and inter-human addresses concerning human life lend this passage a didactic function in the manner of proverbial discourse or Qoheleth-like ruminations? How does the passage’s interaction with other modes of speech in the psalm condition that function? Within verses 9–11, a plural human audience does clearly emerge, as indicated by the plural imperatives in verses 9 and 11. Verse 10, which contains perhaps the most wisdom-like language of verses 9–11, does not address a particular audience but sustains a purely third-person reflection. However, it is bracketed on either side by this explicit plural address, and therefore plausibly belongs to the same communal addressee. Verse 12 does not explicitly identify an addressee either, and reinstates third-person discourse about God not evident since verse 9. Therefore, despite the shift to direct address to God in verse 13, verse 12 can reasonably be placed with the preceding discourse with regard to the question of audience. Moreover, the substance of the lesson in verses 10–11, at least, implicitly evokes the proverbial image of father/son instruction. Yet, the passage in verses 9–11 says nothing about teaching or instruction and makes no reference to audience learning through the senses of hearing and sight, as one so often finds in the pedagogical texts of biblical wisdom. Nor do we find the image of the divine teacher here as in Psalm 25, or the emphasis on knowing and perceiving. Most significantly, as noted above, the wisdom element does not operate in isolation but rather in concert with the multi-faceted and constantly transitioning modes of speech in the psalm as a whole. Overall, the characters openly addressed by the psalmist throughout the poem include the speaker’s adversaries (vss. 4–5), the speaker’s own soul (vs. 6), the speaker’s plural audience (vss. 9, 11) and finally, the deity (vs. 13). This progression leads us into both the public and private life of the speaker, who deals with competing worldviews through dialogue, whether with enemies or the uncertain self. First, the speaker addresses an external threat, namely that of violence and deception, by verbally confronting it (vs. 4; see also vs. 5). Then, he/she addresses an internal threat, namely that of doubt, by verbally confronting it (vs. 6). So, the tension between the speaker’s vulnerability and confident trust in God manifests itself through these relationships; unlike the proverbial father, who coopts competing discourses through the use of quotation, the psalmist

2. Psalm 62: Wisdom in a Psalm of Trust

101

expresses the on-going uncertainty of his/her life by engaging in dialogue.55 The psalmist’s evolving commitment to trust, established through these differentiated human relationships, finally translates into the double imperative of verse 9, where the plural audience materializes unambiguously. Therefore, this prelude (vss. 2–8) to the “lesson” in verses 10–11 drastically diverges from the generally uniform pedagogical relationship between the speakerteacher and hearer-student in sapiential texts. The overarching contextual divergences between Psalm 62 and its sapiential counterparts indicate that the function of the wisdom element in verses 9– 11 has its own unique character, one suggestive of a multifaceted performance overall. Indeed, different features of verse 9 immediately place the wisdom element within a specifically psalmic framework. This admonition, which initiates the psalm’s supposed sapiential passage, parallels the plural imperative to trust in God with the exhortation to “pour out your hearts before Him.”56 This verse then, an explicit horizontal address, calls for its human audience to vertically engage the deity, presumably with some kind of vocal address (though this does not become obvious until verse 13). In other words, the verse suggests that the act of trust is conveyed vertically. Verse 9 also includes the first-person plural affirmation “God is our refuge (‫)מחסה־לנו‬,” which implies an invitation to the audience to join the speaker’s verbal act of trust, to move into the identity of the first person. Moreover, it serves to identify the audience as those who might speak these words within a congregational, rather than educational, setting. Thus, this verse, in addition to the psalm’s identification of multiple addressees throughout, renders it impossible to posit any kind of sustained monologue or cooptation of the psalm’s communicative environment by the figure of a human teacher in these verses. Psalm 62 offers nothing like a lesson one might find in the instructions of Proverbs, in which the father/mother/teacher figure is the lone speaker, and the child/student the captive audience. The appeal to intellectual, moral and behavioral motifs (vss. 10–11) underlines the vertical act of faith that dominates the psalm, rather than vice versa. The interaction between the final two verses of the psalm lends definition to this conclusion. The numerical saying in verses 12–13, while formally 55

E.g. Prov 1:10–15; 5:12–14. On this issue in Proverbs, see Newsom, “Wisdom and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom,” 142–160. On the on-going nature of crisis (rather than simply past crisis) in laments and psalms of trust, see Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 112. 56 The parallel use of these two plural imperatives is, in fact, unique to this psalm. The term “pour out” (‫ )טפך‬occurs only twice in Proverbs (1:16; 6:17) and three times in the book of Job (12:21; 16:13; 30:16), none in the imperative. Moreover, both instances in Proverbs refer to the shedding of blood by the wicked, while in Job the term refers to pouring out disgrace/‫( בוז‬Job 12:21), spilling bile/‫( מררה‬Job 16:13), and the soul reflexively pouring out upon itself (Job 30:16).

102

Chapter 3: Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms

suggestive of a wisdom milieu for some scholars, shifts away from the anthropologically focused ruminations and imperatives of verses 10–11. 57 In verse 12, the speaker maintains the horizontal orientation of speech with third-person references to God, but describes a theocentric event. It is an event both vertical and verbal, beginning with a description of the psalmist hearing God speak (vs. 12). From these divine words, the psalmist has come to recognize the final source of and final end of every human teaching, including his/her own. The saying concludes in verse 13 with the speaker modeling his/her response to this hearing by transitioning into vertical speech with a second-person pronominal suffix and the vocative. This transition within the numerical saying blurs the divide between horizontal and vertical discourse while also clearly privileging a shift into the latter. The psalm inextricably merges its wisdom moment with the moment of vertical speech that concludes the poem by shifting into prayer speech within the limits of a distinct formal unit, the numerical saying. With regard to content, as well, the numerical saying absorbs the potentially proverbial bent of the psalm’s anthropologically focused wisdom moment. Verses 12–13 tie together the horizontally oriented instruction in verses 9–11 with the divine addressee, who is the final focus of the psalm. The concluding vertical address in verse 13 completes the substance of the “lesson”: the lives of human beings are ephemeral and futile, and only God’s actions confer meaning to life-in-the-world. Rewards come not from breath-like worldly affairs, but from a faithful life that is specifically enacted within a vertical communicative encounter. Thus, the interaction of the sapiential and prayer moments has less to do with the acquisition of knowledge or the inculcation 57

As noted above, the numerical saying x/x+1 is not exclusive to the biblical wisdom literature. See Wolfgang Roth, “The Numerical Sequence xx/x+1 in the Old Testament,” VT 12.3 (1962): 300–311. It is perhaps for this reason that Crenshaw (Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction, 26–28) does not include the numerical saying in his listing of wisdom’s literary forms. Von Rad (Wisdom in Israel, 35–37), in contrast, does identify the numerical saying as a wisdom form, and this is echoed in the studies that characterize vss. 9–13 as the psalm’s wisdom element, such as de Meyer (“La Dimension Sapientiale du Psalm 62,” 357–359) and Hossfeld and Zenger (Psalms 2, 112). For other scholars who associate the numerical saying with wisdom, see Johannes Lindblom, “Wisdom in the Old Testament Prophets,” in Wisdom in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Presented to Professor Harold Henry Rowley in Celebration of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, 24 March 1955 (eds. M. Noth and D.W. Thomas; VTSup 3; Leiden: Brill, 1955), 192–204; Samuel Terrien, “Amos and Wisdom,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (eds. Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson; New York: Harper, 1962), 108– 115. Terrien (pp. 109–110) points out that the instances of high numerals (i.e. “two times and three times” and up) that indicate “indefiniteness” only occur in the wisdom literature; he understands numerical sayings in texts like Mic 5:5 and 36:23 to be literal rather than sapientially indefinite, and therefore argues that only in the first two chapters of Amos does one find a numerical saying with wisdom associations.

3. Psalm 92: Wisdom in a Thanksgiving

103

of a particular type of ethical behavior, and rather more to do with faith, expressed vertically.58 Thus, the numerical finale conditions the wisdom moment of the psalm, placing its contents within the context of the speaker’s act of faith, one that ultimately has a divine origin. The speaker understands and vocalizes the matters outlined in the psalm’s wisdom moment not as a sage, that is, not due to his or her observation or experience of the world. Rather, the speaker arrives at these conclusions because of “One thing God has spoken; two things I have heard” (vs. 12). This statement explicitly places the insight of the horizontally oriented moment of speech within the context of the speaker’s verbal interchange with God. The speaker has heard something from God, and now confesses to God in turn in verse 13. The didactic implications of the wisdom moment thereby take on a new dimension, molded by the speaker’s own activity and shift towards God in speech in response to the divine word that he/she has heard. The use of the numerical saying to present this shift towards the vertical, both in content and in direction of speech, underlines the way in which wisdom moments both shape and are shaped within the psalms. The human teacher’s lesson to the human student on the vaporous character of life-in-the-world in verses 10–11 is transformed by the turn to God in speech, an act that itself lends weight and meaning to the observable world. To finish the “lesson”, to understand this conclusion, the speaker’s students must not only listen, but also take up the speech, participate in the prayer. The speaker models and thereby concludes here the invitation to “pour out your hearts before Him” (vs.9), to step into a communicative relationship with the first and final speaker of wise words.

3. Psalm 92: Wisdom in a Thanksgiving Psalm 3. Psalm 92: Wisdom in a Thanksgiving

Psalm 92 has a wisdom sensibility that radiates from particular moments of the psalm and stands in contrast with the psalm’s strong emphasis on liturgical performance. The psalm does not contain the dramatic back and forth between shifting dialogue partners that one finds in Psalm 62. The speaker’s address to the divine “You” dominates the psalm and lends its liturgical character a personal sensibility that frequently characterizes psalms of thanksgiv-

58 In his commentary on this psalm as a “nachkultisch” composition, Fritz Stolz makes this contrast between the experience of the everyday world expressed by the psalm’s wisdom forms and the experience of faith that ultimately follows in the final verse. He argues that, unlike the experiential platform of wisdom discourse that takes its cues from the observable world, the experience of faith is only verifiable through an act of trust. See his Psalmen im nachkultischen Raum (ThSt 129; Zurich: Theologischen Verlag, 1983), 53.

104

Chapter 3: Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms

ing.59 This is another psalm in which the constructed divide between didactic speech and ritual speech breaks down, and the easy distinction between pedagogy and prayer fails to suffice. It is a psalm that is rather explicitly liturgical, and yet also rather explicitly wisdom-like. Yet, neither function prevails at the expense of the other, and the theological upshot of the psalm sustains a transformation of each. Formally, Psalm 92 has elements of different genres, though the thanksgiving predominates in scholarly classifications. Gunkel identifies the psalm as a thanksgiving of the individual and notes the connection between thanksgivings and wisdom teaching.60 Other scholars point out the plurality of formal characteristics found in the psalm. Kraus tentatively accepts Gunkel’s characterization while averring that the psalm also contains other elements, including “significant concepts and forms of expression of didactic poetry.”61 Dahood, somewhat unusually, calls it a “royal song of thanksgiving” due to what he sees as terminological and conceptual parallels with other royal psalms.62 Gerstenberger calls Psalm 92 a “hymnic prayer” and writes that it might also be called a “confessional prayer.” Like other scholars, he notes the “sapiential theology” found within the psalm as well as its “cultic” theology. Of the latter, he cites the congregational vocabulary, conceptual framework and settings.63 Hossfeld and Zenger argue that the psalm includes elements of the hymn, the thanksgiving, and the wisdom poem.64 Thus, Psalm 92 represents another formally ambiguous psalm with some kind of connection to wisdom literature that seems to sustain a didactic function. However, the psalm inextricably links any such didactic function, or sapiential sensibility, with a congregational concern. The wisdom aspects of the psalm coexist with an unambiguous emphasis on worship activity, born out in the psalm’s history of use as one of the Tamid psalms. Indeed, Psalm 92 begins with a description of a liturgical performance embedded in a direct address to God. The superscription, “song for the Sabbath day,” initiates this emphasis and in verses 2–3, the speaker describes the singing of hymns taking place in the morning and at night. In verse 4, the speaker states that praise involves not only voices, but also instrumentation, including harp and lyre. 65 59

Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 32. Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 297–298. 61 Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 227. 62 Dahood, Psalms 51–100, 336. 63 Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 2, 171–172. 64 Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 436. 65 Of the psalm’s liturgical character, Nahum Sarna writes that “our psalm becomes indisputably stamped as congregational and cultic.” Sarna cites helpful evidence for what he calls the psalm’s “liturgical character.” He contends that the reference to mornings and evenings in vs. 3 suggests “daily sacrificial worship.” Moreover, the exhortation in vs. 2, according to Sarna, sounds like the “recurrent liturgical formula” one finds in Pss 106:1; 60

3. Psalm 92: Wisdom in a Thanksgiving

105

The first six verses of Psalm 92 are comprised primarily of direct address to God. After the superscription, verse 2 includes a transition from an unidentified addressee in 2a (“It is good to give thanks to the Lord”) to a direct address to God in 2b (“to sing to your name, Most High”). No grammatical clues such as an imperative or vocative help to identify the precise addressee of 2a; it is only clear that the addressee in the first half of the verse is not God, since God is referred to in the third person.66 Because the psalmist does not offer any clues with regard to the identity of the first audience of verse 2a, one is left to speculate whether that audience is plural or singular, and whether it constitutes an external worship discourse or an inner dialogue of the speaker. The explicit references to cultic activity in verses 3–4 certainly suggest the presence of a congregation, but it is not yet explicitly established from a grammatical standpoint.67 Instead, the direct address to God clearly governs verses 2b-6. The speaker maintains this communicative stance throughout the liturgical description of verses 3–4, and continues it in verses 5–6, which vociferously praise God’s works. The presence of first-person language is not consistent; it does not explicitly appear in verses 2–4 or in verse 6. 68 However, given the lack of any grammatical shift, verses 2b-6 retain a vertical directionality, a sustained prayer speech from the speaker to the divine. The prayer has a twofold purpose, namely to describe the act of praise, and to establish the reason for such praise, namely the wondrous works of God. While verses 2b-6 retain an individualistic quality due to the first person references in verse 5, the content of 107:1; 118:1, 29; 136:1. It is connected with the todah offering (Ps 100:4–5), as well as sacrifice (Ps 54:8). 2 Chronicles 5:18 portrays levitical singers singing it at the dedication of the Temple by Solomon and 2 Chronicles 20:21 portrays the same on the night before battle. Thus, Sarna argues “vss. 2–3 are an invocation to worship in connection with sacrifice.” Lastly, Sarna points out that the instructions for music in vs. 4 parallel other psalms originating in temple service (Pss 33:2–3; 98:4–6; 150:3–4). See his "Psalm for the Sabbath day (Ps 92)," JBL 81.2 (1962): 155–168. 66 Peter L. Trudinger argues that, despite the lack of an imperative in the psalm’s opening, vs. 2 as a whole functions essentially as a command to take up the performance subsequently described. See his Psalms of the Tamid Service: A Liturgical Text from the Second Temple (VTSup 98; Leiden: Brill 2004), 152–153. This is a helpful argument when considering who the speaker addresses in 2a, however, it lends little credence to the grammatical shift contained within the verse. 67 Gerstenberger (Psalms, Part 2, 169) suggests that the series of three infinitives in vss. 2–3 might indicate “a sapiential mode of judging situations and actions,” citing Pss 118:8– 9; 133:1b; Prov 21:19; 25:24; Eccl 7:2, 5; 11:7; Lam 3:25–27. He concludes that this form could derive from “ethical or cultic instruction,” but does not specify which or how the two relate. 68 Gerstenberger (Psalms, Part 2, 170) sees vs. 6 as part of the larger unit of vss. 6–12. He notes that the language of the individual disappears in vs. 6 until it once again appears in verses 11–12. However, the “I” does not appear in verses 2–4 either.

106

Chapter 3: Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms

the passage hints at the presence of a congregation, and verse 2a implies it as well. Within this performance oriented context, the psalm includes two moments that share an affinity with biblical wisdom and strike a more reflective note. The psalm’s first wisdom element then appears in verses 7–8. 69 The sapiential character of this passage lies both in person and content. It is an extended third-person reflection on the wicked that, when taken in isolation, suggests the speaker has stepped out of dialogue with God, and taken over the discourse. Terminologically, the parallel references to the “fool”/‫ כסיל‬and “brutish person”/‫ אישׁ־בער‬bear a wisdom stamp and occur in other psalms with wisdom echoes.70 This passage also contains references to knowing/‫ ידע‬and understanding/‫ בין‬that recall the opening of Proverbs, and suggest intellectual activity, or lack thereof on the part of the fool (vs. 7). This emphasis on intellectual activity contrasts with the description of liturgical activities of singing and instrumental performance emphasized in the beginning of the psalm (vss. 2–4). Furthermore, the introduction of purely descriptive third-person speech, focused on human beings, contrasts with the “I/Thou” relationship established by the speaker’s direct address to God. Following the explicit resumption of the prayer and the relation of the speaker’s personal experience in verses 9–12, the psalm finishes with a second wisdom element in verses 13–15.71 The emphasis on the righteous in contrast here with the picture of the foolish painted in the psalm’s first wisdom moment in verses 7–8 sets up a dichotomy common in the wisdom corpus. Thematically, both passages taken together exhibit a “preoccupation” with moral retribution, and the second includes the image of the righteous as a tree, which recalls Psalm 1, and indicates a sapiential quality.72 Moreover, both of the psalm’s wisdom moments are anthropologically focused, third69 As noted above, Kuntz (“Canonical Wisdom Psalms, 207) sees Ps 92 as a individual thanksgiving, but following Murphy, contends that vss. 7–9 are an “impersonal sapiential assertion” that contains “most” of the nine wisdom words he identifies in the psalm (though he does not specify a number). In contrast to Murphy, Kuntz also recognizes vss. 13–15 as sapiential. Moreover, in a later article, Kuntz cites vss. 7–8 (rather than 7–9) and vss. 13–15 as the psalm’s wisdom elements (“Wisdom Psalms and the Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter,” 149). Likewise, I have not included vs. 9 as part of the wisdom element because it includes a direct address to God and no obvious wisdom features. 70 Gunkel, Psalms, 298. See also Pss 49:11; 94:8. 71 Gerstenberger (Psalms, Part 2, 171) characterizes vss. 13–15 as a “little hymn” evident in other psalms, and descriptive by nature. Hossfeld and Zenger (Psalms 2, 440) write that these verses offer the “moral of the story.” 72 Murphy, “Consideration of the Classification,” 165–166. It should be noted, however, that the tree mentioned in Ps 1 is not a cedar/‫ ארז‬as it is here. Terrien (The Psalms, 656) argues that the image of the tree here has a royal connotation and is a symbol of “elegance and charm.” For use of general tree imagery in relation to the righteous, see Ps 1:3. For use of tree imagery in relation to the wicked, see Ps 37:35.

3. Psalm 92: Wisdom in a Thanksgiving

107

person reflections in which the speaker does not identify a particular audience. This suggests that the speaker has stepped out of his or her prayer with God, and into another kind of discourse, whether internally directed or directed towards another human person. Indeed, what the speaker imparts is a deposit of knowledge that fools are incapable of recognizing (vs. 7). The one who hears this reflection is thus called to understand something about the respective fates of the wicked and the righteous. Taken together, these two wisdom moments represent an instructive meditation on the benefits of living a righteous life in a manner certainly reminiscent of proverbial discourse. How does the interaction between these two wisdom elements and the psalm’s other elements, namely the initial focus on liturgical performance and the prevailing divine address, shape the function of each? One answer that scholars give, particularly those with form-critical concerns, is that the wisdom element acts as a testimony common to thanksgivings. Sigmund Mowinckel helpfully highlights the dual object of thanksgivings; as testimony, such poems concern both the congregation and the God of Israel. While the latter remains primary for Mowinckel, he sees the experiential aspect of the thanksgivings as the connecting link with didactic poetry. In wisdom poetry, the teacher (or father figure) authenticates his or her religious and moral instruction through an appeal to personal experience, and thereby induces the student to acquire knowledge and adopt ethical behaviors.73 Likewise, in thanksgiving psalms, the didactic element that emerges has the character of a witness, which emerges successively rather than immediately. It requires the community to enter into the experience of the psalmist, to accept that experience as a proper substantiation for the overall point that the speaker wants to make about God. Something has happened that has justified the speaker’s confidence in God. The speaker authenticates his or her praise to God before a congregation by appealing to a personal experience of divine deliverance from some distress, and thereby induces the congregation to likewise learn the lesson and ultimately participate in this act of praise. 74 Thus, psalmic pedagogy has reserved a spot in the thanksgiving genre, as an expression of personal experience meant to enlighten the congregation in a liturgical setting. Gunkel characterizes verses 13–15 as the second “main part” of the thanksgiving song, namely the “confession to YHWH as the one who delivered from distress.”75 While Gunkel does talk about the wisdom influence in the psalm, this influence coheres with the overall didactic aspect of the thanksgiving. He sees the conclusion of the psalm as the instructional proclamation that follows from the speaker’s personal experience. As he writes, 73

Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2:32. Ibid., 2:32. 75 Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 205. 74

108

Chapter 3: Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms

By its very nature, such proclamation is directed toward others, and therefore normally speaks of YHWH in the third person. Naturally, it stands at one of the most important places of the poem, so that it resounds powerfully in one’s ears. It thus normally stands at 76 the conclusion of the narrative as a result of the poet’s experiences.

So, for Gunkel, while these two passages share certain characteristics with wisdom discourse, the substance of the didactic move ultimately is fundamentally different from such discourse. The didactic import of wisdom instruction exhausts its functional potential. It aims to teach, to instill knowledge and effect certain behaviors in the recipient. The thanksgiving, on the other hand, and particularly in Psalm 92, aims to praise and draw others into praise, and its didactic proclivities are ultimately subsumed into this aim. The shape of human life takes on a decidedly theological perspective, acted out through the speaker’s direct address to God.77 The thanksgiving aims toward active faith, that is, towards a certain theological conception and enacted relationship to God (namely through prayer and praise) in relation to a situation of distress. Because of this, the substance of the didactic turn in testimonial speech fundamentally differs from the substance of proverbial pedagogy. Rather than understanding, it demands faith, expressed through verbal performance that reifies the experience of salvation in a worship context. In other words, the reflective, or wisdom, moments of Psalm 92 are ritualized, that is, a testimonial outgrowth of the speaker’s personal experience in the context of praise. Despite the sapiential timbre of verses 7–8 and 13–15, each section also includes characteristics that distinguish it from biblical wisdom and a purely reflective aim, particularly when taken within the context of the psalm as a whole. The first section on the wicked in verses 7–8 is bracketed on either side by direct address to God in verses 6 and 9. This bracketing phenomenon suggests that the intervening wisdom moment is, to some degree, subsumed into the surrounding address to the divine “Thou” that places the speaker’s reflection within the context of prayer with the divine. If the psalm effects a shift in audience in these verses (toward a human addressee), it is not an explicit move. The confluence of clear prayer-address wrapped around an ambiguously directed third-person reflection suggests a blurring of the lines between human-divine and inter-human communication. This adds an additional nuance to verses 7–8, one that would not be present in proverbial discourse. The second wisdom passage in verses 13–15 on the righteous is not part of this encounter between the speaker and God. Rather, it concludes the psalm and contains third-person language about God rather than second-person 76

Ibid., 205. Mowinckel (The Psalms in Israel Worship, 2:32) attests that the primary object of the thanksgiving is God. 77

4. Psalm 94: Wisdom in a Mixed Genre Psalm

109

address to God, technically excluding it from the “prayer” that prevails in the rest of the psalm. Moreover, verse 14 includes a plural identification of “our God” as the God who blesses the righteous with prosperity. The congregation only hinted at in verse 2a (and perhaps also by the number of instruments listed in vs. 4) now becomes a named reality. The plural community is a worship community, called upon to respond and declare that “our God” blesses the fruitful righteous. It is a call both public and personal, as the psalmist’s return to the first-person singular (“my Rock”) in verse 16 makes evident. The psalmist leads the audience into both the communal “we” and the personal “I” who address God. If one can call this a lesson learned, it is one that must once again be taken up in speech rather than silence, performance rather than receptive sensory experience. The hearer is called upon to lay claim to the discourse of the speaker by vocally taking it up rather than silently taking it in. The plural first person in verse 14 makes explicit the shape of the invitation in verse 2a; the speaker insists that the proper response of the human audience is praise, a turn towards vertical speech. Thus, neither so-called wisdom element promotes a purely reflective response; the first is grammatically encased by the prayer, and the second includes a first-person plural that concretizes the presence of a congregation, invited to a vocal and perhaps liturgical reification of the speaker’s main point about the way God works. Thus, what initially seems to be a clearly delineated juxtaposition of performance oriented content and content of a more reflective nature in the psalm is not ultimately sustained because of the way it is shaped by the shifting character of speaker and audience. The emphasis on performance in the beginning of the psalm leads to the ritualization of reflection in its conclusion.

4. Psalm 94: Wisdom in a Mixed Genre Psalm 4. Psalm 94: Wisdom in a Mixed Genre Psalm

Psalm 94 does not strictly adhere to one particular form, but rather includes elements of different genres, including communal and individual lament as well as, of course, a wisdom section. Gunkel includes this psalm in his discussion of “mixtures.” He writes that the psalm begins as a communal complaint, but “moves completely into the forms and ideas of wisdom poetry.”78 Weiser sees the psalm as a mix of complaint (vss. 1–11) and thanksgiving (vss. 12–23).79 Interestingly, Dahood argues that it is a thanksgiving, due to what he sees as the past tense verbs in verse 1 and the last two lines of the psalm. He admits that the psalm contains aspects of lament, but sees the first

78 79

Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 308. Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary, 623.

110

Chapter 3: Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms

and last lines as determinative.80 Hossfeld and Zenger characterize the psalm as a “mixed style” that includes both “prayer-address” as well as a “Wisdom style, with theological diction.”81 In addition to the mix between complaint and wisdom, the psalm includes both communal (vss. 1–7) and individual (vss. 16–23) elements of lament. Indeed, Kraus calls the psalm a community prayer song followed by an individual prayer song, with wisdom elements in between.82 Gerstenberger labels Psalm 94 as a communal complaint, despite his acknowledgment of the robust introduction of the “I” in verse 16.83 Thus, scholars agree that the psalm includes multiple formal characteristics, even if disagreements might arise regarding the psalm’s emphasis. Indeed, the psalm divides rather cleanly into three parts; a communal lament (vss. 1–7), a wisdom section (vss. 8–15), and an individual lament (vss. 16–23).84 The wisdom affinities of the psalm lead scholars to agree that the psalm represents a late (post-exilic) poem, though disagreement exists as to its precise setting in the ancient world. To a large extent, this question depends on how one defines the “enemies” whom the psalmist speaks against with such passion. Kraus locates the problem within the faithful community itself, but sees the psalm as a “literary composition” that may retain some cultic elements but ultimately did not originate with a cultic setting.85 Weiser sees the enemies as outsiders who threatened the psalmist who, in turn, gives thanks to God in the midst of the congregation of the festival cult.86 Fritz Stolz, while admitting that the historical origin of Psalm 94 remains impossible to fully ascertain, sees in the psalm evidence of a debate among Israelites that could have been used in reference to a number of different post-exilic conflicts about Israelite identity, and who represents the “true” righteous, perhaps in the midst of rule by the wicked.87 Similarly, Gerstenberger asserts that the psalm indicates “inner-Jewish conflicts” related to doctrine. However, unlike Stolz, Gerstenberger places this conflict at the post-exilic worship assembly, where apostates might be denounced, redeemed, or finally excluded.88 Hossfeld and Zenger demur and argue that the enemies could be either internal or 80

Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100, 346. Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 453. 82 Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 239. 83 Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 2, 177–180. 84 Trudinger, Psalms of the Tamid Service, 112. Trudinger adheres to this threefold division and states that the psalm’s “complexity of form raises the question of whether one type is dominant.” Ultimately, he argues that the lament is dominant and “defines the context” of the wisdom element. 85 Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 239. 86 Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary, 623. 87 Stolz, Psalmen im nachkultischen Raum, 44–45. 88 Gerstenberger, Psalms 2, 180–181. 81

4. Psalm 94: Wisdom in a Mixed Genre Psalm

111

external.89 Once again, then, we find a psalm with sapiential characteristics at the crossroads of the constructed divide between cultic and non-cultic functionality, though it does seem rather clear that the psalm in some way relates to a conflict between opposing parties. As with the other psalms studied in this chapter, the mixture of seemingly disparate formal components does not preclude the rhetorical or thematic unity of the psalm. In verses 1–7, the speaker issues an urgent, imperative complaint speech seeking divine retribution against the exultant wicked who oppress the voiceless widow, stranger and orphan. The first imperative petition in verses 1–2 initiates the direct address to God that explicitly extends through verse 5, which includes the vocative for “Lord” and second-person pronominal suffixes. Verses 6–7 are comprised of third-person speech about the wicked as well as a quotation of the wicked. Grammatically, these two verses stand between the vertical address in verses 1–5 and a shift into horizontal address to the wicked in verse 8. Because verses 6–7 talk about the wicked addressed in verse 8 and so cannot belong to that speech, it makes sense that one might see these verses as an extension of the preceding prayer. These verses act as the psalmist’s justification to God for the retributive demands of verses 1–5. Indeed, verse 7 acts as a hinge, connecting the first seven verses of the psalm and the shift to wisdom language in verse 8. The topic of the enemy quotation in verse 7 refers to divine sight and divine understanding, which initiates an emphasis on sense perception in relation to understanding. This issue takes on an anthropological dimension in verse 8 before shifting back to divine perception in verse 9. Rolf Jacobson argues that this quotation, and enemy quotations in general in the psalms, mark transitions. Here, it marks the “transition from complaint to instruction in trust.”90 Jacobson asserts that, in Psalm 94 and other psalms, the enemy quotation functions by naming the central theological problem that is then worked out through petition, confession, and instruction. Verse 7 is comprised of a quotation of these wicked humans, who believe (according to the speaker’s quotation) that God does not see/‫ ראה‬or perceive/‫ בין‬their evil actions. The quotation identifies the main problem; the wicked falsely perceive/‫( בין‬vs. 8) that God does not perceive/ 89

Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 453–456. Seemingly more important for these scholars is the redactional context, rather than compositional origin, of the psalm. They see Pss 93, 95, 96, 98, and 100 as a post-exilic composition that concluded an earlier version of the Psalter. This group of psalms emphasizes God’s universal kingship. Of Pss 94, 97, and 99, Ps 94 focuses on “Wisdom Torah” and all three introduce the themes of judgment, creation, and the complex nature of Israel’s relationship to the nations. No date is specified for the introduction of these psalms into this earlier version of the Psalter. For another redaction-critical treatment of Ps 94, see David M. Howard, “Psalm 94 among the Kingship-ofYhwh Psalms,” CBQ 61 (1999): 667–685. 90 Jacobson, “Many Are Saying”: the Function of Direct Discourse in the Psalter, 38.

112

Chapter 3: Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms

‫( בין‬vs. 7), and thus lack understanding, which leads them to persecute the righteous. Though this thematic thread binds together the first unit of the psalm with what follows in verses 8 onward, scholars identify verses 8–15 as the wisdom element due to what is seen as its formal, terminological, and thematic parallels with sapiential literature. Following the transitional quotation of the wicked in verse 7, the psalm shifts in verses 8–11, as the speaker turns his/her address from God to the “fools” who lack understanding. Formally, the admonition in verse 8, rhetorical questions of verses 9–10, and the ‫ אשׁרי‬clause of verse 12 represent genres associated with the wisdom corpus. 91 As in Psalm 92, verse 8 includes a dual reference to evildoers as brutes/‫בערים‬, and fools/‫כסילים‬, which occurs in other psalms associated with wisdom.92 The use of the term ‫ הבל‬in relation to the thoughts or plans of humanity (vs. 11) recalls the wisdom of the sage Qoheleth.93 Thematically, the rhetorical questions in verse 9 echo the sensory appeals that often guide a proverbial epistemology, the virtues of hearing and seeing in the cultivation of understanding.94 Moreover, the references to teaching (‫למד‬, vs. 12) and knowledge (‫דעת‬ and ‫ידע‬, vss. 10–11) cohere with the main function of the wisdom literature as didactic material.95 Finally, the description of the righteous man in verses 12–15 provides the oft-cited sapiential contrast with the wicked emphasized in verses 8–11. That this mix of elements has such strong resonances with the wisdom tradition, yet is situated within the particularly passionate rhetoric of this complaint, renders Psalm 94 unique among its poetic cohorts. 91

Murphy, “Consideration of the Classification,” 166. Pss 49:11; 92:7. cf. Ps. 73:22; Prov 30:2f . Howard (“Psalm 94 among the Kingshipof-Yhwh Psalms,” 670) points out that Pss 92 and 94 have twenty lexemes in common, most of which he calls “wisdom vocabulary.” The term ‫ כסיל‬by itself has a strong wisdom profile, occurring almost exclusively in the wisdom books and psalms, with exceptions only in three texts (Josh 15:30; Isa 13:10; Amos 5:8). 93 Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 454. 94 Hossfeld and Zenger (Psalms 2, 454) perspicaciously cite Prov 20:12 in the background here. They also see parallels between vs. 10 and Prov 8:10, 15, and between vss. 10b- 11a and Prov 16:1–9, concluding that “Verse 7 is refuted by means of wisdom.” At the very least, the connection between vs. 10 and Prov 8:10 and 8:15 is compromised by the mediating figure of Woman Wisdom in the latter, as she does not appear here. See also Kraus (Psalms 60–150, 241), who cites Exodus 4:11, in addition to Prov 20:12, in the background. For a less than optimistic perspective on the value of human seeing and hearing, see Eccl 1:8. 95 Kuntz (“Canonical Wisdom Psalms,” 202) isolates 15 “wisdom words” (taken from R.B.Y. Scott) in the psalm as a whole, 12 of which appear in vss. 8–15. As noted in chapter one, the difficulty (if not impossibility) of establishing a viable inventory of wisdom terminology is well documented. See Murphy, “Assumptions and Problems in Old Testament Wisdom Research,” 410; Crenshaw, “Wisdom Psalms?” 12. However, explicit references to instruction do make the task easier when one seeks to establish the didactic potential of a particular passage. 92

4. Psalm 94: Wisdom in a Mixed Genre Psalm

113

However, while these significant connections seem to attach verses 8–15 to the wisdom tradition in some way, the passage also includes a communicative structure that molds the function of its sapiential attenuation. The passage itself, in addition to the poem as a whole, contains shifts of address that distinguish it from sapiential patterns of speech. Verse 8, with a plural imperative, second-person plural imperfect, and two vocatives, begins the passage with a horizontally oriented castigation of the wicked, the brutes or fools who misperceive the constant reality of divine attention. This horizontally inclined relationship between speaker and audience extends through verse 11, with third-person speech about God. In verse 12, the speaker shifts to vertical address, grammatically established through the second-person verb and vocative “Lord,” and the thematic turn to the righteous person. Another shift occurs in verse 14, when the speaker returns to third-person speech about, rather than to, God. This continues until verse 18 when the speaker resumes vertical address. Verse 21 is an ambiguously directed, third-person description of the wicked’s oppression of the righteous, before a definitive return to horizontally directed speech in verse 22, which references God in the third person. Yet another shift occurs in verse 23, when the singular “I” speaking about God’s destruction of the wicked becomes a plural “we” who affirm the same. Within this complex communicative framework, what is the function of the identified wisdom passage in verses 8–15? Does the speaker, in these verses, offer a lesson and if so, does it mimic the kind of instruction one would find in a wisdom book? Beyond the obvious contextual differences outlined above between this psalm and sapiential instruction, several factors distinguish the multifaceted function of this passage. First, the disjunction between the speaker’s identified audience in verses 8–11 and his/her rhetorical goal within the poem as a whole compromise the notion that these verses simply function pedagogically. The imprecatory quality of the speaker’s opening vertical call (vss. 1–2), as well as the description of divine annihilation of the wicked in the final verse 23, suggest that the speaker does not intend to instruct the fools/‫ כסילים‬to whom he/she speaks in vss. 8–11. Nor, as Peter L. Trudinger insightfully argues, would an audience of this speech in use and reuse likely identify themselves as one of these fools, and thereby take the position of the “you” in verse 8.96 Rather, these brutish fools seem to be the evildoers denounced in the first seven verses, regardless of whether that group represents an internal faction of Israel or an external group.97 The psalm as a whole unequivocally presents this group as the object of retribution rather than rehabilitation or invitatory instruction, despite the fact 96

Trudinger, Psalms of the Tamid Service, 117. As noted above, Hossfeld and Zenger (Psalms 2, 454) admit that it remains unclear whether this group is internal or external to the community. However, they rightfully argue that the fools/brutes of vs. 8 must be identified with the wicked of vss. 3–7. 97

114

Chapter 3: Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms

that a substantial part of the psalm’s wisdom element is addressed to this group (vss. 8–11). The initial admonition of the fools/‫ כסילים‬in verse 8 is immediately connected with an ensuing question regarding the punishment of nations, which conflates the images of God as instructor-who-sees with God as judge-who-rebukes (vs. 10).98 Because of this, the speech in verses 8–11 is not a wisdom instruction for the identified audience, namely the brutish fools who have irrevocably misunderstood the Lord. Rather, it is a proclamation of divine retribution against those who have imposed their wicked will on the widow, the orphan, and the stranger. The wisdom teaching is not simply a wisdom teaching at all, but a foreboding message of divine justice for those who seem to have escaped divine sight. It is a passionate performance of the speaker, who does not offer an intellectual reflection about life-in-the-world, or call for his/her identified audience to learn a particular lesson. Rather, the speaker appropriates and destabilizes the sapiential qualities of these verses, seeking to summon and bring about the “lesson” of divine wrath upon those who deny the divine teacher. As such, this passage can simultaneously function as comfort to the righteous not explicitly addressed, but who implicitly appear as an audience in other parts of the psalm.99 Indeed, verse 12, the central verse of the psalm, substantiates this notion when the speaker shifts again and directly calls upon God, making it explicit that the object of God’s true instruction is the righteous one who ultimately witnesses the bad end of the wicked (vs. 13). This vertical address effectively ends the inter-human dialogue between the speaker and the fools addressed in verses 8–11. However, rather than taking up again the lament language of address to God that dominates verses 1–7, the speaker continues with the use of wisdom language but unites it with a direct address to God. Verse 12 is still part of the wisdom element with regard to both form and vocabulary, but 98 The psalm repeats the use of the verb for discipline/‫ יסר‬in both vss. 10 and 12. In this way, the image of the divine judge who disciplines the nations (vs. 10) is juxtaposed with the divine teacher who disciplines the righteous (vs. 12). The twofold use of the term describes the distinctive relationships God shares with the righteous and the wicked. God’s discipline, established universally, is a joy to the one who seeks instruction within a vertically inclined address, while it is a rebuke to those who believe they are hidden from divine sight (vs. 7). 99 See Trudinger (Psalms of Tamid Service, 118), who argues that vss. 8–15 do not represent a “sapiential teaching” but, in contrast, sees these verses rather as a “consolation” for the righteous. For him, the primary audience of vss. 8–11 is not the identified audience (the fools), but rather the “faithful community.” Similarly, Kraus (Psalms 60–150, 241) calls verses 12–15 “comforting instruction.” For Kraus, this is not a matter of “recompense” but rather faith in election and God’s “covenant faithfulness.” Derek Suderman’s (“Prayers Heard and Overheard,” 192–225) exploration of the “overhearing” audience, as well as “indirect” and “social” address, in laments also can illuminate this passage, because it introduces the idea that psalmic speech can be addressed to multiple audiences, not all of whom are explicitly addressed.

4. Psalm 94: Wisdom in a Mixed Genre Psalm

115

a distinct shift occurs. The subject matter remains essentially the same as in the previous two verses; God is the one who instructs, and disciplines, with the added emphasis on how this theological reality benefits the righteous. However, the address to the fools of the previous verses now becomes a direct address to the Lord. It is no longer an indictment but rather a vertical speech that shifts the orientation of discourse while sustaining the use of wisdom forms and didactic terminology. So, in addition to the transformation of wisdom elements into a call for retribution in verses 8–11 and a prayer in verse 12, the psalm does present its own theocentric rendering of the pedagogical process for yet another audience. While not explicitly identified until verse 23, the speaker’s implied human audience (verses 14–17; 22–23) are those who are not yet lost, the plural righteous. In the prayer of verse 12 and the following third-person reflection in verses 13–15, the main part of the lesson for those who would hear actually manifests. In verses 12–15, the object of God’s so-called instruction has shifted from the fools to the one who ultimately benefits from God’s hearing and sight, the righteous one who can rest in times of struggle knowing that God will devastate the wicked. Following the prayer in verses 12–13, the speaker returns to horizontally oriented speech in verse 14 with a meditation on the Lord’s loyalty to the upright. This is a telling convergence of the functions of supplication and instruction because it expressly imagines God as a kind of divine sage in the midst of a vertically inclined address that gently shifts into a third-person reflection about God and the upright. Once again, it is pedagogy of a different order, not simply imaged in the horizontal discourse spoken by a wise parent and received by a hearing pupil. This is not an overt request for instruction, but rather a confident vertical speech that expresses that God teaches the righteous. With its reference to divine Torah, verse 12 recalls Psalm 1:2, characterizing the righteous human being as the one who receives divine instruction. Unlike Psalm 1, the speaker does not speak about the divine teacher, but rather to the divine teacher, which adds a new dimension to the process.100 Psalm 94 presents the divine teacher as one addressed by the human student in verse 12. This a dramatic example of didacticism translated into a psalmic dialect, in which God is both the subject and ultimately the object of the speaker’s words, and the act of divine instruction is both an indictment and a comfort to the wicked and righteous in their turn. The first-person plural reference in the final verse of the psalm lends definition to the implied audience of the righteous and the invitation to respond to 100 Murphy (“A Consideration of the Classification,” 166) sees this image, the “rare description of Yahweh as teacher,” as yet more evidence of the passage’s connection with biblical wisdom. Kraus (Psalms 60–150, 241) notes that the connection between the image of God as a teacher and the image of the “God of nations” in vs. 10 is “supremely strange.”

116

Chapter 3: Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms

the zealous rhetoric of the psalm as a whole.101 Once again, the interaction between the individual and corporate dimensions of the poem affects the character of its pedagogical import. Following the third-person reflection in verses 14–15, “the ‘I’ emerges with vehemence” in verse 16 and continues to dictate the discourse until the final verse.102 While foregrounding the “I,” the speaker moves in and out of speech about the wicked (vss. 16, 21), about God (vss. 17–18, 22) and to God (vss. 18–20). The plural first person in verse 23 expressly picks up the plural references to God’s people (vss. 5, 14) and transforms such references into an invitation. The move into the plural first person encourages the audience to identify as these righteous over against the evildoers whom God destroys. Verse 23 establishes the identity of the audience as those who are invited to affirm the concept of divine retribution that dominates the psalm, in conjunction with entering into a vertical relationship with the divine teacher (vs. 12). Such an affirmation requires both a hearing of the psalm, the speaker’s own human testimony about the God who is present to his people (vss. 14–17; 22), as well as an entrance into the vertical posture of trust that the speaker models (vss. 12, 18–19) and into which he/she draws the audience (vs. 23).

5. Conclusion 5. Conclusion

There is no doubt that the psalms do present moments of horizontally oriented speech that reflect on God and the world in ways that resemble aspects of biblical wisdom literature, even if scholars cannot agree precisely how to define that resemblance. Moreover, the psalms overtly (Pss 34:12; 78:1–3) and implicitly render the image of human teacher and human student as participants in the gathering of characters that the psalms present overall. However, as analysis of these representative psalms shows, resonances with biblical wisdom in the psalms do not unilaterally imply a continuity of function among the diverse examples manifest in the Psalter. Not all identified wisdom elements in the psalms are simply didactic, nor do these elements inevitably call for an auditory response when interpreted within the context of the psalm as a whole. While each psalm examined in this chapter has elements that bear a wisdom signature, these elements function in distinct ways. The wisdom element of Psalm 62 does not simply parallel the rhetorical or theological effect of the wisdom element in Psalm 94, and the latter, in particular,

101 As noted above, Gunkel (Introduction to the Psalms, 82) and others see the first seven verses as a communal complaint, but verse 23 contains the only explicit first-person plural of the psalm. 102 Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 2, 179.

5. Conclusion

117

functions in a way that plainly diverges from a merely didactic domain. Function does not simply follow form, in these cases. Despite the distinct functions of different wisdom elements in individual psalms, the preceding analysis also suggests that the psalms clearly conceptualize the process of instruction according to consistent rhetorical and contentbased signposts that bear the imprint of the psalms’ unique communicative environment. First, the psalms analyzed above emphasize the role of the divine pedagogue. One can discern this first of all in the way that the psalms talk about instruction itself; the overwhelming majority of the references to didactic activity have a theocentric focus.103 Teaching as such is not simply human discourse that involves theological content; it is a theological endeavor that ultimately demands verbal engagement with the explicitly rendered divine instructor. While more and less explicit presentations of the relationship between human teacher and student do appear in the psalms, this image is subordinated to the privileged representation of the pedagogical process as something that culminates in a vertical encounter. The horizontally addressed student must vertically address God. This is a posture that the speaker models and that leads to the knowledge that sustains a righteous life on earth. Though not always linearly presented, third-person horizontal discourse (often characterized as a wisdom element) provides the first step in a complex communicative interaction that ultimately culminates in the appropriation of the “I” and the “we,” and the performance of a vertical turn to the deity in speech. Of course, this explicitly rendered portrayal of divine teaching is tempered by the communicative reality of a human speaker often speaking about the divine pedagogue and, as mentioned, modeling the privileged turn to vertical speech. The psalms present the act of instruction theocentrically. Yet, obviously, the human speaker heavily contributes to this pedagogical process, acting as the primary arbiter of the invitation to learn. The psalmist communicates prescriptive/testimonial reflections, models the “I/Thou” vertical posture before the divine pedagogue, and invites a plural audience into this vertical encounter through the use of the plural first person. These activities confirm some kind of human, didactic authority, even if the psalmist him/herself does not emphasize it in relation to the act of teaching as such. Instruction may ultimately be the work of God, but the psalms suggest that first a person must learn how to engage the divine teacher. Thus, horizontal exhortation and description combine with the vertical turn to the divine to form an integrated lesson on life with the divine pedagogue, a life mediated by a human invitation. 103 Of the more than twenty uses of the verb ‫ למד‬in the Psalter, only two instances refer to human, rather than divine, teaching (Pss 34:12; 51:15). The first is discussed above, and the second (Ps 51:15) occurs in the midst of a vertical, rather than horizontal, address (“I will teach transgressors Your ways, that sinners may return to You”).

118

Chapter 3: Wisdom and Instruction in Non-Wisdom Psalms

This kind of lesson invites a multi-faceted and active response from its audience, one quite different from the student’s response presented, for example, in the book of Proverbs. In these mixed psalms, despite the presence of elements that resonate with biblical wisdom literature, the learning process is not merely an exercise in sensory reception and perception, but rather calls for a multifaceted performance. It involves the formation of a student-indialogue, a student both addressing and addressed by God. The hearer of the psalms is alternatively called upon to take up the “you,” the “I,” and the “we” of reflection, supplication, and praise. The invitation to speak is an invitation to speak vertically, and only then does the true lesson begin in conjunction with interrelated human discourses. The student is the one who both hears third-person reflections about the world and asks for divine instruction, thus simultaneously engaged in pedagogical relationships both human and divine. In this way, vertical and horizontal language in the psalms and Psalter exist in a fundamental tension, each impulse constantly conditioning the other in the formation of a dynamic psalmic dialect. Wisdom elements in the psalms of this chapter are conditioned, and thereby transformed, by other modes of discourse within the literary and theological confines of an individual poetic composition. The Qoheleth-like rumination on the ephemeral nature of human life in Psalm 62 does not stand alone; rather, the literary and theological context of the psalm as a whole molds the effect of the statement. Instead of a sapiential echo of Qoheleth’s contentious view of human life, it becomes a substantiation for the speaker’s trust and ultimate turn towards God in prayer. The liturgical overtones and prayer speeches of Psalm 92 shape the speaker’s meditative deliberation on the fates of the righteous and the wicked. These examples show that the intellectual and behavioral invitation to the audience in such psalms is thereby molded by the interactions of different kinds of discourse, rather than a single pedagogical voice. The pedagogy of these psalms is as much shaped by the witnessing power of the speaker’s turn to prayer and ultimate emphasis on the divine instruction, as it is by the content of his or her third-person, often anthropologically-focused, reflections and imperatives. According to these psalms, life in-the-world is a life of worship, and lessons are learned in prayer and praise. These psalms replace an anthropologically depicted proverbial prosperity with a theologically rendered bounty, namely verbal communion with the divine.

Chapter 4

Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms A human teaching voice sometimes controls a psalm in its entirety. Such psalms maintain a horizontal orientation, exhibit significant formal affinities with the biblical wisdom tradition, and can include specific references to the act of instruction. Often included in the category “wisdom psalms,” these psalms most closely approximate the didactic poetry of the sages because they present only one discourse tendered by a human speaker and directed towards a human audience.1 Psalms 1, 37, and 49 exemplify this phenomenon in that each lacks any move toward vertical speech, either in the speaker’s own communicative posture or in his/her invitation to the audience.2 The pedagogical capacity of these psalms remains on the level of human teaching, whether exhortative or descriptive, and seemingly makes proverbial-style demands in relation to the intellectual development and behavioral norms of the audience. The psalmic identity of these poems thereby stands in question; without any shift in address or invitation into vertical speech, such poems lack the psalms’ most identifiable communicative traits. Yet, Psalms 1, 37, and 49, in unique ways, each engage the wisdom tradition while still bearing more and less subtle psalmic imprints, both in content and mode of speech. Hints of this arise within the individual psalms themselves, and engaging the immediate literary context of each psalm strongly confirms this dynamic. In what follows, each of these psalms will be examined on two interpretive levels. First, each psalm will be examined as an individual composition. This analysis will show that the didactic profile of each psalm shares a great deal with various wisdom texts while also exhibiting distinctive characteristics 1 Not every psalm that scholars have identified as a wisdom psalm maintains a horizontal orientation throughout. For example, scholars (e.g. Murphy, “Consideration of the Classification,” 162) sometimes classify Ps 32 as a wisdom psalm, yet it contains vertical address in vss. 4–7. One can more easily identify the “psalmic” character of such compositions than exclusively horizontal psalms that bear a wisdom imprint. 2 Of course, the horizontal attenuation of a psalm does not guarantee an association with a sapiential pedagogy. Indeed, many hymns, for example, do not include any clear-cut vertical address. Examples of horizontally oriented hymns include Pss 47, 96, 98, 100, 105, 107, 113, 117, 136, 146–150. However, horizontally addressed hymns contain a commanding invitation to vertical address with the formulaic call to praise, which conditions the inter-human speech throughout and so distinguishes such psalms from the poems treated in this chapter.

120

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

that shape the pedagogical profile of each psalm. Second, each psalm will be examined within its immediate literary context, that is, in relation to its surrounding psalms.3 Scholars often associate such links with the hand of the redactor, but these kinds of lexical and thematic connections among psalms also ultimately point to the unique biblical witness of the Psalter in its final form as a singular, if complex, theological voice within the canon. 4 Before addressing the shape of the Psalter specifically in chapter five, this examination of each psalm in its immediate literary context is rooted in the notion that the dynamic between horizontal and vertical speech in the psalms, and the distinctive invitation that this dynamic generates, emerges at different levels, all of which inform each other. In other words, the pattern of pedagogy, of formative invitation, that emerges in the shifting directions of speech in Psalm 62 likewise emerges when one examines the horizontally oriented Psalm 37 within its immediate literary context, namely the collection of Psalms 35–41. Thus, resonant communicative patterns operative at these various levels creatively establish a movement both recognizable and tractable between human teacher and divine pedagogue.

1. “Recite Aloud, Day and Night”: Psalm 1 1. “Recite Aloud, Day and Night”: Psalm 1

Didactic Profile of Psalm 1 as an Individual Composition Scholars often understand Psalm 1 in relation to a perceived continuity with 3 This analysis presumes that the ordering of the psalms has a meaningful arrangement, which implies both purposeful redactional activity and continuing canonical significance. Two basic techniques typify the redactional substance of such analysis, namely juxtaposition and concatenation. The first refers to explicit links that lead one psalm into the next, such as in the transition from Ps 32:11 to Ps 33:1. The second involves more complex lexical and content-based connections that build not only between adjacent psalms, but larger clusters of adjoining psalms. Erich Zenger extensively lists the variations of these two techniques. See his “Psalmenexegese und Psalterexegese: Eine Forschungskizze,” 31– 47. Norbert Lohfink cites the 1860 commentary of Franz Delitzsch as the first to catalog these kinds of connections between psalms. See his “The Psalter and Christian Meditation,” TD 40.2 (1993): 135. Stefan Attard, slightly differently, cites three basic linking techniques: 1) Verkettung, which signifies the links between neighboring psalms 2) Vernetzung, which signifies the links that connect an entire group of psalms 3) Fernverbindung, which signifies the links between psalms that do not stand in close proximity. See his “Establishing Connections between Pss 49 and 50 within the Context of Pss 49–52: A Synchronic Analysis,” in The Composition of the Book of Psalms (ed. Erich Zenger; Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 415. 4 Norbert Lohfink (In the Shadow of Your Wings, 75–90) contends that the function of such redactional linkages extend to the present day reader, conditioning the character of the Psalter’s function.

1. “Recite Aloud, Day and Night”: Psalm 1

121

the forms and themes of biblical wisdom.5 Given the contemporary focus on the shape of the book as a whole, this interpretation of Psalm 1 has significant consequences not only for our understanding of the psalm, but also the Psalter as such.6 As noted in chapter one, as studies on the shape of the Psalter have become more and more prevalent, Psalm 1 has been studied primarily in terms of its effect on what follows, in large part due to the fact that it seems to lack cultic or liturgical features. Because Psalm 1 sounds fundamentally different from the passions and pluralities of most of the psalms that follow, drawing an exclusive association with biblical wisdom particularizes the character of the poem’s instructional function as an introductory text, which can have a significant effect on the way that scholars see the Psalter as a whole. Those who focus on the wisdom character of Psalm 1 generally view the poem’s six compact verses as a sapiential celebration of the benefits of an individually well-ordered life within a divinely well-ordered world. Verses 1– 3 proffer a depiction of the righteous individual (‫ )אישׁ‬by declaring what he is not (vs. 1), revealing his internal disposition and external behavior (vs. 2), and comparing him to a fruitful and enduring tree (vs. 3). Verse 4 focuses on the wicked by using the image of chaff that blows away, thereby asserting the dreadful end that awaits them. Verses 5–6 confirm the distinctive fates of both the righteous/‫ צדיקים‬and the wicked/‫ רשׁעים‬in relation to the Lord’s favor and judgment. The seeming simplicity of this poetic development belies the complexity of the poem’s conceptual and communicative framework, and the subsequent difficulty of precisely defining the parameters of its sapiential and pedagogical implications. The psalm’s open character, both with regard to its content and the undefined relationship it presents between speaker and audience, resists an exclusive wisdom designation but also sustains a significant and wisdom-like focus on the life of the righteous individual. Scholars have designated Psalm 1 as a wisdom psalm largely due to the presence of the usual formal and thematic components. Overall, the psalm offers a seemingly classic example of the “two ways” that contrasts the lives of the righteous and the wicked in relation to the theme of divine retribution.7 It begins with an ‫ אשׁרי‬clause in praise of the righteous that Gunkel identifies

5 See, for example, Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 296, 302–305; Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 113–115; Murphy, “Consideration of the Classification,” 162; Dahood, Psalms 1–50, 1; Perdue, Wisdom and Cult, 269–273. 6 William Bellinger, for example, highlights the importance of introductions in the way that texts make meaning. In conjunction with the insights of literary criticism, he writes “beginnings create important and often lasting impressions – the primacy effect.” Bellinger’s interest in “beginnings” leads him to characterize Book I (his main focus) as a “wisdom piece.” See his “Reading from the Beginning (Again),” 116, 125. 7 Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 296, 302.

122

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

as one of “surest signs of ‘wisdom’.”8 Leo Perdue further cites the presence of wisdom terminology and the following wisdom forms: “parabolic sayings” in verses 3–4, an antithetical proverb in verse 6, and the overall “form” of the didactic poem.9 Scholars frequently also see the reference to Torah in verse 2 as a concept that became more and more attached to the wisdom tradition in the post-exilic era.10 From a general perspective, Roland Murphy identifies the psalm’s introductory character as evidence of the sage’s hand.11 The profusion of these wisdom connections, as well as the absence of any reference to vertical speech, seemingly makes for a strange entryway into the pathos and exultation that follows in the laments and hymns of the Psalter.12 Despite the strength of these sapiential characteristics, the psalm contains hints of other contexts within which to interpret the psalm and discern its functional potential. For example, those scholars concerned to emphasize the cultic character of the psalms have seen the first psalm in light of that. Ivan Engnell argues that the concepts and language of Psalm 1 reveal a royal “To8 Ibid., 302. See also Murphy, “Consideration of the Classification, 162. In contrast, Gerstenberger argues that, while the ‫ אשׁרי‬clause may have originated in an “educational context,” it eventually was adopted in liturgical poetry. See his Psalms, Part 1, 40–41. The term appears most frequently in the book of Psalms (26x) and second most in Proverbs (7x). Prov 8 provides an interesting counter example to the use of the clause in Ps 1 because, in the former, Lady Wisdom declares “Now, sons, hear me; Happy (‫ )אשׁרי‬are those who keep my ways” (vs. 32) and “Happy (‫ )אשׁרי‬is the one who listens to me” (vs. 34). The communicative implications of the second example of Wisdom’s address are absent in Ps 1, in which there is no call to “listen” to the human speaker. 9 Perdue, Wisdom and Cult, 269. 10 Gunkel, Psalms, 305; Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 114; Von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 49; Perdue, Wisdom and Cult, 269–270. With regard to the emphasis on Torah and the imagery of Ps 1, Gerald T. Sheppard cites a connection with Sir 24 and Bar 3:9ff. He sees Pss 1 and 2 as a precursor to Sirach and Baruch in the attempt to combine Torah and wisdom within the developing canon. See his Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 144. One must note that not all psalmic references to Torah bear an identifiable relationship with wisdom, however. In addition to Pss 19 and 119, which are known as “Torah psalms,” the term appears in Pss 37:31; 40:9; 78:1, 5, 10; 89:31; 94:12; 105:45. Certainly, some of these psalms, such as 37 and 94, are noted for including wisdom elements, but in others this connection receives less emphasis, such as in Pss 40 or 89. 11 Murphy, “Consideration of the Classification,” 162. See also Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 296, 302. Even Gerstenberger (Psalms, Part 1, 42–43), so concerned to emphasize the liturgical character of the psalms, admits that the psalm seems influenced by wisdom, writing that “It seems strange to us that the author of Psalm 1 adheres so strictly to the objective, unobtrusive mode of speech preferred by Israel’s sages.” 12 Raymond Apple speaks to this quandary when he asks why the Psalter begins with the phrase “Happy the man”/‫אשׁרי־האישׁ‬, and what the source of this individual’s happiness is. He points out that, within the context of the psalm, this happiness most likely signifies a person who has attained peace and calm, a depiction that mirrors an Israelite sage but often stands distinct from the emotive offerings of later psalms. See his “The Happy Man of Psalm 1,” JBQ 40.3 (2012): 179–182.

1. “Recite Aloud, Day and Night”: Psalm 1

123

rah-liturgy,” with the psalm’s ethically geared “parenetic style” original to the cult and only taken up by prophetic and wisdom circles subsequently.13 Weiser contends that the entire psalm “can be traced back to the cultic idea of blessing and curse as the act of judgment that separates and purges the cult community from the ungodly elements.”14 Erhard Gerstenberger, though he admits the psalm has a wisdom style, still sees the psalm in terms of a communal and synagogal, rather than individual, setting. He argues that the psalm’s emphasis on Torah, meditation, separation from the wicked, and the “private worship” that establishes the boundaries of the community all point to synagogal worship practices.15 These brief examples show the way that the psalm’s formal flexibility allows scholars to move in different directions with regard to the psalm’s setting and function. The brevity and seeming simplicity of the poem also belie its elusiveness in relation to its communicative structure. The psalm lacks a defined context of speech, with no superscription or internal reference to its “performance setting.”16 The psalm’s uninterrupted, entirely third-person account refers to four characters: the righteous individual (vss. 1–3), the plural wicked (vss. 1, 4–6), the Lord (vss. 2, 6) and the plural righteous (vss. 5–6). However, the absence of first- and second-person speech serves to veil, in a sense, the psalm’s own communicative environment. As noted, neither the speaker nor the audience is identified.17 No enemies or congregations are addressed, no “you” receives the lesson, and no psalmic “I” materializes to confront the divine “You” who receives both protest and praise throughout the Psalter. From a grammatical standpoint, the only certain characteristic of the speak13 Engnell, “Book of Psalms,” 100. See also his “‘Planted by the Streams of Water’: Some Remarks on the Problem of the Interpretation of the Psalms as Illustrated by a Detail in Psalm 1,” in Studia Orientalia Ioanni Pedersen Septuagenario A. D. VII Id. Nov. Anno MCMLIII a Collegis Discipulis Amicis Dicata (ed. Flemming Hvidberg; Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1953), 85–96. 14 Weiser, Psalms, 107. 15 Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 1, 42–43. 16 Fox, “Wisdom and the Self-Presentation of Wisdom Literature,” 154. 17 While the psalm’s wisdom affinities might lead some to identify the human speaker as a teacher, the psalm itself gives us no indication of this through terminological cues associated with teaching. Weiser (The Psalms, 102–103), for example, identifies the speaker as a wisdom teacher who, through the benefit of his experience, seeks to offer intellectual, moral, religious, and practical instruction. However, this identification is at best implicit, and contrasts with a poem like Ps 34:12, where the speaker’s familial, instructional identity is unambiguous. With regard to the issue of identity, Beat Weber moves in a different direction and sees Deuteronomy in the background of Ps 1. He identifies the speaker with Moses and the addressee with David/Solomon, an identification that he argues establishes a canonical “constellation of meaning.” See his “‘Herr, wie viele sind geworden meine Bedränger…’,” 233. However, the poem itself, without this canonical contextualization, provides no absolute indications of the identities of speaker and audience.

124

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

er/audience relationship lies in the purely horizontal orientation of the discourse.18 Yet, even this horizontal orientation arises only implicitly; thirdperson references to God throughout exclude the deity from the roles of both speaker and addressee (vss. 2, 6) and therefore establish the psalm’s horizontal plane of communication. Due to this dynamic, the fact of spoken address, as such, fades behind the drawing up of a collection of images that drive the psalm’s rhetoric. In other words, the only definitive aspect of the relationship between speaker and addressee lies in its implicitly rendered horizontal orientation; otherwise, the communicative make-up of the psalm retains a persistent ambiguity. Undoubtedly, the substance of the psalm’s third-person discourse moves beyond mere observation and indirectly espouses some kind of intellectual or behavioral imperative.19 Psalm 1 paints a particular kind of portrait through a series of rich images that capture both present moment and future end. This portrait elucidates a world in which God’s presence gives enduring and fruitful life to the righteous, while the rootless wicked perish, blown about by the winds of divine judgment. The prescriptive capacity of the poem seems clear enough; the righteous have much better lives than the wicked – therefore, one should be righteous. Yet, the specifics of how to achieve this are not immediately obvious, given the vagueness of the relationship between speaker and addressee. Because the grammar of the psalm never extends to the level of an imperative, the intellectual and/or behavioral exhortation of the psalm must emerge in a different way, if indeed, the psalm does exhort. The psalm does put forward a specific disposition and behavior deemed not only commendable but necessary, if one is to have life. The interpretive crux lies in verse 2, which describes both the dispositional and behavioral qualities of a righteous person, subsequently identified with the image of the

18 The psalm’s conceptual framework suggests that the audience is not the wicked who perish and would not benefit from such discourse, but rather the righteous or the almostrighteous in need of encouragement. However, if this is the case, it is not clear whether this righteous, or almost-righteous, addressee is singular or plural. The initial description of the righteous one in vs. 1 refers to an individual/‫האישׁ‬, but compares that individual with plural wicked/‫רשׁאים‬. This disparity persists throughout the psalm (singular righteous in vss. 2–3, plural wicked in vs. 4) until vss. 5–6, when the plural righteous/‫ צדיקים‬are finally juxtaposed with the plural wicked. 19 Scholars nearly universally agree on the prescriptive effect of the psalmist’s rhetoric. Kraus (Psalms 1–59, 119) writes that “In the teaching of wisdom this black-white technique doubtlessly has a pedagogical purpose: it is to be pointed out unmistakably how the life of the ‫ צדיק‬differs from that of the ‫רשׁע‬.” Weiser (The Psalms, 102) writes that Ps 1 is a “signpost” that “gives clear guidance regarding the way in which they shall conduct their lives.” Likewise, Gerstenberger (Psalms, Part 1, 42) argues that the psalm’s “deeply symbolic metaphors…standing alone, would call for a moral response.”

1. “Recite Aloud, Day and Night”: Psalm 1

125

well-rooted and well-watered tree in verse 3.20 If one can call the third-person discourse of Psalm 1 didactic or prescriptive, its primary, though implicit, pedagogical directive emerges here:21 Rather, the teaching of the Lord is his desire, And he utters that teaching day and night. (Ps 1:2)

With this verse, the psalm offers an image of a particular attitude and activity, indeed, the only activity attributed to the righteous throughout the psalm.22 In this way, the verse provides the only specific account of how a righteous person or almost-righteous person should, if this figure indeed comprises the audience, respond to the psalm. Verse 2 establishes that the activity of the righteous person entails an intimate relationship with divine instruction. The verse includes the well-known 20

Verse 3 provides a good example of how the psalm’s allusive poetics can point beyond the wisdom corpus to other parts of the biblical canon. See Martin Arneth, “Psalm 1: Seine Stellung im Psalter und Seine Bedeutung für die Komposition der Bergrede,” in Tora in der Hebräischen Bibel: Studien zur Redaktiongeschichte und synchronen Logik diachroner Transformationen (BZABR 7; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007), 294–309; Phil Botha, “Intertextuality and the Interpretation of Psalm 1,” OTE 18 (2005): 503–520; J.L. Helberg, “Wat het van die land geword? Die psalms (veral Psalms 1 en 2) oor die land, gelees teen die agtergrond van Josua 1,” OTE 18 (2005): 616–628. One important parallel appears in Jer 17:7–8, a text that likewise uses the image of a tree to describe the righteous, as found in Ps 1:3. Scholars debate the issue of priority with these two texts. Gunkel (Psalms, 296) sees Ps 1 as a “wisdom poem” that echoes the “wisdom poem” of Jer 17:5–8 but adds to it a “legal spirit.” William Holladay argues that the book of Jeremiah makes use of no less than sixteen psalms, including Ps 1. See his “Indications of Jeremiah’s Psalter,” JBL 121 (2002): 245–261. For another scholar who sees the book of Jeremiah influenced by the Psalter, see Bernard Gosse, “L’influence du Psautier sur la presentation du prophète Jérémie in Jr 15,10–21 et ses liens avec Jr 17,1–18,” ETR 79 (2004): 393–402. In contrast, Georg Fischer argues that, in reference to three psalms at least (Pss 1:3; 6:2–3; 40), the book of Jeremiah influenced the Psalter. See his “Jeremia und Die Psalmen,” in The Composition of the Book of Psalms (ed. Erich Zenger; BETL 238; Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 469–478. On the unique rhetorical features of each text, see James A. Durlesser, “Poetic Style in Psalm 1 and Jeremiah 17:5–8: A Rhetorical Critical Study,” Semitics 9 (1984): 30–48. 21 However, this is not to say that the full scope of the psalm’s persuasive or exhortative effect is limited to this verse. For example, as Egbert Ballhorn asserts, the opening beatitude in vs. 1 can be both a declaration and a call to action. See his “Der Torapsalter: Vom Gebetbuch zum Buch der Weisung,” 24. Of course, vs. 1 outlines what the righteous person does not do in relation to the wicked. The negative description of the righteous in vs. 1 remains rather general and vague, exposing the righteous person as one who does not frequent the company of the wicked without explaining precisely what the wicked do that renders their company so harmful. 22 Verse 6 then belatedly provides the motivational kî clause in support of the implicit exhortation in vs. 2. If a person acts in this righteous way, God will know and be present to him/her. If not, the person will perish.

126

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

and influential double reference to divine ‫תורה‬, the substance of the righteous individual’s desire and delight.23 The complexity of the term’s use within the wisdom tradition and in other parts of the canon raises the question of its meaning and function in this verse.24 Hans-Joachim Kraus argues that the term refers to divine instruction here, and more particularly to divine revelation in the form of a written text, though he finds it impossible to determine the extent of the sacred text to which verse 2 alludes.25 As noted, Kraus contends that the term developed a clear relationship with wisdom/‫ חכמה‬in later texts such as Sirach.26 The term signals a transition within the wisdom tradition from a focus on the authority of the father’s word to the life-giving power of divine teaching as the final source of teaching.27 As James Mays writes of this shift, “The torah of the Lord replaces wisdom and its human teachers.”28 For the purposes of this study, what is important is that the term Torah implies some concept of revelation, that is, some concept of divine activity related to instruction, whether this implies a written text or a more general 23 In the first of the instructions in Prov 1:8, the term ‫ תורה‬is, tellingly, used to refer to parental teaching (maternal, see also Prov 6:20). Indeed, all thirteen appearances of the term in Proverbs refer to human, rather than divine, instruction. 24 This verse has an oft-noted, robust parallel in Josh 1:7–8, which uses the same image with the same complex of terms, particularly ‫ תורה‬and ‫הגה‬. Josh 1:7 clearly places the term within the context of Mosaic teaching while vs. 8 identifies the Torah as a book of teaching/‫ ספר התורה‬that is explicitly a written/‫ כתב‬text. This verse uses this phrase in a clear admonition that likewise uses the root ‫ הגה‬to describe the behavior that one would use in relation to this book. Gordon Wenham argues that the parallel between these two texts has broad structural implications. He points out that the book of Joshua is the first of the second part of the Hebrew canon, while the Psalter opens the third part. In this way, both the second and third parts immediately refer back to the first part of the canon with the reference to the Torah/law, which is the translation that Wenham prefers. See his Psalms as Torah: Reading Biblical Song Ethically (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 79. This resonance is highly suggestive, yet Ps 1 clearly avoids particularizing the sense of ‫( תורה‬as written) in the way that Josh 1:7–8 does. 25 Kraus (Psalms 1–59, 116) sees the use of the term here in connection with a Deuternomistic conceptual framework and theology. 26 Ibid., 114. 27 In relation to the psalm’s overall representation of Torah, Jerome Creach argues that Ezek 47:12, as well as Pss 52:10 and 92:13–15, provide an even closer parallel to the contextual and structural peculiarities of Psalm 1:3 than Jer 17:7–8. The former three texts explicitly relate this arboreal image with the temple rather than the school. Creach argues that Ps 1:3 implicitly points to a move from temple to Torah, and that the verse’s sister texts in Pss 52:10 and 92:13–15, which each refer to a tree planted in God’s house, suggests the “replacement” of the temple with Torah. So, while the image may indeed point to a late, Torah-infused era of piety, it does not point to a wisdom school, but the new “school” of God’s word, possibly understood here as the written Torah. See his “Like a Tree Planted by the Temple Stream: The Portrait of the Righteous in Psalm 1:3,” CBQ 61 (1999): 34–46. 28 James Luther Mays, “The Place of the Torah-Psalms in the Psalter,” 4.

1. “Recite Aloud, Day and Night”: Psalm 1

127

way of life. Verse 2 identifies the righteous individual as one with a disposition oriented towards divine instruction, broadly construed. So how does the happy individual go about delighting “in” or “within” this divine instruction? Rather than depicting the teaching process as some kind of verbal exchange, Psalm 1:2 presents the activity of the righteous one in an individualized, vocal, and yet non-communicative manner. It is a continual process (“day and night”) of meditation or murmuring/‫הגה‬.29 The precise activity associated with the term ‫ הגה‬in this context is something along the lines of reading or reciting aloud.30 In other words, this is not an image of silent reading or meditation, but involves verbal activity of some kind, though it does not necessarily denote a conversation. Here, there is a self-reflexive quality to the speaking event, as if the righteous individual recites to him/herself. The appearances of the term murmur/‫ הגה‬in the wisdom literature and other psalms contrast with its seeming use here, and further suggest the communicative potential of the term. It occurs several times in the book of Proverbs, with greater and lesser degrees of communicative force. It is used to describe both the words of the righteous (Prov 15:28) as well as the words of the wicked (Prov 24:2; c.f. Pss 2:1; 38:13). Interestingly, Lady Wisdom herself uses the term, when she declares: Listen, for I speak noble things; Uprightness comes from my lips; My mouth utters (‫ )יהגה‬truth; Wickedness is abhorrent to my lips. (Prov 8:6–7)

In contrast with Psalm 1, the term here has an explicitly dialogic quality in that it refers to a verbal interchange between the figure of Wisdom and her addressed pupils (vss. 4–5). The speaker’s claim to authority rests on her mouth’s truthful activity/‫הגה‬, an activity that establishes the communicative bridge between teacher and student. This is obviously not simply recitation, or meditation aloud, but rather the transitive act by which the teacher herself dispenses instruction to a named addressee. In this sense, the use of the term 29 The root of the term for murmur or utter, ‫הגה‬, occurs primarily in the Psalter, the wisdom books, and Isaiah, so it would be misguided to simply associate the term with the wisdom tradition. See Josh 1:8; Job 27:4; 37:2; Pss 2:1; 35:28; 37:30; 38:13; 63:7; 71:24; 77:13; 90:9; 115:7; 143:5; Prov 8:7; 15:28; 24:2; 25:4; 25:5; Isa 8:19; 16:7; 27:8; 31:4; 33:18; 38:14; 59:3; 59:11 (2x); 59:13; Jer 48:31; Ez 2:10. The occurrences of the term in Ps 2:1 and Ps 37:30 will be discussed below. 30 Indeed, Gordon J. Wenham makes the plausible case for recitation over reading, pointing out that it is difficult to read at night and the psalm states that the individual engages in this activity both day and night. As he notes, other biblical uses of the term never denote silent activities, but rather noisy activities such as roaring lions (Isa 31:14), cooing pigeons (Isa 59:11) and vocal human functions (Pss 35:28; 37:30; 115:7). See his Psalms as Torah: Reading Biblical Song Ethically, 81–82.

128

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

here either heavily contrasts with its use in Psalm 1, or suggests a further possibility with regard to its function, namely a communicative sensibility. What this terminological parallel does not suggest, however, is a functional parallel that would simply lend a sapiential character to the ambiguities of Psalm 1. Interestingly, it is the text in Proverbs that displays a more explicitly communicative bent. A closer sapiential parallel to Psalm 1:2 appears in the book of Ben Sira, which includes at least one example of the image of the wise individual using the same Hebrew term, ‫הגה‬. The sage declares, Understand the statutes of the Lord, and recite (‫ )הגה‬his commandments always. He will give insight to your mind, 31 And your desire for wisdom will be granted. (Sir 6:37)

In this case, one finds the image of the wise (rather than righteous) individual as one who engages in the activity of meditative recitation, as in Psalm 1:2 and unlike Proverbs 8:6–7. It is an activity that precipitates an encounter with the divine gift of wisdom, but there is little sense that the activity itself involves a verbal encounter with the deity. Rather, the human recitation of the divine words previously given generates a revelatory insight in the present moment. The vertical encounter is implicit and individualized, brought about amidst a reflexively uttered human speech filled with divinely given words. Unlike Psalm 1, however, Ben Sira’s depiction occurs within the confines of imperative speech initiated with the parental imperative in Sirach 6:32 (“If you wish, my son, you will be wise”) and perpetuated through the exhortations of verse 37. Thus, this passage emphasizes the immediate fact of human, rather than divine, discourse. Indeed, both through the imperative and the governing parental address in Sirach 6:32, Ben Sira’s text highlights the presence of the human teacher much more explicitly than Psalm 1. So, while this text presents a significant parallel to Psalm 1 in the image it presents, the differences once again highlight the evocative and open character of the first psalm. In the Psalter, the term ‫ הגה‬is associated primarily with address to God rather than human wisdom speech or instructional language addressed horizontally. In the majority of its appearances, the psalmist uses the word to describe his/her own recounting of divine deeds in the midst of vertical address

31

In a companion text, Sir 14:20, the sage writes “Blessed is the man who meditates/‫הגה‬ on wisdom and who reasons intelligently.” In this instance, the blessed man meditates on wisdom/‫ הכמה‬rather than the Lord’s statutes and commandments. This difference illuminates Ben Sira’s drawing together of the concepts of Torah and wisdom. Interestingly, the LXX translates the term as μελετάω (in Ps 1:2 and Prov 8:7 as well), which emphasizes the activity of the mind. That is, it designates a thinking or pondering activity without necessarily implying some kind of vocal recitation.

1. “Recite Aloud, Day and Night”: Psalm 1

129

(Pss 35:28; 63:7; 71:24; 77:13; 143:5).32 Psalm 143:5 uses the term in the midst of direct address to God in this way: Then I remembered (‫ )זכרתי‬the days of old; I recited (‫ )הגיתי‬all Your deeds, recounted (‫ )אשׂוחח‬the work of Your hands. (Ps 143:5)

This set of terms, in conjunction with a reference to the psalmist’s spirit/‫רוח‬ and mind/‫ לב‬in the preceding verse (Ps 143:4), suggests an activity of both the mind and the mouth, one that leads to the preparation for prayer in verse 6, which depicts in the psalmist’s stretching out of the hands ( ‫פרשׂתי ידי‬ ‫)אליָך‬.33 In other words, in Psalm 143:5, it seems that the act of meditation/utterance/‫ הגה‬either concludes prior to the prayer, or in conjunction with it. Thus, in Psalm 143 as a whole, the activity of recounting/‫ הגה‬as such does not suffice. The psalmist takes up a further speaking, a calling out initiated in verse 6 with the stretching out of the hands, and exemplified in verse 7 when he/she demands “Answer me (‫ )ענני‬quickly, O Lord; my spirit can endure no more.” That is, the psalmist’s meditative murmuring/‫ הגה‬alone does not lead to a final “answer” but acts in tandem with the speaker’s turn to prayer and present vertical posture, here given a physical cast. Obviously, this move into a vertical orientation does not occur in Psalm 1. However, this related example, and the use of the term in tandem with vertical address throughout the Psalter, intimates that the activity prescribed in Psalm 1:2, when considered within the context of the Psalter, might bear a relationship with the vertically oriented acts of prayer and praise. As an individual composition, of course, Psalm 1 does not evoke the latter activities and sounds much closer to the musings of the sage Ben Sira. Overall, the parallels and resonant contrasts between these passages in the psalms, Proverbs, and Sirach illuminate both the vocal, and potentially communicative, implications of the term ‫הגה‬. Psalm 1 offers the least information, and implants the term within the most ambiguous communicative context. Unlike Sirach 6:37, the psalm refrains from foregrounding the speaker’s own presence, and indeed the presence of the audience, in order to emphasize the true teaching that takes place in a moment separate from the present moment. The psalmist resists any self-designation as teacher in order to point solely to the divine teacher whose lessons reside in the written and murmured Word. Psalm 1, in itself, both exhibits a clear relationship with the wisdom literature and retains a singular poetic approach.

32

In Ps 38:13, the psalmist uses the term in reference to the deceitful language of the evildoers who oppress him/her. In Ps 115:7, the term is used to describe idols who can make no sound. The term’s use in Pss 2:1 and 37:30 will be discussed below. 33 Other examples of this verb being used in reference to the act of prayer in the piel as it is here include Isa 1:15; Jer 4:31. In the qal, see especially 1 Kgs 8:22.

130

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

Moreover, in Psalm 1, it is clearly a human speaker who provides this image of the righteous individual and the accompanying discourse regarding the righteous/wicked divide. There is, then, a dissonance between the way that the psalmist describes the process of meditation on Torah and the actual communicative mode of the psalm itself. In other words, while the psalm depicts the act of instruction as an individualized human engagement with divine instruction, the actual mode of (indirect) exhortation remains thoroughly horizontal throughout Psalm 1. Because of this, the didactic profile of the psalm develops on two distinct levels. The first lies in the unreferenced relationship between the unidentified speaker and audience related through the fact of the discourse itself. The ambiguity of the details of this communicative relationship does not mitigate the thoroughly human character of the discourse. The human voice, addressed to another human ear, thus takes hold from the first word of the psalm and Psalter with confident musings on the distinction between the righteous and the wicked. Second, the psalm secondarily presents, within the context of this horizontal relationship, a portrait of behavior that depicts an interaction with divine, rather than human, instruction. This portrait is not a human-divine dialogue, but rather a meditative and active human engagement with the divine word, already made available and possibly even written. In order to be counted among the assembly of the righteous, this is the behavior that the speaker advocates for the silent hearer. Thus, while one can call Psalm 1 a didactic psalm, it is a didactic poem without the benefit of an acknowledged literary relationship between speaker and addressee. While this is a mechanism for foregrounding divine instruction, it also allows the anticipated response of the audience to retain a broad radius and resist an exclusive association with proverbial instruction. Indeed, the focus on the righteous individual in verse 3 does not unequivocally point toward an individual addressee, given the later reference to the plural righteous in verses 5–6. Besides elucidating what the righteous person does and does not do, the psalm’s reference to the “assembly of the righteous” in verse 5 shows that, in addition to his/her individualistic recitation aloud, the righteous are fundamentally characterized by the act of gathering, an act that the wicked will not survive. Indeed, the psalm does not answer the question of how the “assembly of the righteous”/‫בעדת צדיקים‬, who are not simply equivalent to the individual of verses 1–3, act and respond to the discourse presented here, except that they will, unlike the wicked, survive judgment and be known by the Lord. The reference to the “assembly of the righteous” places the psalm’s individualistic exhortation within the broader scope of a plurality of righteous persons.34 Within the confines of Psalm 1, then, the interplay of 34

The phrase “assembly of the righteous”/ ‫ עדת צדיקים‬occurs only here. Gunkel (Psalms, 257, 299) sees vs. 5 in light of wisdom, rather than a prophetic reference to judgment. He argues that vs. 5 does not suggest the prophetic call for Israel’s repentance but rather sapi-

1. “Recite Aloud, Day and Night”: Psalm 1

131

individual and communal life with God already plays a significant exhortative role.35 In this sense, the image of the murmuring man, the fertile and fruitful tree, is inadequate to the scope of the potential audience implied within these six verses alone. Verse 2, then, acts as a prelude, rather than a determinative exhortation. Didactic Profile of Psalm 1 within its Immediate Context In some ways, the functional profile of Psalm 1 creates more questions than it answers. The seeming disconnect between the advocated behavior of Psalm 1:2 and the performance oriented discourses that follow in the Psalter suggests the partial scope of the first psalm’s wisdom-inflected representation of righteous life, and the validity of moving a bit further into the book to gain a fuller understanding of its indirectly rendered exhortations. Significant lexical and thematic connections among the first three psalms substantiate the notion that a meaningful relationship and progression develops among them. This progression lends definition to the ambiguous relationship between speaker and audience in Psalm 1, both clarifying and adding to its invitation. Moreover, by initiating the dynamic movement between various modes of horizontal and vertical speech that threads the Psalter as a whole, these three psalms establish the shifting parameters of psalmic speech, and the demand for an active response from any participant in its poetic interplay of speaker and audience. The strength of links between Psalms 1 and 2 support the notion that the Psalter’s introduction extends beyond the first psalm.36 The connections beentially denotes “the continual rule of God.” Dahood (Psalms 1–50, 5) sees it as “an ethical adaptation of a mythological phrase which originally described the council of the gods in Canaanite religion.” While Perdue (Cult and Wisdom, 273) acknowledges that the phrase may refer to a cultic gathering, he thinks it more likely a general reference to the group of the righteous. 35 This conclusion conflicts with scholarly treatments of the psalm that emphasize its individualistic character and influence. See, for example, Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 204–207. 36 A great deal has been written on the relationship between Pss 1 and 2. Most of these discussions ultimately focus on the role of the first two (or first three) psalms as an introduction to the Psalter. A scholar’s analysis of the shape of the book as a whole typically rests on the way that he or she understands this small cluster of psalms. To name a few: Sheppard, Wisdom as Hermeneutical Construct, 142; McCann, A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as Torah, 32–40; Erich Zenger, “Der Psalter als Wegweiser und Wegbegleiter: Psalms 1–2 als Proömium des Psalmenbuchs,” in Sie Wandern von Kraft zu Kraft (eds. A. Angenendt and H. Vorgrimler; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1993), 29–47; Jesper Høgenhaven, “The Opening of the Psalter: A Study in Jewish Theology,” SJOT 15 (2001): 169–180; Robert Cole, “An Integrated Reading of Psalms 1 and 2,” JSOT 98 (2002): 75–88; Weber, “Psalm 1 and its Function as a Directive into the Psalter and a Biblical Theology,” 237–260; “‘Herr, wie viele sind geworden meine

132

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

tween Psalms 1 and 2 have led some scholars to speculate that the two were originally one psalm, or at least, a deliberate redactional pairing.37 Psalm 2 is a royal psalm that opposes the sinister intrigues of the “nations” against the virtues of the royal anointed, the son of God who has been installed atop the holy mountain Zion (vss. 2, 6–7).38 Thus, like Psalm 1, Psalm 2 revolves around a basic contrast or antagonism that dominates its rhetoric.39 Neither Psalm 1 nor Psalm 2 has a superscription even though Psalms 3–41 all begin with a title, and this also suggests that the first two psalms were added to the latter collection.40 Psalm 1:1 begins with the ‫ אשׁרי‬clause, while Psalm 2 concludes with the same kind of clause in 2:12, forming an inclusio. In addition, shared vocabulary is used in contrastive ways. Psalm 2 picks up the first psalm’s use of the term ‫ הגה‬in its first verse, using it to describe the empty uttering of the nations (Ps. 2:1). In Psalm 1, the righteous man does not dwell/‫ ישׁב‬in the “company of the insolent,” while in Psalm 2, the God who dwells/‫ ישׁב‬in the heavens laughs at the wayward nations.41 The use of ‫ דרך‬in connection with ‫ אבד‬in Psalm 1:6 is echoed in the final verse of Psalm 2 as well (vs. 12).42 Regardless of whether the two psalms were originally one Bedränger…,’” 231–251; “Die Buchouvertüre Psalm 1–3 und ihre Bedeutung für das Verständnis des Psalters,” OTE 23 (2010): 834–845; Bernd Janowski, “Freude an der Torah: Psalm 1 als Tor zum Psalter,” ET 67(2007), 18–31. Susan Gillingham examines the relationship between the two psalms by examining their reception history. See her A Journey of Two Psalms: The Reception of Psalms 1 and 2 in Jewish and Christian Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). 37 See, for example, Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 136–144; Mays, The Lord Reigns, 121–122. For a contrasting view, see John T. Willis “Psalm 1- An Entity,” ZAW 91 (1979): 381–401. Willis sees the two as separate psalms. Similarly, though acknowledging the connections between the first two psalms as potentially “insightful,” Roland Murphy ultimately rejects the association of Pss 1 and 2 as speculative work. See his “Reflections on Contextual Interpretation of the Psalms,” 23. 38 See 2 Sam 7:14. 39 Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 140. 40 Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 1, 45. A few early texts of Acts 13:33 refer to the citation from Ps 2:7 as the “first psalm,” and early rabbinic literature also attests to the reading the first two psalms as one psalm. See Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 141. 41 Ibid., 140. 42 Reading the two psalms together can both particularize and universalize the substance of Ps 1. The identity of the wicked in the final verse of Ps 1 (vs. 6) immediately assumes a more specific form as the nations who stand against God and God’s king. Moreover, for those who see Pss 1 and 2 as a joint introduction to the Psalter, the second psalm attaches an eschatological component to the righteous life espoused within the book as a whole. As Beat Weber (“Herr, wie viele sind geworden meine Bedränger,” 235) shows, the individualistic cast of Ps 1 is given a universal significance in Ps 2; the wicked/nations will perish because God is the God of the whole world, while the royal anointed is identified with the righteous individual who lives life by the Torah (Ps 1:2).

1. “Recite Aloud, Day and Night”: Psalm 1

133

composition, the breadth of these connections encourages an interpretive approach that attends to the relationships that build as one moves from one psalm to the next. These strong connections suggest that the relationships between neighboring psalms are meaningful. The communicative make-up of Psalm 2 contextualizes the ambiguities of Psalm 1 without fully resolving them, or as yet, entering into the form-critical home base of lament and praise.43 Like Psalm 1, Psalm 2 does not consistently define its speaker and audience, however, it does break from the sustained third-person discourse of Psalm 1, and introduce a more varied grammatical landscape. The initial rhetorical question of verses 1–2 abruptly arrives without yet the benefit of an identified speaker or audience, though the content of the question solidifies that the speaker stands on the side of the “Lord and his anointed” (vs. 2). Verses 1–2 lead into a quotation of the scheming royals in verse 3 and a third-person description of the deity who mocks them in verse 4. Despite this rhetorical diversity, all four verses plainly maintain a horizontal orientation, yet still fail to precisely identify the relationship between speaker and audience. Verses 5–12 establish the communicative context more clearly, albeit within a complex rhetorical matrix of reported speakers and reported audiences that ultimately maintains the third-person speech of verses 1–4. Verses 5–6 are comprised of prophetic address, or, as Rolf Jacobson terms it, a “Godquotation,” whereby the deity referred to in the third person in verses 2, 4, and 5 responds to the blasphemy of the nations. 44 These verses report a verbal exchange between God and the nations in which God refers to the king in the third person. This is the Psalter’s first clear reference to descending vertical address, here meted out as judgment upon the nations. Divine speaking immediately assumes global proportions, and yet the quotation clearly serves a rhetorical function for an audience other than the one the deity addresses (i.e. not the nations). The second instance of descending vertical address in verses 7–9 reports a shift in the identity of the audience of the divine quotation; here, God directly addresses the royal figure spoken about in the previous “God-quotation.” In this way, the speaker reveals himself here as the king to whom God has spoken and called “son” (vs. 7). So, in contrast with the ambiguous speaker of Psalm 1, the royal figure of Psalm 2 clearly plays the role of speaker.45 Moreover, this figure presents himself as the one who has not 43

As noted above, Claus Westermann characterizes the Psalter this way, writing that “in the Psalter there are two dominant categories, the hymn (including the Psalm of thanks) and the lament.” See his Praise and Lament in the Psalms, 18. 44 On “God-quotations” in the Psalter, see Rolf Jacobson, “Many are Saying: The Function of Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Psalter,” 82–130. 45 Scholars debate whether the righteous figure of Ps 1:2 is the same as the royal figure in Ps 2. The question for this study concerns not so much the parallel or distinct identities of the righteous individual and the royal personage, but rather the communicative context

134

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

only heard God’s voice addressing the wayward nations (vss. 5–6), but as one who has himself been addressed by God (vss. 7–9). Because both instances of explicit, descending, vertical speech (vss. 5–6, 7–9) are reported speech, each betrays a time gap between the moment of vertical exchange and the present moment in which another, implied, audience hears about this exchange in the present. Yet, the psalm evades precisely identifying the present audience. Verses 10–12 attest to the horizontal orientation of the psalm as a whole, when the speaker’s explicit addressees, the “kings” identified in verse 10, become the object of imperative speech. However, these same kings possibly appeared in the third person in verses 1–5 and 8–9, which suggests the presence of another, implied audience meant to witness God’s judgment of this group in verses 4–5, and the king’s authoritative hold over them in verses 10–12.46 Psalm 2:12 intimates that this implicit audience are those who have, or who might, “take refuge” in God, but does not address this group with a vocative or even second-person indicators. Still, verse 12 expands the potential audience of the psalm while also recontextualizing the emphasis on the individual in the beginning verses of Psalm 1.47 The ‫ אשׁרי‬statement echoes the same in Psalm 1:2 but expands to “all who take refuge in Him” (‫אשׁרי כל־‬ ‫)חוסי בו‬, a move that also adds a vertical dimension to the horizontally oriented depiction of the “happy individual” in Psalm 1:2.48 Thus, not only does this verse confer a communal sensibility to the ‫ אשׁרי‬inclusio of Psalms 1 and 2, it also expands the concept of vertical life beyond the king to all those who focus their worldview theologically. The third-person character of verse 12, however, retains a certain level of ambiguity with regard to the identity of the audience here. Psalm 2 clearly also moves a step further than its predecessor with regard to its depiction of how, and with whom, verbal exchange takes place within a psalmic context. In so doing, it particularizes and extends the invitatory capacity of Psalm 1. Unlike Psalm 1, Psalm 2 acknowledges threats to the in which each figure, continuous or not, is presented. On the implications of various opinions regarding the issue, see Nasuti, “Redaction-Critical and Canonical Approaches to the Psalms and Psalter,” forthcoming. 46 This is, of course, unless the psalm distinguishes between those kings who plot vain things in the first part of the psalm, and kings who have yet to plot intrigues against the Lord and the divinely anointed in the final exhortations. While this is possible, the psalm does not suggest it overtly. 47 James Luther Mays (“The Place of the Torah-Psalms in the Psalter,” 10) contends that vss. 10–12 were specifically composed when redactors combined the two psalms, which accounts for the high number of links between these verses and Ps 1. 48 Jerome Creach argues that the concepts of Torah meditation (Ps 1:2) and refuge in God (Ps 2:12) bear a close connection in the latest psalms of the Psalter. See his Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (JSOTSup 271; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 69–73.

1. “Recite Aloud, Day and Night”: Psalm 1

135

good/evil divide in verses 1–2, an acknowledgment that will take on a personal cast in Psalm 3. Moreover, Psalm 2 differs in its depiction of the way that the righteous one ought to respond to these newly recognized dangers. In Psalm 2:8, God says to the king, “Ask me!” (‫)שׁאל ממני‬, thereby delineating the proper response to the uncertainties associated with encountering evil nations. The heavily royal/eschatological implications of the content of this psalm should not obscure the fact that, here, the king/speaker relates a dialogic experience with the deity as something that will quell external danger and also generate the humanly offered exhortations in verses 10–12. The content of the “God-quotation” itself refers to the communicative event, that is, it demands a very particular response, namely the act of verbal, vertically inclined address. While Psalm 1 promotes human recitation of the divine word in the midst of a confident discourse on the righteous/wicked divide, Psalm 2 promotes a different practice, namely human entreaty to a deity who reciprocates verbally when the good/evil divide is threatened. The communicative development from Psalm 1 to Psalm 2 thus takes a turn as the psalmist gradually admits to the complexities of living in-the-world. The static and ambiguous third-person discourse of Psalm 1 transitions into a speech within a speech that includes an overtly rendered depiction of divine-human verbal interaction. Psalm 2 thereby contextualizes the implicit suggestion of vertical encounter in Psalm 1:2 by presenting that relationship according to the act of mutual address. Psalm 3 extends this developing scheme by modeling vertical address for the first time, while also contributing to the thematic and rhetorical progression of Psalms 1–2. The thematic parallels between Psalm 3 and Psalm 2 lie in the continued portrayal of the king’s enemies in relation to the Lord’s ultimate power and protection. Moreover, the anointed, installed on the holy mountain in Psalm 2:6, is answered by God from the holy mountain in Psalm 3:5.49 The first words of Psalm 3 following the superscription show the king doing exactly what is demanded in the prophetic address of Psalm 2:8, namely, addressing God.50 It is the first actualization of the vertical, “I/Thou” event in the Psalter; Psalm 1 does not even allude to it and Psalm 2 refers to it without presently enacting it. Yet, as noted, Psalms 1 and 2 both prepare the

49

Phil J. Botha and Beat Weber point out this connection and list the “firsts” associated with Ps 3 that substantiate its introductory character. These “firsts” include the first address to God (prayer), the first musical indicator (‫מזמור‬, vs. 1), the first superscription, the first connected with David, and the first of thirteen psalms to offer biographical details of David’s life. See their “‘Killing The Softly with this Song…’ The Literary Structure of Psalm 3 and Its Psalmic and Davidic Contexts: Part I: A Contextual and Intertextual Interpretation of Psalm 3,” OTE 21.1 (2008): 276–278. 50 Botha and Weber (Ibid., 278) characterizes this shift as one from prophecy to prayer.

136

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

way for this vertical move through content-based and rhetorical allusions to vertically oriented experience and communication. The speaker’s shift toward a human audience in Psalm 3:5–7 reveals further aspects of the Psalter’s developing communicative matrix, namely the frequent interchange between vertical and horizontal modes of speech as well as the often ambiguous intersection of individual and communal audiences. The reference to the Lord in the third person indicates a shift away from vertical speech towards a human audience who has perhaps witnessed the vertical speech of verses 2–4.51 In verse 5, the speaker specifically affirms that a verbal encounter with God is the mechanism by which he finds relief from his enemies when he declares, “I cry aloud to the Lord, and He answers me from His holy mountain.” It is a horizontally inclined endorsement of the foregoing vertical discourse, as the privileged sphere of relief from distress. The reiteration of the vertical address in verses 8–9 underlines the persistent back and forth between horizontal and vertical speech that conditions the nature of the response that the psalms ask from their audience. In addition, the emergent relationship between singular and plural address appears here as well. It is impossible to know whether the speaker addresses a singular or a plural audience in Psalm 3:5–7, though the concluding reference to “Your people” (‫)עמָך‬ in verse 9 suggests a plural identity is possible.52 The first three psalms present the open and yet also plainly demarcated invitation that is repeated in different ways throughout the Psalter. The emphasis on divine instruction, imaged by the Torah recitation of the righteous person and advocated by the immediate words of the human speaker, initiates the divine-human interplay that characterizes the didactic implications of all that follows. Psalmic instruction, so configured and thus introduced, resists an exclusive association with the kind of wisdom speech that primarily anticipates a hearing. The communicative movement from Psalm 1 through Psalm 3 introduces a complex play of person, a shifting interchange between the “I,” the “you,” and the “Thou” who constitute the basic dialogue partners of the 51

As noted, on the phenomenon of “overhearing” in the psalms see Suderman, “Prayers Heard and Overheard,”207–225. Suderman draws on the work of Sheppard, “‘Enemies’ and the Politics of Prayer,” 61–82. 52 The relationship between the singular and the plural in Pss 1–3 is further developed in Ps 4, when the plural imperative to the kings of Ps 2 becomes the “sons of man”/‫בני אישׁ‬ addressed both by the prophetic divine word, and the human who has experienced a divine hearing (vss.3–6). The speaker once again affirms the efficacy of the vertical call by declaring “the Lord hears when I call to Him” (Ps 4:4). Though it is this verbal communion that stays the anguish of persecution, the continuing presence of the human interlocutor, who has him/herself experienced this communion, provides a necessary piece of the communicative matrix, one that points toward the vertical encounter both by describing and affirming its reliability and modeling the posture as such. The plural first-person reference in vs. 7 is once again suggestive of a communal context, and the directive toward the communal affirmation in worship that the psalms so often promote.

1. “Be Silent and Wait for the Lord”: Psalm 37

137

psalmic world, in relation to an increasingly complicated presentation of the human experience of the righteous/wicked divide. Within this context, the implied imperative of Psalm 1 expands beyond the boundaries of sapiential Torah piety, as the unacknowledged audience who hears of it becomes the audience who enters with David into the “I/Thou” communicative encounter that distinguishes psalmic language within the canon. The resolutely horizontal orientation of speech in Psalm 1 gives way to a more complex communicative context, one that recasts the didactic profile of the first psalm by further developing its basic rhetorical and theological components. The first three psalms immediately present the hearer/reader with the divinely sanctioned invitation to become a speaker (Ps 2:8), one who both meditatively utters the divine word and addresses the deity in moments of need. Thus, the development of the first three psalms establishes the thematic and communicative shifts that stand at the foundation of the psalms’ pedagogical potential. The ambiguously rendered invitation of Psalm 1 provides a doorway into what follows without yet revealing all that lies behind it. The murmuring righteous one, confident of his/her identity within a sensible world, is immediately confronted with a God who speaks and demands a human speaking in return. When threats materialize, this God insists, “Ask me!”/‫( שׁאל ממני‬Ps 2:8), and promises a divine hearing of the human request. In Psalm 3, the speaker models this divinely demanded communicative posture by entering into the “I/Thou” speech at a moment of anguish and senselessness, as enemies attack (Ps 3:2–3). In this way, the invitation of Psalm 1 is clarified and transformed by its relationship with what immediately follows. The invitation extends beyond the communicative framework of the biblical wisdom books that briefly suggest but largely forego the summons of the human interlocutor/model and divine Addressee. Instead, the horizontally oriented wisdom of Psalm 1 opens the door into the vertically oriented life of Psalm 3, a life that is persistently mediated by a human speaker who has experienced violent realities (vss. 2–3), prayed to God in need (vss. 4–5, 8), and called out joyfully in worship (vs. 9).

2. “Be Silent and Wait for the Lord”: Psalm 37 1. “Be Silent and Wait for the Lord”: Psalm 37

Didactic Profile of Psalm 37 as an Individual Composition Psalm 37 unites significant ties to wisdom pedagogy with an exclusively horizontal discourse. Like Psalm 1 and innumerable biblical wisdom texts, the psalm portrays the seemingly irrevocable contrast between the wicked and the righteous. The psalm’s formal leanings plainly suggest an individualized, didactic rhetoric in the manner of wisdom poetry. The poetic stage is set, so to speak, for the wise words of sapiential instruction that pass from an experi-

138

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

enced sage to an inexperienced youth. However, as in Psalm 1, certain aspects of the psalm complicate a simple wisdom designation and demonstrate unique pedagogical features. The formal and thematic characteristics of Psalm 37 so strongly evoke a wisdom milieu that, despite the unresolved debate about a “wisdom psalm” genre, scholars nearly universally agree that it is a wisdom psalm.53 First, Psalm 37 is one of the eight acrostic psalms of the Psalter, a poetic structure often associated with scribal culture and functional emphasis on reading rather than performance.54 For Gunkel and other form-critical scholars, the acrostic is only the most obvious wisdom imprint on the psalm; the warnings and admonitions (vss. 1–9, 27, 34, 37), autobiographical narrative (vss. 25– 26, 35–36), terminology, and “better-than” saying (vs. 16) all similarly reveal a sapiential character.55 With regard to theme, as noted, the familiar and seemingly implacable division between the wicked/‫ רשׁע‬and the righteous/‫צדיק‬ is recognized as indicative of a sapiential conceptual framework. Within this contrast, the psalm’s focus on the prosperity of the wicked has often led scholars to identify the wisdom-like preoccupation with divine retribution. 56 Despite this thorough-going wisdom profile, scholars concerned to preserve the cultic character of the Psalter have also unearthed liturgical resonances in the psalm, even if it is the wisdom elements that have dominated interpretive efforts. Weiser, for example, openly vacillates with regard to the 53

Gunkel, Mowinckel, Kraus, Von Rad, Weiser, Murphy, Dahood, Kuntz, Whybray and Perdue all characterize this as a wisdom psalm. Brueggemann declares that it is “the most easily identified of the list of sapiential Psalms.” See his “Psalm 37: Conflict of Interpretation,” in Of Prophets' Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R Norman Whybray (eds. Heather A. McKay and David J.A. Clines; JSOTSup 162; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 230. In contrast with this dominant form-critical designation, Gerstenberger (Psalms, Part 1, 157) stalwartly rejects the idea that this is a wisdom psalm due to the nature of his understanding of the Psalter’s cultic background. 54 For more on the association of the acrostic with the wisdom tradition, see the treatment of Ps 25 in chapter three. As with Ps 25, scholars frequently see Ps 37 as a loose collection bound by the acrostic form rather than a unified poetic text. See Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 404; Dahood, Psalms 1–50, 297; Von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 203–204. Ps 37 is also the last of the four acrostics in Book I of the Psalter. See Les D. Maloney, “Intertextual Links: Part of the Poetic Artistry within the Book I Acrostic Psalms,” ResQ 49.1 (2007): 11–21. 55 Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 296–297, 302; Kuntz, “The Canonical Wisdom Psalms of Ancient Israel,” 204. 56 Murphy, “Consideration of the Classification,” 163; Dahood, Psalms 1–50, 297. Kuntz (“The Canonical Wisdom Psalms of Ancient Israel,” 204) writes that, “Though the psalm lacks continuity, its belief in the efficacy of retributive justice is immovable.” Gunkel (Introduction to the Psalms, 296–297) sees the psalm as dealing with theodicy. For a contrasting view, see Weiser, The Psalms, 315. Here, Weiser argues that the psalm has an anthropological, rather than theological, focus, geared towards the “vindication of the practice of religion in man’s everyday life.”

1. “Be Silent and Wait for the Lord”: Psalm 37

139

psalm’s setting for this reason. He points to post-exilic features such as its connections with Proverbs and Job but he also cites the psalm’s potentially pre-exilic, cultic references to blessing/curse (vs. 22), consistent references to the land, and judgment/salvation (vss. 10f, 34, 37f) as evidence of a nonwisdom milieu.57 Gerstenberger sees the psalm as thoroughly post-exilic, but situates its didactic overtones within the context of synagogal worship.58 He recognizes the wisdom resonances of the psalm but emphasizes what he sees as its liturgical elements as well, namely the “wish form” in verse 15 and the overarching “threatening and comforting overtones.”59 Such elements introduce the possibility that the breadth of the psalm’s function reaches beyond sapiential association. What is clear is that the relationship between the speaker and audience remains steadfast throughout, in contrast with most psalms that shift among various verbal and pronominal designations. Psalm 37 grammatically sustains only one direction of discourse, namely horizontal speech from a human speaker to an individual human addressee. The psalm begins with a series of singular imperatives (vss. 3–5, 7, 8) and negative warnings (vss. 1, 7, 8) that use the singular imperfect with a negative particle, as well as second-person singular suffixes (vss. 4, 6). These initial verses forefront the presence of the “you” to whom the speaker makes urgent appeals. After the summary conclusion of this section in verses 9–11, the psalm maintains purely third-person discourse in verses 14–24. Verses 25–26 are comprised of a first-person narrative. Verses 27–28 once again use singular imperatives in an exhortation format, while verses 29–33 maintain purely third-person speech. Verse 34 is governed by a singular imperative, and verses 35–36 conclude the firstperson narrative idea commenced in verses 25–26. Singular imperatives once again initiate verses 37–38, while the psalm concludes in verses 39–40 with third-person discourse. Nothing suggests that the speaker ever shifts the direction of speech, but rather maintains a relationship with one individual audience throughout. Therefore, as a whole, the psalm uses imperatives, warnings, third-person description, and autobiographical narrative to construct its message and its call between a human speaker and his/her individual human audience.60 57

Weiser, The Psalms, 316. Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 1, 157. 59 Ibid., 159. For Gerstenberger, Ps 37 is “worship instruction,” that is, liturgical poetry with a homiletic aim. 60 Therefore, though scholars often describe the psalm as a loose collection of sayings, it exhibits a rather simple three-part structure. Verses 1–11 has exhortations and warnings, vss. 12–26 third-person description and first-person narrative, and vss. 27–40 a mix of all three types of speech. See Hubert Irsigler, “Quest for Justice as Reconciliation of the Poor and the Righteous in Psalms 37, 49, and 73,” SK 19.3 (1998): 156. See also Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 1, 158. 58

140

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

The character of that call depends both on the presented relationship between the speaker and audience and the content of the speaker’s exhortations and third-person speech. With regard to the former, the psalm does not immediately suggest the nature of the relationship but rather launches a series of exhortations without any call to learn, such as one might find in the proverbial instructions. The relationship between speaker and audience, until verse 25, remains a univocal discourse from some kind of a lecturer to an overtly present and singular “you.” However, in the latter half of the psalm, the speaker’s use of first-person narrative draws a fairly clear picture of the speaker as an older person who has experienced and recognized a particular constant among the vagaries of human life.61 Because of what he/she has never seen/‫ראה‬, this aged orator knows that God blesses the righteous and their children, and does not abandon them (vs. 25).62 Conversely, the speaker has seen/‫ ראה‬the strength of the wicked wholly disappear (vss. 35–36). Thus, this is a person who has lived long enough to witness the respective passages of the righteous and the wicked, and subsequently has drawn conclusions about how the divine deals with each group.63 Coupled with the wisdom associations of the psalm as a whole, one might label this character as a wisdom teacher, or at least, a wise witness to the workings of God’s world who wishes to share the resultant insights.64 The identity of the audience thereby assumes the role of student, a role that the grammar of the psalm foregrounds with the constant use of the second person. Though this wise elder addresses an explicitly present and foregrounded “you,” this figure is never named through a vocative. The main question is whether the psalm identifies the third-person descriptions of the righteous with the singular “you” addressed in the imperatives and negative admonitions.65 The psalm vacillates in its third-person descriptions of the 61 The Davidic superscription, of course, is relevant here, though it is interesting that it is largely ignored in scholarly works on the psalm’s wisdom character. 62 For another example of autobiographical narrative, see Prov 24:30–34. 63 Michael Fox argues that this kind of reference to the sage’s experience substantiates, rather than creates, the sage’s epistemological premise. See his “The Epistemology of the Book of Proverbs,” 669–684. Even if one accepts Fox’s argument, however, it is difficult to deny that the interplay of human experience and human knowledge plays a fundamental role in sapiential pedagogy, particularly in this instance. 64 Scholars have very often simply identified the speaker as a wisdom teacher. See Gunkel, Psalms, 296; Weiser, The Psalms, 315; Murphy, “Consideration of the Classification,” 163; Kuntz, “Canonical Wisdom Psalms,” 204. 65 Scholars identify the audience in different ways. Hubert Irsigler identifies the audience as the pious person subjected to temptation, who must therefore be exhorted to remain on the path of righteousness. See his “Quest for Justice as Reconciliation of the Poor and the Righteous in Psalms 37, 49, and 73,” 587. Jerome Creach identifies the audience as both oppressed and righteous. See his The Destiny of the Righteous in the Psalms (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2008), 48–51. Norbert Lohfink, in contrast, argues that the audience

1. “Be Silent and Wait for the Lord”: Psalm 37

141

righteous, referred to in both the singular (vss. 12, 16, 21, 25, 30, 32) and the plural (vss. 17, 29, 39). The psalmist equates the righteous/‫ צדיק‬with the poor/‫( עני‬vss. 11, 14). In addition, the concept of the land/‫ ארץ‬is central to the psalm’s depiction of the righteous, with the term appearing six times total (vss. 3, 9, 11, 22, 29, 34). In the first instance in verse 3, the speaker exhorts the audience to abide/‫ שׁכן‬in the land. The following uses of the term refer in the third person to the inheritance of the land belonging to those who “wait for the Lord” (vs. 9), the poor/‫( ענוים‬vs. 11), those “blessed by Him” (vs. 22), and the righteous/‫( צדיקים‬vs. 29). The final reference to the land in verse 34 follows an imperative, as the psalmist exhorts his addressee, “Wait for the Lord and keep his way, and he will lift you up to inherit the land.” The use of the term with the imperative in verses 3 and 34 establishes the “you” whom the speaker addresses as a member of the righteous, waiting, blessed poor who are described throughout. The poor are not only those who will inherit the land in the future, but those who are presently persecuted by the swords and bows of the wicked (vss. 12, 14). The “pupil” here thus does have a specific identity, one quite different from the pupil-son, despite the psalm’s robust connections with the book of Proverbs. This contrasting identity of the audience in Psalm 37 and the proverbial instructions magnifies the distinctively eschatological cast of the speaker’s urgings in the former. In the exhortations and warnings of the first eleven verses, the psalmist does not give a specific shape to the righteous life that he/she depicts; moral/behavioral expectations remain general and undefined. The speaker asks the addressee to “do good” (vs. 3), and to “take delight” in God (vs. 4), but does not give shape to these demands. Rather, the speaker’s exhortations emphasize the call to refrain from certain attitudes, and to assume a posture of not acting. He/she asks the addressee to refrain from vexation/‫( חרה‬vss. 1, 7, 8), to trust/‫בטח‬, (vss. 3, 5) and abide/‫( שׁכן‬vs. 3). The strength of the textual parallels between this psalm and the book of Proverbs intensifies the impact of the divergences. For example, Psalm 37:1 has an almost exact parallel in Proverbs 24:19. Compare: ‫אל־תתחר במרעים אל־תקנע בעשֺי עולה‬

Ps. 37:1

Do not be incensed by evildoers, Do not envy those who do wrong.

Ps. 37:1

‫אל־תתחר במרעים אל־ תקנא ברשׁעים‬

Prov. 24:19

is not the victim, but rather a royal figure who “stands on the side of the victim.” Lohfink argues that only vs. 6 indicates that the audience has a stake in the problem at hand. Otherwise, the addressee “stands alongside and above everything,” as the speaker engages the problem that the addressee witnesses, but does not experience him/herself. See his “The Appeasement of the Messiah: Thoughts on Ps 37 and the Third Beatitude,” TD 44.3 (1997): 238–239.

142

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

Do not be incensed by evildoers, Do not envy the wicked.

Prov. 24:19

The exhortation to trust/‫ בטח‬in the Lord likewise occurs in Proverbs 3:5 and appears again in the third-person discourse of Proverbs 28:25–26 and 29:25. However, the root more often is used with regard to human situations, to describe how to live safely and with security.66 In other words, these ideas are not without echoes in the biblical wisdom literature, but the latter has a different emphasis.67 The distinctive use of other terminology further supports the notion that Psalm 37 maintains a relationship with the conceptual world of biblical wisdom, but focuses much more on calling its audience to yield and wait. The audience must roll/‫ גלל‬or “give your way” to God (vs. 5); he/she must be silent/‫דום‬, wait/‫( חול‬hithpolel) for the Lord (vs. 7) and abandon/‫( רפה‬hiphil) fury (vs. 8). The third-person conclusion to the first section in verses 9–11 suggests that those who wait/‫ קוה‬for God (vs. 9) will receive the gift of the land (vs. 11), and verse 34 reiterates the same idea using the term ‫ קוה‬again.68 Proverbs 16:3a echoes Psalm 37:5 in its use of the term ‫ גלל‬in reference to the Lord, but takes an anthropological turn in verse 3b by assuring the audience that, by giving way to God, “your plans will be established.” The term ‫דום‬ does not occur in Proverbs, nor the hithpolel of ‫חיל‬. Perhaps most interesting is the use of the hiphil of ‫ רפה‬in verse 8. This term occurs once in the hiphil in Proverbs 4:13, which states “Grow strong in discipline, do not abandon it (‫)רפה‬, keep it for it is your life.” In Job 7:19, the hiphil of the term is used when Job asks God to “abandon me” for a while. In 27:6, Job declares that he will not abandon his righteousness. Though distinct, each occurrence in the wisdom books uses the term in a negative way, which differs from the positive exhortative function of its use in Psalm 37. One can clearly find at the root of this collection of terms an on-going relationship between the psalmist 66

See Prov 1:33; 3:23, 29; 10:9; 11:15, 28; 14:16; 28:1; 31:11. Moreover, this group of terms is much more prevalent in the book of Psalms than in the book of Proverbs. The root of the term ‫ בטח‬occurs forty-seven times in the Psalter, compared with fourteen times in Proverbs and five times in Job. Likewise, the root ‫שׁכן‬ occurs twenty-nine times in the Psalter, compared with six times in Proverbs and eleven times in Job. 68 Verse 34 adds a further image here, declaring that if one waits/‫קוה‬, the Lord will raise that individual up so that he/she can not only inherit the land, but see/‫ ראה‬the wicked get cut off from this new vantage point. The term ‫ קוה‬occurs only once in Prov 20:22 in a saying that exhorts the addressee to “Wait for the Lord, and He will deliver you.” However, this command is bracketed by a saying about acquiring real estate in haste (vs. 21) and deceptive weights and scales (vs. 23). This context lends a concrete sense to the use of the term ‫ קוה‬in Prov 20:22, firmly anchored in the present time. Moreover, the term ‫ קוה‬is once again much more prevalent in the Psalter, occurring there fourteen times, compared with the single instance in Proverbs and five occurrences in the book of Job. 67

1. “Be Silent and Wait for the Lord”: Psalm 37

143

and the sages. But the particular identity of the addressee, as well as the subtle distinctions in the choice and function of terminology in Psalm 37, lends these exhortations a unique character. The future orientation of the psalmist’s exhortations further surfaces in the psalm’s heavy use of terminology that emphasizes the distinction between the present and future time, as a mechanism for ameliorating the troubling evidence of the evildoers’ present prosperity and violence.69 The psalm uses the term end/‫ אחרית‬specifically to draw this contrast: Watch the blameless, see the upright, For the man of peace has an end (‫)אחרית‬, But sinners are exterminated all together, The end (‫ )אחרית‬of the wicked will be cut off. (Ps 37:37–38)

The “end” here is the means by which God maintains the just dichotomy between the righteous and the wicked.70 These verses encapsulate a guiding concept of the psalm, that the wicked will pass away eventually, which will validate the righteousness of the righteous in the future (vss. 2, 9–10, 20). The psalm does not clarify precisely how or when this end/‫ עחרית‬will lay bare the workings of divine justice, yet the speaker’s confidence remains absolute throughout the poem.71 The psalm’s threefold use of the term forever/‫ עולם‬further discloses the speaker-teacher’s distinctive appeal to time language as a way of buttressing his/her certainty that the happiness of the wicked will not prevail. In its appearances in verses 18, 27, and 28, the language of forever/‫ עולם‬belongs specifically to the relationship between the righteous and God. Therefore, the term carries a purely positive connotation unlike the psalm’s use of the term ‫אחרית‬, which is used of both the righteous and the wicked.72 The term ‫עולם‬ 69 With regard to the psalm’s overarching eschatological appeal, Irsigler, (“Quest for Justice as Reconciliation of the Poor and the Righteous in Psalms 37, 49 and 73,” 591) writes that, “the psalm will no more be satisfied with the mere emphasizing of the ‘deedsconsequence’ as a fact of current experience.” However, he continues, “The thought of ‘deeds-consequence’ remains strictly effective enlarged by the aspect of future offspring on earth.” 70 Von Rad (Wisdom in Israel, 204) writes, “By ‘end’ the psalm obviously means the conclusion of a way of life in which God’s salvation and judgment are then finally visible to men.” 71 Note Dahood (Psalms 1–50, 232), who assumes that the notion that the “end” of the wicked will be “cut off” signifies that the wicked will go to Sheol, though the term Sheol does not occur in Ps 37. 72 The term ‫ עולם‬occurs much more frequently in the book of Psalms than in Proverbs, appearing only six times in the latter text, and most instances there do not apply here. Though Prov 10:25 and 10:30 affirm that the righteous last forever while the wicked do not, neither of the instances of the term describe the relationship between the righteous and God explicitly as in Ps 37.

144

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

does not arbitrate the difference between the two groups, but rather mediates the continuing divine concern for the righteous. In verse 18, the speaker declares that the Lord knows the days of the innocent, whose inheritance/‫ נחלה‬is forever/‫עולם‬. Here, the distinctiveness of Psalm 37 once again comes to light, for the term ‫ נחלה‬functions differently in its use in the wisdom literature. In its appearances in the book of Proverbs, one’s inheritance derives from a familial, hence human, source (Prov 17:2; 19:14; 20:21). In Psalm 37:18, the inheritance of the righteous derives from divine care that lasts forever and is imaged elsewhere in the poem as the future inheritance of the land (e.g. vss. 9, 11, 22, 29, 34).73 Psalm 37:27 abstractly confirms that the reward of this forever/‫ עולם‬depends on the righteous doing good and turning from evil, which echoes a similar exhortation to “do good” in verse 3. However, the psalmist does not specify how to go about this. Indeed, the speaker may well equate this “doing good” with the advocated behaviors of waiting, refraining, and accepting present inequities until the coming of a forever/‫ עולם‬specifically depicted throughout the psalm as the inheritance of the land.74 The twofold appeal to “doing good” and “forever” sustains the psalm’s conceptual kinship with the book of Proverbs, while simultaneously moving beyond it into the future. It is necessary not only to “wait” and “give way,” but also to do good in the present time. The psalm does not simply reject a sapiential framework with regard to the question of the wicked and the righteous. In contrast, the speaker works very hard to uphold this framework when confronted with the limits of its scope through an experience of the exultant wicked contrary to its wisdom. Time-focused exhortations allow the speaker to affirm that the righteous/wicked divide is authentic and stable, and that the righteous indeed possess God’s favor. The psalm, in this way, significantly emphasizes the future moment, but configures that future as one in which the deity, and not the human audience, will act. This shapes the nature of the psalm’s invitation much differently than the proverbial texts that the psalm so often recalls. Psalm 37 does not call for the formation of character through the inculcation of a particular set of intellectual and behavioral prescriptions ultimately manifested through the student’s reiteration of a horizontally oriented discourse.75 Instead, in Psalm 73 In Job, an inheritance does come from God, but only in reference to the wretched lot of the wicked (Job 20:29; 27:13; 31:2). Eccl 7:11 states that “wisdom is as good as an inheritance,” which invokes the familial/human use of the term one finds in Proverbs. 74 One possible exception to this lies in vss. 21 and 26, which depict the righteous as generous. So, “doing good” may also involve being generous. Given that the psalm identifies the righteous as the poor, however, the act of generosity is precisely an act of trust that God will account for one’s future. 75 As William P. Brown (“Comparing Psalms and Proverbs,” 87) notes, “Psalm 37 places proportionally greater emphasis on the destiny and condition of the wicked and the

1. “Be Silent and Wait for the Lord”: Psalm 37

145

37, agency belongs almost solely to the God who restores the balance of a world where the poor righteous will have relief, even if it is currently unavailable. In other words, the imagined future is not one in which the human student will finally speak, but rather one in which God will act to rectify a world that has approached the limits of a proverbial worldview. So, Psalm 37, while displaying significant attachments to the biblical wisdom tradition, also diverges from the content of the parental imperative that initiates the education of the proverbial son. The content of the speaker’s imperatives and indicative discourse takes a theological turn towards a vertically oriented answer. However, the speaker also says nothing explicit here about the place of vertically oriented address in the establishment or maintenance of this vision of the future. Because of this, instruction remains primarily a human enterprise with respect to the mode of speech. Still, verses 30–31 intimate the significance of Torah, or divine instruction, for the righteous one by describing the wise words of the righteous individual who has God’s teaching within his/her heart. These two verses echo Psalm 1:2 terminologically, but use parallel terms distinctively. In Psalm 37:30, the human speaker extols the mouth of the righteous individual who utters/‫ הגה‬wisdom/‫חכמה‬. Unlike Psalm 1:2, the use of the term ‫ הגה‬here has a communicative nuance, as it is set in parallel with ‫דבר‬. In other words, Psalm 37:30 suggests that the righteous individual speaks wisdom to another person, rather than simply reciting it aloud to him/herself as in Psalm 1:2.76 Verse 31, once again as in Psalm 1:2, refers to the divine instruction of ‫ תורה‬that resides in the heart of the individual who speaks wisdom and walks confidently the path of righteousness.77 Wise speech is therefore a matter of human tongue and divinely illuminated heart. Overall, these two verses substantiate the authority of the speaker and allude to the divine source of human pedagogical discourse. So, while the psalm departs from its proverbial resonances and calls for a refraining from activity and a future oriented trusting that relies on divine agency, the mode of speech as such relies entirely on the human words of the human speaker. Verse 31 refers to the human mouth/‫ פי‬and the human tongue/‫ לשׁון‬as the purveyors of the wisdom that is also justice/‫משׁפט‬. Torah is the inner, divine source of the righteous individual’s outwardly directed human speech. For the individual called to hear and heed the psalmist’s exhortations, the implied exhortation of this third-person passage lies in the cultivation of a heart oriented towards the divine word. It also functions as an implicit exhortation to speech, since verse 30 identifies the righteous individual righteous than on their general conduct.” It is indeed a matter of emphasis, since, as noted, the psalm includes the general exhortations to “do good” (vss. 3, 27). 76 This is against the reading of Kraus (Psalms 1–59, 407), who reads this verse with Ps 1 and contends that the speaker in Ps 37:30 “speaks ‫ חכמה‬to himself.” 77 Verse 4 also contains the term ‫ לב‬as well, once again in reference to the relationship between God and the righteous individual, here addressed directly.

146

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

as the one who speaks. This call for speech is a call to emulate the discourse of the speaker, which these verses affirm. These two verses intimate the human-divine interplay that frequently accompanies the language of instruction in the psalms, but ultimately the psalm remains couched in the pedagogical mechanism of human speech. Didactic Profile of Psalm 37 within its Immediate Context The inter-human monologue of Psalm 37 contributes to an extended treatment of related themes that close the first book of the Psalter. Psalm 37 stands in the midst of what several scholars have identified as the final group of seven psalms of Book I, namely Psalms 35–41.78 This strong lexical and thematic 78 Gianni Barbiero divides Book I into four distinct units, namely Pss 3–14, 15–24, 25– 34, and 35–41, in addition to the introductory “Buchprolog” of Psalms 1–2. See his Das Erste Psalmenbuch als Einheit: Eine Synchrone Analyse von Psalm 1–41. This division is widely accepted by other scholars, due to lexical, thematic, and structural indicators. Pss 15–24 exhibit a clear chiastic structure while the acrostics Pss 25 and 34 frame the following unit of psalms. This, of course, leaves Pss 35–41 as the first book’s final unit, which has received less attention but shows strong indications of literary cohesion as well. For scholars who accept this fourfold division, see Eleuterio Ramón Ruiz, “El silencio en el primer libro del Salterio (Salmos 1–41). Primer aparte,” RevistB 67 (2005): 31–83; H. Bellinger Jr. “Reading from the Beginning (Again): The Shape of Book I of the Psalter,” 122; Daniel Owens, Portraits of the Righteous in the Psalms: An Exploration of the Ethics of Book I (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2013), 195. On Pss 3–14 as a unit, see Friedhelm Hartenstein, “`Schaffe mir Recht, JHWH!' (Psalm 7,9): Zum theologischen und anthropologischen Profil der Teilkomposition Psalm 3–14,” in The Composition of the Book of Psalms (ed. Erich Zenger; BETL 238; Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 229–258; Andrea Beyer, “Vom Traumorakel zum Morgenlied: Literarkritische und kompositionsgeschichtliche Erwägungen zur Textgeschichte von Psalm 3,” BN 144 (2010): 71–85. On Pss 15–24 as a unit, see Pierre Auffret, Le sagesse a bâti sa maison: Études de structures littéraires dans l'Ancien Testament et spécialement dans les psaumes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 407–438; Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, “‘Wer darf hinaufziehen zum Berg YHWHs?’: Zur Redaktionsgeschichte und Theologie der Psalmengruppe 15–24,” in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Für Norbert Lohfink, SJ (ed. Georg Braulik; Vienna: Herder, 1993), 166–182; Patrick Miller, “Kingship, Obedience, and Prayer: The Theology of Psalms 15–24,” in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung (eds. Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger; HBS 1; Freiburg: Herder, 1994): 127– 142; William P. Brown, “‘Here Comes the Sun!’: The Metaphorical Theology of Psalms 15–24,” in The Composition of the Book of Psalms (ed. Erich Zenger; BETL 238; Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 259–277; Philip Sumpter, “The Coherence of Psalms 15–24,” Bib 94 (2013): 186–219. On Pss 25–34 as a unit, see Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, “‘Von seinem Thronsitz schaut er nieder auf alle Bewohner der Erde’ (Ps 33,14): Redaktionsgeschichte und Kompositionskritik der Psalmengruppe 25–34,” in ‘Wer ist wie du, HERR, unter den Göttern?’: Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte für Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. Ingo Kottsieper; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 375–388; Norbert Lohfink, “Die Bundesformel in Psalm 33,” in Der Gott Israels

1. “Be Silent and Wait for the Lord”: Psalm 37

147

links exhibited by this group of psalms suggest that not only are the relationships among them meaningful, but that they form a significant literary unit. Gianni Barbiero, in his research on the shape of Book I, exhaustively identifies these links and his detailed work provides an invaluable foundation for understanding Psalm 37 in its canonical context.79 The following analysis focuses specifically on the transformative effect that associations among psalms can have on our understanding of the instructive function of Psalm 37, and the dynamic relationship between speaker and audience that develops when one interprets the psalm within its immediate surroundings. Overall, Psalms 35–41 contextualize the human teacher’s lesson in Psalm 37 by addressing different threats to its authenticity, and again describing and modeling vertical encounter as the legitimate response to crisis when human words do not fully suffice. The predominance of lament language in Psalms 35–41 no doubt conditions the function of Psalm 37.80 Psalms 35, 36:11–13, 38, 39, and 40:12–18 are categorized as individual lament.81 A hymnic passage appears in Psalm 36:6–10.82 Thanksgiving completes the unit in Psalms 40:2–11 and 41.83 In addition to Psalm 37, this group of psalms also includes wisdom elements in Psalms 36:2–5, 39:5–7, 40:5–6, and 41:2–4.84 This group of psalms therefore presents varied styles of poetry, and shows a high concentration of wisdom associations in relation to the emphasis on lament in Book I as a whole. Formally, then, Psalm 37 contrasts with its most immediate neighbors, namely the laments of Psalms 36:11–13 and 38, but also stands in close proximity to other sapiential references in this group. Key themes and terminology within Psalm 37 find prominent echoes throughout this collection, substantiating the notion that the horizontal discourse of Psalm 37 stands within a meaningfully shaped series of psalms. The focus on trust and abandonment to divine deliverance in Psalm 37 winds und die Völker: Untersuchungen zum Jesajabuch und zu den Psalmen (SBS 154; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994), 84–116. 79 Barbiero, Das Erste Psalmenbuch als Einheit, 543–718. 80 Barbiero (Ibid., 544) identifies the genres of these psalms a bit differently than Gunkel and sees a palindrome structure with regard to form: lament (Ps 35) – hymn (Ps 36) – instruction (Ps 37) – lament (Ps 38) – reflection (Ps 39) – thanksgiving (Ps 40) – lament (Ps 41). 81 Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 121, 137. 82 Ibid., 22; See also Dahood, Psalms 1–50, 218. 83 Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 199. Gunkel lists Ps 40:2–12 here as the thanksgiving, but earlier (p. 120) he cites vs. 12 as an individual complaint that acts as “the conclusion of thanksgiving songs in smaller passages.” 84 Murphy, “Consideration of the Classification,” 165. Dahood (Psalms 1–50, 218) identifies wisdom elements in Ps 36:2–5, but Gunkel (Introduction to the Psalms, 121) sees these verses rather as the individual lament portion of a mixed psalm and Murphy does not include these verses in his list of wisdom elements either.

148

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

through this collection as different threats to the psalmist’s salvation materialize. Psalm 35 focuses intensely on the threat of external enemies who rejoice at the psalmist’s suffering (vss. 15–16, 19–21, 25–26). Psalm 36 shows a kinship with wisdom poetry in its overarching emphasis on the contrast between the righteous and the wicked, while also containing an extended prayer in verses 6–12. This psalm, like its predecessor, describes external evildoers who ultimately fall by the hand of God (vs. 13). The psalmist’s certainty regarding the fate of these evildoers in Psalm 36:13 carries into Psalm 37, where the contrast between the righteous and the wicked becomes the primary subject matter. Rather than being an immediate and personal threat to the psalmist, the wicked become the object of the reflections and exhortations of the psalmist-teacher in Psalm 37. Some sense of conclusion regarding the fate of the wicked seems established in Psalm 37, due to the exhortative and prescriptive mode of the speaker’s discourse. Thus, the continuity of the subject matter in Psalms 35–36 and Psalm 37 contrasts with a discontinuity in the speaker’s perspective.85 Following the continuing focus on this contrast between the righteous and the wicked in Psalm 37, Psalm 38 shifts away from human enemies toward the divine arrows/‫ חץ‬and blows/‫ יד‬that result from the psalmist’s own iniquities (vss. 2–3). This picks up on the language of Psalm 37:14–15 but redefines the author of the attacks; in Psalm 37, it is the wicked’s swords/‫ חרב‬and bows/‫ קשׁת‬that afflict the righteous. In addition, the “I,” only present in isolated verses in Psalm 37, enters forcefully once again in Psalm 38 by addressing his/her sufferings to the divine “Thou,” who not only afflicts but also provides relief (vs. 16). This shift is a dramatic alteration of the speaker’s perspective and, obviously, the identity of the audience. Psalm 38 introduces doubt into the rhetoric of confidence that guides Psalm 37. The references to the speaker’s sin and iniquity (Ps 38:4–6, 19) indicate that the source of the speaker’s trouble is no longer the wealthy enemies, but rather something personal and internal. Psalm 38 introduces the possibility that the reason for life’s brutal inequities lies within the speaker, that the “I” has somehow failed at righteousness. If this is the case, an eschatological appeal to the future activity of a God who is present to the righteous, as one finds in Psalm 37, will no longer solve the speaker’s anxieties about the disconnect between proverbial promises and actual experience. The confident answers of Psalm 37 thus prove inadequate, at some level, to the complex experience of the 85

The basic assumption of this study is that the identity of the psalmist remains consistent while giving voice to differentiated human experiences and playing different roles in relation to the audience. In other words, the speaker/supplicant is likewise the speaker/teacher and the speaker who gives thanks. This contrasts with the work of, for example, Carleen Mandolfo. As noted in previous chapters, she sees two or more voices present even within individual psalms, primarily lament psalms. See her God in the Dock: Dialogic Tension in the Psalms of Lament, 2002.

1. “Be Silent and Wait for the Lord”: Psalm 37

149

speaker in Psalm 38. Psalm 39 continues to stress personal sin and agony in relation to divine blows (vss. 10–11), and once again employs the “I/Thou” address as a response to this crisis (vss. 8–14, quoted prayer in vss. 5–6). Psalms 40 and 41 both transition away from lament into thanksgiving, which accentuates the reality of divine response to human entreaty. Horizontal speech once again enters the scene (Pss. 40:1–5 41:1–10 [quoted prayer in vs. 5]), mixed with continued vertical address. In these last two thanksgiving psalms, the function of horizontal speech has a testimonial function distinct from the instructional discourse of Psalm 37. Taken together, this unit of seven psalms marks the complex and changeable passage of human suffering (both external and internal) in relation to divine deliverance. Within this unified theme, the relationship between speaker and addressee shows considerable shifts. Abandonment to divine word and action, a prevalent notion in the human exhortations of Psalm 37, characterizes the human response to threat throughout the collection. References to divine deliverance, from both external enemies and internal anguish, appear in verb form in Psalms 36:7 and 37:40 (‫ )ישׁע‬while the noun appears in Psalms 37:39, 38:23, 40:11, and 40:17 (‫)תשׁועה‬. One also finds the hiphil of ‫ נצל‬in Psalms 35:10, 39:9, and 40:14. The language of trust (‫בטח‬, see Pss 37:3, 5; 40:4, 5; 41:10),86 abandonment (‫עזב‬, see Pss 37:8, 25, 28, 33; 38:11, 22; 40:13),87 and waiting (‫קוה‬, see Pss 37:9, 34; 39:8; 40:2 [2x]) occur throughout the collection.88 Psalm 36:8 refers to humanity/‫בני אדם‬, who seek refuge (‫ )חסה‬in the “shadow of Your wings,” while the plural righteous are described as those seek refuge (‫ )חסה‬in God in Psalm 37:40. Psalm 37:40 also uses the imperfect verbal form of the root ‫פלט‬ to describe divine rescue of the righteous. This term recurs in Psalm 40:18, when the psalmist addresses God as “my rescuer” (‫)מפלטי‬.89 The focus on divine agency in Psalm 37 thus resonates with the overall approach to human suffering within this unit of psalms. However, unlike the speaker/teacher of Psalm 37, the supplicant (Pss 35–36, 38) and the giver of thanks (Pss 40–41) actively undertake the time of waiting and trusting by engaging in vertical address to the divine. 86

In 41:10, the psalmist cannot trust/‫ בטח‬in his false friend, but turns to God in the following vs. 11 as the source of mercy and support. 87 The instances of the term ‫ עזב‬refer both to the righteous abandonment of anger (Ps 37:8), the impossibility of divine abandonment (Ps 38:25, 28, 33), and a vertical plea to God not to abandon the speaker (Ps 38:22). Ps 38:11 describes the psalmist’s inner torment, literally that “My mind has abandoned me” while Ps 40:13 similarly states that “My heart has abandoned me.” Taken together, the occurrences of the term set forth the idea that, while human faculties are unreliable, God is not. 88 Each instance of this term refers to waiting/hoping in the Lord. 89 Other terms of refuge and help occur frequently in the collection but do not occur in Ps 37, which is the focus here. See, for example, ‫ עזרה‬in Pss 35:2; 38:23; 40:14, 18.

150

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

Another key term in Psalm 37, namely way/‫( דרך‬vss. 5, 7, 14 [2x], 23, 34), ties the psalm’s didactic proclivities with the surrounding language of lament.90 In Psalm 37, the speaker exhorts the audience to “direct your way (‫ )דרך‬to the Lord” (vs. 5) in contrast with the prosperous wicked, whose way/‫ דרך‬consists of scheming wickedness (vs. 7). The psalmist likewise uses the root ‫ דרך‬in verse 14 to contrast the violent way of the wicked who slaughter those on the way of righteousness. Verses 23 and 34 introduce the way/‫ דרך‬of the Lord, that is, the way of firm footing, delight, and the future inheritance of the land.91 Therefore, within Psalm 37 alone, the term signifies the righteous passage into divine pathways. Its predecessor, Psalm 35:6, focuses unsurprisingly on the way/‫ דרך‬of the external enemies, with a jussive plea that it might be “dark and slippery.” Likewise, Psalm 36:5 depicts the evil individual plotting an evil way/‫ דרך‬while in bed. In Psalm 39:2, the psalmist resolves to “keep my ways (‫ )דרכי‬from sinning with my tongue” before the wicked, which emphasizes the deeper danger here, namely that the psalmist cannot discern whether he/she is righteous.92 Within this context, Psalm 37 represents a transition point in this collection’s exploration of the proper way/‫ דרך‬to take. It stands between the external enemies of Psalms 35– 36 and the internalized anguish of Psalms 38–39, offering an answer to both, namely the way/‫ דרך‬of the Lord. In addition to such lexical links, short passages in Psalms 35–41 echo the wisdom characteristics of Psalm 37, further integrating Psalm 37 into its context and transforming its pedagogical profile. Psalm 36:2–5 offers a primarily third-person meditation on the words and the thoughts of the wicked individual. It sets up the preoccupation with the wicked in Psalm 37, as well as its extensive use of third-person reflection. Psalm 39, as a whole, has a reflective tone and verses 5–7 appeal to the fleeting nature of life in a way reminiscent of Qoheleth, with the twofold use of the term ‫ הבל‬in verses 6–7.93 However, this seemingly sapiential meditation takes the form of explicit address to God 90

On the relationship between the terms ‫ דרך‬and ‫תורה‬, see Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 320–

321.

91

The concept of one’s footing, firm or not, appears in Ps 37 and elsewhere in this group of psalms. Ps 36:13 images the evildoers as the fallen, those unable to rise. In Ps 37:23–24, the speaker declares that God steadies the steps of the righteous individual, who may stumble, but will not fall. Again, in Ps 37:31, the speaker affirms that the steps of the one who has the divine Torah in his/her heart will not slip. Ps 38:17 shows the contrasting perspective of the supplicant, who fears that the enemies will rejoice if his/her foot gives way, while Ps 40:3 offers a first person testimony that the Lord “set my feet on a cliff, steadied my steps.” 92 Ps 19:13–14 explicitly states this fear. 93 In contrast with Murphy (“Consideration of the Classification,” 165), Gunkel (Introduction to the Psalms, 295) only identifies vss. 6–7 as the wisdom element. Kraus (Psalms 1–59, 416–417) sees vss. 1–3 as “biographical stylization” in the manner that one finds in Ps 37. Gerstenberger (Psalms, Part 1, 167) classifies Ps 39 as a “meditative prayer.”

1. “Be Silent and Wait for the Lord”: Psalm 37

151

in verses 5–6, and implied address to God in verse 7 (third-person speech bracketed by vertically oriented address in vss. 6 and 8). Psalm 40:5–6 begins with an ‫ אשׁרי‬saying that emphasizes the happiness of the one who trusts in the Lord rather than those who are arrogant and false. This picks up on the main substance of the exhortations of Psalm 37, and Psalm 40 similarly uses horizontally oriented speech in verse 5 before turning to vertical address in verse 6.94 Psalm 41:2–4 begins with another ‫ אשׁרי‬clause and proceeds with a third-person, horizontally oriented reflection about the individual who cares for the weak.95 These fragments of sapiential speech further authenticate the relationships that build between Psalm 37 and its surrounding psalms and demonstrate the close integration of wisdom speech and vertical speech. In Psalm 39, the pairing of Qoheleth-like discourse with vertical address reveals a particular response to the psalmist’s confrontation with his/her own potential failure to be righteous, a crisis outlined in Psalm 38. In Psalm 39:2–4, the psalmist relates the resolve to be silent before the wicked individual despite suffering a great deal. In other words, the speaker explicitly acknowledges that horizontally oriented speech cannot solve the problem at hand. This difficult situation necessitates a move into vertical speech, a move that the psalmist concedes in verse 5. The sapiential nuances of verses 5–7 therefore are expressed in the midst of a vertical discourse specifically initiated in response to the inadequacy of horizontal speech, the communicative home base of biblical wisdom. Verse 8 characterizes this move to vertical address according to the activity of waiting/‫ קוה‬so important in the sapiential and horizontal urgings of Psalm 37. The significant attention to the act of speech as such in Psalms 35–41 shows a self-conscious consideration of this dynamic interplay of vertical and horizontal communication. The terms for mouth (‫ )פה‬and tongue (‫ )לשׁון‬appear multiple times throughout the collection in reference to the act of speech. 96 In Psalms 35:21 and 36:4, the mouths of the psalmist’s enemies mock the psalmist and speak evil and deceiving words. Speech is primarily a matter of 94 Verse 6 contains little to suggest that it is a wisdom element, except that it seems to conclude the thought of the ‫ אשׁרי‬clause in vs. 5. 95 J. Clinton McCann analyzes the twenty-five beatitudes, or ‫ אשׁרי‬sayings, found in the Psalter, and focuses particularly on those found in Book I. He points out that both the first two and the last two psalms of the Book I include beatitudes. In relation to J.L. Mays’ understanding of the Psalter, McCann sees the placement of these beatitudes as a meaningful framing device geared towards guiding readers to a “happy” life. See his “The Shape of Book I of the Psalter and the Shape of Human Happiness,” in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (eds. Peter W. Flint and Patrick D Miller; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 340– 348. 96 ‫ פה‬occurs in Pss 35:21; 36:4; 37:30; 38:14–15; 39:2, 10; 40:4. ‫ לשׁין‬occurs in Pss 35:28; 37:30; 39:2, 4.

152

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

external threat here, though in Psalm 35:28, the speaker does reference using the “tongue” to praise God’s acts in the midst of a prayer.97 In other words, the mocking and evil words of the wicked are contrasted with the right use of the tongue, which Psalm 35:28 reveals as the vertically oriented words of praise. In the inter-human instructions of Psalm 37, the mouth/‫ פה‬and tongue/‫ לשׁון‬speak wisdom and what is right (vs. 30) because the divine Torah lives in the heart. The shift in the speaker’s perspective in Psalm 37 becomes a shift in the depiction of the act of speech; confident speech arises when one’s heart is aligned with God’s instruction. The strong lexical connection between Psalm 35:27–28 and Psalm 37:30 illuminates a further communicative dynamic here, namely the relationship between third-person hymnic speech and third-person wisdom speech. In Psalm 35:28, in the midst of vertical speech, the psalmist states that “my tongue (‫ )לשׁון‬will recite (‫ )הגה‬Your righteousness (‫ ”)צדקָך‬and “Your praise” (‫ )תהלתָך‬all day. This verse ties the speaker’s prayer and praise with the thirdperson reflection on the righteous expressed in Psalm 37:30 that likewise uses the terms ‫ לשׁון‬and ‫הגה‬. However, in Psalm 37:30, the speaker-teacher declares that the righteous person utters/‫ הגה‬wisdom/‫חכמה‬. The use of ‫ הגה‬in both places ties praise speech with wisdom speech, as it occurs within the Psalter. This connection confers a vertical sensibility on the third-person declarations about God’s actions of deliverance in Psalm 37. The declarations (e.g. vss. 17–18, 39–40) function as wisdom speech within the context of the individual psalm that exhorts, admonishes and maintains a horizontal orientation throughout. Yet, grammatically, nothing distinguishes such statements from similar theological declarations in hymnic speech. Therefore, within the larger context of this series of psalms, these third-person theological statements in Psalm 37 straddle the fence between wisdom discourse and the praise language toward which this group of psalms advances. Within this series of psalms, Psalm 35:27–28 introduces a hymnic sensibility, a vertical nuance, into third-person wisdom discourse of Psalm 37. With regard to the progression of this series of psalms, as the wise confidence of Psalm 37 collapses beneath the weight of the speaker’s internal doubts in Psalms 38 and 39, so too does the depiction of human speech. In Psalm 38:14–15, the psalmist is rendered speechless in relation to individualized doubts about his/her standing before God. God is the one who must speak and answer/‫ענה‬, while the psalmist waits (‫יחל‬, vs. 16). Unlike Psalm 37, the speaker raises the issue of not-speaking in the midst of a first-person speech to God (established in vss. 10 and 16). As noted above, this notspeaking reemerges in Psalm 39, but takes on a new dimension. The enemies 97

Though debatable, it is likely that vs. 28 refers to a future possibility, a point at which God has vindicated the psalmist from his/her enemies (a reality not yet present). This verse then looks forward to Ps 40:4, which has a different time frame, as will be shown.

1. “Be Silent and Wait for the Lord”: Psalm 37

153

surface again as those before whom the speaker keeps silent, in order not to offend (vss. 2–3).98 The speaker quotes a prayer that he/she “spoke out” (‫דברתי בלשׁוני‬, vs. 4) to God in the midst of this internal suffering and ultimately blames God in Psalm 39:10 for not being able to speak. This accusation regarding the silencing effect of divine blows (Ps 39:11) reveals a progression; the psalmist’s silence is provoked first by his/her enemies, second by his/her sins, and finally by God. In the midst of this development stands the exhortation in Psalm 37:7 to “Be silent (‫ )דמם‬and wait for the Lord.” The call to silence/stillness (Ps 37:7) and the stated resolve not to speak in the midst of one’s enemies (Ps 39:2) does not, however, halt the psalmist’s speech altogether, but rather precipitates the speaker’s prayer (Ps 39:13–14). This prayer receives its answer in the transition from Psalm 39 to Psalm 40. In the first verses of the latter, the psalmist declares that this waiting ( ‫קוה‬ ‫)קויתי‬, manifested in the act of crying out for help (‫)שׁועה‬, ultimately led to a divine hearing (Ps 40:2). In other words, this verse indicates that the act of waiting/‫קוה‬, so significant a part of this series of psalms, involves the human cry (‫ )שׁועה‬to God that predominates in the laments of Psalm 35–41. When the confidence that generates the discourse of “waiting” in Psalm 37 dissipates beneath the weight of doubt about one’s own standing before God, the act of waiting and the vertical act of crying out become equivalent. The divine hearing that results finally allows the speaker to sing a hymn to “our God” in Psalm 40:4. This corporate reference in verse 4ab aligns well with verse 4cd, when the speaker declares that it is a singing that leads others to trust in the Lord. This verse in Psalm 40 recalls Psalm 35:27–28, which refers to hymnic speech as a future possibility, foreshadowing the conclusion of this series’ progressive exploration of speech. This series of psalms makes yet another shift in its presentation of the act of speech in Psalm 40:6, where the speaker avers that the acts of God lie beyond the possibilities of human speech, too numerous to declare/‫ נגד‬and to speak/‫דבר‬. This statement regarding the impossibility of declaration occurs in the midst of a vertical address that culminates in the speaker’s entrance into proclamation in verse 10 despite the stated impossibility of capturing all of God’s acts: I heralded righteousness in a great congregation, I will not close my lips, Oh Lord, You know. Your righteousness I did not conceal in my heart, Your faithfulness and your deliverance I spoke, I did not hide your steadfast truth from the great congregation. (Ps 40:10–11) 98 The noun form ‫ דומיה‬used here in Ps 39:3 echoes the verbal form of ‫ דמם‬used in Ps 37:7 when the speaker exhorts the audience to “Be silent/patient and wait for the Lord.” The verbal form of the root also appears in Ps 35:15 to describe the activity of the enemies who tear at the psalmist without rest.

154

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

Here, the emphasis on speech throughout the collection, rendered as ‫ תהלה‬in Psalm 35 and ‫ הכמה‬in Psalm 37, comes to a conclusion. The invitation to do as the speaker does, namely engage in praise speech, is even explicitly rendered in Psalm 40:17, which states, Let all who seek You exult and rejoice in you, Let those who love Your deliverance always say, “The Lord is great!” (Ps 40:17)

Wise speech, shaped by the personalized speech of suffering, supplication, and divine hearing, ultimately becomes the speech of praise spoken within the congregation, and an invitation to that congregation to speak and sing likewise. The relationships that build among these psalms impart a vertical sensibility to the wise words of the speaker-teacher of Psalm 37 and inevitably condition their pedagogical function. The concluding Psalm 41 further defines the way that lexical and thematic links among psalms interact with shifting communicative situations. In addition to its connection with sapiential speech, Psalm 41:2–4 brings together the image of deliverance in the land found in Psalm 37 with the “I” figure who dominates this set of psalms overall. In Psalm 41:3, after an ‫ אשׁרי‬clause that praises the one who sees the poor, the psalm follows with the jussive, “May he be called happy in the land.” This verse implores that such a person, potentially subject to the “will of his enemies” (vs. 3) and lying on his sickbed (vs. 4), may be happy in the land.99 Thus, the persistently addressed “you” of Psalm 37 is, in Psalm 41:2–4, described as a “he” who rather remarkably resembles the “I” who recounts various sufferings in the laments and thanksgivings of Psalms 35–41. In this way, Psalm 41:2–4 picks up both the themes of suffering (at the hands of enemies and personalized anguish on a sickbed) and deliverance in the land that thread the collection. Verse 5 adds also the familiar theme of the psalmist’s sin and need for healing. The righteous individual who will inherit the land in Psalm 37 is here equated with the anguished individual who suffers both because of external enemies and personalized wretchedness. The lexical, thematic and theological coherence of Psalm 37 and its surrounding psalms reveals that communicative shifts among this collection likewise feature a meaningful development and shape. This series of psalms offers a first person portrait of the righteous life, and the proper response in the time of waiting and deliverance depicted in Psalm 37. The surrounding psalms lend specificity to the shape of this waiting by presenting the experi99 Psalm 35:20 also references the land, and pits the deceitful words of the enemies against the “quiet ones of the land.” From the beginning of the collection, the land is associated with the persecuted righteous who endure the deceitful speech of the wicked. Thus, at the beginning and conclusion of this collection of psalms, the future life of the vindicated righteous in the land plays a role, further supporting the meaningful integration of Ps 37 within this collection.

3. “Hear This…My Mouth Utters Wisdom”: Psalm 49

155

ences of the poor and suffering “I,” whose abandonment to divine deliverance takes the very particular and active form of verbal, vertical address when horizontal speech is found to be inadequate. It is a movement into the singing of a “hymn to our God” (Ps 40:4), predicated on hearing the exhortations of the human teacher and speaking the anguished words of supplication. The ugly words of the external enemies, and the inner stifling that leads to personal silence, become transformed into a song of praise within the congregation. In this way, the humanly rendered, didactic call to be righteous in Psalm 37 is only part of a larger call to inhabit the experience of the “I” who suffers, waits, trusts, addresses God, and is answered. This series of psalms exemplifies the psalmic pattern of invitation to both listen and speak, to sustain shifting identifications with not only the “you” and the “I,” but also the “we.” Within this framework, human teaching involves not only exhortation and description, but modeled expression of how to enter into communicative life with the God who hears, responds, and is worthy of praise.

3. “Hear This…My Mouth Utters Wisdom”: Psalm 49 3. “Hear This…My Mouth Utters Wisdom”: Psalm 49

Didactic Profile of Psalm 49 as an Individual Composition Like Psalm 37, Psalm 49 is one of the most universally acknowledged pieces of “wisdom poetry” in the Psalter, yet once again, this poem has a distinctive profile.100 Psalm 49 is also perhaps one of the most difficult psalms to interpret, both because of its preoccupation with death and the numerous textual difficulties that render analysis problematic.101 Scholars have introduced various and plural emendations into the text to deal with obscure phraseology and seeming disparities in poetic terminology and syntax.102 What is clear is

100

For scholars who characterize Ps 49 as a wisdom psalm, see Gunkel, Psalms, 299; Mowinckel, Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 111; Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 480; Weiser, The Psalms, 385; Dahood, Psalms 1–150, 296; Murphy, “Consideration of the Classification,” 158; Kuntz, “Canonical Wisdom Psalms,” 190. Irsigler (“Quest for Justice as Reconciliation of the Poor and the Righteous in Psalms 37, 49, and 73,” 598) writes that the poem is “a model specimen of an appellative sapiential instructive speech, still more distinctly than Psalm 37.” 101 One of the most commented upon difficulties of the psalm is the slight difference in the wording of the nearly identical vss. 13 and 21, with the switch from ‫ ילין‬to ‫יבין‬, which raises the question of whether these two verses indeed represent a refrain. 102 Pierre Casetti influentially argues that the psalm exists in two parts. First, the original psalm, or Grundpsalm, is represented in vss. 11–15 and 21. Verses 6–10, 16–20, and an introduction (vss. 1–5) were added to the psalm at a later stage. See Pierre Casetti, Gibt es ein Leben vor dem Tod? Eine Auslegung von Psalm 49 (OBO 44; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck

156

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

that the psalm deals with the division between the wicked/wealthy and the righteous in relation to the fact of death as such. Moreover, the psalm maintains a horizontal directionality throughout, with no reference to vertical speech or discernible shift in audience. This latter characteristic, at the very least, distinguishes Psalm 49 from traditional psalm genres that typically appeal to some kind of vertical encounter. Terminological and thematic connections tie the psalm not only to the book of Proverbs, but even more substantially to the book of Qoheleth, the sage most preoccupied with the fact of death and its reign over the meanings of various kinds of lives.103 First, Psalm 49 moves beyond the third-person discourse of Psalm 1 and the exhortative language of Psalm 37 with its vibrant introductory call to learn (vss. 1–5) that governs the relationship between the speaker and audience throughout the poem. This call shares significant links with biblical wisdom while also including several unique characteristics. Like the proverbial father, the psalmist demands that his/her audience hear or listen with the plural imperative of ‫ שׁמע‬in verse 2a.104 Along with the parallel demand in verse 2b to the plural audience to “give ear” (‫)האזינו‬, this verse initially sounds like nothing more than a poetic reiteration of a wisdom call. However, the hiphil of ‫אזן‬, as it appears here, only occurs once in the book of Proverbs in a third-person saying very different from a parental address or call to learn (Prov 17:4). Instead, one finds more comparable uses of the term elsewhere in the biblical canon.105 The two terms occur in parallel in und Ruprecht, 1982). For a full summary of Casetti’s argument, see Isak J.J. Spangenberg “Constructing a Historical Context for Psalm 49,” OTE 20.1 (2007): 202. 103 See Isak J.J. Spangenberg, “Psalm 49 and the Book of Qoheleth,” SK 18(2) (1997): 328–344. On the subject of death in the book of Ecclesiastes, see James Crenshaw, “The Shadow of Death in Qoheleth,” in Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien (ed. J.G. Gammie; Missoula: Scholar’s Press, 1978), 205–216; Franz Kutschera, “Kohelet: Leben im Angesicht des Todes,” in Das Buch Kohelet: Studien zur Struktur, Geschichte, Rezeption und Theologie (ed. Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberber; BZAW 254; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 363–376; Alison Lo, “Death in Qohelet,” JANES 31 (2008): 85–98. On the subject of death more generally in biblical wisdom, see Roland Murphy, “Death and Afterlife in the Wisdom Literature,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity Part 4: Death, Life-After Death, Resurrection and the World-to-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity (eds. Jacob Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck, and Bruce Chilton; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 101–116. 104 Gunkel (Introduction to the Psalms, 300) sees this call to “hear” as wisdom. David J. Pleins likewise argues that the call to “hear” in the introduction points to “wisdom’s proper mode of reception.” See his “Death and Endurance: Reassessing the Literary Structure and Theology of Psalm 49,” JSOT 69 (1996): 19–27. 105 The hiphil of ‫ אזן‬occurs several times in the book of Job (9:16; 32:11; 33:1; 37:14) but only once in a parallel construction with ‫ שׁמע‬in 34:16, when Elihu says to Job, “If you would understand, hear this; give ear to my speech.” The narrative structure and identity of the individual speaker and audience here distinguishes this occurrence from the text in Ps 49.

3. “Hear This…My Mouth Utters Wisdom”: Psalm 49

157

several prophetic texts, particularly the book of Isaiah.106 Perhaps most telling are the occurrences of these two terms in parallel in Psalms 17:1, 39:13, 54:4, 84:9, and 143:1. In each of these instances, the plea to “hear” and “give ear” is directed not to a human audience, but to God. This highlights the singular usage of the two terms in Psalm 49, while also exposing the more dominant context for the use of these parallel terms within the Psalter, namely within the context of vertical address. With regard to the introduction of Psalm 49, the psalmist also magnifies the identity of the audience much beyond the proverbial student-child despite the familiar call to learn. The psalm begins with plural imperatives and vocatives that establish the universal character of the human audience (vs. 2). This is a global cry to all people (‫)כל־העמים‬, all those who inhabit the earth ( ‫כל־ישׁבי‬ ‫)חלד‬, to listen and to give ear, to aurally receive the wise words that will follow.107 As stated in verse 3, this includes both the ‫ בני אדם‬and the ‫בני אישׁ‬, and both the rich/‫ עשׁיר‬and the poor/‫ אביון‬together. The speaker’s identification of the audience thus elevates the rhetoric of the psalm’s opening. This aspect of verses 2–3 once again finds its nearest parallels in prophetic texts. Isaiah 8:9, for example, which uses the hiphil of ‫ אזן‬in a plural imperative construction, addresses the “most distant places of earth” (‫)כל מרחקי־ארץ‬.108 Such an address more closely approximates the sense of Psalm 49:2–3 than the parental address of the proverbial instructions. Verses 4–5 of Psalm 49 boldly make use of a sapiential complex of terms, but also include further indications that Psalm 49 steps beyond any simple wisdom classification. These two verses conclude the initial call with the psalmist’s first-person identification as a speaker of wisdom/‫( חכמות‬vs. 4a), one whose inner meditation is understanding/‫( תבונות‬vs. 4b), who hears a saying/‫ משׁל‬and utters a riddle/‫( חידה‬vs. 5).109 This terminology strongly evokes the vocabulary of the prologue in Proverbs 1, where one likewise finds the terms ‫( משׁל‬vss. 1, 6), ‫( הכמה‬vss. 2, 7), and the root ‫( בין‬vss. 2, 5, 6). 106

Isa 1:10; 28:23; 32:9; 42:23; 64:3. See also Deut 32:1–3; Je 13:15; Ho 5:1; Joel 1:2. Weiser (Psalms, 386) rather whimsically notes that, “The opening of the song is characterized by verbosity and pretentiousness, the distinguishing marks of a didactic poem.” Roland Murphy (“Consideration of the Classification,” 162) likens the introductory verses to the preaching of Lady Wisdom in the streets (Prov 6), though of course she herself does not appear here. 108 See also a text such as Isa1:10, which uses the parallel imperative to “hear!” and “give ear!” and addresses the nations. While the audience differs from Ps 49:2–3, the prophet Isaiah’s global perspective likewise indicates an elevated kind of rhetoric. Kraus (Psalms 1–59, 480) cites Deut 32:1 (address to the heavens and the earth) and Isa 28:23 as similar kinds of didactic introductions, though neither exactly approximates the audience of Ps 49:2 either. 109 The plural ‫ חכמות‬appears elsewhere only in Judg 5:29; Prov 1:20; 9:1; 14:1; 24:7. Dahood (Psalms 1–50, 296–297) contends that the plural is a Phoenician form, ḥkmṭ, of the Hebrew term in the singular. 107

158

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

Therefore, while the audience has greatly expanded in Psalm 49, the terminology of the call mimics that of the sage in that it emphasizes the link between hearing and wisdom, between a receptive ear and the inculcation of understanding.110 The overtly didactic implications of this part of the prologue in Proverbs are certainly suggestive of a parallel function for the introductory call of Psalm 49.111 However, the riddling speaker also declares that he/she dispenses this wisdom to the music of the lyre/‫כנור‬, a term that never appears in the book of Proverbs.112 Thus, the expansive audience and the liturgical note in verse 5 add to this sapiential mode of speech a musical and performance oriented quality that moves beyond an individually directed discourse between parent and youth. Following the introduction, the psalm delves into a difficult and often puzzling reflection on the wealthy/foolish, the wise/upright, and the fact of death. The central problem mirrors, in many ways, the central problem of Psalm 37, namely the evident disparity between the prosperous wicked and the nonprosperous upright (vss. 6–7). In Psalm 49, the psalmist approaches the problem by emphasizing the reality of death that awaits both groups (vs. 11). As noted, the psalm’s preoccupation with death immediately calls to mind the

110

Irsigler claims that vss. 4–5 have the appearance of “a kind of prophetical revelation” due to “the well known observation that in the post-exilic period the wise men by and by take over the prophet’s function.” See his “Quest for Justice as Reconciliation of the Poor and the Righteous in Psalms 37, 49, and 73,” 598. Regardless of the historical legitimacy of this claim, Irsigler’s characterization of these verses fits well with the prophetic links in vss. 2–3. 111 Scholars differ on the significance of the reference to a riddle. Leo Perdue sees the riddle as the key to the entire psalm, uniquely asserting that vs. 21 poses a riddle that is ultimately answered in vs. 13. See his “The Riddles of Psalm 49,” JBL 93 (1974): 533– 542. In contrast, Johan Coetzee discovers the answer to the psalm’s riddle (encapsulated in the rhetorical question of vs. 6) in vss. 11 and 16. See his “A Small Shift in Theological Thinking Opens a Large Window: A Rhetorical Appreciation of a Riddle in Psalm 49,” in Feet on Level Ground: A South African Tribute of Old Testament Essays in Honor of Gerhard Hasel (Berrien Springs, MI: L. Hester, 1996), 96. Other scholars dismiss the notion that the psalm has a riddle altogether. See, for example, Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 1, 204. 112 The term does appear in the book of Job in 21:12 and 30:31. Neither instance approximates the context of the introduction in Ps 49, however. Gunkel (Introduction to the Psalms, 303) argues that this element reveals that music could have accompanied wisdom poetry, though he ultimately argues that Ps 49 was not originally composed for worship. In contrast, Gerstenberger (Psalms, Part 1, 204) argues that the psalm’s introduction has little to do with wisdom, and claims that it derives from court or Temple schools. He sees vss. 4–5 as the “self-presentation of the cantor” that is “the ceremonial procedures of instruction in a worship setting.” He compares it with the opening in Ps 78, which includes a firstperson plural in vs. 3. He argues that Ps 49, though it does not include a plural first person in its opening, likewise has a communal connotation.

3. “Hear This…My Mouth Utters Wisdom”: Psalm 49

159

discourse of Qoheleth, who is similarly preoccupied.113 Verse 11 describes the wealthy man with the terms fool/‫ כסיל‬and brutishness/‫בער‬, a combination that does not appear in biblical wisdom, but can be found again in the wisdom passages of Psalms 92:7 and 94:8. The term ‫כסיל‬, as noted in chapter 3, appears only in these three psalms, and otherwise, only in the wisdom literature. Despite the strength of the initial address, the relationship between speaker and addressee is not always clear. With regard to its communicative structure, the psalm contains no explicit shifts in orientation following the initial call, but it does shift which person it emphasizes at several points. As noted, verses 1–5 introduce the expressed presence of an “I” who relates to the plural “you,” called to listen. Verse 6 continues the focus on the “I,” as the speaker engages in a rhetorical question that functions as a warning, but has the curious tone of self-address.114 However, the force of the initial address in verse 2, in conjunction with its references to performance, militates against too heavy an emphasis on the self-reflective rhetoric in the psalm. Nor do verses 7–15 suggest a particular addressee, but maintain third-person discourse, focused on the death that awaits those who are wealthy and foolish, as well as those who are wise (vs. 11). The return to first-person discourse in verse 16 represents testimonial speech, rather than self-reflection. That the imperative in verse 17 addresses a singular “you” presents a puzzle, since the initial audience is identified not only as a plural but as all those who live on earth. So, whether this “you” represents the same audience called in verses 2–3 is questionable, given the shift from plural to singular. Verses 18–21 maintain, with the possible excep113 Isak J. J. Spangenberg argues that Ps 49 was written at same time as Qoheleth. He attaches this worldview historically to the presence of what he sees as two groups of upper class in Yehud: 1) the elite who enjoyed their privileges 2) the elite who were in solidarity with the poor. Spangenberg believes that Qoheleth was a member of the first group while the author of Ps 49 was part of second group. The psalmist writes to be critical of elite oppressors and show compassion to the poor, addressing both groups throughout the course of the psalm. See his “Constructing a Historical Context for Psalm 49,” 201–214. Spangenberg amends here an earlier argument, namely that Ps 49 predates Qoheleth. See his “Psalm 49 and the Book of Qoheleth,” 328–344. 114 Johan Coetzee (“A Small Shift in Theological Thinking Opens a Large Window,” 85–87) sees vs. 6 as “intra-personal” communication, “self-persuasion” that has an “indirect” persuasive effect on the audience. He contends that the first-person singular in vs. 16 is further evidence of a self-address by which the speaker attempts to overcome his/her fear in the entirety of vss. 6–16. Moreover, Coetzee argues that the singular “you” in vs. 17 is a continuation of the speaker’s self-address, since the external audience is plural, as established vs. 2. Thus, despite the opening verses, Coetzee sees the majority of the psalm as a “self-deliberation” meant to have an indirect effect on a plural, external audience. Irsigler (“Quest for Justice as Reconciliation of the Poor and the Righteous in Psalms 37, 49, and 73,” 598), like Coetzee, sees vs. 6 as “self-encouragement” but sees vss. 17–21 as the psalmist’s address to the “oppressed man.”

160

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

tion of verse 19, a third-person discourse that describes in further detail the juxtaposition of the wicked’s wealth and the inevitability of their death.115 Thus, the communicative structure of the psalm shifts between the plural second person of verse 2, the explicitly identified first person of verses 4–6 and 16, and the singular second person revealed in the imperative of verse 17. Within this context, the relationship between the speaker and addressee straddles a divide between two different identified groups. First, if we are to take the speaker at his/her word, the psalmist addresses both the “rich and the poor together,” that is, both those condemned to a bad death and those who enjoy the favor of divine redemption (vs. 16). Beyond the introduction, the speaker does not explicitly address the former group, but as noted, uses extensive third-person discourse to describe their fate. If the initial call does hold sway over what follows, the rich are called here to listen to a discourse about themselves, a discourse that proclaims the inevitability of their disastrous end. For the wicked, then, this discourse does not exhort but rather condemns. The only other clear moment of address in verse 17 is specifically directed toward the second group, namely those poor who seemingly suffer at the hands of the prosperous wicked. Despite the universal call in verse 3, the poor righteous seem to be the true audience of the psalm. The first-person passages in verse 6 and 16 establish that the speaker identifies with this group, and the imperative in verse 17 establishes that the third-person discourse about the wealthy evildoers is meant primarily for this audience. However, the address to the poor righteous is not simply straightforward either. Like Psalm 37, this psalm negotiates the distinction between the personal and the public, the individual and corporate audiences. The juxtaposition of the initial plural address, the emphasis on the “I” in verses 6 and 16, and the singular address in verse 17 suggest the conflation of identities. With regard to the first-person passages, Gerstenberger argues here that “assertions by individuals may have communal meaning.”116 In this sense, the firstperson passages become addresses to those who can identify with the experience of the speaker. The poor can understand a speaker who has experienced trouble (vs. 6), considered its implications (vss. 8–15), and come to a conclusion for him/herself (vs. 16). The imperative in verse 17 echoes the rhetorical question in verse 6; the speaker exhorts the audience not to “fear”/‫ ירא‬the evil and the wealth of those who surround. This ties together the identities of the speaker and audience, and the invitation to the latter lies in not “fearing” by coming to understand the end of the wicked. The substance of this invitation, then, does not involve moral formation so much as recognition of the world from a particular theological perspective. The seeming prosperity of the

115 116

Verse 19 is very difficult to translate. Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 1, 204.

3. “Hear This…My Mouth Utters Wisdom”: Psalm 49

161

wicked crumbles under the weight of life’s fleetingness; only the upright who enjoy divine favor flourish in actuality. No part of this dynamic intimates the presence of a divine interlocutor because the plane of communication remains firmly horizontal. The speaker/singer demands the attention and the listening ear of the broadest possible audience, and subsequently dispenses a third-person lesson encapsulated in the imperative admonition of verses 17–18; one should not fear the wealthy, for death holds sway over his perceived glory. The speaker’s initial call brands the function of the third-person speech that prevails throughout as a discourse meant to be heard and received through the ear, and the imperative in verse 17 reestablishes the shape of this anticipated response. The lesson of this mysterious psalm flows clearly from the initial call to hear the one who speaks wisdom. So, while the psalm resonates with texts beyond the wisdom corpus, the pedagogical mechanism of human speech holds sway throughout. Didactic Profile of Psalm 49 within its Immediate Context Psalm 49 stands in the front end of Book II of the Psalter, and is one of the Korahite collection found in Psalms 42–49, 84–85, and 87–88.117 As such, the psalm has a built-in context of interpretation as part of a series of psalms attributed to specific authorship.118 However, its canonical placement introduces further relationships with its neighboring psalms. These include the Asaphite Psalm 50, and the Davidic collection that follows in Psalm 51 onward to the end of Book II.119 Psalm 49 thus stands at an undeniable redactional divide.120 Due in large part to this placement, Psalm 49 does not sit as comfortably in its context as does Psalm 37, or even Psalm 1. The lexical and 117

Psalm 43 does not have a superscription, but scholars read it with Ps 42 and so consider it part of the collection. 118 For a concise summary of the key points of the Korahite collection, see William P. Brown, Psalms (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2010), 93–94. For more detailed studies, see Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Sons of Korah (JSOTSup 20; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990); Erich Zenger, “Zur Redaktionsgeschichtlichten Bedeutung der Korachpsalmen,” in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung (eds. Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger; Herder, 1994), 175–198; Michael P. Maier, “Israel und die Völker auf dem Weg zum Gottesberg: Komposition und Intention der ersten Korachpsalmensammlung (Ps 42–49),” in The Composition of the Book of Psalms (ed. Erich Zenger; BETL 238; Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 653–665. 119 Exceptions are Pss 66 and 67, which are not attributed to a particular person, and Ps 72, which is attributed to Solomon instead of David. Gerald Wilson (Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 156) sees the placement of the Korahite psalms and Asaph psalm between the Davidic collections in the first two books as evidence that “authorship cannot be considered the primary organizational concern of the final Hebrew Psalter.” 120 Gerald Wilson (Ibid., 163) argues that the use of the term ‫ מזמור‬in Pss 47–51 “bridges this disjuncture, softens the transition that binds the collections together,” namely the Korahite and Davidic collections.

162

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

thematic links that so firmly bind Psalm 37 with its neighbors are more difficult to uncover. However, as with the previous psalms, the contextual interpretation of Psalm 49 reconfigures the shape of its invitation and call to those who would “hear” and “give ear” to the psalmist’s wisdom. From a form-critical perspective, Psalm 49 stands between a hymnic Zion psalm in Psalm 48 and a prophetic liturgy/Torah psalm in Psalm 50.121 The Korahite collection in Psalms 42–49 contains an individual lament (Pss 42– 43), a communal complaint (Ps 44), a royal psalm (Ps 45), two “eschatological Zion” psalms (Pss 46, 48), an “enthronement song” (Ps 47) and the strange wisdom of Psalm 49.122 Following the prophetic Torah psalm in Psalm 50, Psalms 51 and 52 return to the realm of individual lament.123 Thus, form-critically, a great variety surrounds Psalm 49, though wisdom elements are few. The voice of wisdom, attested to in Ps 49:4, thus assumes a unique tone, simply by way of the animated communicative environment that surrounds it. The Korahite collection in Psalms 42–49 exhibits a vibrant play of speech that treats a number of different topics and incorporates frequent shifts in the orientation of speech. Altogether this initial group of Korahite psalms includes address from God (Pss 46:11), to God (both from an individual speaker [e.g. Pss 42:2, 7–8; 43:1–4; 44:5, 7 etc.] and plural speaker [e.g. Pss 44:2, 6 etc.; 48:10–11, 15]), to the speaker’s own soul (Pss 42:6, 12; 43:5), to the human king (Ps 45:3–10, 15–18), to a princess (Ps 45:11–14), to the congregation (e.g. Ps 47:2), and to all who dwell on earth (Ps 49:2). This group also includes ambiguous circumstances of address in which the audience is not specified (for example, the plural speaker’s discourse about God in Ps 46:2– 10, 12) or of unclear identity (e.g. Ps. 49:17). Lacking in this collection are any substantive wisdom components that might easily tie into the horizontally oriented discourse that prevails in Psalm 49. However, from the perspective of content, the focus on death in Psalm 49 represents of culmination of earlier references to the same in the Korahite psalms. David Mitchell argues that several common elements unite the Korahite collection despite its diversity. In particular, he sees the preoccupation with Sheol, so evident in Psalm 49, as a guiding theme in these psalms.124 The term Sheol itself only occurs in Psalm 49, but Mitchell cites Psalms 42:8 and

121

Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 22, 251. Ibid., 22, 82, 99, 121, 251. 123 Ibid., 121. 124 He also cites the use of the phrase “Lord of hosts” as an identifiable marker, occurring six of its seven times in the Psalter in the psalms of Korah. See David C. Mitchell, “‘God will Redeem My Soul from Sheol’: The Psalms of the Sons of Korah,” JSOT 30.3 (2006): 368. 122

3. “Hear This…My Mouth Utters Wisdom”: Psalm 49

163

44:20 and 26 as participants in this discourse on death.125 In Psalm 44, the treatment of death comes in the guise of a first-person plural address to God, from those who lie slaughtered and slain in the dust (vss. 23, 26). Such a treatment clearly differs from the sage Qoheleth’s approach to the same subject. Thus, while the sapiential aspects of Psalm 49 may suggest that its focus on death recapitulates the discourse of Qoheleth, this focus also coheres with the psalms that surround it and thereby takes on more extensive connotations. The Korahite collection beginning in Psalm 42 also foregrounds the activity of worship, which consequently amplifies the liturgical nuances within Psalm 49. This collection puts forth a vibrant impression of the liturgical or cultic performances that often stem from the public and communal character of the language.126 In Psalm 43:4, the speaker addresses God with the hope of approaching the altar/‫ מזבח‬to “praise You” with a lyre/‫כנור‬, setting a precedent for the use of the latter term in Psalm 49:5. In the Zion Psalm 48, the speaker(s) declare, We think of your faithfulness, God, In the midst of Your Temple. Like Your name, God, so too Your praise, To the ends of the earth, your right hand is full of righteousness. (Ps 48:10–11)

Psalm 48 thus concludes with the congregation in the midst of the Temple, exhorting an unnamed audience to “walk around” (‫ )סבב‬the towers and ramparts of Zion, all of which reflect the God whom the community addresses. This locational and geographical attention lingers as one moves from Psalm 48 into Psalm 49, in which the speaker immediately invites his/her audience into a musical lesson in wisdom. This series of psalms negotiates the relationship between an international, even cosmic audience, and an intense focus on Zion as the object and context of praise. In Psalm 47, the universal call to “all peoples” (‫ )כל־העמים‬is coupled with a depiction of the Israelite God who rules “all the earth” and “the nations” (vss. 2–3, 8–9), and gave Israel “our heritage” (vs. 5). Psalm 48 describes the kings of the nations who aim to attack, but fall back from Zion, trembling.127 On the other side of Psalm 49, Psalm 50 likewise describes the 125

Mitchell (Ibid., 375–376) cites the last of the second series of Korahite psalms, Ps 88, as a partner to Ps 49. Ps 88, likewise, specifically refers to Sheol (vs. 4), and further makes references to the Pit/‫ בור‬and other images associated with death throughout. Moreover, Mitchell sees Ps 42:8 as a specific link to the “overwhelming waters” of Ps 88. 126 Michael D. Goulder contends that this group of psalms is geared towards public performance, suggestive of a “series of public rituals.” See his “The Social Setting of Book II of the Psalter,” in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (eds. P.W. Flint and P.D. Miller; VTSup 99; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 349–359. 127 Kraus (Psalms 1–59, 475) suggests that “What is involved here is a historicizing variant to the primordial battle of chaos in creation myths,” which would further support the cosmic dimensions of this group of psalms.

164

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

divine summoning of “the world from east to west” (vs. 1) and proceeds with a prophetic address to “my people…O Israel” (vs. 7). Hence, Psalm 49 is preceded and followed by theological discourse that reflects on the cosmic dimensions of the rule of the God of Israel. This cosmic context, set within the framework of salvation history, prepares the stage for the universal human proglem that drives Psalm 49, namely that everyone dies. It also places the psalm’s seemingly wisdom-like reflections within the context of the universal reign of the God of Israel. This theological discourse takes place within a vibrant play of shifting modes of speech that highlight the role of the community. The substantial presence of the plural within the Korahite collection establishes the verbal role of the community as well as providing a strong image of a worshipping congregation engaging an active deity. Psalm 44 enters into the pathos of a first-person plural account of suffering and abandonment by God.128 Once again, in Psalm 46, the “we” (vs. 3) and the “us”/“our” (vss. 2, 8, 12) dominate the poetic soundstage, offering a reflection on the power and strength of the God of Jacob. The enthronement Psalm 47 consists of a series of plural imperatives that, while not in the first person, paint a picture of a clapping, shouting, singing community marked by a joyous relationship with its God. Finally, as noted above, Psalm 48:10–13 proceeds explicitly from the firstperson plural, the psalm concluding with the declaration that “For this is God, our God, forever, He will lead us forever” (vs. 15). Within this context, the wisdom elements of Psalm 49 are deemphasized, while public and liturgical experiences come prominently to the foreground. Once again, we find wisdom being put in the service of a more multifaceted communicative exchange, one that demands the active and vocal participation of an often communal audience. Psalm 49 also connects with the psalms that follow it, particularly Psalm 50, even though they are not part of the Korahite collection. 129 The dramatic opening of Psalm 50 in some ways mirrors that of Psalm 49, but with a significant difference in the avowed speaker. Like Psalm 49:2, verse 1 of Psalm 50 summons a universal audience, “the world from east to west.” Here, however, God enacts this summoning in a stormy and fiery appearance from Zion 128

While Ps 44 primarily uses first-person plural speech, an occasional first-person singular also occurs, such as in vss. 5, 7, and 16. This rhetorical oddity indicates the confluence of the “I” and the “we” in much psalmic language, and the potentially corporate implications of the former even when it is dominant. 129 Attard argues that the redactional “seam” between Pss 49 and 50 is just as important as the “seam” between Pss 50 and 51 with regard to the joining of the Korahite and Davidic collections in Book II. For Attard, Pss 49–52 all deal with one primary theme, namely “man’s fate which is communion with, or separation from, God who is the locus of life and salvation.” See his “Establishing Connections between Pss 49 and 50 within the Context of Pss 49–52.” 413–414.

3. “Hear This…My Mouth Utters Wisdom”: Psalm 49

165

(vss. 3–4).130 The plural, first-person suffix in verse 3 immediately suggests the public character of this already divinely enacted summons, and the presence of a present and active communal audience. Thus, the prophetic overtones and universal call of this opening reiterate the selfsame characteristics of Psalm 49:2–3.131 Prophetic speech arrives in verse 7, where, as noted above, God addresses “my people” and “Israel.” Thus, not only does the context of the call differ, so too does the theological horizon, as the universal discourse of Psalm 49 is followed by a covenantal exchange between God and the people of Israel. This move further conditions the relationship between the universal leanings and the discourse specific to Israel’s history within this series of psalms. Indeed, the relationship between the sage’s address in Psalm 49:2–5 and the introduction of God’s address to the people in Psalm 50:7 reveals the manner in which Psalm 50 answers the lingering questions that Psalm 49 leaves open with its enigmatic discourse on death (especially vss. 15–16) in relation to the righteous/wicked divide. On the one hand, the two “calls” mirror each other at some level. In Psalm 49:2–5, the speaker explicitly calls out to all those who dwell on earth. The speaker demands that this universal audience hear/‫שׁמע‬, and declares that he/she will speak/‫דבר‬. Likewise, in Psalm 50:7, the speaker calls upon a plural audience to hear/‫ שׁמע‬and declares the intention to speak/‫דבר‬.132 This mirroring draws a strong connection between the two psalms, one that simultaneously brings the differences between the two calls into sharper relief. The speaker in Psalm 49 is human and speaks wisdom/‫הכמות‬, while the speaker in Psalm 50:7 is divine and speaks with the intention of bearing witness/‫עוד‬. The universal identity of the audience in Psalms 49:2–3 and 50:1 gives way to the particular identity of Israel, or “my people,” in Psalm 50:7.133 Therefore, the protracted moment of prophetic

130

On the significance of this theophany, see Weiser, The Psalms, 394–395; N.H. Ridderbos, “Die Theophanie in Psalm 50, 1–6,” OTS 15 (1969): 213–226. 131 Attard (“Establishing Connections between Pss 49 and 50,” 416) argues that the “prophetic spirit” is also present in Ps 49:16, a verse that he sees as promoting a nonsapiential, special revelation. He further argues that Ps 50 includes sapiential resonances, further binding the two psalms together. Specifically, he cites the use of the terms ‫( מוסר‬vs. 17) and ‫( דרך‬vs. 23). The first term, however, does not occur in Ps 49, which weakens its binding power. Moreover, Ps 49:16 might just as easily be an expression of confidence. 132 Of the latter, Kraus (Psalms 1–59, 492–493) argues that the passage initiated in vs. 7 is a “Levitical speech of judgment” and that this kind of call was “traditional” with a cultic setting. 133 In this sense, Ps 50 has two identified audiences. The first (“the world from east to west” in vs. 2) is presumably meant to hear the divine speech more particularly directed towards Israel (vs. 7).

166

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

address that follows in Psalm 50:7–15 serves to draw out the prophetic undertones of Psalm 49.134 This connection also serves as a commentary on the mode of discourse with which Psalm 49 approaches the universal, one might even say cosmic, problem of death, that comes to the righteous and the wicked alike (vs. 11). These two calls in Psalms 49:2–3 and 50:7 bind the two psalms together but, in doing so, explicitly forefront the dramatic change in the relationship between speaker and addressee. Psalm 50:1–3 differs from Psalm 49:2–5 in that the cosmic summons is described, with a human speaker depicting the summons using the third person for God. The actual summons, the shift into descending vertical address in verse 7, is directed to “my people” and Israel through a double vocative. Following this address, God addresses the wicked in verses 16–22. This group is now rendered powerless (see especially vss. 21–22). So, Psalm 50 intensifies the prophetic echoes in Psalm 49 by ultimately making an appeal beyond the limits of human experience. The theophany and descending vertical address enter at a moment when the human speaker’s assurances in Psalm 49 move beyond what is rational in light of human experience. The presence of a deity who speaks, who engages in some kind of verbal relationship with humankind, thereby provides the vertical coda to the wise human words of Psalm 49. Psalm 49 also shares other important lexical links with Psalms 50–52 as a whole that condition the didactic import of its initial call.135 The second instance of the third-person “refrain” of Psalm 49 uses the term ‫( בין‬replacing ‫ לין‬from vs. 13) to describe the impossibility of understanding the inevitability of death when one is surrounded by the honor that wealth momentarily confers. The term occurs again in the conclusion of Psalm 50:22. Here, God addresses those who “forget God,” and implores them to understand/‫ בין‬that the path/‫ דרך‬to divine deliverance involves thanksgiving (vs. 23). The way/‫ דרך‬of the fool/‫ כסיל‬in Psalm 49:14 is death (vs. 13). In Psalm 50:23, in the midst of descending vertical address, the deity declares that divine deliverance will come to those who “set the way” (‫)ושׂם דרך‬, once again revising the notion that divine judgment applies inevitably.136 The term appears again in Psalm 51:15 when the supplicant asserts to God that he/she will teach/‫למד‬ 134

As noted, Ps 46:11 provides a brief moment of prophetic address in the Korahite collection, which further underlines this aspect of Ps 49 and prepares for the extended discourse of Psalm 50. 135 For a complete account of the lexical links between Pss 49 and 52, see Attard, “Establishing Connections between Pss 49 and 50,” 417–419. 136 This nebulous phrase often confounds translation efforts, but within the context of the verse as a whole can rather simply signify a keeping of the way of the speaker, namely God. See, for example, Dahood’s (Psalms 1–50, 305, 310) translation: “the one who is set in My way.” As noted, Attard (“Establishing Connections between Pss 49 and 50,” 416) sees this as a wisdom reference in Ps 50.

3. “Hear This…My Mouth Utters Wisdom”: Psalm 49

167

transgressors “Your ways” (‫)דרכיָך‬. In addition, the twofold occurrence of the qal form of the term “to fear” (‫ירא‬, Ps 49:7, 17) also occurs in Psalm 52:8 to describe the reaction of the plural righteous to the divinely wrought demise of the wicked individual. The dangerous wealth/‫ עשׁר‬of the wicked that so preoccupies the speaker in Psalm 49 is echoed in Psalm 52:9. In the latter, a quotation of the plural righteous, who have seen this demise of the wicked, declare that the latter’s fall came about because of an irrevocably misguided trust; instead of trusting in God as a refuge/‫מעוז‬, the wicked one trusted in great wealth.137 The attestation of the speaker’s wisdom/‫ הכמה‬in Psalm 49:4 shifts in Psalm 51:8, when the speaker asks God to “teach me” (‫ )תודיעני‬the wisdom/‫ הכמה‬of those things that are concealed. Once again, then, the relationships that build among psalms transform the characteristics of a wisdom poem, and persistently point toward understanding and trusting in the way of God. Wisdom enters into a verbal exchange, in which God speaks, and the human teacher is specifically depicted as one who likewise speaks to God (Ps 51:15). Indeed, the act of speech as such once again plays a significant role, here in the movement from Psalm 49 to Psalm 52. The speaker’s mouth/‫ פה‬once again serves to illuminate shifting uses of the speech motif. As noted above, the mouth of the speaker offers wisdom in Psalm 49:4, while in verse 14, the mouth of the foolish becomes significant. The term again has a negative connotation associated with the wicked whom God addresses in Psalm 50:16 and 19. In the latter verse, God addresses the wicked individual specifically as one who speaks evil and deceit. In 51:17, the now human speaker asks the Lord to “open my lips, and let my mouth declare your praise” as a substitute for the sacrifices that God does not desire (Pss 50:8–15, 23; 51:18–19). Psalm 52, a complex rhetorical poem in its own right, further supports this move in its shift from explicitly horizontal speech (vss. 3–7) to explicitly vertical speech (vs. 11) that declares praise. Speech, specifically the speech of praise, represents the locus of righteousness. Psalm 50:15 confirms this move. Here, God commands Israel to “call upon me” (‫)קראני‬, and then “I will rescue you”(‫ )אחלזָך‬and “you will honor me” (‫)תכבדני‬. Though a different term, this picks up the pejorative references to human honor/‫ יקר‬in Psalm 49 (vss. 13, 21) and casts the concept of honor in a theological light; God’s people can escape the discourse of death by engaging in vertical address, both in times of confusion and praise, in order to properly assign honor to God. This challenge confirms the function of vertical address as the act whereby Israel may understand what cannot be understood, namely the way to be righteous in a world of fractured experience, a world that leads inevitably to death. This verse thus acts as a hinge between the elusive, hori137

The term for refuge here likewise occurs in another psalm that emphasizes divine deliverance from the wicked wealthy, namely Ps 37:39.

168

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

zontally rendered assurances of Psalm 49 and the vertically oriented call to God in the midst of the personal failure to be righteous in the penitential Psalm 51. Psalm 50:15 describes the model of vertical speech that rematerializes again and again throughout the Psalter, namely the move from vertically directed lament to praise, centered on the divine act of deliverance.

4. Conclusion 4. Conclusion

Each of the psalms examined here displays some recognizable connection with the biblical wisdom corpus, whether through shared use of form, terminology or theme. Moreover, each maintains a horizontal orientation of speech throughout, emulating the primary direction of poetic speech found in the biblical wisdom books. None of these psalms contain the move to vertical speech that lends the psalms a singular theological shape. Despite the distinctive, non-sapiential markers found in each of these psalms, it does seem that, as individual poetic compositions, they might, on some level, rest more comfortably in a wisdom book than a book of worship poems. However, the relationships that build between these psalms and the psalms that surround them strongly indicate otherwise; the seemingly incongruous timbre of wisdom speech suddenly harmonizes with other psalmic sounds. Thematic and lexical links among neighboring psalms establish the significance of these relationships; communicative contrasts among them establish the ever-shifting relationship between speaker and audience, an invitation and a challenge to those who enter into psalmic speech. Several characteristics of psalmic wisdom operative within individual mixed-type psalms (chapter three) likewise surface in an interpretation of horizontal, wisdom-like psalms when interpreted within their immediate literary contexts. To begin, wisdom affinities in the psalms do not simply imply a parallel with regard to didactic function. The individual psalms studied in this chapter all have striking resemblances to the biblical wisdom corpus. Yet, each psalm also shows marks of poetic distinctiveness. The eschatological focus on the land in Psalm 37, or the prophetic references in the initial call in Psalm 49, points to the catholicity of the psalms’ allusive power and the difficulty of isolating a singular historical or even literary influence. Thus, the instructional potential of the psalms lies beyond a simple association with the biblical wisdom corpus, even in psalms that primarily evoke that literary tradition. This distinctiveness only intensifies when these psalms are analyzed within their immediate context. While the subject matter of the sages arises, the psalmists redefine the overarching question of the righteous/wicked dichotomy by entering into the anxious and suffering experience of the presumed “righteous,” introducing the questions of personal doubt and sin that plague

4. Conclusion

169

the faithful in a world where the wicked prosper. In other words, the psalms affirm the reality of the righteous/wicked divide at the basis of the biblical wisdom literature, but deal with it in a fundamentally different way. Again and again, the psalmic answer to the anguishes associated with this framework focuses on the vertical call for divine deliverance rather than a horizontally rendered discourse on the formation of individual character. By bringing the “I” to bear on this righteous/wicked divide, the psalms alter the nature of proverbial discourse and the character of the invitation that such language presents. Several basic mechanisms mold the instructional potential of inter-human, unilaterally-directed psalms. First, the consistent interaction between singular and plural references negotiates the individual and communal functions of these psalms. Ambiguously numbered audiences (Ps 1) and explicit vacillation between singular and plural subjects (Ps 37) and audiences (Ps 49) suggest that even among the wisdom psalms, instruction is not simply an individualized affair, or an activity that mirrors the image of the individual murmuring ‫ אישׁ‬portrayed in Psalm 1:2. This dimension of psalmic wisdom is, once again, only magnified when each psalm is examined within its immediate context. As seen in Psalm 37, the identification of the righteous develops in both individual and communal ways in the passage from Psalm 35 to Psalm 41. Throughout the course of this development, the righteous are spoken about in both the plural and the singular, identified with the singular “I” who suffers in different ways and offers testimony, and invited into the plural “we” who affirm trust in God. In this multi-tiered identification, the call to respond implies both individual and communal activity. Second, of course, the interaction between horizontal and vertical discourse once again shapes the nature of the human lessons that Psalms 1, 37, and 49 generate when in conversation with neighboring psalms. The analysis in chapter three exposed a flexible but recognizable pattern of interaction between horizontal and vertical speech in psalms with wisdom elements. The patterns of speech operative in such mixed-genre psalms contextualize wisdom-like verses, as human and divine pedagogue come together to invite the hearer/student not only to hear, but to speak, not only to engage in horizontal discourse, but to appropriate the “I” and the “we” who are formed by engaging in a vocal relationship with the deity. The continuing presence of the human intermediary/teacher is juxtaposed with a theocentrism that extends to the act, in speech, of instruction itself, an emphasis on the divine Torah that one hears and responds to with vertically directed lament, thanksgiving, and praise. The analysis in the current chapter confirms that the selfsame interaction resurfaces when wisdom psalms, without any shift in audience or turn to vertical speech, are interpreted within the context of the psalms that surround them. The literary contextualization of these individual pieces of didactic

170

Chapter 4: Wisdom and Instruction in Wisdom Psalms

poetry immediately transforms the character of any lesson offered there. Wisdom words are put in the service of a vertical encounter, an inhabiting of the “I” who experiences suffering and redemption within a community and brings that experience to speech, oriented towards the divine. Of course, the continuing presence of an instructive human voice shows that the formative capacity of the psalms involves both inter-human and human-divine encounter. The inter-human addresses from teacher to student reflect on the meaning of passionate experience of the lamenting “I” and vice versa. Both moments, as well as the moments of thanksgiving and praise, contribute to the identification and formation of the hearer-become-speaker who enters into the challenging invitation that the psalms present.

Chapter 5

Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter As noted in previous chapters, this study questions whether a distinctive pattern of instruction arises, operative at different levels of interpretation, in relation to psalmic wisdom. In contrast with other approaches to Psalterexegese, this attempt draws insights from the communicative dynamics of instruction discerned at the level of individual psalms (in chapter three), and small series of psalms (in chapter four), with the premise that each level of interpretation informs the other.1 At both levels, the interplay of horizontal and vertical discourse conditions the function of wisdom inflected passages, and lends them a uniquely psalmic timbre. With regard to the Psalter as a whole, the intention of this chapter is not to discover a “neatly fit” didactic function within the Psalter, but to recognize a directional pattern of speech that operates flexibly but recognizably at different levels of interpretation, such that each level mirrors the other in its expression of the relationship between human wisdom and other modes of psalmic speech.2 This chapter focuses on the wisdom of Psalm 73 to illustrate the way that the Psalter as a whole incorporates sapiential elements to convey a broader didactic aim. Psalm 73 provides a particularly useful access point for examining the function of wisdom content in the Psalter as a whole and the unique instructional properties of psalmic discourse. Psalm 73 stands at the beginning of Book III of the Psalter and acts as a midpoint between Psalm 1 and the concluding Psalms 145–150. The psalm poses a profound and familiar question; why do the wicked prosper while God leaves the innocent to suffer? This question has deep sapiential roots, prompted by the confident logic of Proverbs, recognized in the ponderings of Qoheleth, and fully explored through the sufferings of Job. But Psalm 73 also stands at a crucial juncture in the Psalter, immediately after the conclusion of David’s prayers (Ps 72:20) 1 James L. Mays (The Lord Reigns, 126) writes that the final form of the Psalter “seems to be a montage of patterns…the book is complex, a literary world of different levels.” This image is helpful because the concept of a “montage of patterns” conveys the idea that the Psalter does exhibit identifiable tendencies, even if the shape of the book thwarts any attempt to absolutize a particular function. 2 Harry Nasuti suggests that “it may be that the book of Psalms is resistant to any analysis in which all the pieces neatly fit.” See his “The Interpretive Significance of Sequence and Selection in the Book of Psalms,” in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (eds. Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller, Jr.; VTSup 99; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 312.

172

Chapter 5: Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter

and the initiation of his descendant’s reign (Ps 72:1).3 Due to its placement, and its unique formal and thematic components, the psalm addresses both the sapiential and the covenantal crises of divine absence along with all the associated implications of each. Because of this, Psalm 73 provides a unique entryway into the canonical shape of the Psalter, particularly in a study such as this that seeks to understand, within the book as a whole, the relationship between wisdom content and the pedagogical process. In addition to its prominent location, Psalm 73 shares substantial lexical and thematic elements with Psalms 1, 37 and 49, all psalms with significant wisdom associations, and a progressively developed communicative profile.4 Thus, an examination of the relationship between these psalms helps to explore the question of the Psalter’s instructional capacity in relation to wisdom speech. Gerhad von Rad notes the affinities of Psalms 37, 49, and 73 in particular due to their mutual attention to the fact of human suffering. He designates all three psalms as “didactic wisdom poems” because he sees each as a treatment of a sapiential and increasingly “theoretical” problem: the prosperity of the wicked. All three psalms deal with this persistent problem by appealing to the “end.”5 Von Rad’s recognition of the shared content of these three psalms shows how one grouping of psalms scattered through the first three books of the Psalter specifically perpetuates and complicates the image of righteous life set forth in Psalm 1, as well as offering a future in which the confidence of Psalm 1 will be divinely substantiated.6 In addition, Psalms 3

Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 210–211. Scholars have noted the connection between Pss 37, 49, 73, but with the exception of Irsigler, none examine the links among these psalms in great detail. See Kraus, Psalms 60– 150, 84; Von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 203–206; Kuntz, “Canonical Wisdom Psalms,” 207; James L. Crenshaw, “A Whirlpool of Torment: Psalm 73,” in A Whirlpool of Torment: Israelite Traditions of God as an Oppressive Presence (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 96; Irsigler, “Quest for Justice as Reconciliation of the Poor and the Righteous in Psalms 37, 49, and 73,” 594–604. For specific connections between Pss 49 and 73 (and often Ps 16 as well) with regard to the question of the afterlife, see T. Desmond Alexander, “The Psalms and the Afterlife,” IBS 9 (1987): 2–17; Joseph A. Mindling, “Hope for a Felicitous Afterlife in Psalms 16, 49, and 73,” Laurentianum 32 (1991): 305–369; Philip S. Johnston, Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 200–206. 5 As von Rad (Wisdom in Israel, 203–206) writes, “There was the old question of the correlation between a man’s act and its consequence which demanded, if not exactly a new response, then at least a modified one. The psalms gave such a response in that, in the face of confusing experiences, they taught men, in a more decisive fashion than had hitherto been the case, to look to the end of God’s ways with a man.” 6 Harry Nasuti (“Interpretive Significance of Sequence and Selection,” 312–313) helpfully identifies two basic strategies for interpretive efforts that appeal to the final form of the Psalter. First, he notes the importance of “sequence,” that is, the particular order of the psalms. Nasuti notes the limits of “sequence” thus far with regard to contemporary scholarship on the Psalter. While general trends seem to surface, the placement of every individual 4

1. Analysis of Psalm 73

173

145–150 play a role in this discussion of the book’s shape as the finale to the Psalter. Correspondences with the wisdom tradition among these psalms underline their significance for the question at hand.

1. Analysis of Psalm 73 1. Analysis of Psalm 73

The weighty theological claims and considerable poetic muscle of Psalm 73 distinguish it even among the most powerful compositions of the Psalter. 7 The following analysis will focus particularly on the way that the psalm integrates wisdom language and motifs with other evocations that contrast with the wisdom tradition, such as the reference to the sanctuary in verse 17 and the indications of a listening congregation throughout. Indeed, the psalm itself often serves as a commentary on the limitations of not only traditional proverbial perception, but also the protests and pessimisms of Israel’s more contentious sages. Therefore, though the psalm does have substantial and illuminating sapiential associations, its instructional capacity ultimately lies beyond its association with the wisdom corpus.8 In Psalm 73, the speaker traverses a highly personal, gradual, and accessible pathway from anguished doubt and confusion to faithful trust in God. The psalm addresses the familiar and yet impenetrable question of why the wicked prosper while the innocent suffer. Structurally, the psalm is divided rather neatly by the threefold use of the particle ‫אך‬in verses 1, 13, and 18.9 It begins psalm has thus far remained beyond even the most insightful interpretations. Second, Nasuti identifies “selection” as an interpretive tool with which scholars approach the Psalter as a book. By “selection,” scholars focus on certain psalms that they understand to have a “particular significance.” Using this tool, scholars select psalms on the basis of location, such as at the beginning or end of the Psalter, or the beginning or end of one of the five books of the Psalter. Nasuti notes that, generally, an “interplay” between both mechanisms guides interpretations of the Psalter, such that psalms selected as significant in some way illuminate the sequence of the Psalter from Pss 1 to 150. The use of Pss 1 (37, 49), 73 and 145–150 in this chapter is, thus, a “selection” of psalms meant to illuminate the role of wisdom in the “sequence” of the Pss 1 to 150. 7 As Weiser (The Psalms, 507) writes, “Indeed, it is the very simplicity with which the psalmist expresses the most profound insights which makes his song in this respect unsurpassed in the Old Testament.” 8 Moreover, the psalm seems to correspond to a wide variety of texts and communicative strategies within the wisdom corpus alone, and this also obfuscates any attempt to align the didactic function of the psalm with any one of such a wide variety of didactic strategies within the biblical wisdom literature. 9 Though scholars divide the psalm in different ways, there is general agreement that the threefold repetition of this particle acts as a significant structural indication within the poem. For a detailed summary of the different structural models proposed, see Leslie Allen, “Psalm 73: An Analysis,” TynBul 33 (1982): 93–100. On the “panel structures” of

174

Chapter 5: Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter

with a third-person statement about God, implicitly establishing the horizontal character of the discourse. Verses 2–12 concern the individual crisis of the psalmist (vss. 2–3) that arises when he witnesses the bloated and easy lives of the wicked (vss. 3b-5, 12), the evil and violence that rules their hearts (vss. 6– 8), and the arrogance with which they dismiss the possibility of divine judgment as they grow in wealth (vss. 11–12). In verses 13–16, the speaker divulges the internal and personal crisis that this state of affairs has provoked; despite attempts to maintain a pure heart and clean hands, the speaker suffers daily (vss. 13–14) and fails to understand the incongruity between his/her tormented reality and the smooth lives of those who openly discount God. The turning point in the speaker’s comprehension arrives in verse 17 with the entrance into the sanctuary. Following this moment, verses 18–28 detail the implications of the psalmist’s transformed worldview. The wicked only seem to thrive, as in a dream (vs. 20), but will meet a destructive end (vss. 17, 27). In contrast, the suffering psalmist enjoys life’s one and only authentic good, the guiding presence of the Lord (vss. 21–26, 28). As an individual composition, then, the psalm coheres quite well and follows a logical conceptual trajectory. From a form-critical perspective, however, Psalm 73 does not easily conform to traditional categories. Its distinctive style and terminology, which correlate liberally with a wide range of material, makes classification difficult. Consequently, most scholars refuse to categorize the psalm according to one genre. For example, Gunkel designates Psalm 73 as wisdom poetry on the basis of its content, which he sees as the doctrine of retribution dealt with in a similar way as in the book of Job.10 However, he acknowledges that the psalm also draws on the lament genre in its expression of innocence (vs. 13) and concluding expressions of confidence.11 Kraus likewise calls the psalm “didactic poetry” in the mode of Psalms 37 and 49, but recognizes its elements of thanksgiving, trust, and protest.12 Further afield, Ernst Würthwein, Helmer Ringgren, Walter Brueggemann and Patrick Miller have suggested a royal sensibility in the psalm due to its sometimes cultic language.13 Other scholars the psalm in relation to similar structuring techniques within Pss 74–78, see Lawrence Boadt, “The Use of ‘Panels’ in the Structure of Psalms 73–78,” CBQ 66 (2004): 538–540. 10 Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 297. 11 Ibid., 299. 12 Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 85. 13 Helmer Ringgren, “Einige Bemerkungen zum Psalm 73.” VT 3 (1953): 265–272; Ernst Würthwein, “Erwägungen zu Ps. 73,” in Wort und Existenz? Studien zum Alten Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 161–178; Walter Brueggemann and Patrick Miller, “Psalm 73 as Canonical Marker,” JSOT 72 (1996): 48–50. Brueggemann and Miller, rather than taking a historical approach, base their argument on the terminological and thematic connections between Ps 73 and the collection of Pss 15– 24. They argue, in conjunction with a previous article from Miller, that the structural de-

1. Analysis of Psalm 73

175

who straddle the form-critical fence include Gerstenberger, who characterizes the psalm as both sapiential “meditation” and confession, and Erich Zenger, who argues that Psalm 73 exhibits signs both of the wisdom literature and the thanksgiving form.14 Mowinckel perhaps puts it best when he writes that “Psalm 73 has a character of its own.”15 Certain scholars allow the psalm’s wisdom associations to dictate their understanding of the psalm. Leo Perdue, for example, intrepidly classifies Psalm 73 as a “proverb poem” authored by wisdom circles. He spots three sapiential forms in Psalm 73, namely the “maxim” (vs. 1), “autobiographical style” mirrored in Qoheleth, and the “disputative quotation” from the wicked (vs. 11). In addition, he identifies twelve wisdom terms as well as several wisdom themes, including theodicy, retribution, the wicked/righteous dichotomy, and the Joban focus on “nearness to God.”16 J. Luyten, who more cautiously rejects the genre of wisdom psalm, nevertheless argues that Psalm 73 has a “wisdom dimension” that he designates as “stylistic, thematic, and functional” characteristics that suggest a “special relationship with wisdom literature.”17 He focuses particularly on parallel texts in the psalm and the book of Job. Luyten’s approach insightfully acknowledges the psalm’s wisdom affinities while also sidestepping the unresolved form-critical debate regarding the validity of the wisdom psalm genre. Overstating the influence of the psalm’s considerable wisdom affinities, though tempting, obscures the plainly cultic, or even simply non-wisdom, velopment of the latter collection presents the “genuine torah keeper” as the “faithful Davidic king,” a dynamic that they see reproduced in Ps 73. For the earlier article, see Patrick Miller, “Kingship, Torah Obedience, and Prayer: The Theology of Psalms 15–24,” 127–142. For a contrasting opinion, see Kraus (Psalms 60–150, 85) who thinks a royal/cultic interpretation of the psalm is misguided and too dependent on “nuances” rather than dominant cues within the psalm. 14 Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 2, 74; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 224. 15 Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 35–37. Despite this admission, Mowinckel characterizes the psalm as a thanksgiving. 16 Perdue, Wisdom and Cult, 286–291, 323. Ernst Wendland, a bit differently, lists seven features that collectively establish what he sees as the psalm’s wisdom genre, including an “instruction theodicy,” wicked/righteous dichotomy, wisdom themes, multiple “transitional markers,” wisdom vocabulary, stylistic features such as chiasm and abstract terminology, and the psalm’s connection with Ps 1. See his “Introit ‘into the sanctuary of God’ (Psalm 73:17): Entering the Theological ‘Heart’ of the Psalm at the Centre of the Psalter,” OTE 11.1 (1998): 130–131. It should be noted that, while such scholars argue that the psalm’s theme of retribution provides another link with the wisdom tradition, others argue against this, citing the general prevalence of the theme throughout the Hebrew Bible. For example, Murphy (“Consideration of the Classification,” 164) and Kuntz (“Canonical Wisdom Psalms,” 207) both reject a wisdom classification and accept Ps 73 as a thanksgiving for this reason. 17 J. Luyten, “Psalm 73 and Wisdom,” in La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament (ed. Maurice Gilbert; BETL 51; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979), 64.

176

Chapter 5: Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter

references within the psalm and the unique way that this poem liberally integrates wide-ranging terms and concepts. A closer look at the parallels between the psalm and the biblical wisdom books begins to illuminate the manner in which the psalm translates a sapiential approach into a psalmic approach to a particular problem. Ultimately, the psalmist extends beyond the conceptual framework offered in the book of Proverbs, despite being clearly conversant with such language. Nor can one attribute to the psalmist the disinterested tone that permeates the speeches of Qoheleth, despite the presence of one of the sage’s favorite words (‫עמל‬, see below). Even in his great doubt and suffering, the psalmist differs from Job and displays distinctive responses to a shared crisis. The Problem: Verses 1–12 The psalm’s first verse establishes the conceptual framework that the following verses break down and build up again, namely that God is good to those who themselves are good. Verse 1 is a third-person proclamation that speaks about God and Israel, identified as the “pure of heart” (‫)ברי לבב‬.18 Gunkel cites this verse as evidence of the psalm’s wisdom character, in that it “describes YHWH’s action.”19 Yet, the reference to Israel here explicitly introduces a national nuance only ever implicitly present in, for example, the book of Job.20 Moreover, Psalm 73:1 pairs this national reference with a phrase with ties to sanctuary life, namely “pure of heart”/‫ברי לבב‬.21 This phrase oc-

18

Scholars famously disagree on the translation of this verse. Some read the MT ‫לישׂראל‬ as ‫לישׁר אל‬, which translates into “God is good to the upright.” Those who favor the latter reading point to its clean parallelism and the lack of explicit interest in Israel elsewhere in the psalm. See Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 83. Erich Zenger (Psalms 2, 222), who ultimately favors the MT, surmises that the Israel reference was added when a redactor placed Ps 73 at the front of the Asaph collection of Pss 73–83. Here, the MT will be used. 19 Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 302. 20 Erich Zenger (Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 226) cites the individual/structural dynamic that is present in both Ps 73 and Job; the personal crisis related in each is “the expression and result of a severe social and religious shock in their epoch.” No doubt Zenger rightly configures this mirrored dynamic. However, Ps 73 states this dynamic openly, while the book of Job maintains a universalistic vocabulary throughout. Of course, both the book of Proverbs (1:1) and Ecclesiastes (1:12) include passing references to Israel in their respective claims to Solomonic authorship, though in neither case is the term used to explicitly remark on the relationship between God and Israel as it is in the psalm. Naturally, the term is fully integrated into the writings of Ben Sira (Sir 17:17; 24:8; 36:11; 37:25; 45:5, 11, 17, 23; 46:1, 10; 47:2, 11, 18, 24; 50:13, 20, 23), though nowhere in that text does the term appear with other terminology or phrasing similar to Ps 73:1. 21 The first verse makes plain that the psalm addresses a matter of the heart/‫לבב‬, a key term that appears six times in the psalm in vss. 1, 7, 13, 21, and 26 (2x). Martin Buber reads the psalm through the lens of this term in his “The Heart Determines: Psalm 73,” in

1. Analysis of Psalm 73

177

curs likewise in Psalm 24:4, which places the “pure of heart”/‫ בר לבב‬together with “clean hands” (‫)נקי כפים‬, the latter phrase one that also occurs in verse 13 of Psalm 73.22 In Psalm 24:4, these two phrases bear a direct connection with the Lord’s “holy place” (‫ )מקום קדשׁו‬in the preceding verse that asks, “Who ascends the mountain of the Lord, and who comes in his holy place?” (Ps 24:3)23 This concrete reference to the divine sanctuary fastens an added nuance to verse 1 of Psalm 73. It introduces at least the possibility that the unnamed, unacknowledged audience of this third-person opening verse might resemble a congregation at worship. However, the psalm does not continue immediately into the holy place, but rather launches into an individualized reflection, focused around the experience of the “I” in relation to the surrounding wicked. The psalmist intellectually grapples with the mental and even physical disparity between the world as-it-is and the world as-it-should-be.24 This begins in verses 2–3 with a description of the speaker’s experience of the ‫שׁלום רשׁעים‬, that is, the ease or well-being of the wicked.25 The psalmist sees/‫ ראה‬the activities and the attitudes of the wicked, and has an emotional response, namely envy/‫קנא‬, which nearly leads his feet astray (vs. 3). The appeal to sight-based observation echoes the dominant sapiential appeal to sensory perception in the acquisition of knowledge.26 Here, it evokes texts such as Proverbs 24:30–34, where the

On the Bible: Eighteen Studies by Martin Buber (ed. Nahum N. Glatzer; New York: Schocken Books, 1968), 199–210. 22 The word for washing one’s hands in Ps 73:13, the verbal form of ‫זכה‬, differs from that Ps. 24:4 (adjectival form ‫)נקי‬, but the main idea is the same. 23 Harry Nasuti, Tradition History and the Psalms of Asaph (SBLDS 88; Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1988), 65. 24 Note Weiser (The Psalms, 507) who contends that the problem of the psalm goes beyond the abstract. Rather, the psalmist is dealing here with “a matter of life and death.” 25 The exact phrase occurs only in Ps. 73:3. However, Luyten (“Psalm 73 and Wisdom,” 72) contends that the concept conveyed here also appears in Pss 37:7, 39:3, 49:17 and Job 21:7ff. 26 While the sages do not emphasize the “eyes” as much as the “ears,” the former do contribute significantly to wisdom epistemology. Indeed, both senses work together as seen in passages such as Prov 4:20–21, in which learning is a matter not only of the ear (vs. 20) and the eye (vs. 21), but also the heart/‫( לבב‬vs. 21), a keyword in Ps 73, as noted. For a discussion of the importance of “ears,” as well as “eyes,” in wisdom education, see James L. Crenshaw, “The Primacy of Listening in Ben Sira’s Pedagogy,” in Wisdom, You Are My Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday (ed. Michael L. Barré, S.S.; CBQMS 29; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1997), 180–182. For a contrasting perspective on wisdom epistemology, see Fox, “The Epistemology of the Book of Proverbs,” 669–684. As noted previously, Fox argues that sensory experience, rather than itself inciting knowledge, is filtered through an ideological lens already in place within the sage.

178

Chapter 5: Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter

sage’s seeing/‫ ראה‬provides the impetus for personal reflection.27 The way that the speaker uses the term ‫ קנא‬in verse 3 reflects a relationship with a series of four texts that use the same term in Proverbs. Each text in Proverbs plainly condemns the psalmist’s admitted experience of jealousy in relation to the wicked. In Proverbs 3:31, the father-teacher tells his sonstudent not to envy the wicked, who are an abomination, because God curses the wicked and blesses the righteous (vss. 32–33). Proverbs 23:17 exhorts, “Let not your heart envy sinners” (‫)אל־יקנא לבָך בחטאים‬, echoing the “heart” language of Psalm 73 and offering a direct indictment of the psalmist’s reaction in verse 3. Proverbs 24:1–2 once again pairs the term envy/‫ קנא‬with the language of the heart/‫לבב‬, this time referencing the violent hearts of evil individuals. Finally, Proverbs 24:19 urges the hearer not to envy the wicked, who have no future/‫אחרית‬, a key term that appears in Psalm 73:17, as will be discussed below. Thus, in describing the initial reaction to a particular, observable phenomenon in verses 2–3, the psalm’s terminology considerably intertwines with proverbial discourse, but the psalmist plainly is unable to adhere to the proverbial warnings against envy. Part of the reason for the psalmist’s failure is that the world does not look as quite as fetching as it does when presented in the book of Proverbs. In Psalm 73, the psalmist’s sight (vs. 3) does not lead to life-giving discipline/‫( מוסר‬Prov 24:32), but rather stifles the seeing individual with a damning vision of the wicked who happily and extravagantly enact violence and blaspheme with impunity. So, on the one hand, the psalmist fails the proverbial parent by giving in to envy; on the other hand, the proverbial parent fails the psalmist by not preparing him/her for the true source of trauma here, namely the experience of divine absence.28 Of course, in this too, the psalmist does not have to step outside of the wisdom tradition but has great friends among the sages. Qoheleth ruminates on the same phenomenon, namely that “there are righteous requited according to the work of the wicked, and there are wicked requited according to the work of the upright” (Eccl 8:14). Job likewise asks, “Why do the wicked live, grow old and rise in power?” (Job 21:7).29 In Psalm 73, then, verses 2–12 might well belong to a sage well versed in the pluralities of Israelite wisdom.

27 Interestingly, this passage in Proverbs also states that this experience is, for the sage, a matter of the heart/‫לב‬, which relates to the psalm’s focus on the same. 28 Of course, this is, to some degree, an oversimplification of the conceptual framework in the book of Proverbs. One need only ask why the parent figure there bothers to exhort the child/student not to envy the wicked if there is nothing about the lives of the wicked that warrant envy. However, it is valid to suggest that Proverbs does not deal explicitly with this theological problem in the way that, for example, the book of Job does. 29 See Luyten (“Psalm 73 and Wisdom,” 73–75) for a detailed examination of the connection between Ps 73:3–12 and Job 21:7–34. He argues that, within the Old Testament,

1. Analysis of Psalm 73

179

The Response: Verses 13–16 The psalmist’s first-person response to this situation, detailed in verses 13– 16, maintains a clear dialogue with the wisdom tradition while seamlessly introducing terms and concepts more prevalent in other parts of the canon. These four verses prepare for the pivotal verse 17 by outlining the psalmist’s confrontation with the limits of both sapiential thinking and, to some extent, cultic logic. These verses establish both the familiarity and the uniqueness of the speaker’s individual development when faced with a fundamental theological crisis. Verses 13–14 attest the “innocent sufferer” wisdom motif but also appeal to tangible worship activity much less present in the wisdom corpus.30 Here, the psalmist rejects the efficacy of his/her own efforts and, indeed, rejects of the declaration in verse 1. Efforts for a pure heart and clean hands have resulted only in affliction and punishment, rather than an experience of divine goodness.31 The terminology here places the speaker’s experience of doubt within the context of ritual activity. In verse 13, the speaker has maintained a pure (piel of ‫ )זכה‬heart and washed/‫ רחץ‬his/her hands in innocence/‫נקיון‬.32 This final phrase, ‫ארחץ בנקיון כפי‬, also appears exactly in Psalm 26:6, where it designates an act preliminary to approaching the altar.33 The psalmist’s action these two passages most extensively take up the problem of the wealth and easy lives of the wicked. 30 Luyten (“Psalm 73 and Wisdom,” 75–76) cites the theme of the innocent sufferer in Ps 73:13 as evidence of the “special relationship” between the poem and the book of Job, in which the theme plainly dominates the dialogue of Job and his interlocutors (Job 13:18; 16:17; and 23:10–12). Leo Perdue (Wisdom and Cult, 286–287) similarly argues that the most important parallels to the psalm are found in the book of Job, the Sumerian “Man and His God” and the Akkadian “I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom,” all of which deal with the theme of the innocent sufferer. 31 Luyten (“Psalm 73 and Wisdom,” 76) connects vs. 14 to Job as well, linking the term ‫ נגוע‬with ‫ נגעה בי‬in Job 19:21. Moreover, he links the concept of daily divine punishment, ‫לבקרים‬, with the same phrase in Job 7:18. What Luyten fails to mention is that the speaker in Ps 73 does not explicitly attach these torments to God’s active hand, whereas in Job 19:21 the blame clearly lies with God and, in Job 7:18, one finds Job even vertically addressing God. The ambiguity of who is to blame in Ps 73 distinguishes its discourse, allowing, and even promoting (vss. 21–22), the possibility that the psalmist somehow plays a part in this theological crisis. 32 ‫ נקיון‬is one of the several rare words found in Ps 73. It occurs only here and in Gen 20:5, Ps 26:6, Hos 8:5, and Amos 4:6. It can have a physical connotation as in Amos 4:6 where it describes the Israelites’ “clean” teeth (BDB, 667). 33 Buber (“The Heart Determines: Psalm 73,” 202) claims that the act of washing one’s hands in innocence “does not mean an action or feeling of self-righteousness, but the genuine, second and higher purity that is won by a great struggle of the soul.” However, this kind of spiritualized understanding of the verse unnecessarily deemphasizes the very concrete, worship oriented activities that these kinds of phrases carry. On the ritual implications of “clean hands,” see Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 88; Nasuti, Tradition History and the

180

Chapter 5: Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter

in Ps 73:13, namely washing/‫רחץ‬, also has ritual implications, occurring most in the book of Leviticus. The presence of such cultic connotations differentiates the psalmist’s viewpoint from sapiential texts that largely lack these references. But these verses do not yet signal the psalmist’s affirmation of the sanctuary either. Indeed, within this context, verses 13–14 can also be read as an antagonistic reaction to the perceived inefficacy of ritual life. The psalmist acted cleanly, approached God properly, and yet still bears the burdens of life’s profound inequities. So, with this claim to innocent suffering, the psalmist is both like Job and wrestling with ritual realities beyond the sage’s purview. However, despite incorporating ritual allusions into this protestation of innocence, the psalmist also betrays a certain loyalty to proverbial thinking, evident in related wisdom texts that nuance the significance of verses 13–14. For example, following Agur’s prayer in Proverbs 30:7–9, the text resumes with an extended saying about the “generation”/‫ דור‬of those who curse their fathers (vss. 11–14): A generation pure in its own eyes, But not washed of its filth. (Prov 30:12)

This verse shares terminology and concepts with Psalm 73. This is the only occurrence of the term wash/‫ רחץ‬in Proverbs, and it describes an unpleasant discrepancy between perception and reality, a discrepancy that ultimately drives the development of Psalm 73 as well (vss. 3, 16).34 The term generation/‫ דור‬likewise appears in verse 15 of Psalm 73. The reference to purity or cleanliness, though expressed through different terminology (‫ טהור‬in Prov 30:12, ‫ זכה‬in Ps 73:13), further demonstrates a kinship between this verse and the psalm. Additionally, the term for “make clean”/‫ זכה‬in Psalm 73:13 appears with the heart/‫ לב‬in Proverbs 20:9, when the sage declares, “Who says, ‘I made my heart clean, I am clean from sin?”35 These wisdom connections in the midst of verses laden with ritual associations underlines the blurring of the two in this psalm. Psalms of Asaph, 65–66. Nasuti suggests that connections such as this “might not only suggest cultic participation but even a ‘priestly’ role of some sort.” Relatedly, Crenshaw (“Standing Near the Flame: Psalm 73,” 103) sees vs. 13 as a two-step process from “internal purification” to ritual action. Both are held together, representing a “balance between external observance and inner attitude,” a process that coheres with the prophetic approach to ritual activity. Crenshaw thereby sidesteps too heavy an emphasis on internal activity, while also acknowledging the role that it plays in the verse’s depiction of religious life. 34 The term ‫ רחץ‬does not occur in Ecclesiastes. The term occurs twice in the book of Job as well, in both cases references to Job washing himself or being washed. See Job 9:30; 29:6. 35 The term ‫ זכה‬is another rare term, appearing elsewhere only in Job 15:14; 25:4, Ps 51:6; 119:9; Isa 1:16; Mic 6:11.

1. Analysis of Psalm 73

181

The clearly divergent use of comparable terminology and concepts nuances the value of these connections. Both texts in Proverbs (30:12 and 20:9) indict the psalmist, suggesting that beneath such protestations of innocence lies insecurity and even self-deception regarding one’s standing before God.36 On the other hand, of course, these verses in Psalm 73 once again spell out the failure of a proverbial outlook and the purposeful transformation of its traditional vocabulary of success and failure. The psalm’s use of the term ‫ תוכחת‬in verse 14 further demonstrates this. The root of this term occurs primarily in the wisdom literature, particularly Proverbs.37 There, the term uniformly refers to something desirable, a disciplinary “rebuke” that, if accepted, can lead the student in the “way of life” (‫דרך חיים‬, Prov 6:23).38 In contrast, the psalmist uses the word in verse 14 to describe a most undesirable state; rather than the acquisition of life, his/her experience of rebuke is one of being stricken or afflicted (‫)נגוע‬. In other words, the promises of proverbial wisdom have not been realized; Lady Wisdom’s rebuke (Prov 1:23, 25, 30) becomes an affliction rather than a life-giving discipline. Therefore, the intimations of ritual life in these verses foreshadow a move beyond wisdom without yet fully realizing it. Indeed, much of this seems to be a rather straightforward wrestling with proverbial discourse in a manner similar to the books of Ecclesiastes and Job. In other words, these verses continue to operate within a conceptual framework that resembles that of the sages. In verse 15, this dynamic quickly changes when the psalmist expresses an unprecedented response to the feelings of overwhelming personal futility and affliction (vss. 13–14), by consciously refraining from sharing this crisis within the community of the faithful, the ‫דור בניָך‬.39 If I said, “I will talk like this,” I would have treated the generation of your children faithlessly. (Ps 73:15) 36 This is a concept that appears at least in one other place in the Psalter, albeit in a psalm often associated with wisdom. See Ps 19:13–14, which twice uses the root ‫ נקה‬to describe the difficulty of correctly perceiving one’s own standing and/or blamelessness before God. 37 See Job 13:6; 23:4; Prov 1:23, 25, 30; 3:11; 5:12; 6:23; 10:17; 12:1; 13:18; 15:5, 10, 31, 32; 27:5; 29:1, 15. Outside the biblical wisdom books, the term only occurs in Pss 38:15; 39:12; 73:14; Ez 5:15; 25:17; Hab 2:1. 38 See also Prov 15:31, which includes the phrase ‫ תוכחת חיים‬in construct. The only possible exception to this use of the word is Prov 29:1, which avers that multiple rebukes may cause a person to become stiffnecked and ultimately irrevocably broken. However, this saying would seem to apply to those who do not respond properly to rebuke/‫תוכחת‬, as the wise do. 39 Zenger (Psalms 2, 229) compares this group with the “generation of the righteous” (‫ )דור צדיק‬in Ps 14:5, who are identified universally (rather than a particular group) as the lowly, over against oppressive evildoers. He also cites Ps 24:26 (“the generation of those who seek God”) and Ps 112:2 (“The generation of the upright”) as parallel phrases. However, the exact phrase “generation of your children” (‫ )דור בניָך‬occurs only here.

182

Chapter 5: Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter

This response confirms the decision to remain part of the community that ostensibly holds the worldview that has proved contrary to the psalmist’s experience, namely that God is good to Israel, to the pure of heart.40 Here, the speaker acknowledges a communal obligation, one that intrudes upon the passage of his/her own intellectual and individual processing of this crisis.41 In this way, the verse transforms the sapientially laden experience of verses 2–13. The speaker overcomes both the implicit temptation to abandon this community and the explicitly acknowledged temptation to lament this experience of pain and personal futility within that community. 42 In the latter temptation, at least, the difference between the psalmist and passionately vocal Job could not be more acute.43 In addition to distinguishing the psalm from its sapiential counterparts, verse 15 also strangely stands out in a book that is flooded with the uninhibited passions of the lamenting supplicant.44 Though the psalmist clearly acknowledges the congregation here, he/she simultaneously refuses to engage in the communally mediated activity of lament. Would speaking about this experience of divine absence separate the psalmist from the congregation? Is the temptation here truly a “temptation…to talk like the ‫רשׁעים‬,” as Kraus 40

In contrast with the many studies that focus on vs. 17 as the turning point of the psalm, J. Clinton McCann isolates this verse as the psalm’s true center. He points to the overall structure of the psalm (“12 lines, 5 lines, 12 lines”) as a means of drawing attention to the central verse 15. For McCann, the decisive moment occurs when the psalmist commits him/herself to remaining a part of the congregation as communicated here in verse 15. He argues that it is only because of this decision that the psalmist would have persisted in attending the temple, which allows for the divine encounter in vs. 17. See his “Psalm 73: A Microcosm of Old Testament Theology,” in The Listening Heart: Essays in Wisdom and the Psalms in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm (eds. J. Hoglund, K. Huwiler, and E. Glass; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 250. 41 Crenshaw, “ Psalm 73,” 99. 42 Scholars often read the verse only in terms of this primary temptation, namely to reject the community of the faithful due to this experience of suffering in innocence. See Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 88; McCann, “Psalm 73,” 250; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 229. 43 Buber, “The Heart Determines: Psalm 73,” 203. Buber sees this verse, in fact, as a commentary on the lamenting discourses of Job, that is, a comparison of the uncomplaining “generation of the children of God” and the complaining Job. 44 Luyten (“Psalm 73 and Wisdom,” 76) sees vs. 15 according to the general concept of the speaker’s “rebellion” and finds that it does not appear elsewhere in the laments, with the possible though vague exception of Ps 39:2–4. Luyten cites Job 7:11, 10:1, and 23:2 as parallel expressions of this theme. It should be noted that, though Luyten cites these texts as a parallel, this shared concept also serves to distinguish the speaker’s approach in Ps 73 from Job, a fact which will be noted further below. Furthermore, it should be noted also that it is possible to read vs. 15 as a commentary after the fact from the psalmist, rather than the initial response to crisis. However, this is unlikely, given that the psalmist plainly made a choice to respond in a different way in vs. 16.

1. Analysis of Psalm 73

183

suggests?45 The wicked speak words of confidence, certain that God does not have knowledge/‫ דעת‬of their actions (vs. 11). The psalmist, on the contrary, speaks the words of loss and suffering, of confusion and doubt, yet refuses initially to bring that experience to this community to which he/she concurrently commits. Is this subliminal uncertainty about one’s proclamations of innocence, evident in related texts from Proverbs and Psalm 19:13–14, cause to abandon the act of dialogue with God amidst the faithful? Walter Brueggemann writes that the lament “reflects the liturgical conviction that the situation is transformed when Yahweh acts…the form enables the faithful to read situations of hurt as situations of potential transformation.” 46 Verse 15 therefore implicitly suggests another failure, namely the failure of the psalmist to hope in the possibility of divinely rendered transformation, despite the curious decision to still remain committed to congregational life. In this sense, verse 15 differentiates the speaker both from the contentious sage and from the protesting supplicant, both of whom give free and active voice to the human experience of divine absence.47 Verse 16 substantiates the failure of the psalmist by detailing the futility of an alternative response, one that is individualized and anthropologically focused. Due to this communal obligation, the speaker vows to individually, within the human self, solve this crisis. Thus, despite the ritual references in verses 13–14 and the peculiar conceptual framework of verse 15, the psalmist steps back into a rather straightforward relationship with wisdom thinking. That is, the speaker resolves to think/‫ חשׁב‬in order to know/‫( ידע‬vs. 16).48 Verse 15 confirms that this activity will be silent and individualized.49 How45

Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 88. Brueggemann, The Psalms and the Life of Faith, 72. 47 As will be discussed below, vs. 15 also contains the first explicit vertical address. The address, however, comes in the midst of a thanksgiving that relates a previous experience removed from the immediate moment of speech. Thus, vs. 15 relates a past decision, presumably one made without the added nuance of prayer language, that the anthropologically driven vs. 16 confirms. 48 The piel form of ‫חשׁב‬, as it occurs here, occurs twice in the book of Proverbs. In Prov 24:8, the term is used to describe the thoughts of an evildoer. More interesting is the occurrence in Proverbs 16:9, that “The heart of a person devises his way, but the Lord directs his step” (‫) לב אדם יחשׁב דרכו ויי יכין צעדו‬. This verse echoes the “heart” language of Ps 73, while averring that the individual attempt to think/‫ חשׁב‬out a path only succeeds in tandem with divine direction. The verse affirms the human intellectualization of existential realities (in which the psalmist engages in vs. 16) but defers to a human-divine dynamic in which divine agency has the dominant role. In this way, the sage in Proverbs has, in some sense, pegged the psalmist’s failure as a failure to acknowledge divine agency. That said, as noted, the reasons for the psalmist’s failure of course lie beyond the conceptual scope of the proverbial sayings, and in a sense, arise out of the collapse of a proverbial worldview. 49 To some extent, this resembles the silent and individual character of the studentaddressee’s profile throughout much of Proverbs. However, it obviously differs in that the 46

184

Chapter 5: Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter

ever, the speaker admits that this response, this twofold movement of “seeing” (vs. 3) and “thinking,” geared toward the goal of “knowing,” is a failure; it is trouble or toil/‫( עמל‬vs. 16). The reference to “my eyes” here in verse 16 recalls the reference to sensory perception in verse 3, relating the contentiously sapiential conclusion that, ultimately, sensory experience both generates a troublesome picture of the world and subsequently fails to account for life’s inequities. Echoing the stylistic proclivities of Qoheleth’s first-person discourse and reflective tone, this verse’s use of the term ‫ עמל‬likewise recalls that sage’s heavy use of the term.50 In verse 16, the term is used to describe the psalmist’s attempt at understanding; such as task is ‫עמל‬, a trouble or hopeless task in its lack of resolution. The term describes a particular experience, namely that of the limits of human knowledge when faced with the breakdown of one’s foundational worldview.51 Thus, the psalmist’s refusal to lament in verse 15 is compounded by the psalmist’s faulty decision thereby to solve the crisis individually and humanly. Despite the significant idiosyncrasies of verses 13–16, much of this certainly resonates, or at least interacts, with the multifaceted confidences and contentions of biblical wisdom discourse. The Encounter: Verse 17 Verse 17 relates the psalmist’s final act in response to the crisis at hand, an act that plainly differentiates the psalmist from the major figures of contentious biblical wisdom. Rather than lament like Job, the psalmist keeps silent and forges a definitive path. Rather than simply acquiesce to the futility of personal struggle for understanding (vs. 16) and praise the lone verities of psalmist here is at once speaker and addressee, in the sense that any lesson learned will take place internally. 50 Though the term does appear sporadically throughout the Hebrew Bible, it appears most often in the wisdom literature and the psalms by a wide margin, with the root occurring 14 times in the Psalms, twice in Proverbs, 10 times in Job, and 33 times in the book of Ecclesiastes. It occurs one other time in Ps 73 (vs. 5), where the speaker states that the wicked do not partake in the trouble/‫ עמל‬that the rest of humanity experiences. Note once again the contrastive use of the term in Prov 24:2, which states of evildoers, that “their hearts utter violence, and their lips speak trouble” (‫)כי שׁד יהגה לבם ועמל שׁפתיהם תדברנה‬. The use in Ps 73:5 contrasts with Qoheleth’s primary use of the term in reference to the life of the wise. Qoheleth also uses the term to describe those who hoard riches and thus fail to enjoy life (e.g. Eccl 5:14–15), but this does not approximate the psalmist’s use of the term in vs. 5 either. Additionally, in Eccl 10:15, the sage describes fools/‫ כסילים‬as those whose efforts/troubles/‫ עמל‬tire them out easily. But this reference, too, fails to approximate the use of the term in Ps 73:5, which describes the wicked as those who do not experience such troubles. Thus, the psalm’s use of the term both echoes and contrasts with Qoheleth’s use. 51 Luyten (“Psalm 73 and Wisdom,” 72) connects this use of the term in Ps 73:16 with Eccl 8:16–17. Both passages relate the self-conscious effort to gain knowledge, and both admit that the effort is a failure.

1. Analysis of Psalm 73

185

food, drink, and pleasure like Qoheleth, the psalmist turns another way.52 Trouble/‫ עמל‬subsides when this tormented figure enters the sanctuary/‫מקדשׁי־‬ ‫אל‬, and finally perceives/‫ בין‬the end/‫ אחרית‬of the wicked.53 The psalmist’s response has a physical cast that sets it apart both from his/her own previous responses (vss. 3, 13–16) and the responses of the sages to crisis. No doubt the verse itself involves much that is mysterious. It reports two events, namely a physical change of place and a subsequent change in perception. But it does not relate how the second change comes about, whether the event in the sanctuary has a verbal or non-verbal quality. Moreover, the content of the psalmist’s altered perception likewise is encased in a certain degree of mystery. What is “their end” and how does it differ from the “end” of the psalmist and the community of which he/she is a part?54

52

As Crenshaw (“Standing Near the Flame,”104) notes, the approach that leads to ‫עמל‬ “lost out to a voice that had nothing in common with Qoheleth.” 53 A great deal of research and debate has been carried on with regard to the strange plural form of the term ‫ מקדשׁ‬in this verse. The phrase ‫ מקדשׁי־אל‬occurs only here. As Zenger (Psalms 2, 230–232) relates, scholars have approached this problem in two primary ways. First, scholars argue that this refers to a physical visit to the Temple. See, for example, Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 89; Weiser, The Psalms, 511; Crenshaw, “Standing Near the Flame: Psalm 73,” 105; Irsigler, “Quest for Justice as Reconciliation of the Poor and the Righteous in Psalms 37, 49, and 73,” 596; Nathan J. Clayton, “An Examination of Holy Space: Is Wisdom’s Path Infused with an Eschatologically Oriented Hope?” TJ 27NS (2006): 131. In contrast, some prefer to see this entirely from a spiritualized perspective, as the “mysteries of God.” See Buber (“The Heart Determines: Psalm 73,” 203–204), who writes that this enigmatic phrase “does not mean the Temple precincts in Jerusalem, but the sphere of God’s holiness, the holy mysteries of God.” Zenger (Psalms 2, 231–232) himself adheres to this latter view due to the “intensive metaphorization of the Temple” in the Psalter, the continuing use of metaphor in vss. 23–26, and the fluidity of the relationship between vs. 17a and 17b when one reads the former metaphorically. See also Wendland, “Introit ‘Into the Sanctuary of God’ (Psalm 73:17),” 139–140. However, such a reading fails to give credence to the other concrete indicators throughout the psalm. This study prefers to walk the middle path; both internal and external indicators persist throughout the poem – the “heart” language coexists with multiple references to tangible ritual activity. Thus, one can simply surmise that this physical visit to the Temple has a spiritual or internal component as well. 54 No shortage of scholarly work has been done on the meaning of this term (‫ )אחריתם‬in vs. 17. Three main approaches materialize in relation to the question of the afterlife. Some deny that this term refers to the afterlife altogether. Weiser (The Psalms, 512), for example, writes that the term is used to suggest something of a “‘final’ nature, the ultimate inner meaning which first becomes perceptible when death is taken into account.” Other scholars are more willing to entertain the notion that this verse, in connection with other similar verses such as Ps 49:15, represents a clear reference to the afterlife. See Wendland, “Introit ‘Into the Sanctuary of God’ (Psalm 73:17),” 137–138. Lastly, some scholars see here some kind of undefined but imminent eschatological event that does not necessarily indicate an afterlife. See Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 89.

186

Chapter 5: Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter

Though the psalmist seemingly steps beyond the Israelite schoolroom with this act, a dialogue with wisdom thinking subtly lingers. The vexingly shadowy term end/‫ אחרית‬occurs throughout the canon, and is particularly prevalent in the book of Proverbs among the wisdom books. The term’s twofold use in Proverbs 23–24 warrants mention in relation to the psalm. The exhortation in Proverbs 23:17–18 states, Do not envy sinners in your heart, But those who fear God, forever. For then you will have an end/‫ אחרית‬, Your hope will not be cut off. (Prov 23:17–18)

Similarly, Proverbs 24:19–20 advises, Do not be incensed by evildoers, And do not envy the wicked. There is no end/‫ אחרית‬for the evil one, The lamp of the wicked goes out. (Prov 24:19–20)

As noted above, Proverbs 24:19–20 shares terminology with Psalm 73, including not only end/‫אחרית‬, but also envy/‫קנא‬, in which the psalmist indulges in Ps 73:3. Proverbs 23:17–18 also shares both these terms, and likewise shares a reference to the heart/‫ לב‬with Psalm 73. Taken together, then, this pair of exhortations in Proverbs presents knowledge of the respective “ends” of the righteous and the wicked as the antidote to the vice of envy. Indeed, Psalm 73:17 seems to give the same answer as these two texts. This suggests that the psalmist has not strayed too far from the company of the sages, despite discovering this answer in the sanctuary rather than through the discourse of the proverbial parent figure. The Change: Verses 18–28 Ultimately, however, the mysteriousness of verse 17 resolves with a very concrete change in the discourse of the speaker from a horizontal to vertical orientation in both content and addressee, a change that influences the psalm’s on-going exchange with sapiential thinking. The effect of the theocentric event in verse 17 manifests itself in the immediate focus on divine, rather than human, activity. God immediately becomes the subject of a series of verbs (vss. 18–20). The wicked, who ruthlessly enact their will before the psalmist’s eyes in previous verses, are now seen as the powerless objects of God’s activity. Moreover, the ambiguity of the event in the sanctuary gives way to a transparent and palpable change in the way that the psalmist speaks and responds to the psalm’s previously unsolvable crisis. The decisive change becomes evident in verse 18 when the psalmist shifts firmly into an explicit address to the divine “You,” a transition that dominates the rest of the psalm. The following verses describe the reconfiguration of the psalmist’s perception

1. Analysis of Psalm 73

187

in the midst of this vertical address. The immediacy of this vertical address contrasts with the narrative like quality of the psalmist’s description of the crisis in verses 2–17. These changes demonstrate that the event in the sanctuary redefines the speaker’s understanding of the experience of divine absence, reconfiguring the sapiential nuances of the previous discourse on the wicked without fully rejecting the legitimacy of a wisdom framework. The vision of suffering innocence in verses 2–14 has been delineated anew in the sanctuary. The suffering innocent now sees this previous experience of painful bitterness (vs. 21) as one of his/her own brutishness/‫ בער‬and unknowing/‫( ידע‬vs. 22). The terminology used in these verses, in conjunction with the use of the term ‫בין‬ in verse 17, once again sustains an affiliation with wisdom texts.55 In Proverbs 12:1, the sage contrasts the lover of discipline and knowledge with the brutish/‫ בער‬one who scorns rebuke/‫תוכחת‬. As noted previously, the psalmist is indeed one who scorns rebuke/‫ תוכחת‬in verse 14, as an undeserved punishment. Thus, Psalm 73:21–22, in a way, confirms the conclusion of Proverbs 12:1. These verses reiterate the idea that psalmist played a part in the crisis, though not because an unrecognized wickedness, but because of a faulty reliance on human sight (vs. 3). However, the psalm also differs in the sense that the discourse that lays bare the brutishness of the psalmist’s unknowing is not the discipline/‫מוסר‬ (Prov 12:1) of the parental figure who issues proverbial instruction. Rather, the undefined moment in the sanctuary, the impetus for a defined shift into vertical address, recasts the parameters of well-being and the indicators of divine presence. The psalmist was brutish and beast-like/‫ בהמות‬because the psalmist misperceived the world, proclaimed his/her own innocence, and did not call upon God. Moreover, the psalmist’s initial question regarding why the wicked prosper presupposes a proverbial definition of “life” that proves inadequate; it is a crisis beyond human powers of the intellect (vs. 16) and a question only answered when abandoned in favor of a divinely motivated vertical address that is continual/‫( תמיד‬vs. 23) and lasts forever/‫( עולם‬vs. 26).56 This group of terms aligns the psalmist’s response with Job’s response to the divine speeches, when he says, “I spoke but I did not perceive (‫)בין‬, of things too wonderful for me, which I did not know (‫( ”)ידע‬Job 42:3). Both the psalmist and Job find themselves changed by a theological event that alters 55

Perdue (Wisdom and Cult, 287) designates ‫ בער‬as a wisdom term and evidence of the psalm’s wisdom character. Ultimately, though, it is impossible to call this a wisdom term given its extensive appearances throughout the Hebrew Bible. However, the close parallels between its use in Psalm 73 and Proverbs suggests a functional association, if not equivalency. The adjectival form of the root also occurs in Ps 92:7, as noted in chapter three. 56 Nasuti (Tradition History and the Psalms of Asaph, 65) identifies the term ‫ תמיד‬in vs. 23, as well as the term ‫ חלק‬in vs. 26, as cultically-oriented terms. Both have levitical connections (see Num 18:20 and 1 Chr 16:6, 37; 23:31).

188

Chapter 5: Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter

their perspective on previous experiences of suffering. However, following Job’s admission in Job 42:3, God restores him to the material and familial prosperity that guides the proverbial depiction of a successful life (Job 42:10– 17). In contrast, the psalm offers no sense that the protagonist’s material fortunes have changed; the knowledge of divine presence is the psalmist’s only and overabundant reward. The same terms also appear in the speech of Agur, who identifies himself as brutish/‫ בער‬at the beginning of his speech and prayer (Prov 30:2).57 For him, this trait involves a lack of understanding (‫בינה‬, Prov 30:2), a failure to learn wisdom (‫למדתי חכמה‬, Prov 30:3), and lack of knowledge of the Holy One (‫דעת קדשׁים‬, Prov 30:3). Once again, at some level, this passage echoes the psalmist’s self-characterization, further supporting the psalm’s sapiential connections. Both the psalmist and Agur describe their personal confrontation with the limits of human wisdom according to the same terminology. Moreover, Agur ultimately responds to the limits of wisdom, that is, the limits of understanding/‫ בין‬and knowledge/‫דעת‬, by vocally turning to the Holy One whom he does not know (Prov 30:7–9). The psalmist, too, ultimately responds to this dilemma by turning to vertical discourse (Ps 73:18–27), though it is unclear whether he/she vocally expresses this dilemma vertically in the sanctuary in (vs. 17) in the way that Agur expresses it. The difference between the two accounts lies in the direction of speech as these terms appear. Agur so describes himself in a third-person address to an implicitly present human audience while the psalmist describes himself thus in an explicit vertical address to the Lord. Moreover, after Agur’s brief turn to vertical speech in Proverbs 30:7–9, the text returns to the horizontal discourse that predominates throughout the book. In Psalm 73, verses 21–22 provide a bridge between the theocentric focus on God’s activity in relation to the wicked (vss. 18–20) and God’s activity in relation to the speaker (vss. 23–26, 28). Here again, both the physical and intellectual aspects of the psalmist’s experience appear and are recast. Verse 23 describes the constant fact (‫ )תמיד‬of God’s presence, which holds and has held the right hand of the speaker. Verse 24 refers to divine counsel/‫עצה‬, a term that has verbal connotations, and suggests that the sanctuary experience in verse 17 involves a verbal component. The use of the term ‫ לבב‬in verse 26 suggests that the psalmist may be referring to prior experience as much as the fact of death. That is, the psalmist’s body and mind already wasted away in torment (vss. 2, 13–14), but even during that tormented experience, the “nearness of God” that is “good” permeated the life of the unknowing psalmist. The psalmist recognizes here that the righteous do enjoy a life-giving reward, but one that contrasts with the concept of “life” as it appears in the 57

Luyten (“Psalm 73 and Wisdom,” 73) mentions the connection in passing, claiming simply that the passage in Proverbs is “more general” than the parallel passage in Ps 73.

1. Analysis of Psalm 73

189

book of Proverbs. In Proverbs 13:18, the one who accepts rebuke/‫ תוכחת‬receives honor/‫כבד‬. Psalm 73 once again alters the proverbial idea by negatively using the term ‫( תוכחת‬vs. 14) and subsequently configuring the concept of honor/‫ כבד‬theocentrically, that is, something conferred solely by God rather than by a human intermediary (vs. 24). Psalm 73 charts the passage from human agency to divine agency, all the while confirming the irrevocable and continuing interaction between the two. In the midst of crisis, this suffering figure purposefully grasps at what knowledge can be gleaned, and fails. Individual attempts at innocence fail, and individual attempts to understand that failure similarly fall short. Horizontal life is inadequate. God is clearly the one who effects the change in the psalmist’s perception; yet it is the psalmist’s choice to remain part of the “generation of Your children” and it is the psalmist’s choice to walk through the entrance of the sanctuary. The failure of the psalmist’s intellect becomes a triumph of the feet. Communicative Structure and Pedagogical Profile of Psalm 73 Psalm 73 moves in and out of two basic forms of address. First, the speaker engages a human audience, never named and never brought to the forefront of the communicative event. That is, the human audience never appears through the use of a vocative or some other grammatical indication of the “you,” such as an imperative or pronominal suffix. Instead, this mode of address includes third-person proclamatory or testimonial speech about God (vss. 1, 26, 28ab), first-person descriptions of the speaker’s experience of the wicked (vss. 2– 12), and the speaker’s personal reactions to this experience (vss. 13–14, 16). Because of the testimonial character of the psalm, this mode of speech to an implied audience has the effect of relating a past experience. Second, the psalm shifts into direct address to the divine (vss. 15, 18–25, 27, 28c). Because the latter operates with a definable relationship between speaker and addressee, and because the divine “You” stands at the forefront of the psalmist’s words through the use of the vocative and second-person verbal and pronominal forms, this second kind of speech has an immediacy that contrasts with the undefined relationship between psalmist and human audience. While the addressee shifts, the psalm’s communicative structure relies on the sustained witness of the first person. Yet, the identity of the psalmist remains, at some level, veiled and non-specific, or “typical.”58 The speaker models a particular communicative stance that invites the implied audience of the verses 2–13 into the theological crisis at its center. Within the scope of the whole psalm, these verses provide the audience with an example of poor 58

Crenshaw (“Psalm 73,” 94–95) writes that this individual experience has a “universal applicability” in that all can easily understand and identify with this experience. This dynamic would suggest that the identity of the speaker is purposefully ambiguous.

190

Chapter 5: Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter

sight, that is, a misguided reaction to the fractured nature of human experience. Despite refusing to relate this experience at its height (vs. 15), the psalmist relates it in the present as a past narrative in order to put forward a negative model of how not to approach this type of crisis (following the positive introduction in vs. 1). But, rather than taking the form of exhortation, this negative model takes the form of a testimonial narrative that gradually draws the implied “you” into the “I” who “almost strayed” (vs. 2). This will contrast with the positive model that the “I” provides in the aftermath of verse 17. In this, the psalm differs from sapiential genres that consistently relegate the addressee to the position of the second person, the “you” presented, for example, as the proverbial son. As noted in chapter 2, such discourses often point towards a future in which the proverbial son will become the “I”/pedagogue, but do not yet call for that specific transition, one that will ultimately maintain the horizontal directionality of the discourse in any case. In Psalm 73, in contrast, even the prelude to the shift into vertical speech brings about a transition in the way that the speaker involves the audience. The hazily rendered human audience of the first fourteen verses witnesses the theological answer that the speaker receives in God’s house, an answer that compels the speaker to abandon intellectual self-reflection in favor of an explicit shift into vertical address. The speaker thereby also models for the implicitly present “you” the communicative act that results from a theologically rendered understanding/‫( בין‬vs. 17). That is, the speaker, who has already provided a negative model in the first half of the psalm, now relates the theological experience that transformed him/her into a positive model beginning in verse 18. A further question is whether this human “you” is singular or plural. The decidedly individualistic tenor of the speaker’s discourse might obscure its less obvious, communally oriented underpinnings. Yet, the content of the psalm intimates that the audience could have a plural identity. The initial reference to “Israel” immediately establishes the communal background of the text, further substantiated by the plural “pure of heart”/‫ברי לבב‬. While the wicked are clearly not the speaker’s intended audience, the continued reference to this group in the plural (vss. 3–12, 18–20, 27) sets up a contrast with the plural “pure of heart,” that further establishes the communal backdrop of the psalm. The psalmist augments this dynamic with the plural reference to the “generation of Your children”/ ‫ דור בניָך‬in verse 15. In this way, the individualized tenor of the poetic discourse is set over against the presence of a communally charged dichotomy between two distinct groups, suggesting that this new experience granted in verse 17 is now being related to those who might hear, namely the “generation of Your children” and the “pure of heart.” With regard to the psalm’s second major mode of speech, the first address to the divine “You” in verse 15 occurs in the midst of the speaker’s explanation of a previous experience, namely the initial response to this theological

1. Analysis of Psalm 73

191

dilemma. This occurrence of vertical address suggests that the turn taken in verse 18 towards vertical speech has continued for the psalmist, and persists in the midst of the entire discourse about past experience. 59 In other words, the sanctuary moment in verse 17 precedes the speaking of the psalm, and the decisive change that it instigates in verse 18, namely vertical address, is an on-going event in the life of the psalmist even as he/she relates the story that preceded its occurrence. The vertical address in verse 15 betrays the speaker’s communicative hand before he himself relates it. Even when the speaker is engaged in a narrative about a past experience to a human audience, this vertical address continues still. It continues with such a force that the psalmist cannot simply set it aside while relating the story of its initiation to a human audience. In this way, the psalm marks the shift from divine absence to divine presence with the direction of the psalmist’s vertically oriented speech. In the conclusion of the book of Job, Job’s fortunes are restored and the dialogue between Job and God stops as the narrative resumes. In contrast, the psalmist is one whose vertical life perpetually endures, whose vertical address does not end, even as he/she turns to address another, human audience. Verse 28 substantiates this on-going encounter, when the speaker concludes with one breath, But I, God’s nearness is my good, I make the Lord God my refuge, to recount all Your works. (Ps 73:28)

This verse encapsulates the coterminous nature of the psalmist’s discourse to the implicit human audience and the explicit divine audience. The immediate shift from third-person speech about God to direct address to God, grammatically joined with the infinitive ‫לספר‬, confirms the simultaneity of both discourses. The true character of the initial third-person proclamation (vs. 1) thus becomes clear; the “pure of heart” are those who accept the continuation of divine presence despite the failure of a proverbial depiction of the good life, and the inadequacy of sapiential contention. The “pure of heart” are those who address God and tell others about this theological experience. The stated intent to “recount all Your works,” then, acknowledges the continuing role of horizontal address in the life of the faithful, such as the psalmist has implicitly undertaken throughout the psalm. The term works/‫ מלאכה‬in verse 28 is not commonly applied to God as it is here (cf. Gen 2:2–3; Jer 50:25).60 Within the context of the psalm, these divine works apply primarily 59 Grammatically, vss. 13 and 14 (and, technically, vs. 12) stand in between address to the implied human audience established through third-person speech about God (vss. 1–11) and the vertical address in verse 15. One might say then that these verses are ambiguously directed, which supports the idea of simultaneous discourse to two audiences. 60 In Gen 2:2–3, the term is used to refer to the “work” of creation, while in Jer 50:25 the term refers to the “work” of divine judgment. While such instances may nuance the use

192

Chapter 5: Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter

to the personal narrative that the psalmist has just related, namely the change of heart that God alone has enacted within the psalmist.61 The psalm revolves around this change, a change that the psalmist unequivocally attributes to God’s hand. The psalmist’s experience previous to the sanctuary was an “embittered heart” (‫יתחמץ לבבי‬, vs. 21); after the sanctuary, God is the “rock of my heart” (‫צור לבבי‬, vs. 26). Moreover, the reference to Israel in verse 1 and the use of the Tetragrammaton in verse 28 frame this personal narrative with the narrative of salvation.62 Zenger writes that the use of Tetragrammaton here shows “the aspect of the petitioner’s special familiarity with his God.”63 By telling of God’s works, the speaker draws the “you” not only into the “I” of his/her individual narrative, but into a first-person inhabitation of the history of Israel’s relationship with God. The interplay between these two major modes of address, horizontal and vertical, validates once again the notion that the psalms draw the human audience into verbal communication with the divine by way of a human encounter, such that the vertical moment inevitably and always has a horizontal dimension. The psalmist’s inexplicable and unrecognizable impulse to stay his/her thoughts, and yet to remain a member of a community founded on an idea of divine presence that has collapsed, precipitates the theological event within the sanctuary. It is this event that finally allows the speaker to express the development of personal experience in relation to the profound question of divine absence. God, no doubt, emerges as the primary agent of transformation in Psalm 73, but the psalmist’s decision to continue entering into the sanctuary, despite refusing the congregationally mediated form of lament, and to address those who likewise enter, makes room for the constant reality of divine agency in the life of the psalmist to reveal itself. The lesson of Psalm 73 thus encapsulates the movement from a horizontal to a vertical perspective, manifested in concrete shift from human seeing (vss. 3, 16), which shapes the nature of human experience in a way that ultimately proves inadequate, to human address to the divine agent who resolves the of the term here, the “work” of God related within the psalm itself seems the most likely reference. Zenger (Psalms 2, 237) argues that the Asaphite collection as a whole, which deals with the Temple’s destruction, provides the second important context for the term’s interpretation beyond the psalmist’s experience in the sanctuary. Certainly, in its three appearances in Proverbs, it applies only to human works (Prov 18:9; 22:29; 24:27). 61 It is also possible that these divine works, within the context of the psalm, refer to the “end” of the wicked forecast in vs. 17. In this case, the reference to God’s works would be a forward-looking reference to God’s future work of destroying the wicked, another reason for the psalmist’s current confidence. 62 Weiser, Psalms, 516. Weiser writes in reference to vs. 28 that the psalmist speaks to the congregation of God’s presence in both doubt and triumph, by “incorporating his own experience of God in the larger context of the whole redemptive work of God.” See also Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 236–237. 63 Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 236.

2. Psalm 73 and the Psalter

193

psalmist’s faulty perception. The lesson of Psalm 73 is a lesson of perpetual vertical address in response to being addressed by the One who dwells in the sanctuary. It is an address that does not cease, a communicative act that the psalmist offers to the congregation whom he/she refused to abandon even in the midst of God’s seeming absence. It is this on-going vertical communication that allows the psalmist to secondarily engage a human audience, whom he/she initially refused to trouble with the crisis. If Psalm 73 is a didactic psalm, ultimately the speaker teaches through the convergence of these two discourses, the inter-human discourse and the continuing address to the One who first likewise addressed the speaker with divine counsel/‫( עצה‬vs. 24).

2. Psalm 73 and the Psalter 2. Psalm 73 and the Psalter

The image of the pious one presented in Psalm 1:2 no doubt plays a role in shaping the function of the Psalter as a whole. Yet, the dissonance between the image presented in Psalm 1:2 and the performance and communally oriented texts that follow it could not be greater. As shown in chapter four, the development of Psalms 1–3 fills out the portrait of the righteous individual in Psalm 1 and establishes the complex dynamics of speech that drive the relationship between speaker and audience throughout the Psalter. Psalms 1–3 chart the passage from horizontal to vertical speech, from the receiving “you” to the speaking “I” through the progression of genres that move from a wisdom reflection (Ps 1), to a royal psalm (Ps 2) and a lament (Ps 3). This flexible but identifiable pattern reemerges in a different series of psalms that particularly reveal the Psalter’s pedagogical implications in relation to its wisdom affiliations. In much the same way, yet with a much different formcritical profile, this series of wisdom psalms (Pss 1, 37, 49, 73), dominated primarily by horizontal language, marks out the same dynamic, the same invitation to the addressee to advance from the “you” to the “I,” from a horizontal to a vertical communicative relationship. Psalm 73 anchors this set of psalms, as well as providing a bridge from Psalm 1 to the Psalter’s conclusion in Psalms 145–150. In a well-known essay, Walter Brueggemann argues that Psalm 73 represents the center, or the “pivot,” that establishes the Psalter’s movement “from obedience to praise.”64 Brueggemann contends that “it is central theologically as well as canonically.”65 In support of his argument, Brueggemann cites three primary pieces of 64

Walter Brueggemann, “Bounded by Obedience and Praise: The Psalms as Canon,” JSOT 50 (1991): 81. 65 Ibid., 81. Beat Weber, in contrast, argues that Ps 78 represents the redactional midpoint of the Psalter. A cluster of evidence leads him to this conclusion, particularly the move from individual to plural, the presence of didactic Torah wisdom, the connection

194

Chapter 5: Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter

evidence. First, he sees the individual psalm as representative of the “theological movement” from doubt to trust that permeates the Psalter.66 Second, he cites the redactional work of Gerald Wilson as substantiation for the meaningful placement of Psalm 73 immediately following the concluding Davidic postscript in 72:20 and after the originally independent collection of Psalms 2–72.67 Third, Brueggemann sees the Solomonic superscription of Psalm 72 as an echo of royal failure, supporting the significant theological burden that its follower, namely Psalm 73, must bear. In relation to these pieces of evidence, Brueggemann treats the particular relationship between Psalm 73 and

with Ps 1, and the integration of different canonical echoes within the psalm’s account of Israelite history. See his “Psalm 78 als ‘Mitte’ des Psalters? ein Versuch,” Biblica 88 (2007): 305–325. However, Ps 78 lacks the redactional gravitas of Ps 73 with regard to its placement, since it does not stand at any of the “seams” of the five books. Moreover, the dominance of horizontal discourse within Ps78 militates against the idea that it provides some kind of central access point for the Psalter with regard to shifting dynamics of communication. See also Matthias Millard, “Die ‘Mitte des Psalters’: ein möglicher Ansatz einer Theologie der Hebräischen Bibel,” in Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung: Methodenreflexionen und Beispielexegesen (eds. Egbert Ballhorn and Georg Steins; Stuttgart, 2007) 252–260. 66 Brueggemann (“Bounded by Obedience and Praise,” 81) writes that “Psalm 73 reiterates the thesis of Psalm 1 and then enters into dispute with that thesis. On the other hand, the stance taken by Psalm 73, of affirmation and then dispute, is a stance taken over and over again in the Psalter. Thus I suggest that Psalm 73 assumes a paradigmatic function, providing a normative example of the frequently reiterated, re-enacted argument made in the Psalter concerning, (a) the reliability of God’s ḥesed, (b) the doubting of that ḥesed, and (c) the ultimate embrace of it in trust and confidence.” Like Brueggemann, J. Clinton McCann focuses on the theological centrality of Ps 73, holding that it represents a “microcosm” not only of the theology of the Psalter but of the Old Testament as a whole. McCann finds in Ps 73 a “center” that is also a “tension,” a complexity that characterizes any attempt to deal with Old Testament theology. He sees the essential transformation enacted in the worldview of the psalmist as one that finally associates “purity of heart” not with prosperity, but with “nearness to God.” See his “Psalm 73,” 247–257 (especially pp. 251– 252). 67 In Gerald Wilson’s (The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 213–214) shaping schema, the climax of the theological crisis that commences in Ps 73 follows upon the passing on of the covenant from David to his descendents, or “the king’s son” in Ps 72. Book III then relates a “new perspective” that moves beyond the Davidic confidence in the covenant (Ps 41) into a “covenant remembered” as well as a “covenant failed.” This reality comes together in the final psalm of Book III, Ps 89, which reflects on the Davidic covenant as both past and shattered. For Wilson, the primary theological problem in the Psalter therefore rests on covenantal grounds, namely God’s absence and failure to uphold the promise to David. The “How long?” question that Israel puts forth in Ps 89 holds the key to both the redactional and theological focal point of the Psalter as a whole. Thus, for Wilson, unlike Brueggemann, the crisis expounded in Ps 73 receives much less emphasis than the crisis mediated at the conclusion of Book IV in Ps 89.

2. Psalm 73 and the Psalter

195

Psalm 1 that, for him, further confirms the weighty role that Psalm 73 plays within the book as a whole. Brueggemann’s emphasis on the theological centrality of Psalm 73 within the Psalter focuses primarily on content; as shown above, the communicative development of the psalm also exemplifies the horizontal/vertical dynamics of speech that shape the theology of the psalms. Moreover, due to its pervasive wisdom affinities, Psalm 73 is a mainstay of any discussion of the Psalter’s relationship with wisdom and a didactic function as a whole. In other words, the unique didactic capacity of the Psalter that develops in the movement from beginning to end hinges on both the content and communicative profile of Psalm 73. Psalm 73 justifies the bookending role of Psalm 1 and Psalms 145–150, poems that could not be more different in content and mode of speech. Psalm 1 to Psalm 73 The theological kinship between Psalms 1 and 73 is one forged in misperception, defeated expectations, and human heartache. In Psalm 1, the speaker weds the promise of divine presence in the life of the well-rooted righteous to the approaching doom of the godless wicked. Psalms 37, 49, and 73 all detail the failure of the wicked’s demise, and the subsequent anxiety that the righteous have received false promises. Not only do the assurances of Psalm 1 seemingly fail to materialize, the suffering of the innocent at the hands of the wicked takes on a personalized dimension. The “I” absent from Psalm 1, and progressively more present in Psalms 37 and 49, dominates the discourse in Psalm 73. The plural wicked/‫( רשׁעים‬vss. 3, 12) affront God’s people (vs. 10). But more particularly, the position of the wicked is an affront to the selfidentified innocent psalmist (vs. 14), whose own suffering presumably provides the primary impetus for poem.68 With regard to thematic development, the movement among this group of psalms gradually particularizes the openness of Psalm 1 by contending with potential obstacles to its optimistic portrayal of the divide between the righteous and the wicked. Each impediment in some way relates to a problem of human perception, human sight, or human knowing. In Psalm 37, the speaker begins by affirming the fleeting lives of the wicked (vs. 2) but then addresses the vexing obstacle of their wealth (vss. 7, 16) and violence (vss. 12, 14–15) in comparison with the poverty of the righteous (vss. 14, 16). The speaker declares in verse 10 that “in a little while” the wicked one will disappear, that “you will look out for (hithpolel of ‫ )בין‬his place, but he is not there.” In other words, the speaker upholds the chaff-like existence of the wicked, despite 68

Verse 14 does not overtly identify who or what is the cause of the psalmist’s suffering, using the passive participle ‫ נגוע‬to describe the psalmist’s being struck. This experience, however, is clearly related to the activity of the wicked outlined in vss. 2–12.

196

Chapter 5: Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter

their wealth and violence. He/she is able to do this because of an eschatological vision rooted in an authenticating sight experience related in verses 35–36 that echoes the botanical imagery of Psalm 1, but seemingly inverts it. I saw (‫ )ראה‬a formidable wicked one, Taking root like a fresh native tree. But he passed on and was gone, I sought him, but he was not found. (Ps 37:35–36)

Though the wicked seem to have exchanged places with the well-rooted righteous (Ps 1), the psalmist’s sight allows him/her to recognize this seeming reversal as a temporary and false impression. In other words, “looking” aright at the seeming disparity between the wicked and the righteous dispels the notion that the framework of Psalm 1 has been compromised.69 In Psalm 49, the speaker complicates the powers of human sight once again by contending with the obstacle of death’s sway over the righteous and wicked alike. The righteous one sees/‫ ראה‬the wise die (vs. 11a), which renders the death of the wicked (vss. 11b-12, 14–16, 18–20) somewhat less satisfying despite the psalm’s overall emphasis on the point. Indeed, though the psalm ultimately asserts the good end of the righteous (vs. 16), the matter of human perception remains somewhat unresolved. The term ‫ בין‬occurs in the contested text of verse 21, which states, “Humanity does not perceive/understand honor, but is like the beasts that perish.”70 In Psalm 73:17, the term ‫ בין‬is once again associated with the end of the wicked, but now securely inhabits the heart of the psalmist, devoid of the underlying anxiety that colors its use in Psalm 49. The theological root of the speaker’s secure understanding/‫ בין‬in Psalm 73:17 suggests that human knowledge and perception, guided by sight, ultimately must derive from a divine source. The theocentric epistemology of this series of psalms confirms this point. Psalms 1 and 37 use the root ‫ ידע‬to describe God. God “knows the way of the righteous” (Ps 1:6) and “God knows the days of the blameless” (Ps 37:18). In contrast, Psalm 73 uses the term entirely to describe the human failures to know (vss. 11, 16, and 22). The authenticity of earlier statements about divine knowing of the righteous is put in jeopardy not by a change in the degree to which God is present, but rather in the failure of human knowing, human recognition of the theological reality that “I was always with you, You held 69

As noted in chapter four, Ps 37 also emphasizes the act of sight in the brief autobiographical narrative used in vss. 25–26, a teaching that stems from the speaker’s own seeing/‫ ראה‬of the generous and blessed righteous one. 70 As noted in chapter four, many scholars remark on the relationship between this term and the very similar sounding ‫ ילין‬in vs. 13, a difference that might or might not compromise the integrity of the “refrain” in vss. 13 and 21. See Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 1, 203–204. The term beast/‫ בהמה‬occurs likewise in Ps 73:22, where the psalmist uses the word to describe his/her period of misguided perception.

2. Psalm 73 and the Psalter

197

my right hand” (Ps 73:23). This reveals a fundamental pattern in this series of psalms; rather than each psalm linearly superseding the lesson of the last, the evocative images of Psalm 1 continue to take on greater definition, and further reveal the full breadth of the meanings encapsulated there.71 Indeed, authentic, divinely rendered human sight does not soften the notion that devastation awaits the wicked. All four psalms confirm this conclusion in different ways. As in Psalm 1, the speaker of Psalm 37 confidently maintains that the wicked/‫ רשׁעים‬will indeed perish/‫( אבד‬vs. 20). The psalm advances its notion of the righteous/wicked dichotomy by adding an eschatological dimension that intensifies the theocentric markers in the anthropologically focused first psalm. Psalm 49:11 similarly asserts that the fool/‫ כסיל‬and the brute/‫ בער‬both perish/‫אבד‬, leaving their wealth behind. Psalm 73:27 shifts once again, and states that those far from God (‫ )רחקיָך‬meet no good end (‫)אבד‬. The different terms used for the wicked in each psalm more precisely develop the nuanced characteristics of the group without revising their essential identity as wind-blown chaff (Ps 1:4). Indeed, the wicked’s fleetingness as such has an eternal guarantee, showcased in the twofold use of the term ‫ עולם‬in Psalm 49 (vss. 9, 12). The paradoxical permanence of the wicked’s transience contrasts with the portrayal of the righteous as “forever” in the company of God. Psalm 37 asserts the perpetuity of divine presence in the life of the righteous, three times using the term forever/‫ עולם‬to convey this idea (vss. 18, 27, 28). Verses 27– 28 tie the concept of divine presence with just action, a concept questioned obliquely in Psalm 49 and overtly in Psalm 73. Ultimately, the psalmist responds to this difficulty by stating that “He will take me” (‫ )יקחני‬in Psalm 49:16, thereby ameliorating this deep anxiety without satisfying the contemporary mind accustomed to notions of the afterlife. The much debated term end/‫ אחרית‬in Psalm 73:17 appears twice in Psalm 37:37–38, where the term substantiates the psalm’s eschatological rendering of the wicked/righteous dichotomy. Each group has its end or future, and each will enjoy the appropriate fruits of their actions. Psalm 73 once again nuances the straightforward eschatology of Psalm 37 while ultimately agree71

The fluidity of this interpretation contrasts with Brueggemann’s more linear reading of the relationship between Pss 1 and 73. For Brueggemann (“Bounded by Obedience and Praise,” 84–87), Ps 73:2–13 comprise the psamist’s “protest” against the reality described both in Pss 1 and 73:1 (which “restates the premise of Psalm 1”). He writes that this “protest is stated as a former protest with which the speaker no longer agrees in his present. That former protest is, however, a protest kept canonically available as one to which Israel could return again and again” (p. 84). Brueggemann admits that, in vss. 17–20, the psalmist once again asserts the punishment of the wicked that dominates Ps 1. However, he argues that the true “turn in perception” of Ps 73 occurs in vs. 23–26, where the psalm and the Psalter “moves beyond the central claim of Ps 1 to a quite different agenda” (pp. 85– 86). Thus, for Brueggemann, Ps 73 surpasses, rather than substantiates, Ps 1.

198

Chapter 5: Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter

ing that the wicked will meet their end/ ‫( אחרית‬vs.17). In Psalm 73, the end/‫ אחרית‬of the wicked is not simply assured, but something that the psalmist “perceives”/‫ בין‬in the sanctuary. This verse thus ties the concept of the end/‫ אחרית‬with the focus on human perception throughout this series of psalms. Verses 18–20 and 27 confirm that this end holds the promise of death for the wicked, but the intervening discourse also suggests that the speaker’s new perception focuses more on verse 24, which states “You took me toward glory” (‫)ואחר כבוד תקחני‬, echoing Psalm 49:16, but placing the idea within the new context of the speaker’s reoriented understanding/‫בין‬. The devastating ephemerality of the wicked develops into a conscious grappling with the inevitable passage of time for the wicked and righteous alike, and the relationship between a time-bound worldview and the righteous/wicked dichotomy. Within this realm where God deals reward and punishment in death blows, the speaker in Psalm 73 finally collapses the timebound distinctions between past, present, and future that lead to human misperception of the wicked and the righteous. In doing so, the psalm lays bare the common foundation that binds together this series of psalms associated with wisdom. Psalm 73:23–26 is framed by the time words always/‫ תמיד‬and forever/‫ עולם‬to describe the relationship between the psalmist and God, the “I” and the “You.” Erich Zenger writes that verses 23–24 traverse a “sequence of time levels,” the past, present and future.72 For Zenger, this sequence serves “to extend that ‘always’ beyond death.”73 But there is another way to see the always/‫תמיד‬, namely as that which unites all three stages of the psalmist’s time-bound life through the timeless or eternal character of divine presence. In other words, the emphasis of these verses lies not solely on the future, but rather the entirety of time as it exists for the psalmist. In Psalm 73:24, then, the “You take me” (‫ )תקחני‬does not simply refer to a future event, but rather acts as part of an on-going reality that the psalmist has just perceived for the first time, but that extends into perpetuity.74 In other words, eternity already exists in the present moment for the psalmist in the guise of divine presence.75 Psalm 73 radicalizes this idea by suggesting that the devas72

Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 235. Ibid., 235. 74 This is against Zenger (Psalms 2, 235), who writes that “What is indisputable is that the future statement in v. 24b speaks of the end of the petitioner’s life.” The difference between Ps 49 and Ps 73 is instructive here. Ps 49:16 states that “He will take me” while Ps 73:24 states “You took me toward glory.” While these verses have long been studied as possible references to the afterlife, the change in communicative mode is what is most important here. While both express the idea in the first person, Ps 73 places the statement within the context of the speaker’s prayer. 75 The translation of vs. 24 is widely contested, largely in relation to its possible reference to the afterlife. See Stanley Jellicoe, “Interpretation of Psalm 73:24,” ExpTim 67.7 (Apr. 1956): 209–210; Markus Witte, “Auf dem Weg in ein Leben nach dem Tod: Beo73

2. Psalm 73 and the Psalter

199

tation of the wicked, while it may have a future element, already determines their lives, which are likened to a divine dream (vs. 20). So, the righteous live rooted in the eternal life of God, while the lives of the wicked bear no imprint on it. It is an afterlife already present, encompassed in the time-bound completion of the psalmist’s past, present, and future within the hand of God (vs. 23). Thus, these psalms respond to the thematic obstacles created by Psalm 1 by appealing to the disparity between human and divine understanding, entering into the complexities of death, and ultimately re-establishing the premise of Psalm 1 by appealing to the timelessness that divine presence instills within passing human life. The divine rectification of human perception or sight provokes a recognizable change in the direction of human speaking. In other words, this timelessness has a specific communicative shape, namely a perpetual vertical address that continues even as the psalmist simultaneously addresses a human audience. The “forever” life with God is marked by a vertical and verbal relationship that persists in the aftermath of the speaker’s theological reorientation in the sanctuary. The final use of the term ‫ עולם‬in this series of psalms in Psalm 73:26 concludes a passage that details the substance of the righteous’ reward (vss. 23–26), namely that God is the rock/‫ צור‬of the speaker’s heart/‫לבב‬. In this way, the thematic development among these psalms from an anthropocentric to a theocentric focus parallels a communicative development that involves a similar move. Psalm 1 establishes a vaguely defined, but clearly horizontal relationship between speaker and addressee. Psalm 37 maintains the horizontal orientation of speech but introduces the human “I” and the human “you” grammatically as well as providing some information about the identities of these figures. Like Psalm 37, Psalm 49 takes up the theme and horizontal orientation of Psalm 1, but generates both a new approach to content and horizontal speech. The speaker’s “I” becomes more prominent than in Psalm 37, with the discourse driven by the first-person statements of the opening and verses 6 and 16. Moreover, unlike Psalms 1 or 37, Psalm 49 uses the vocative and this sharpens the identity of the audience. Psalm 73 finally turns to explicit vertical address in a manner that, as shown, explicitly identifies this communicative turn as divinely initiated, and an answer to the troubling themes that dominate this series of psalms. Ultimately, the thematic and communicative development of this series of psalms, each associated with the biblical wisdom corpus, traces a circle. The bachtungen zur Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte von Psalm 73, 24–26,” TZ 58 (2002): 15–30. Witte argues that vss. 22–26 are a late interpolation and do indeed convey the concept of the afterlife. Zenger (Psalms 2, 233) suggests that the ambiguity of these verses derives from “message itself, which must remain as undecided as it is here presented to be.” In the end, however, Zenger (Ibid., 235) also surmises that the two verses together “extend that ‘always’ beyond death.”

200

Chapter 5: Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter

deep anxieties associated with the seemingly naïve premise of Psalm 1, explored in Psalms 37, 49, and 73, finally resolve once again with the familiar notion that wicked perish/‫( אבד‬Ps. 73:27), just as the psalmist proclaims at the conclusion of Psalm 1 (vs. 6). In the final two verses of Psalm 73, however, the speaker no longer uses the term wicked/‫ רשׁע‬to identify those who will perish. Rather, those “far from You” will perish in contrast with the speaker, not identified as the righteous/‫ צדיק‬but as the one whose good/‫ טוב‬is “nearness to God.” The eschatological overtones of Psalm 37 and the radical look at death in Psalm 49 resolve in a way that confirms the conclusion of Psalm 1 while also revealing it in a new way.76 Moreover, the underlying anxiety regarding the potential for misperceiving one’s own identity as one of the righteous, evident at various points in these psalms, recedes with the understanding/‫ בין‬gained in the sanctuary (vs. 17) and realized through the transition into an on-going vertical address. Psalm 73 to Psalm 145 To fully examine the role that human wisdom plays in the final form of the Psalter, it is necessary to reckon with the book’s ending.77 The Psalter’s bookends could not be more different; the first psalm idealizes individualized recitation (Ps 1:2) while the last psalm boisterously demands communal praise, dance, and music-making of various kinds (Ps 150). Just as the full scope of Psalm 1’s introductory function only emerges in tandem with Psalms 2 and 3, the Psalter’s conclusion likewise consists of a series of psalms, be76

Brueggemann (Ibid.,” 87) writes of the move from Ps 1 to Ps 73:28, “Now the ‘goodness’ treasured is not material blessing but God’s own self.” Brueggemann sees the “good” of Ps 1 encapsulated in its concept of Torah piety, a concept that usually “refers to the substantive material blessings which are given out of Yahweh’s faithful, reliable generosity.” The problem with this conclusion is that Ps 1 never uses the term ‫טוב‬, nor does it associate the life of the righteous explicitly with material blessing. The implications of the first word of the psalm, as well as the reference to prospering/‫ צלח‬in vs. 3, remain undefined, to some degree. In this, Brueggemann fails to account for the openness of Ps 1 in its stated premise and communicative stance. 77 Studies on the Psalter’s introduction outweigh those on its conclusion, but there are a number of important studies on the book’s conclusion as well. See especially Erich Zenger, “‘Das alles Fleisch den Namen seiner Heilignung segne’ (Ps 145:21): Die Komposition Ps 145–150 als Anstoß zu einer christlich-jüdischen Psalmenhermeneutic,” BZ 41 (1997): 1– 27; Patrick Miller, “The End of the Psalter: A Response to Erich Zenger,” JSOT 80 (1998): 103–110; Ballhorn, Zum Telos des Psalters, 2004; Donatella Scaiola, “The End of the Psalter,” in The Composition of the Book of Psalms (ed. Erich Zenger; BETL 238; Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 701–710. On the relationship between the introduction and conclusion of the Psalter, see Susan Gillingham, “Entering and Leaving the Psalter: Psalms 1 and 150 and the Two Polarities of Faith,” in Let Us Go Up to Zion. Essays in Honour of H.G.M. Williamson on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (eds. I. Provan and M.J. Boda; SVT 153; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 383–93.

2. Psalm 73 and the Psalter

201

ginning with Psalm 145 and finishing with the final group of hymns in Psalms 146–150.78 Moreover, Psalm 73 stands at the midpoint between Psalms 1 and 145, which supports the significance of the lexical and thematic connections between these two psalms as well as their mutual significance for understanding the Psalter. These psalms definitively shape not only the Psalter’s relationship with biblical wisdom, but also its own unique instructional capacity. Psalm 145 both concludes the Psalter and acts as a bridge to its “coda,” recalling earlier wisdom while also anticipating the gradual entrance into unadulterated praise that develops in Psalms 146–150.79 Patrick Miller outlines three convincing pieces of evidence for the concluding function of Psalm 145. First, Psalm 145:1 has the final superscription of the Psalter and the only superscription with a reference to praise/‫ תהלה‬that “gives to the Psalter its title or heading and anticipates the coda to follow.”80 Second, the final verses of Psalm 145 both conclude what precedes and anticipate what follows; verse 20 forms an inclusio within the Psalter as a whole with its echo of Psalm 1:6, and verse 21 forms an inclusio with verse 1 of Psalm 145, framing the individual poem itself. Verse 21 also looks forward and parallels Psalm 150:6 in the praise of “all.”81 Moreover, verse 21 also serves as a concluding doxology, echoing the doxologies that conclude the other four books of the Psalter. Third, Miller points to the universalizing function of the psalm’s repeated use of the term all/‫כל‬.82 This collection of evidence showcases the strong ties that Psalm 145 has with its surroundings, as well as its role in the Psalter’s conclusion. Psalm 145 is a hymn with sapiential resonances and therefore warrants examination not only for its concluding role in the Psalter, but also as an im78

Brueggemann (Bounded by Obedience and Praise, 67) differs in his examination of the beginning and ending of the Psalter, highlighting specifically Pss 1 and 150 as keys for understanding the shape of the book as a whole. 79 Even Gunkel (Introduction to the Psalms, 2), who very firmly declares that “No internal ordering principle for the individual psalms has been transmitted for the whole,” acknowledges that Psalms 145–150 represent a cohesive group of psalms. 80 Miller, “The End of the Psalter,” 105. 81 Ibid., 105–107. See also Wilson, “The Shape of the Book of Psalms,” Interpretation 46 (1992): 133. 82 Miller, “The End of the Psalter,” 107. Gerald Wilson (The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 225–226) also points to three further editorial indicators in Ps 145. First, the elaboration of the wicked/righteous dichotomy in vs. 20 parallels not only Ps 1:6, but also Ps 107:42, the first psalm of the fifth book of the Psalter. Second, the emphasis on God’s kingship recalls the divine kingship psalms in the middle of Book IV. Third, the psalm’s multiple connections with Ps 107 overall establish the redactor’s hand in framing Book V. Overall, Wilson calls Ps 145 the “call to praise” that “draws the Psalter to an end and precipitates the concluding hallel of Psalms 146–150.” See his “The Shape of the Book of Psalms,”134.

202

Chapter 5: Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter

portant psalm for understanding the role of wisdom in relation to the instructional function of Psalter as a whole.83 The wisdom elements in Psalm 145 primarily consist of its acrostic form and its appeal to the righteous/wicked dichotomy, particularly in verse 20.84 As in Psalm 25, the acrostic converges with a complex communicative environment with different audiences. Most importantly, the psalm weds these wisdom components with an overt acclamation of praise speech as such, which leaves the importance of an active verbal response to the psalmist in no doubt. Indeed, Psalm 145 is in many ways a psalm about speech itself. More particularly, it is a psalm about praise speech, and a psalm about speaking both to and about God. Because of this, the communicative environment of the psalm and its content-based theological assertions are powerfully intertwined. Lexical and thematic connections between Psalm 73 and Psalm 145 reveal further refinements of the Psalter’s sapiential presentation of the righteous/wicked divide. First, Psalm 145 spends considerably less time overtly dealing with this concept than previous examples of psalmic wisdom; the wicked/‫ רשׁע‬appear in only one verse (vs. 20), while the term ‫ צדיק‬appears only once and in reference to God rather than human beings (vs. 17). Indeed, the anxiety and anguish associated with the prosperity of the wicked, dissipated in the aftermath of the experience in the sanctuary (Ps 73:17), does not appear here. Still, this rehabilitated confidence sustains the persistent idea that the Lord destroys the wicked (vs. 20). However, the brief attention to the destruction of the wicked in verse 20 stands in tension with the universalizing tendencies that dominate Psalm 145 overall. The seventeen appearances of the term all/‫ כל‬denote a universal call that seemingly moves beyond a foundational opposition between the right83

The wisdom character of Ps 145 is crucial for Gerald Wilson’s (Ibid., 134) argument that the Psalter contains two “competing frames,” namely a “royal frame” and a “wisdom frame.” His contention that the “wisdom frame” of the Psalter, which he defines primarily in terms of Pss 1, 73, and 145, ultimately determines the book’s function relies heavily on the wisdom resonances in Ps 145, a psalm that, as noted above, he understands as the “conclusion” of the Psalter. 84 As noted in chapter three with regard to Ps 25, the acrostic form is not necessarily, as Gunkel (Introduction to the Psalms, 64) argues, simply “a decorative form which can only be appreciated by the eyes while offering nothing for the ear or the spirit.” Indeed, in Ps 145, the acrostic form collides with other, overtly auditory features. Nancy deClaisséWalford points to the psalm’s “acoustic characteristics,” such as repetitions of both terms and sounds, and assonance. These poetic techniques indicate that the psalm appeals to hearing as well as to sight. DeClaissé-Walford moves a step further even, writing, “The acoustic qualities of Psalm 145 move the reader through the words, phrases, and lines of the psalm, impacting not just the eye and the ear but the very being of the one reciting its words.” In this way, she highlights the transformative effect of Ps 145’s poetics within the one who speaks it. See her “Psalm 145: All Flesh will Bless God’s Holy Name,” CBQ 74.1 (2012): 59–60.

2. Psalm 73 and the Psalter

203

eous and the wicked, a theme so dominant in wisdom discourse. The individual speaker’s eyes, which in Psalm 73 fail the psalmist (vs. 16), become, in Psalm 145, the innumerable “eyes of all look to You in hope” (Ps 145:15). God “satisfies all living things” (Ps 145:16), and “all flesh” will bless the holy name of God (Ps 145:21). Yet, verse 20 makes plain that at least one group will not take part in this universal activity, indeed, all the wicked (‫כל־‬ ‫ )הרשׁעים‬will be destroyed. So, the assurances of the wicked’s destruction, at some level, conflict with the inclusive depiction of the faithful. Psalm 145 also further conditions the portrayal of time, as it develops in relation to the righteous/wicked divide, by bringing it into the hymnic sphere. In Psalms 37, 49, and 73, as noted above, the psalmist progressively reveals a theological concept of forever/‫ עולם‬as a way of dealing with the troubling divide between the prospering wicked and the suffering righteous. Ultimately, Psalm 73 associates everlasting divine presence in the life of the righteous with the human act of vertical speech. Psalm 145 substantiates this use of the term ‫ עולם‬and makes the connection with vertical speech even more explicit. The psalm affirms human praise as something that goes on forever/‫ עולם‬both in its beginning (vss. 1–2) and its end (vs. 21). In verses 1–2, the psalmist twice declares in the midst of vertical address that he/she will bless and praise God forevermore/‫לעולם ועד‬.85 Verse 21 not only repeats the speaker’s personal avowal to praise (vss. 1–2), but also declares that “all flesh” (‫ )כל־בשׂר‬will join him/her in this activity “forevermore” (‫)לעולם ועד‬. In addition to describing praise as a perpetual act, the psalmist describes the kingship of God as for “all time” (‫)כל־עלמים‬, another unusual phrase that occurs only here (vs. 13). The sense of the “end” that appeared in different ways in Psalms 37, 49, and 73, does not appear here. Rather, the on-going nature, the perpetual continuance, of God’s reign becomes the focus. As Hossfeld writes, “neither the existence of the faithful nor their handing on of the message comes even implicitly to an end.”86 Vertically directed human speech is thus a marker of 85 The phrase ‫ לעולם ועד‬only occurs seven times in the Old Testament, three of which are in Ps 145. Two other occurrences of the term are particularly illuminating. In Ps 9:6, the speaker states to God, “You rebuke the nations, You destroy the wicked, You wipe out their name forevermore.” The use of the term name/‫ שׁם‬in reference to the wicked, along with this rare phrase, connects this verse to Ps 145, which refers to the “name” of God three times in the same three verses that use this phrase forevermore/ ‫( לעולם ועד‬vss. 1–2, 21). Psalm 145 (especially vs. 12, with its reference to “all flesh”) signals a change in focus and perhaps even substance, away from the destruction of the nations to the universal praise of God as the mark of ceaselessness. Mic 4:5 likewise uses the “name” of God in conjunction with the phrase ‫לעולם ועד‬, but rather than praise, this verse states that “Though all people walk, each in the name of his gods, We will walk in the name of the Lord our God, forevermore.” While the Micah text does not echo the universalizing quality of Ps 145:21, it likewise highlights the connection between the “name” and “forevermore” that drives Ps 145 as a whole. 86 Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 599.

204

Chapter 5: Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter

God’s “forever” kingdom in a world where human reign is inadequate. Praise is the authentic and “forever” act of humanity. The communicative structure of Psalm 145 supports and develops the tie between vertically directed speech and the depiction of God’s relationship to the faithful. As in Psalm 73, the speaker divides his/her attentions between vertical and horizontal modes of address. However, Psalm 145 intensifies the concurrent dynamic of the two addresses; the shifts between second-person speech to God (vss. 1–2, 4–7, 10–11, 13, 15–16) and third-person speech about God (3, 8–9, 12, 14, 17–21) continue at a rapid pace throughout. 87 The speaker thereby once again stands in a verbal relationship both with the God to whom his/her praises are directed, and an implied human audience. The relationship between the human speaker and human audience revolves around the verbal act of praise.88 The “I” immediately and expressly presents him/herself as one who vertically addresses God in praise in verses 1–2, and further in verses 6 and 21. Verse 1 uses the directional term ‫ רום‬that literally signifies a “lifting up,” a vertical posture. In addition to acting as an agent of praise him/herself, the psalmist engages in the typical, horizontally oriented expression of praise through third-person theological statements that describe God’s greatness (vss. 3, 8–9, 13–20). Lastly, the speaker describes the praise that others will enact, both in the midst of vertical address (vss. 6a, 7, 10–11, 21b) and in the midst of implicit horizontal address (vs. 12). The speaker is thus identified not only as the “I” who directly addresses a “Thou,” but also as one who recounts God’s wondrous deeds, and who affirms that others, namely all/‫כל‬, will do likewise. In this way, the speaker identifies the implicit audience as those who will act as the speaker does, who will join with the “I” who has addressed God, and so vociferously declared the words of praise. This dynamic is most evident in verse 6: They will speak the might of Your awesome deeds, I will recount your greatness. (Ps 145:6) 87

Gunkel (Introduction to the Psalms, 32–33) contends that hymns primarily speak about God using third-person speech. He admits, however, that occasionally third-person speech about God and second-person speech to God mix within a hymn, and Ps 145 fits this description. Other hymns identified by Gunkel with this mix of second and third person in relation to God include Pss 9:6–13; 48; 66:1–12; 67; 68; 76; 77:14; 84; 89:2, 6–19; 92; 97; 99; 104; 135. As he writes, “These hymns are thus actually not ‘prayers’ in the proper sense, in which the ‘appeal’ (in vocative) and the address in the verb are much more characteristic.” This highlights a key commonality between hymns and psalms of a more sapiential persuasion, namely that both rely a great deal on horizontally oriented speech. 88 Hossfeld (Psalms 3, 595) distinguishes those terms in Ps 145 that specifically refer to the act of speech in reference to praise: ‫אמר‬, ‫דבר‬, ‫ספר‬, ‫נבע‬, ‫נגד‬, hiphil of ‫ידע‬. As he notes, other speaking words in Ps 145 not used in relation to praise include ‫ קרא‬in vs. 18 and ‫שׁבע‬ in vs. 19.

2. Psalm 73 and the Psalter

205

Here the “they” and the “I” stand in parallel, both described as speaking the words of praise in the midst of the speaker’s vertical address. This parallel encapsulates the invitation of the psalm as a whole to take up the posture and the words of the “I.” The speaker thus draws the audience not only into his/her vertical posture, but also into the verbalization of third-person theological statements about God that function here as praise. Thus, once again, one finds the integration of vertical and horizontal speech, here both rendered as praise. The invitation into the vocal realm of praise has generational implications. In verse 4, the speaker declares that “one generation to the next” (‫)דור לדור‬ will praise God’s works. This recalls the use of the phrase “generation of your children” (‫ )דור בניָך‬in Psalm 73:15. In Psalm 145, the poet further links the praising generations of verse 4 with the generations who experience everlasting (‫ )כל־עלמים‬divine kingship in verse 13. The faithful generations will “make known” (hiphil of ‫ )ידע‬this divine rule. The faithful audience is therefore those who imitate the speaker both in addressing God and proclaiming God’s works to others. Verse 18 reinforces this point by painting the faithful as those who “cry out” (‫ )קרא‬to God. This verse also again echoes Psalm 73 (vs. 28), using the language of nearness/‫ קרוב‬to describe the relationship between God and the faithful. Psalm 145:18 verifies that God is the one who brings about this nearness, but human beings participate by calling/‫ קרא‬on God. Therefore, verses 18–19 forcefully emphasize the link between vertically directed human speech and the divine presence that delivers/‫( ישׁע‬vs. 19) those who wait/‫( שׁבר‬vs. 15) by calling out (vss. 18–19, 21). This is an activity that is available to all; whether all choose to take up this vertical speech remains unresolved. Human wisdom in the Psalter leads its recipients here, to a regenerative and generational call, one that has both vertical and horizontal dimensions. Psalms 146–150 Psalms 146–150 provide an exclamation point to this conclusion by drawing out the implications of Psalm 145’s binding of the life of the righteous and the entrance into vertically oriented speech. As scholars have noted, Psalms 146–150 characterize the audience according to gradually more expansive identities. This series moves from an address between the “I” and the soul/‫נפשׁ‬ (Ps 146), to Jerusalem/Zion (Ps 147), to the cosmos (Ps 148), and then to Israel (Ps 149), whose praise “will transform the whole cosmos into the realm subject to the king, YHWH.”89 Psalm 150 brings this progression back to the universal conclusion of Psalm 145:21, by declaring that “all that breathes”

89

Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 605.

206

Chapter 5: Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter

(‫ )כל הנשׁמה‬will praise the Lord. Thus, Psalm 145 anticipates the conclusion that Psalms 146–150 realize. Human wisdom and the righteous/wicked dichotomy make brief appearances in this “coda” to the Psalter before the psalmist finally gives over to unadulterated praise in Psalm 150. The first-person affirmation in Psalm 146:2 that the speaker will continue in praise is followed by a passage that, at some level, echoes the sentiments and communicative structure of much of psalmic wisdom. Verses 3–4 are a horizontally oriented admonition that reiterate the familiar idea that trust/‫ בטח‬should be directed toward God alone due to the transitory nature of human existence. The presentation here of the transitory character of human life echoes the pessimisms of Qoheleth. 90 Verse 5 is an ‫ אשׁרי‬clause that extols the lives of those whose hope lies in the God of Jacob.91 These verses demonstrate the continuing significance of didactic human speech, while once again directing the human audience toward the God who saves. Verse 9 reaffirms that God watches over the righteous, identified here as the orphan, widow, and stranger, and tortures the wicked. Psalm 147: 6 echoes this sentiment, contrasting the lowly/‫ ענו‬with the wicked.92 The contextualization of these wisdom elements in hymnic poems suggests once again the fluid line between wisdom speech and hymnic speech in the psalms, particularly third-person speech that can function both prescriptively and as praise language. Even the admonition in Psalm 146:3 begins to take on a hymnic sound, as further incentive for the human audience to step into a theocentric trust that gets expressed in vertical speech. In this way, Psalms 145–150 bring psalmic wisdom speech, initiated in Psalm 1 and progressively developed throughout the Psalter, explicitly into the hymnic sphere. In Psalm 150, human wisdom recedes, and the theocentric indicators that permeate human wisdom in previous psalms finally and unambiguously overpower psalmic speech both in content and mode of address. There is no moral exhortation here, no third-person prescription concerning the value of certain types of behavior in relation to one’s neighbor. Nor is there any reference to the divine teacher, Torah, or the divide between the wicked and the righteous. Psalm 150 relates no past, nor any anticipation of a future end. But in this unawareness, Psalm 150 locates the concept of perpetual verbal communion within the immediate present. In other words, the intimations of the timelessness of divine presence expressed in Psalm 73 and certified in Psalm 145 become, in Psalm 150, a disregard for time’s passage as such, and more specifically, time’s passage as the arbiter of the righteous/wicked divide. In Psalm 150, the psalmist no longer carves out the identity of the righteous through an opposition to the wicked. Rather, God alone 90

Zenger (Psalms 3, 609) calls vss. 3–5 “wisdom-theological elements.” See also Ps 145:15. 92 This recalls the equivalence of the righteous and the lowly/‫ ענו‬in Ps 37:11. 91

2. Psalm 73 and the Psalter

207

occupies the community’s thoughts and words. The perpetual character of the psalmist’s vertical address in Psalm 73 reaches its only possible end, one that is no end at all but an unqualified and immediate present. Indeed, overall, this series of wisdom affiliated psalms shows a particular movement in the way that it portrays the relationship between past, present, and future with respect to Psalm 1’s dichotomy between the righteous and the wicked. Psalm 1 initiates this emphasis on time by contrasting the enduring character of the righteous (the well-rooted tree) and the fleeting character of the wicked (wind-blown chaff). Thus, at its start in the Psalter, this dichotomy is vaguely defined with reference to time’s adjudicating role. In Psalm 37, the psalmist more specifically lends meaning to the inequities of the present by emphasizing an eschatological divine agency that will manifest itself in the future. In yet another twist, Psalm 49 anxiously acknowledges that death awaits the wicked and righteous alike in the future, yet the psalm simultaneously asserts that somehow death will also affirm divine loyalty to the righteous. Psalm 73, in its conclusion, conflates the psalmist’s past, present, and future by affirming the continuity of divine presence at each stage. The timeless (always/‫ תמיד‬and forever/‫ עולם‬in vss. 23, 26) quality of this presence mutes the importance of the wicked, and mutes the importance of the future, without fully abandoning it. Psalm 145 further clarifies this forever/‫ עולם‬by unequivocally associating it with the act of human praise, as the act that finally separates all/‫ כל‬the faithful from all/‫ כל‬the wicked. This step leads to the abandonment of the future as well as the abandonment of the righteous/wicked divide in Psalm 150. The end/‫ אחרית‬no longer holds any sway over the psalmist’s discourse, and the vision of the future here does not press beyond the invitation into the praise of the immediate present. In addition to the concept of time in relation to the wicked/righteous dichotomy, the persistent references to communal life in each of the wisdom psalms examined in chapters four and five take on a clear shape in Psalm 150.93 Once again, this does not require an all-encompassing transformation. Psalm 1 quietly anticipates this move, as do Psalms 37, 49, 73 and 145 in different ways shown above and in chapter four. The testimonial speech in Psalm 73 is directed towards the plural “pure of heart” who listen and witness the individual speaker’s dramatic move into vertical speech as an answer to an unanswerable dilemma. This witnessing event in these psalms advances toward the moment when the community of hearers becomes the community of speakers, a move realized in Psalm 150. In Psalm 150, the individual has all but disappeared; while the speaker might be individual, there is nothing in 93 Many scholars have noted the general trend from an individual to a communal focus in the Psalter, driven by a form-critical trend from the lament to the hymn. See Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms, 258; Wilson, “The Shape of the Book of Psalms,” 139.

208

Chapter 5: Wisdom and Instruction in the Psalter

the grammar of the psalm that excludes the possibility of a plural speaker. This could be an individual’s call to the community to take up the “we,” or this could be a communal and self-referential “we” already in the midst of song. The psalm itself leaves this aspect of the discourse open. Moreover, the horizontal dimension of this call to vertical speech never disappears; indeed, the entirety of Psalm 150 may be comprised of nothing but horizontally oriented address. But it is an invitation into the words of the Psalter that preceded it and an invitation to learn by speaking and by singing all the words. In this way, the content-based intimations of communal life in Psalm 73 and Psalm 145 conclude with a full-fledged call to a present community to participate in the act of worship. At both ends of the Psalter, the emphasis lies in some kind of speaking. Psalm 73 intensely underlines the point; lessons are learned through the psalms by taking the words as one’s own words, entering into a perpetual vertical speech modeled by the speaker and witnessed by the audience. Psalm 145 confirms this by even more strongly by drawing the connection between the “I” and the “you,” and explicitly identifying the faithful as “all” those who engage in the vertical speech of praise. The interplay of different modes of speech grammatically eases the audience into this role as speaker. The final Psalm 150 accentuates the point by ending on the precipice of verbal and vertical life, presenting an invitation rather than a conclusion. The instructional reckoning with the world-as-it-seems versus the world-as-itis, explored through Psalms 1, 37, 49, 73, and 145, recedes; the invitation to speak, or indeed to sing, emerges plainly.

3. Conclusion 3. Conclusion

Overall, Psalm 73 reveals the way that the Psalter constructively engages the wisdom tradition while maintaining a uniquely psalmic approach to problems that plague both the sages and the psalmists. The Psalter does not finally reject wisdom frameworks or even the conclusions drawn within them; the ubiquity of sapiential motifs throughout Psalm 73 bears this out. Yet, the psalms do not instruct in the way that the narrative of Job instructs, nor do the psalms teach with a first-person discourse in the manner of Qoheleth. While the parent-teacher surfaces in Psalm 34:12, the psalms ultimately present a different lesson than the proverbial father. The prominent echoes of these sapiential texts in the psalms remind the audience that there is something to be learned, that there is an intellectual, behavioral, and verbal transformation available when one enters this poetic landscape. But by way of its singular communicative environment, the Psalter presses forward toward a further finish and a more vociferous answer, a communally directed call that the sage Ben Sira only briefly imagines. Indeed, Psalm 73 bears witness to the fact that the Psalter’s relationship with the wisdom tradition depends as much on

3. Conclusion

209

the jubilant call of Psalm 150 as it does on the wisdom bearing monologue of Psalm 1. The wisdom psalms along the way, such as 37 and 49, validate this reading, each in its own way advancing the passage toward the book’s final invitation. The didactic function of the psalms and Psalter thus make use of the words of wisdom but place them in the service of an invitation to a distinctive communicative encounter. Because of this, wisdom in the Psalter fails to exert the dominant influence on the book’s overall function. Nor does it singularly shape the Psalter’s instructional potential. With regard to the function of the Psalter as a whole, it is clear that, as much as Psalm 1 shapes what follows, so too do Psalms 145– 150 shape what precedes. The linear move from Psalm 1 to 150 is never complete. That is to say, as the privileged bookends of the Psalter’s “montage of patterns,” the linear move from Psalm 1 to 150 is only ever a move back to Psalm 1 again, as the interplay between human speaker and divine Addressee continues onward even as it points at last toward the latter. 94 It is Psalm 150 that ultimately imparts a fully vertical dimension to Psalm 1, and Psalm 1 that imparts a didactic dimension to Psalm 150. Psalm 73 provides the bridge from one to the other.

94

This phrase, as noted, comes from Mays, The Lord Reigns, 126.

Chapter 6

Conclusions The role that human wisdom plays in the psalms and Psalter hinges on its interaction with other types of poetic discourse. The distinctive contextualization of sapiential forms, themes, and terminology within the book of Psalms irrevocably shapes wisdom’s function differently than when parallel forms, themes, and terminology appear in the biblical wisdom books. In other words, formal equivalency does not imply functional equivalency with regard to wisdom’s presence in the book of Psalms. Moreover, the instructional capacity of the psalms and Psalter is not limited to its wisdom affiliations. Psalmic wisdom specifically points beyond its own parameters toward other modes of address, forming an interplay of discourses that together anticipate a particular response from the audience. This interplay, as demonstrated through the structure of this study, reveals itself at three interpretive levels, namely individual mixed-genre psalms, individual “wisdom” psalms within their immediate literary context, and the Psalter as a whole. At each interpretive level, shifts between horizontally oriented sapiential address and vertically oriented address to the divine form a unified rhetorical and theological whole. Grammatical transitions create a complex but integrated communicative environment in which the relationship between speaker and addressee is dynamic, rather than static, and constantly changing. Within this context, psalmic wisdom contributes to a flexible but identifiable pattern of instruction, manifest at all three levels of interpretation, aimed at drawing its audience into the speech of prayer and praise. Ultimately, human wisdom in the psalms and Psalter negotiates an invitatory move into a verbal and vertical encounter with the divine. Psalmic wisdom, in tandem with other kinds of poetic discourse, conceptualizes the process of instruction as an act that involves both human and divine teacher, and privileges the latter. The psalms overwhelmingly describe teaching as the work of God; this begins with the reference to Torah in Psalm 1 and continues in formally sapiential passages such as Psalms 25:4–5 and 94:12, which attribute pedagogical authority to God rather than the human speaker.1 Unlike the instructions in Proverbs, there is a general reticence in 1

Of course, as noted, there are two main exceptions to this dominant trend. Pss 34:12 and 78:1–2 both specifically refer to the didactic authority of the human speaker, and Ps 49:2–5 might also be included here, though these verses are not unequivocally sapiential

Chapter 6: Conclusions

211

these examples of psalmic wisdom to present the pedagogical authority of the human psalmist as primary despite the psalmist’s continuing presence as the one who both broadcasts the image of the divine teacher and models the proper communicative approach toward the same, namely through vocal address. Therefore, within this framework, the psalmist plays the role of both teacher and student. As teacher, the psalmist dispenses human wisdom to the implicitly or explicitly represented human audience. As student, the psalmist requests divine instruction (e.g. Ps 25:4–5). Yet, as a student of divine instruction, the psalmist continues to play a pedagogical role for the human audience by modeling a vertical posture before the divine pedagogue. This dynamic fundamentally differs from the depiction of the silent receptivity student audience that predominates in the biblical wisdom books.2 It also hints at the theological, rather than anthropological, focus that permeates the various iterations of wisdom in the psalms. Thematically, the subject matter of psalmic wisdom primarily involves the classic sapiential concern for the divide between the righteous and the wicked. Introduced in the wisdom-resonant Psalm 1, this theme develops in a way that sustains a meaningful relationship with parallel wisdom texts while also diverging from them. Psalm 92’s simple, third-person reflection on the distinction between the righteous and the wicked (vss. 7–8, 13–15) is integrally situated within a poem that identifies itself as worship (vss. 2–4) and addresses God (vss. 2–6, 9–11). These shifts change the effect of the third-person reflection for the implicit human audience, drawing them into the first-person plural of worship (vs. 14) that is distinctly psalmic. Even wisdom-like psalms that sustain a horizontal orientation throughout show marks that distinguish them from their sapiential counterparts. Psalm 37 approaches the issue of the righteous/wicked divide by using proverbial exhortations and prescriptive third-person speech that strongly echo the book of Proverbs. Yet, the psalm approaches the problem of the wicked’s prosperity by developing an eschatological framework whereby God will vindicate the righteous and destroy the wicked in a future not yet seen. Psalm 49, in contrast, focuses on death as that which awaits the wicked and righteous alike (vs. 11), yet also somehow finally distinguishes between the two since “death shepherds” the wicked (vs. 15) while God will “take” the righteous speaker (vs. 16). Regardless of the mysteriousness of the latter claim, both these and didactic, as shown in chapter four. Moreover, as noted, the reference to Torah in Ps 1:2 is not necessarily non-sapiential, since the book of Ben Sira introduces the concept into his wisdom framework. It does, however, foreshadow the depiction of the divine pedagogue that arises in the Psalter in passages like Ps 25:4–5a. 2 On the silence of the student in biblical wisdom, see James Crenshaw, Education in Ancient Israel, 187–203; “The Missing Voice” in A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content: Essays in Honor of George W. Coats (ed. Eugene E. Carpenter; JSOTSupl 240; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 133–143.

212

Chapter 6: Conclusions

“wisdom psalms” theocentrically present God as the final and active arbiter of the righteous/wicked divide in an imagined future that thereby ameliorates the inequities of the present time. When one examines these two “wisdom psalms” in their immediate context, additional aspects of the righteous/wicked dichotomy appear that further embed the subject within a psalmic milieu. These additions include the possibility of personal culpability, and the inefficacy of human speech when faced with both external and internal afflictions beyond the scope of a proverbial worldview. Psalmic wisdom moves away from an anthropologically focused emphasis on particular human behaviors and attitudes characteristic of the book of Proverbs. Instead, the wisdom of these psalms emphasizes divine agency and deliverance in response to the prominent problem of the prosperity of the wicked. As a whole, the Psalter’s response to the sapiential problem of the wicked’s prosperity, and the theological crisis that it implies in light of the confidence of Psalm 1, culminates with an experience in the sanctuary (Ps 73:17) that transforms the speaker’s perspective. In Psalm 73, the speaker traces a development that begins with the anguish of confronting the limitations of a proverbial framework and culminates with the certainty of divine presence even in the midst of fractured human experience. The emphasis on the future in Psalms 37 and 49 becomes an emphasis on the forever/‫ עולם‬of the present moment in which God is near to the righteous. This shift in perspective changes the speaker; once a suffering individual unwilling to speak in front of the faithful congregation (vs. 15), he/she becomes an individual who engages in on-going vertical address and ultimately aims to “recount all Your works” (vs. 28). Psalm 145, in conjunction with the Psalter’s “coda” in Psalms 146– 150, fully translates the transformation of Psalm 73 into a hymnic dialect. Praise overtakes the discourse in both content and mode of speech. The wicked, though still certain to be destroyed, move to the periphery of the psalms’ purview (Ps 145), and finally drift out of their frame of sight (Ps 150). At the end of the Psalter, the wicked are no longer a matter for human concern. In this way, the psalms confront the seeming dissolution of the righteous/wicked divide differently than the Israelite sages, even the contentious ones. Psalmic wisdom echoes biblical wisdom in its proverbial confidence, its resignation to the breath-like ephemerality of human life, and its Joban crisis of faith. But it differs in its response to the disparities rooted in the bedrock of every human life, and the invitation it extends to the faithful who encounter the psalmists’ words. At the limits of human wisdom and human speech (Ps 73), the psalmists change direction, ask further questions, and move into different kinds of speech. The personal experience of the “I,” fraught with doubt and suffering, departs from the confident autobiographical narratives in Proverbs (Prov 24:30–34), and the first-person resignations of Qoheleth. At times closest to the innocent but anguished Job (e.g. Ps 73), the psalmist’s persistent doubt regarding his/her own innocence and standing before God

Chapter 6: Conclusions

213

differentiates the two figures. Overall, this psalmic “I” responds to the limits of human wisdom by engaging the deity vocally and drawing the faithful community into words of praise. As related in Psalms 73 and 145, the facts of the world as-it-is have not necessarily changed. Moreover, the speaker’s optimism is still based, to some extent, on the idea that the wicked will be destroyed (Pss 73:27; 145:20). But this reality stands in tension with a clear shift in emphasis; the destruction of the wicked recedes to the background of the discourse and the act of verbal response to divine presence, assured in the sanctuary (Ps 73:17), gradually becomes the sole focus of the speaker’s attention. The turn to God in speech is an essential component of gaining understanding/‫ בין‬in the psalms (Ps 73:17–18). Thus, one cannot extract the substance of the psalmist’s sapientially attuned exhortations from the communicative framework in which they occur. The primarily static character of the relationship between speaker and addressee in wisdom discourse confronts the constantly changing relationship between speaker and audience in the psalms. These shifts often create a commentary of sorts on the inadequacy of horizontally oriented human discourse when the psalmist is confronted with the puzzling and often cruel vagaries of human life. In this context, human wisdom in the psalms has a signaling function in that it specifically points its audience toward the vertical posture of the “I/Thou.” In the psalms studied in chapters three and four, the speaker’s third-person reflections (e.g. Pss 37:12–24; 62:10; 92:7–8, 13–15), admonitions and exhortations (e.g. Pss 37:1–2; 62:11), and autobiographical narratives (e.g. Pss 37:25–26; 73) are constantly conditioned by the turn to second-person address to God (e.g. Pss 38:1ff; 62:13; 92:2b-6, 9–11). In the Psalter as a whole, the horizontal orientation and progressive rhetoric of Psalms 1, 37, and 49 lead into vertical speech in Psalm 73, a shift presented as the result of the theologically rendered “answer” the psalmist receives in verse 17. The move into vertical speech, present at all three levels of interpretation of this study, is conditioned by the continuing role of horizontally oriented human speech throughout the Psalter. The psalmist who models the “I/Thou” communicative encounter likewise turns back to the human audience, such that both directions of speech constantly condition the other in different ways.3 Moreover, horizontally oriented speech is not only the mainstay of psalmic wisdom, it also comprises much of hymnic language.4 Hymns can include second-person vertical address (e.g. Ps 145:1–2), but horizontal 3 This is found, for example, in Ps 73, where the psalmist presently relates to the human audience the prior experience of his/her transition into vertical speech. Even as that vertical address continues for the psalmist (see vs. 15), he/she turns to an implicit, human address to relate this transformative experience (vss. 2–17) and to “recount all Your works” (vs. 28). 4 Gunkel, Introduction to the Psalms, 32–33.

214

Chapter 6: Conclusions

speech predominates both in the “call to praise” and third-person theological statements. The appearance of wisdom motifs in the hymnic conclusion to the Psalter (e.g. Pss 145:20; 146:3–5) underscores the vertical sensibility that the shape of the book can confer on earlier, more sustained examples of wisdom, such as Psalm 37. In other words, third-person theological statements can act either as wisdom speech or praise speech in the Psalter. Within the context of the Psalter as a whole, then, the third-person speech that one finds in the sapiential Psalms 1 and 37 easily takes on a hymnic attenuation, a vertical sensibility conferred by the location of these poems in a book shaped by its conclusion in Psalms 145–150. Thus, rather than standing distinct from the language of prayer and praise, wisdom in the Psalter provides an essentially “psalmic” mechanism for easing the hearer/you into the role of the “I” and the “we” who turn to God in prayer and praise God within the congregation. In this way, all three levels of interpretation reveal that the primary instructional impact of the Psalter lies in its being verbalized, in these “texts” becoming words that are spoken, and songs that are sung.5 The lessons of the psalms cannot simply be read or heard and subsequently understood or applied; these are poems that invite their hearers to speak and sing, and thereby to understand, to know, and to relate God’s works to others in the act of praise that conflates the horizontal and vertical aspects of psalmic speech (Ps 145:6). These words do not arise in the aftermath of understanding; rather, perception and knowledge develop through a communicative encounter with human teacher/model, divine interlocutor, and worshipping community. The teaching psalmist repeatedly draws the audience of the psalms out of the act of individualized listening and into a vertically oriented speaking with a communal dimension. The “hear me!” of the proverbial parent coincides with an invitation to take up and speak the “hear me!” that ascends to the divine teacher and the “praise God!” that unites the congregation. This instructional dynamic is built into the very grammar of the psalms and the Psalter. The hearer is called to become a speaker, and the student called to become a conduit of praise.

5 Athanasius’s Letter to Marcellinus offers a particularly insightful portrait of the formative capacity of the psalms in relation to their character as texts that are spoken aloud. See Athanasius, The Life of Antony and the Letter to Marcellinus (trans. Robert C. Gregg; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1980).

Bibliography Alexander, T. Desmond. “The Psalms and the Afterlife.” Irish Biblical Studies 9 (1987): 2–17. Allen, Leslie. “Psalm 73: An Analysis.” Tyndale Bulletin 33 (1982): 93–118. Apple, Raymond. “The Happy Man of Psalm 1.” Jewish Biblical Quarterly 40.3 (2012): 179, 182. Arneth, Martin. “Psalm 1: Seine Stellung im Psalter und seine Bedeutung für die Komposition der Bergrede.” Pages 294–309 in Tora in der Hebräischen Bibel: Studien zur Redaktiongeschichte und synchronen Logik diachroner Transformationen. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 7. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2007. Athanasius, The Life of Antony and the Letter to Marcellinus. Translated by Robert C. Gregg. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1980. Attard, Stefan. “Establishing Connections between Pss 49 and 50 within the Context of Pss 49–52: A Synchronic Analysis.” Pages 413–424 in The Composition of the Book of Psalms. Edited by Erich Zenger. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 238. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2010. Auffret, Pierre. Le sagesse a bâti sa maison: Études de structures littéraires dans l'Ancien Testament et spécialement dans les psaumes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Balentine, Samuel E. Prayer in the Hebrew Bible: The Drama of Divine-Human Dialogue. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1993. Ballhorn, Egbert. “‘Glücklich der Mensch…’: Weisung und Gebrauchsanweisung für den Psalter.” Pastoralblatt 55 (2003): 12–16. –. “Das historische und das kanonische Paradigma in der Exegese: ein Essay.” Pages 9–30 in Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung: Methodenreflexionen und Beispielexegesen. Edited by Egbert Ballhorn and Georg Steins. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2007. –. “Der Torapsalter: Vom Gebetbuch zum Buch der Weisung.” Bibel und Kirche 1 (2010): 24–27. –. Zum Telos des Psalters: Der Textzusammenhang des Vierten und Fünften Psalmenbuches (Ps 90–150). Bonner biblische Beiträge 138. Berlin: Philo, 2004. Ballhorn, Egbert and Georg Steins, eds. Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung. Methodenreflexionen und Beispielexegesen. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2007. Barbiero, Gianni. Das erste Psalmenbuch als Einheit: Eine sychrone Analyse von Psalm 1– 41. Österreichische biblische Studien 16. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999. Barré, Michael L., S.S. “‘Terminative’ Terms in Hebrew Acrostics.” Pages 207–215 in Wisdom, You are My Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm., on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 29. Edited by Michael L. Barré, S.S. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1997.

216

Bibliography

Bellinger, William H. “Reading from the Beginning (Again): The Shape of Book I of the Psalter,” Pages 114–126 in Diachronic and Synchronic: Reading the Psalms in Real Time: Proceedings of the Baylor Symposium on the Book of Psalms. Edited by Joel S. Burnett, W.H. Bellinger Jr., W. Dennis Tucker Jr. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Beyer, Andrea. “Vom Traumorakel zum Morgenlied: Literarkritische und kompositionsgeschichtliche Erwägungen zur Textgeschichte von Psalm 3.” Biblische Notizen 144 (2010): 71–85. Boadt, Lawrence, C.S.P. “The Use of ‘Panels’ in the Structure of Psalms 73–78.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66 (2004): 533–550. Botha, Phil. “Intertextuality and the Interpretation of Psalm 1.” Old Testament Essays 18 (2005): 503–520. Botha, Phil J. and Beat Weber. “‘Killing The Softly with this Song…’ The Literary Structure of Psalm 3 and Its Psalmic and Davidic Contexts: Part I: A Contextual and Intertextual Interpretation of Psalm 3.” Old Testament Essays 21.1 (2008): 18–37. Braulik, Georg P. “Psalms and Liturgy: Their Reception and Contextualization.” Verbum et Ecclesia 24.2 (2003): 309–32. Breck Reid, Stephen. “Psalm 50: Prophetic Speech and God’s Performative Utterances.” Pages 216–230 in Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker. Edited by Stephen Breck Reid. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 229. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Brown, William P. “‘Come, O Children… I Will Teach You the Fear of the Lord’ (Psalm 34:12): Comparing Psalms and Proverbs.” Pages 85–102 in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His SixtyFifth Birthday. Edited by Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. –. “‘Here Comes the Sun!’: The Metaphorical Theology of Psalms 15–24,” Pages 259–277 in The Composition of the Book of Psalms. Edited by Erich Zenger. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 238. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2010. –. “The Pedagogy of Proverbs 10:1–31:9.” Pages 150–182 in Character and Scripture: Moral Formation, Community, and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by William P. Brown. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002. –. Psalms. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2010. Brueggemann, Walter. “Bounded by Obedience and Praise: The Psalms as Canon.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 50 (1991): 63–92. –. “Psalm 37: Conflict of Interpretation.” Pages 229–56 in Of Prophets' Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R Norman Whybray. Edited by Heather A. McKay and David J.A. Clines. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 162. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. –. The Psalms and the Life of Faith. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. –. “Response to James L. Mays, ‘The Question of Context’.” Pages 29–41 in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. Edited by J.C. McCann. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 159; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Brueggemann, Walter and Patrick Miller. “Psalm 73 as Canonical Marker.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 72 (1996): 45–56. Buber, Martin. “The Heart Determines: Psalm 73,” Pages 199–210 in On the Bible: Eighteen Studies by Martin Buber. Edited by Nahum N. Glatzer. New York: Schocken Books, 1968.

Bibliography

217

Carr, David M. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Casetti, Pierre. Gibt es ein Leben vor dem Tod? Eine Auslegung von Psalm 49. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 44. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1982. Ceresko, Anthony R. "The ABCs of Wisdom in Psalm 34." Vetus Testamentum 35.1 (1985): 99–104. Childs, Brevard. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1979. Clayton, Nathan J. “An Examination of Holy Space: Is Wisdom’s Path Infused with an Eschatologically Oriented Hope?” Trinity Journal 27 NS (2006): 117–142. Clifford, Richard. Proverbs, A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999. Clines, David J.A. “Psalm Research since 1955: I. The Psalms and the Cult.” Pages 639– 664 in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, 1967–1998. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 293.2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Coetzee, Johan. “A Small Shift in Theological Thinking Opens a Large Window: A Rhetorical Appreciation of a Riddle in Psalm 49.” Pages 74–102 in Feet on Level Ground: A South African Tribute of Old Testament Essays in Honor of Gerhard Hasel. Berrien Springs, MI: L. Hester Publications, 1996. Cole, Robert. “An Integrated Reading of Psalms 1 and 2.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 98 (2002): 75–88 Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1–50. Word Biblical Commentary 19. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983. Creach, Jerome. The Destiny of the Righteous in the Psalms. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2008. –. “Like a Tree Planted by the Temple Stream: The Portrait of the Righteous in Psalm 1:3.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 (1999): 34–46. –. Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 271. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Crenshaw, James L. Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence. New York: Doubleday, 1998. –. “Method in Determining Wisdom Influence upon ‘Historical’ Literature.” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 129–142. –. “The Missing Voice.” Pages 133–143 in A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content: Essays in Honor of George W. Coats. Edited by Eugene E. Carpenter. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 240. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. –. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998. –. “The Primacy of Listening in Ben Sira’s Pedagogy.” Pages 172–187 in Wisdom, You Are My Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday. Edited by Michael L. Barré, S.S. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 29. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1997. –. “The Restraint of Reason, the Humility of Prayer.” Pages 81–97 in The Echoes of Many Texts: Reflections on Jewish and Christian Traditions: Essays in Honor of Lou H. Silberman. Edited by William G. Dever and J. Edward Wright. Brown Judaic Studies 313. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997

218

Bibliography

–. “The Shadow of Death in Qoheleth.” Pages 205–216 in Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien. Edited by John G. Gammie et al. Missoula: Scholar’s Press, 1978. –. “Standing Near the Flame: Psalm 73.” Pages 93–109 in A Whirlpool of Torment: Israelite Traditions of God as an Oppressive Presence. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. –. “Wisdom Psalms?” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 8 (2000): 9–17. Crollius, Ary A. Roest. “DeReK in the Psalms.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 4.3 (1974): 312–317. Dahood, Mitchell S.J. Psalms I: 1–50. Anchor Bible 16. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966. –. Psalms II: 51–100. Anchor Bible 17. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968. deClaissé-Walford, Nancy. “Psalm 44: O God, Why Do You Hide Your Face?” Pages 121– 131 in My Words Are Lovely: Studies in the Rhetoric of the Psalms. Edited by Robert Foster and David Howard. London: T & T Clark, 2007. –. “Psalm 145: All Flesh Will Bless God’s Holy Name.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 74.1 (2012): 55–66. Dell, Katharine J. “‘I will solve my riddle to the music of the lyre’ (Psalm XLIX 4 [5]): A Cultic Setting for Wisdom Psalms?” Vetus Testamentum 54.4 (2004): 445–58. Di Lella, Alexander and Patrick Skehan. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Dillon, E.J. The Skeptics of the Old Testament. London: Ibister, 1985. Doyle, Brian. “Just You, and I, Waiting – The Poetry of Psalm 25.” Old Testament Essays 14.2 (2001): 199–213. Driver, Daniel. Review of Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung. Methodenreflexionen und Beispielexegesen. Edited by Egbert Ballhorn and Georg Steins. Review of Biblical Literature (3/2008). Durlesser, James A. “Poetic Style in Psalm 1 and Jeremiah 17:5–8: A Rhetorical Critical Study.” Semitics 9 (1984): 30–48. Engnell, Ivan. “The Book of Psalms.” Pages 68–122 in A Rigid Scrutiny: Critical Essays on the Old Testament. Edited and translated by John T. Willis. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1969. –. “‘Planted by the Streams of Water’: Some Remarks on the Problem of the Interpretation of the Psalms as Illustrated by a Detail in Psalm 1.” Pages 85–96 in Studia Orientalia Ioanni Pedersen septuagenario A.D. VII id. nov. anno MCMLIII a collegis discipulis amicis dicata. Edited by Flemming Hvidberg. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard, 1953. Estes, Daniel J. Hear, My Son: Teaching and Learning in Proverbs 1–9. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Finsterbusch, Karin. JHWH als Lehrer der Menschen: Ein Beitrag zur Gottesvorstellung der Hebräischen Bibel Biblisch–Theologische Studien 90. Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007. Firth, David G. “The Teaching of the Psalms.” Pages 159–174 in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches. Edited by David Firth and Philip S. Johnston. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005. Fischer, Georg. “Jeremia und Die Psalmen.” Pages 469–478 in The Composition of the Book of Psalms. Edited by Erich Zenger. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 238. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2010. Fox, Michael V. “The Epistemology of the Book of Proverbs.” Journal of Biblical Literature 126.4 (2007): 669–684.

Bibliography

219

–. “The Meaning of Hebel for Qoheleth,” Journal of Biblical Literature 105.3 (1986): 409–427. –. “The Pedagogy of Proverbs 2.” Journal of Biblical Literature 113 (1994): 233–43. –. Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 18A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. –. Proverbs 10–31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 18B. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. –. “Wisdom and the Self-Presentation of Wisdom Literature.” Pages 153–172 in Reading from Right to Left: Essays in Honor of David J.A. Clines. Edited by J. Cheryl Exum and H.G.M. Williamson. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 153–172. Franklyn, Paul. “The Sayings of Agur in Proverbs 30: Piety or Scepticism?” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 95 (1983): 239-252. Freedman, David Noel. “Patterns in Psalms 25 and 34.” Pages 125–138 in Priests, Prophets, and Scribes: A Festschrift in Honor of Joseph Blenkinsopp. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Füglister, Notker. “Die Verwendung and das Verständnis der Psalmen und des Psalters um die Zeitenwende.” Pages 319–384 in Beiträge zur Psalmenforschung: Psalm 2 und 22. Edited by J. Schreiner. Würzburg: Echter, 1988. Gerstenberger, Erhard. Psalms Part I: With an Introduction to Cultic Poetry. Forms of Old Testament Literature 14. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984. –. Psalms, Part 2 and Lamentations. Forms of Old Testament Literature 15. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Gilbert, Maurice S.J. “Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira: Function and Relevance.” Pages 117–135 in Yearbook 2004: Prayer from Tobit to Qumran. Edited by Renate EggerWenzel and Jeremy Corley. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. Gillingham, Susan. “Entering and Leaving the Psalter : Psalms 1 and 150 and the Two Polarities of Faith.” Pages 383–93 in Let Us Go Up to Zion. Essays in Honour of H.G.M. Williamson on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by I. Provan and M.J. Boda. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. –. A Journey of Two Psalms: The Reception of Psalms 1 and 2 in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. –. “New Wine and Old Wineskins: Three Approaches to Prophecy and Psalmody.” Pages370–390 in Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel. Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by J. Day. London: T & T Clark, 2010. –. “The Zion Tradition and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter.” Pages 308–41 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Edited by J. Day. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Gosse, Bernard. “L’influence du Psautier sur la presentation du prophète Jérémie in Jr 15,10–21 et ses liens avec Jr 17,1–18.” Etudes Théologiques et Religieuses 79 (2004): 393–402. Goulder, Michael D. The Psalms of the Sons of Korah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 20. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1990. –. “The Social Setting of Book II of the Psalter.” Pages 349–359 in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception. Edited by P.W. Flint and P.D. Miller. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 99 Leiden: Brill, 2005. Greenberg, Moshe. Biblical Prose Prayer. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1983.

220

Bibliography

Gunkel, Hermann and Joachim Begrich. Introduction to the Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel. Translated by James D. Nogalski. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998. Hartenstein, Friedhelm. “`Schaffe mir Recht, JHWH!' (Psalm 7,9): Zum theologischen und anthropologischen Profil der Teilkomposition Psalm 3–14.” Pages 229–258 in The Composition of the Book of Psalms. Edited by Erich Zenger.Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 238. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2010. Helberg, J.L. “Wat het van die land geword? Die psalms (veral Psalms 1 en 2) oor die land, gelees teen die agtergrond van Josua 1.” Old Testament Essays 18 (2005): 616–628. Hilber, John. Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 352. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005. Høgenhaven, Jesper. “The Opening of the Psalter: A Study in Jewish Theology.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 15 (2001): 169–180. Holladay, William. “Indications of Jeremiah’s Psalter.” Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (2002): 245–261. Holm-Nielson, Svend. “The Importance of Late Jewish Psalmody for the Understanding of Old Testament Psalmodic Tradition.” Studia Theologica 14 (1960): 1–53. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar and Erich Zenger. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100. Edited by Klaus Baltzer. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. –. Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150. Edited by Klaus Baltzer. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011. –. “`Von seinem Thronsitz schaut er nieder auf alle Bewohner der Erde' (Ps 33,14): Redaktionsgeschichte und Kompositionskritik der Psalmengruppe 25–34.” Pages 375– 388 in ‘Wer ist wie du, HERR, unter den Göttern?’: Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte für Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Ingo Kottsieper. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. –. “`Wer darf hinaufziehen zum Berg YHWHs?': Zur Redaktionsgeschichte und Theologie der Psalmengruppe 15–24.” Pages 166–182 in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Für Norbert Lohfink, SJ. Edited by Georg Braulik. Vienna: Herder, 1993. Howard, David M. “Psalm 94 among the Kingship-of-Yhwh Psalms.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 (1999): 667–685. Human, Dirk J. “The Tradition-historical Setting of Psalm 25: How Wisdom Motives Contribute to its Understanding.” Skrif und Kirk 17 (1996): 76–88. Hurvitz, Avi. “Wisdom Vocabulary in the Hebrew Psalter: A Contribution to the Study of ‘Wisdom Psalms’.” Vetus Testamentum 38.1 (1998): 41–51. –. “‫‘ = צדיק‬wise’ in Biblical Hebrew and the Wisdom Connections of Ps 37.” Pages 109– 112 in Goldene Äpfel in silbernen Schalen: Collected Communications to the XIIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Leuven 1989. Edited by Klaus-Dietrich Schunk and Matthias Augustin. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992. Irsigler, Hubert. “Quest for Justice as Reconciliation of the Poor and the Righteous in Psalms 37, 49, and 73.” Skrif en Kerk 19.3 (1998): 594–604. Jacobson, Rolf A. ‘Many are Saying’: The Function of Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Psalter. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 397. New York: T&T Clark, 2004 Janowski, Bernd. “Freude an der Torah: Psalm 1 als Tor zum Psalter.” Evangelische Theologie 67 (2007): 18–31.

Bibliography

221

Jansen, H. Ludin. Die spätjüdische Psalmendichtung: Ihr Entstehungskreis und ihr “Sitz im Leben.” Oslo: Norske videnskaps-akademi, 1937. Jellicoe, Stanley. “Interpretation of Psalm 73:24.” Expository Times 67.7 (1956): 209–210. Johnston, Philip S. Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002. Jones, Scott C. “Wisdom’s Pedagogy: A Comparison of Proverbs VII and 4Q184.” Vetus Testamentum 53 (2003): 66–74. Kamano, Naoto. Cosmology and Character: Qoheleth’s Pedagogy from a RhetoricalCritical Perspective. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 312. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 1–59. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988. –. Psalms 60–150. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Kugel, James L. “Topics in the History of the Spirituality of the Psalms.” Pages 113–144 in Jewish Spirituality I. Edited by A. Green. New York: Crossroad, 1986. Kuntz, J.Kenneth. “The Canonical Wisdom Psalms of Ancient Israel – Their Rhetorical, Thematic and Formal Dimensions.” Pages 186–222 in Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg. Edited by J.J. Jackson and M. Kessler. Pittsburg Theological Monograph Series 1. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, Wipf and Stock, 1974. –. “Sighting the Stern: The Impact of Chs. 30–31 on the Book of Proverbs as a Canonical Whole.” Proceedings of the Central States Society of Biblical Literature and the American Schools of Oriental Research 4 (2001): 121–141. –. “Wisdom Psalms and the Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter.” Pages 144–160 in For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity. Edited by Randal Argall, Beverly Bow, and Rodney Werline. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000. Kutschera, Franz. “Kohelet: Leben im Angesicht des Todes.” Pages 363–376 in Das Buch Kohelet: Studien zur Struktur, Geschichte, Rezeption und Theologie. Edited by Ludgar Schwienhorst-Schönberger. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 254. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997. Liesen, Jan. “A Common Background of Ben Sira and the Psalter. The Concept of ‫ תורה‬in Sir 32:14–33:33 and the Torah Psalms.” Pages 197–208 in Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer, Beate Ego, and Tobias Nicklas. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. –. “‘With All Your Heart’: Praise in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 199–213 in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham - Ushaw College 2001. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 321. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002. Lindblom, Johannes. “Wisdom in the Old Testament Prophets.” Pages 192–204 in Wisdom in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Presented to Professor Harold Henry Rowley in Celebration of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, 24 March 1955. Edited by M. Noth and D.W. Thomas. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 3. Leiden: Brill, 1955. Lo, Alison. “Death in Qohelet.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 31 (2008): 85–98. Lohfink, Norbert. “The Appeasement of the Messiah: Thoughts on Ps 37 and the Third Beatitude.” Theology Digest 44.3 (1997): 234–241. –. “Die Bundesformel in Psalm 33.” Pages 84–116 in Der Gott Israels und die Völker: Untersuchungen zum Jesajabuch und zu den Psalmen. Edited by Norbert Lohfink and Erich Zenger. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 154. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994.

222

Bibliography

–. “Psalmen im Neuen Testament: Die Lieder in der Kindheitsgeschichte bei Lukas.” Pages 105–125 in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung. Edited by K. Seybold and Erich Zenger. Herders Biblische Studien 1. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. –. “The Psalter and Christian Meditation.” Theology Digest 40.2 (1993): 133–139. –. “The Psalter and Meditation: On the Genre of the Book of Psalms.” Pages 75–90 in In the Shadow of Your Wings: New Readings of Great Texts from the Bible. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003. Luyten, J. “Psalm 73 and Wisdom.” Pages 59–81 in La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament. Edited by Maurice Gilbert. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 51. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979. Maier, Michael P. “Israel und die Völker auf dem Weg zum Gottesberg: Komposition und Intention der ersten Korachpsalmensammlung (Ps 42–49).” Pages 653–665 in The Composition of the Book of Psalms. Edited by Erich Zenger. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 238. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2010. Maloney, Les D. “Intertextual Links: Part of the Poetic Artistry within the Book I Acrostic Psalms.” Restoration Quarterly 49.1 (2007): 11–21. Mandolfo, Carleen. God in the Dock: Dialogic Tension in the Psalms of Lament. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 357. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Manfredi, Silvana. “The True Sage or the Servant of the Lord (Sir 51:13–30 Gr).” Pages 173–195 in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Mays, James Luther. The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psalms. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. –. “The Place of the Torah-Psalms in the Psalter.” Journal of Biblical Literature 106.1 (1987): 3–12 –. “The Question of Context in Psalm Interpretation.” Pages 14–20 in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. Edited by J.Clinton McCann. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 159. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. McCann, J. Clinton. “Psalm 73: A Microcosm of Old Testament Theology.” Pages 247– 257 in The Listening Heart: Essays in Wisdom and the Psalms in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm. Edited by J. Hoglund, K. Huwiler, and E. Glass. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1987. –. “The Shape of Book I of the Psalter and the Shape of Human Happiness,” Pages 340– 348 in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception. Edited by Peter W. Flint and Patrick D Miller; Leiden: Brill, 2005. –. , ed. The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 159. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. –. A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as Torah. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1993. McKane, William. Proverbs: A New Approach. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970. McKenna, John E. “The Concept of Hebel in the Book of Ecclesiastes.” Scottish Journal of Theology 45.1 (1992): 19–28. de Meyer, F. “La Dimension Sapientiale Du Psaume 62.” Bijdragen 42 (1982): 350–365. Millard, Matthias. “Die ‘Mitte des Psalters’: ein möglicher Ansatz einer Theologie der Hebräischen Bibel.” Pages 252–260 in Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung: Methodenreflexionen und Beispielexegesen. Edited by Egbert Ballhorn and Georg Steins. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2007.

Bibliography

223

Miller, Douglas B. Symbol and Rhetoric in Ecclesiastes: The Place of Hebel in Qohelet’s Work. Academia Biblica 2. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002. Miller, Patrick D. “The End of the Psalter: A Response to Erich Zenger.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 80 (1998): 103–110. –. Interpreting the Psalms. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. –. “Kingship, Torah Obedience, and Prayer: The Theology of Psalms 15–24.” Pages 127– 142 in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung. Edited by Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger. Biblische Studien 1. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. Mindling, Joseph A. “Hope for a Felicitous Afterlife in Psalms 16, 49, and 73.” Laurentianum 32 (1991): 305–369. Mitchell, David C. “‘God will Redeem My Soul from Sheol”: The Psalms of the Sons of Korah.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 30.3 (2006): 365–384. Moore, Rick D. “A Home for the Alien: Worldly Wisdom and Covenantal Confession in Proverbs 30:1–9.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 106 (1994): 96– 107. Mowinckel, Sigmund. “Psalms and Wisdom.” Vetus Testamentum Supplement 3 (1955): 205–224. –. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. Translated by D.R. Ap-Thomas. 2 vols. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962. Mulder, Otto. “Three Psalms or Two Prayers in Sirach 51? The End of Ben Sira’s Book of Wisdom.” Pages 171–201 in Prayer from Tobit to Qumran: Inaugural Conference of ISDCL Salzburg, Austria, 5–9 July 2003. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2004. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. Munch, P.A. “Die jüdischen ‘Weisheitspsalmen’ und ihr Platz im Leben.” Acta Orientalia 15 (1937): 112–140. Murphy, Roland. “Assumptions and Problems in Old Testament Wisdom Research.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 29 (1963): 410. –. “A Consideration of the Classification, ‘Wisdom Psalms’.” Pages 156–167 in Congress Volume Bonn 1962. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 9. Edited by G.W. Anderson et al. Leiden: Brill, 1963. –. “Death and Afterlife in the Wisdom Literature.” Pages 101–116 in Judaism in Late Antiquity Part 4: Death, Life-After Death, Resurrection and the World-to-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity. Edited Jacob Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck, and Bruce Chilton. Leiden: Brill, 2000. –. “Proverbial Sayings/‘Better’ –Sayings in Sirach.” Pages 31–40 in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom: Festschrift M. Gilbert. Edited by N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen; Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 143. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2000. –. “Reflections on Contextual Interpretation of the Psalms.” Pages 21–28 in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. Edited by J. Clinton McCann. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 159. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Nasuti, Harry. “God at Work in the Word: A Theology of Divine-Human Encounter in the Psalms.” Pages 27–48 in Soundings in the Theology of the Psalms: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship. Edited by Rolf A. Jacobson. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011. –. “The Interpretive Significance of Sequence and Selection in the Book of Psalms.” Pages 311–339 in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception. Edited by Peter W.

224

Bibliography

Flint and Patrick D. Miller, Jr. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 99. Leiden: Brill, 2005. –. “Redaction-Critical and Canonical Approaches to the Psalms and Psalter.” in Cambridge Methods in Biblical Interpretation: The Book of Psalms. Edited by Esther M. Menn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming. –. “The Sacramental Function of the Psalms in Contemporary Scholarship and Liturgical Practice.” Pages 78–89 in Psalms and Practice: Worship, Virtue, and Authority. Edited by Stephen Breck Reid. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2001. –. Tradition History and the Psalms of Asaph. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 88. Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1988. Newman, Judith H. Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1999. Newsom, Carol A. “Woman and the Discouse of Patriarchal Wisdom: A Study of Proverbs 1–9.” Pages 142–160 in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel. Edited by Peggy L. Day. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989. Nitzan, Bilhah. Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry. Translated by Jonathan Chipman. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 22. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Owens, Daniel. Portraits of the Righteous in the Psalms: An Exploration of the Ethics of Book I. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013. Perdue, Leo. Wisdom and Cult. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 30. Missoula: Scholar’s Press, 1977. Pinker, Aron. “Nahum 1: Acrostic and Authorship.” Jewish Biblical Quarterly 34.2 (2006): 97–103. Pleins, David J. “Death and Endurance: Reassessing the Literary Structure and Theology of Psalm 49.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 69 (1996): 19–27. Rad, Gerhard von. Wisdom in Israel. Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, 1972. Reid, Stephen Breck. “Psalm 50: Prophetic Speech and God’s Performative Utterances.” Pages 216-230 in Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker. Edited by Stephen Breck Reid. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 229. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Reindl, Joseph. “Weisheitliche Bearbeitung von Psalmen: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Sammlung Des Psalters.” Pages 333–356 in Congress Volume: Vienna, 1980. Edited by John A. Emerton. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Reitemeyer, Michael. Weisheitslehre als Gotteslob: Psalmentheologie im Buch Jesus Sirach. Bonner biblische Beiträge 127. Berlin: Philo, 2000. Reymond, Eric. New Idioms Within Old: Poetry and Parallelism in the Non-Masoretic Poems of 11Q5(=11QPsa). Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Ridderbos, N. H. “Die Theophanie in Psalm 50, 1–6.” Old Testament Studies 15 (1969): 213–226. Ringgren, Helmer. “Einige Bemerkungen zum Psalm 73.” Vetus Testamentum 3 (1953): 265–272 Roth, Wolfgang. “The Numerical Sequence xx/x+1 in the Old Testament.” Vetus Testamentum 12.3 (1962): 300–311. Ruiz, Eleuterio Ramón. “El silencio en el primer libro del Salterio (Salmos 1–41). Primer aparte.” Revista bíblica 67 (2005): 31–83. Ruppert, Lothar. “Psalm 25 und die Grenze kultorientierter Psalmenexegese.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84 (1972): 576–582. Sanders, James A. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Bibliography

225

Sarna, Nahum M. “Psalm for the Sabbath day (Ps 92).” Journal for Biblical Literature 81.2 (1962): 155–168. Scaiola, Donatella. “The End of the Psalter.” Pages 701–710 in The Composition of the Book of Psalms. Edited by Erich Zenger. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 238. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2010. Schniedewind, William M. How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Schüngel-Straumann, H. “Die offenbar unfruchtbare Alternatvie Weisheit – Kult als Sitz im Leben.” Biblische Zeitschrift 17 (1973): 39–51. Scott, R.B.Y. The Way of Wisdom in the Old Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1971. Seybold, Klaus, and Erich Zenger, eds. Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung. Herders biblische Studien 1. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. Seow, Choon-Leong. “Beyond Mortal Grasp: The Usage of Hebel in Ecclesiastes.” Australian Biblical Review 48 (2000): 1–16. Sheppard, Gerald T. “‘Enemies’ and the Politics of Prayer in the Book of Psalms.” Pages 61–82 in The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Norman K. Gottwald on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by David Jobling, Peggy Lynne Day, and Gerald T. Sheppard. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1991. –. Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientialization of the OldTestament. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 151. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1980. Shulman, Ahouva. “The Function of the `Jussive' and `Indicative' Imperfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose.” Zeitschrift für Althebräistik 13 (2000): 168–180. Smith, Mark S. “The Levitical Compilation of the Psalter.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentiliche Wissenschaft 103 (1991): 258–263. –. “The Theology of the Redaction of the Psalter: Some Observations,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentiliche Wissenschaft 104 (1992): 408–412. Soll, Will. Psalm 119: Matrix, Form, and Setting. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 23. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1991. Spangenberg, Isak J.J. “Constructing a Historical Context for Psalm 49.” Old Testament Essays 20.1 (2007): 201–214. –. “Psalm 49 and the Book of Qoheleth.” Skrif en Kerk 18.2 (1997): 328–344. Steins, Georg. Die “Bindung Isaaks” im Kanon (Gen 22): Grundlagen und Programm einer kanonisch-intertextuellen Lektüre; mit einer Spezialbibliographie zu Gen 22. Herders Biblische Studien 20. Freiburg: Herder, 1999. Steins, Georg and Johannes Taschner, eds. Kanonisierung – die Hebräische Bibel im Werden. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 110. Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener-Verlag, 2010. Stolz, Fritz. Psalmen im nachkultischen Raum. Theologische Studien 129. Zürich: Theologischen Verlag, 1983. Suderman, Weldon Derek. “Prayers Heard and Overheard: Shifting Address and Methodological Matrices in Psalms Scholarship.” Ph.D diss., Toronto School of Theology, 2007. Sumpter, Philip. “The Coherence of Psalms 15–24.” Biblica 94 (2013): 186–219. Terrien, Samuel. “Amos and Wisdom.” Pages 108–115 in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg. Edited by Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson. New York: Harper, 1962. van der Toorn, Karel. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007.

226

Bibliography

Trudinger, Peter L. The Psalms of the Tamid Service: A Liturgical Text from the Second Temple. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 98. Leiden: Brill 2004. Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. “Form Criticism, Wisdom, and Psalms 111–112.” Pages 65–84 in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Weber, Beat. “Die Buchouvertüre Psalm 1–3 und ihre Bedeutung für das Verständnis des Psalters.” Old Testament Essays 23 (2010): 834–845. –. “‘Herr, wie viele sind geworden meine Bedränger…’ Psalm 1–3 als Ouvertüre des Psalters unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Psalm 3 und seinem Präskript.” Pages 231–251 in Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung: Methodenreflexionen und Beispielexegesen. Edited by Egbert Ballhorn and Georg Steins. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007. –. “Kanonische Psalterexegese und -rezeption: Forschungsgeschichtliche, hermeneutische, und methodologische Bemerkungen.” Pages 85–94 in Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung: Methodenreflexionen und Beispielexegesen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007. –. “Psalm 1 and Its Function as a Directive into the Psalter and Towards a Biblical Theology.” Old Testament Essays 19 (2006): 248–249. –. “Psalm 78 als ‘Mitte’ des Psalters? ein Versuch.” Biblica 88 (2007): 305–325. –. “Von Der Psaltergenese zur Psaltertheologie: Der Nächste Schritt der Psalterexegese?!” Pages 733–744 in The Composition of the Book of Psalms. Edited by Erich Zenger. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2010. Weiser, Artur. The Psalms: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962. Wendland, Ernst. “Introit ‘into the sanctuary of God’ (Psalm 73:17): Entering the Theological ‘Heart’ of the Psalm at the Centre of the Psalter.” Old Testament Essays 11.1 (1998): 128–153. Wenham, Gordon. Psalms as Torah: Reading Biblical Song Ethically. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012. Westermann, Claus. Elements of Old Testament Theology. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1978. Whybray, R. N. The Book of Proverbs. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. –. The Book of Proverbs: A Survey of Modern Study. History of Biblical Interpretation 1. Leiden: Brill, 1995. –. The Composition of the Book of Proverbs. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 168. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. –. Reading the Psalms as a Book. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 222. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. –. Wisdom in Proverbs. Studies in Biblical Theology 45. London: SCM Press,1965. –. “The Wisdom Psalms,” Pages 152–60 in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J.A. Emerton. Edited by J. Day, R.P. Gordon and H.G.M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Willis, John T. “Psalm 1- An Entity.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 91 (1979): 381–401. Wilson, Gerald. The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. Society for Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 76. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985. –. “A First Century C.E. Date for the Closing of the Hebrew Psalter?” Jewish Biblical Quarterly 28.2 (2000): 102–10. –. “The Shape of the Book of Psalms.” Interpretation 46 (1992):129–142.

Bibliography

227

–. “The Structure of the Psalter,” Pages 229–246 in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches. Edited by David Firth and Philip S. Johnston. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005. Witte, Markus. “Auf dem Weg in ein Leben nach dem Tod: Beobachtungen zur Traditions– und Redaktionsgeschichte von Psalm 73, 24–26.” Theologische Zeitschrift 58 (2002): 15–30. Würthwein, Ernst. “Erwägungen zu Ps. 73.” Pages 161–178 in Wort und Existenz? Studien zum Alten Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Yoder, Christine Roy. “Forming ‘Fearers of Yahweh’: Repetition and Contradiction as Pedagogy in Proverbs.” Pages 167–183 in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. –. “On the Threshold of Kingship: A Study of Agur (Proverbs 30).” Interpretation 63.3 (2009): 254–263. Zenger, Erich. “‘Das alles Fleisch den Namen seiner Heilignung segne’ (Ps 145:21): Die Komposition Ps 145–150 als Anstoß zu einer christlich-jüdischen Psalmenhermeneutic.” Biblische Zeitschrift 41 (1997): 1–27 –. “The Composition and Theology of the Fifth Book of Psalms, Psalms 107–145.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 80 (1998): 100. –. “The God of Israel’s Reign over the World (Psalms 90–106).” Pages 161–190 in The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms. Translated by Everett R. Kalin. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1989. –. “Kanonische Psalmenexegese und christlich-jüdischer Dialog: Beobachtungen zum Sabbatpsalm 92.” Pages 243–260 in Mincha: Festgabe für Rolf Rendtorff zum 75. Geburtstag. Edited by Erhard Blum. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000. –. “Psalmenexegese und Psalterexegese: Eine Forschungskizze.” Pages 17–65 in The Composition of the Book of Psalms. Edited by Erich Zenger. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 238. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2010. –. “Psalmenforschung nach Hermann Gunkel und Sigmund Mowinckel.” Pages 399–435 in Congress Volume: Oslo 1998. Edited by A. Lemaire and M. Saebo. Leiden: Brill, 1981. –. “Der Psalter als Buch. Beobachtungen zu seiner Enstehung, Komposition und Funktion.” Pages 1–57 in Der Psalter in Judentum und Christentum. Herders Biblical Studies 18. Freiburg: Herder, 1998. –. “Der Psalter als Wegweiser und Wegbegleiter: Psalms 1–2 als Proömium des Psalmenbuchs.” Pages 29–47 in Sie Wandern von Kraft zu Kraft. Edited by A. Angenendt and H. Vorgrimler. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1993 –. “Zur Redaktionsgeschichtlichten Bedeutung der Korachpsalmen,” Pages 175–198 in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung. Edited by Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger. Freiburg: Herder, 1994.

Index of Sources Old Testament Genesis 2,2–3 20,5

191 179

Numbers 18,20

187

Deuteronomy 32,1 32,1–3

157 157

Joshua 1,7 1,7–8 1,8 15,30

126 126 126, 127 112

Judges 5,29

157

1 Kings 8,22

129

1 Chronicles 16,6 23,31 37

187 187 187

2 Chronicles 5,18 20,21

105 105

Job 1,1 2,3 4,6 7,11

94 94 94 182

7,18 7,19 8 8,20 9,16 9,20 9,21 9,22 9,30 10,1 12,21 13,6 13,18 15,4 15,14 16,13 16,16–17 16,17 19,21 20,29 21,7 21,7–34 21,7ff 21,12 21,15 21,23 22,27 23,2 23,4 23,10–12 25,4 27,4 27,6 27,13 29,6 30,16 30,31

179 142 94 94 156 94 94 94 180 182 101 181 179 59 180 101 59 179 179 144 178 178 177 158 59 94 59 182 181 179 180 127 142 144 180 101 158

230 31,2 32,11 33,1 33,26 34,16 37,2 37,14 42,3 42,8, 10 42,10–17

Psalms 1

1–2 1–3 1–73 1–73,28 1-145 1–150 1,1 1,1–3 1,1–6 1,2

1,2–3 1,2b 1,3 1,3–4 1,4 1,4–6 1,5 1,5–6

Index of Sources 144 156 156 59 156 127 156 187–188 59 188

1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 79, 80, 106, 115, 119, 120–137, 138, 145, 161, 169, 171, 172, 175, 193–194, 194–195, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214 131–132, 135, 146 136, 193, 200 195–200 200 3 172 121, 123, 124, 125, 132, 157 121, 123, 130 121, 131 31, 115, 121, 122, 123, 124–125, 125– 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 145, 157, 169, 193, 200, 211 124 23 106, 121, 124–125, 126, 130, 200 122 121, 124, 197 123 130–131, 157 121, 123, 124, 130

1,6

1,7 2 2–72 2,1 2,1–2 2,1–4 2,1–5 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,4–5 2,4–6 2,5 2,5–6 2,5–12 2,6 2,6–7 2,7 2,7-9 2,7–9 2,7b-9 2,8 2,10 2,10–12 2,12 3 3–14 3–41 3,1 3,2 3,2–3 3,2–4 3,4–5 3,5 3,5–7 3,8 3,8–9 3,9 4 4,2 4,3–6 4,4 4,7 5 5,9–11

122, 123, 124, 125, 132, 157, 196, 200, 201 157 24, 73, 122, 132, 133, 135, 136, 193 194 127, 132 133, 134–135 133 134 132, 133 133 133 134 73 133 133–134 133 135 132 132, 133 73 133–134 73 135, 137 134 134, 135 132, 134 135, 137, 193 146 132 135 71 137 136 137 135, 136 136 137 136 136, 137 136 71 136 136 136 26 80

Index of Sources 6 6,1–5 6,2–3 6,7–8 6,7ff 6,9 7,14–16 8,32 8,34 9 9,6 9,6–13 9,12 9/10 10 10,2 10,4b 10,6 10,11 12 12,6 13,5 14,5 15–24 16 17,1 19 19,13–14 19A 19B 22,2 22,7 22,24 24,3 24,4 24,7 24,9 24,26 25 25–34 25,1–3 25,1–7 25,2 25,4–5 25,4–5a 25,4–7 25,5 25,6

75, 81 81 125 81 81 77, 81 82 122 122 88 203 204 79 17 88 82 76 76 76 73 73 76 181 146, 174–175 172 157 31, 122 150, 181, 183 16 9, 14, 16, 17 71 75 75 177 177 77 77 181 3, 11, 17, 87, 88–96, 100, 138, 146, 202 146 89 89, 91, 92 94 89, 92, 95, 210, 211 89, 92, 93, 95, 211 89, 93 89, 90 90

25,6–7 25,7 25,8 25,8–10 25,8–15 25,8ff. 25,9 25,10 25,11 25,11–12 25,12f 25,12–14 25,12ff 25,14 25,15 25,16 25,16–19 25,18 25,21 25,21b 25,22 26,6 27 29,1 31,24 31,24f 31,24–25 31,24a 32 32,4–7 32,6f 32,6ff 32,7 32,8 32,8f 32,8–9 32,8-10 32,11 32,11-33,1 33 33,1–3 33,2–3 33,4 33,5 33,5–19 33,12 33,16–18

231 90 90, 95 92, 95 14, 87, 88–89, 91, 92– 93, 95–96 80 91 92 92, 93 90, 92, 94–95, 96 80 6 14, 87, 88–89, 91, 92– 93, 95–96 92 93, 95 93, 95 93, 95 93 94 93–94 94 94, 96 179 14 72 11 6 14, 86, 87 11 14, 15, 16, 35, 119 119 6 11 74 74, 92, 97 11, 97 73 6 18, 75 120 76 76 105 76 76 76 76 6

232 33,20–21 33,20–22 33,22 34 34,3b 34,3b-4 34,4a 34,4b 34,12

34,12–15 34,12–22 34,12ff 34,13 34,14f 34,15 35 35–36 35–37 35–41 35,2 35,3 35,6 35,10 35,15 35,15–16 35,19–21 35,20 35,21 35,25 35,25–26 35,27–28 35,28 36 36,2–5 36,4 36,5 36,6–10 36,6–12 36,7 36,8 36,11–13 36,13 37

Index of Sources 76 76 76 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 35, 78, 88, 94, 146 86 86 86 86 77, 85, 87, 97, 116, 117, 123, 208, 210– 211 11 6, 85 11 77 97 17 147, 148, 154 149, 150 148 120, 146, 147, 150, 151, 153, 154, 169 149 73 150 149 153 148 148 154 76–77, 151 76–77 148 152, 153 127, 129, 151, 152 147, 148 147, 150 151 150 147 148 149 149 147 148, 150 3, 6, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 86, 88, 97, 119, 120, 122, 137–155,

37,1 37,1–2 37,1–9 37,1–11 37,2 37,3 37,3–5 37,3b 37,4 37,5 37,6 37,6–7 37,7 37,8 37,9 37,9, 34 37,9–10 37,9–11 37,10 37,10f 37,11 37,12 37,12–24 37,12–26 37,14 37,14–15 37,14–24 37,15 37,16 37,17 37,17–18 37,18 37,20 37,21 37,22 37,23 37,23–24 37,25 37,25–26 37,26 37,27

147, 155, 158, 160, 161, 162, 168, 169, 172, 174, 193, 195– 196, 197, 199, 200, 203, 207, 208, 211, 212, 213, 214 139, 141 213 138 139, 141 143, 195 141, 144, 145, 149 139 142 139, 141, 145 141, 142, 149, 150 139, 141, 199 158 139, 141, 142, 150, 153, 177, 195 139, 141, 142, 149 141, 142, 144 149 143 139, 142 195 139 141, 142, 144, 206 141, 195 213 139 141, 150, 195 148, 195 139 139 138, 141, 195, 199 141 152 143, 144, 196, 197 143, 197 141, 144 139, 141, 144 150 150 140, 141, 149 138, 139, 196, 213 144 17, 138, 143, 144, 145, 197

Index of Sources 37,27–28 37,27–40 37,28 37,29 37,29–33 37,30 37,30–31 37,31 37,32 37,33 37,34 37,35 37,35–36 37,37 37,37f 37,37–38 37,39 37,39–40 37,40 38 38–39 38,1ff 38,2–3 38,4–6 38,10 38,11 38,13 38,14–15 38,15 38,16 38,17 38,19 38,22 38,23 38,25 38,28 38,33 39 39–40 39,1–3 39,2 39,2–3 39,2–4 39,3 39,4

139, 197 139 143, 149, 197 141, 144 139 7, 18, 127, 141, 145– 146, 151, 152 145–146 122, 145, 150 141 149 138, 139, 141, 142, 144, 150 106 138, 139, 140, 196 94, 138 139 139, 143, 197 141, 149, 167 139, 152 149 147, 148–149, 151, 152 150 213 148 148 152 149 127, 129 151, 152 181 148, 152 150 148 149 149 149 149 149 17, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152 153 150 150, 151, 153 153 151, 182 177 151, 153

39,5 39,5–6 39,5–7 39,6 39,6–7 39,6c, 7 39,7 39,8 39,8–14 39,9 39,10 39,10–11 39,11 39,12 39,13 39,13–14 40 40–41 40,1–5 40,2 40,2–11 40,2–12 40,4 40,4ab 40,4cd 40,5 40,5–6 40,6 40,9 40,10 40,10–11 40,11 40,12 40,12–18 40,13 40,14 40,17 40,18 40A,5–6 41 41,1–10 41,2–4 41,3 41,4 41,5 41,10 41,11 42

233 151 149, 150–151 14, 87, 147, 150, 151 150–151 150 6 150–151 149, 150–151 149 149 151, 153 149 153 181 157 153 122, 125, 147, 149 149 149 149, 153 147 147 149, 151, 152, 153, 155 153 153 86, 149, 151 147, 151 151, 153 122 153 153 149 17, 147 147 149 149 149, 154 149 14, 87 147, 149, 154, 194 149 147, 151, 154 154 154 149, 154 149 149 98, 161, 163

234 42–43 42–49 42,2 42,6 42,6a 42,7–8 42,8 42,12 43 43,1–4 43,4 43,5 44 44,2 44,5 44,6 44,6–7 44,7 44,16 44,20 44,23 44,25–26 44,26 45 45,1–13 45,3–10 45,11–14 45,15–18 45,17 46,2 46,2 46,2–10 46,3 46,8 46,10 46,11 46,12 47 47–51 47,2 47,2–3 47,2–5 47,4–5 47,5 47,6 47,8–9 48 48,10–11 48,10–13

Index of Sources 162 26, 161, 162 162 162 77 162 162–163 162 98, 161 162 163 162 40, 72, 162 162 162, 164 162 72 162, 164 164 162–163 163 72 162–163 162 77 162 162 162 77 164 164 162 164 164 73 73, 162, 166 162, 164 119, 162 161 162 163 79 79 163 79 163 162, 163, 204 162, 163 164

48,15 49

49–52 49,1 49,1–5 49,2 49,2–3 49,2–5 49,2a 49,2b 49,3 49,4 49,4–5 49,4–6 49,4a 49,4b 49,5 49,6 49,6–10 49,6–16 49,7 49,7–15 49,8–15 49,9 49,11 49,11–15 49,11a 49,11b-12 49,12 49,13 49,14 49,14–16 49,15 49,15–16 49,16 49,16–20 49,17

162, 164 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 53, 119, 155–168, 169, 172, 174, 193, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 203, 207, 208, 211, 212, 213 164, 167 77 155, 156, 159 157, 159, 160, 162, 164 157, 158, 159, 165, 166 165, 166, 210–211 156 156 157, 160 7, 162, 167 157, 158 160 157 157 7, 97, 157, 158, 163 158, 159, 160 155 159 97, 167 159 160 197 106, 112, 158, 159, 166, 197, 211 155 196 196 197 155, 158, 166, 167, 196 166, 167 196 185, 211 165 158, 159, 160, 165, 196, 197, 198, 211 155 159, 160, 161, 162, 167, 177

Index of Sources 49,17–18 49,17–21 49,18–20 49,18–21 49,19 49,21 50 50–52 50,1 50,1–3 50,2 50,3 50,3–4 50,5 50,7 50,7–15 50,8–15 50,15 50,16 50,16–22 50,16–23 50,17 50,19 50,21–22 50,22 50,23 51 51–52 51,6 51,15 51,18–19 52 52,3–7 52,8 52,9 52,10 52,11 54,4 54,8 55,10 55,11–12 55,14 57,9 58 60,6–8 61,2 61,6 61,7

161 159 196 159 159–160 155, 158, 167, 196 23, 73, 161, 162, 163– 164, 165, 166 166 164, 165 166 165 165 165 73 164, 165, 166 73, 165–166 167 167, 168 167 166 73 165 167 166 166 165, 166, 167 161, 168 162 180 6, 11, 117, 166–167 167 166, 167 167 167 167 126 167 157 105 81 81 77, 81 77 72 73 71–72 71 71–72

61,9 62 62,1–8 62,2 62,2–3 62,2–4 62,2–8 62,4 62,4–5 62,5 62,6 62,6–8 62,8 62,9 62,9–11 62,9–13 62,9–13a 62,10 62,10–11 62,11 62,12 62,12–13 62,12–13a 62,13 63,7 65,1–12 65,4–5 65,12–13 65,13–14 66 66,1–12 67 67,2 68 68,22–23 71,24 72 72,1 72,20 73

235 71 3, 87, 88, 96–103, 116, 118, 120 98 98 97, 98 99 101 98, 100 100 98, 100 98, 100 97, 98, 99 98 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 6, 14, 87, 99, 100, 101, 102 99, 102 97 99, 100, 213 99, 100, 101, 102, 103 97, 99, 100, 213 86, 99, 100, 102, 103 101, 102 99 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 213 127, 129 82 82 82 82 161 204 161, 204 71 204 73 127, 129 24, 161, 194 171–172 171–172, 194 3, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 24, 26, 53, 59, 171– 209, 172, 193, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 206, 207, 208, 209, 212, 213

236 73–83 73–145 73,1

73,1f 73,1–11 73,1–12 73,1–14 73,2 73,2–3 73,2–12 73,2–13 73,2–14 73,2–17 73,3 73,3–12 73,3b-5 73,5 73,6–8 73,7 73,10 73,11 73,11–12 73,12 73,12–14 73,13 73,13–14 73,13–16 73,14 73,15

73,16 73,17

73,17–18 73,17–20 73,17a 73,17b 73,18

Index of Sources 176 200–205 173, 175, 176, 179, 189, 190, 191, 192, 197 6 191 176–178 190 188, 190 174, 177, 178 174, 178, 189, 195 182, 189, 197 187 187, 213 177, 178, 184, 185, 186, 187, 192, 195 178–179, 190 174 184 174 176 195 175, 183, 196 174 174, 191, 195 191 173, 174, 176, 177, 179–180, 191 174, 179–181, 183, 188, 189 174, 179–184, 185 179, 181, 187, 189, 191, 195 180, 181–183, 182, 183, 184, 189, 190, 191, 205, 212, 213 182, 183–184, 187, 189, 192, 196, 203 173, 174, 178, 179, 182, 184–186, 185, 186, 188, 190, 191, 192, 196, 197, 198, 200, 202, 212, 213 213 197 185 185 173, 186, 190, 191

73,18–20 73,18–25 73,18–27 73,18–28 73,20 73,21 73,21–22 73,21–26 73,22 73,22–26 73,23 73,23–24 73,23–26 73,24 73,26 73,27 73,27-28 73,28 73,28ab 73,28c 74 74–78 75 75,2–5 75,10 76 77,13 77,14 78 78,1 78,1–2 78,1–3 78,1–4 78,2 78,3 78,5 78,7 78,10 79 79,11 80 81 81,6–16 82 82,1

186, 188, 190, 198 189 188 174, 186–189 174, 199 176, 187, 192 179, 187, 188 174 112, 187, 196 199 187, 188, 199, 207 198 185, 188, 197, 198, 199 188, 189, 193, 198 176, 187, 188, 189, 192, 199, 207 174, 189, 190, 197, 198, 200, 213 200 174, 188, 191, 192, 205, 212, 213 189 189 72 173–174 73 73 73 204 127, 129 204 9, 14, 18, 78, 193–194 7, 78, 97, 122 210–211 116 78 7, 78 78, 158 78, 122 78 78, 122 72 71 72 73 73 73, 77 72

Index of Sources 82,2–4 82,6–8 83 84 84–85 84–88 84,9 87–88 87,3 88 88,4 89 89,2 89,3–4 89,6–19 89,8–9 89,19–37 89,31 90 90–92 90‒92 90,2 90,3 90,9 90,10 91 91,1–13 91,14–16 92 92,1–6 92,2 92,2–3 92,2–4 92,2–6 92,2a 92,2b-6 92,3 92,3–4 92,4 92,5 92,5–6 92,6 92,6–12 92,7 92,7–8 92,7–9 92,9

73 73 72 204 161 26 157 161 77 53, 163 163 24, 73, 122, 194 204 73 204 72 73 122 17, 18, 24 26 22 86 73 127 86 6, 7, 14, 24, 73 97 73 3, 87, 103–109, 106, 112, 118, 204 105 104–105 104, 105 105, 106, 211 211 105, 106, 109 105, 213 104 105 104, 105, 109 105 105 105, 107 105 6, 106, 107, 112, 159, 187 88, 106, 107, 211, 213 14, 87, 106 106, 107

92,9–11 92,9–12 92,11–12 92,13–15 92,14 92,16 94 94,1 94,1–2 94,1–5 94,1–7 94,1–11 94,3–7 94,5 94,6–7 94,7 94,8 94,8–11 94,8–11 94,8–14 94,8–15 94,9 94,9–10 94,10 94,10–11 94,10b- 11a 94,11 94,12 94,12f 94,12–13 94,12–15 94,12–23 94,13 94,13–15 94,14 94,14–15 94,14–17 94,16 94,16–23 94,17–18 94,18 94,18–19 94,18–20 94,21

237 211, 213 106 105 88, 106, 107, 126, 211, 213 109, 211 109 3, 7, 87, 109–116, 122 109 111, 113 111 110, 111, 113, 114, 116 109 113 111, 116 111 111–112, 114 77, 97, 106, 111–112, 113–114, 159 6, 112, 113–114, 115 88 18 14, 87, 110, 112, 113, 114 111, 112 112 112, 114, 115 112 112 112, 113 7, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 122, 210 6 115 88, 112, 114, 115 109 114 115 113, 115, 116 116 115, 116 110, 116 110 116 113 116 116 113, 116

238 94,22 94,22–23 94,23 95 95,1 95,10–11 96 96,11a 97 97,10 98 98,4–6 99 100 100,4–5 103,1–2 103,20–21 103,22b 104 104,1a 104,35 105 105,11 105,15 105,45 106 106,1 107 107,1 107,42 107,43 108,3 108,7–9 110 110,1 110,4 111 111–112 111,10 111,10a 111,10ab 112 112,2 112,3 113 114,5–7 115,7 115,9–11

Index of Sources 113, 116 115 113, 115, 116 73, 111 75 73 111, 119 72 111, 204 6 111, 119 105 111, 204 111, 119 105 77 72 77 23, 204 77 77 9, 14, 119 73 73 122 9, 14, 72 104–105 26, 119, 201 104–105 201 6, 7 77 73 73 73 73 9, 14, 20, 88 17, 20, 25 7 20 6 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 20, 79, 88 181 17 119 77 127, 129 97

116,7 117 118,1 118,8–9 118,29 119 119,1–3 119,9 119,14 119,21 119,37 119,41 119,115 119,118 119,119a 122,2 125 127 127,2 127,3–5 128 128,2f 128,5f 132 132,11–12 132,14–18 133 133,1b 135 136 136,1 137,5 137,8 139 142,1–2 142,12 142,21 143 143,1 143,4 143,5 143,6 143,7 143,8 144 145

77 119 104–105 105 104–105 7, 16, 17, 26, 31, 122 6 180 17 6 18 71 77 6 6 77 72 9, 14, 15, 16 97 7, 8 6, 8, 14, 15 97 97 73 73 73 7, 15, 79 105 204 119 104–105 77 77 17 203 203 203 129 157 129 127, 129 129 129 92 24 3, 4, 17, 24, 86, 88, 200–201, 201–202, 203–205, 206, 207, 208, 212, 213

239

Index of Sources 145–150

145,1 145,1–2 145,3 145,4 145,4–7 145,6 145,6a 145,7 145,8–9 145,10–11 145,10–13 145,12 145,13 145,13–20 145,14 145,15 145,15–16 145,16 145,17 145,17–21 145,18 145,18–19 145,19 145,20 145,21 145,21b 146 146–150 146,2 146,3 146,3–4 146,3–5 146,5 146,6 146,9 147 147, 12 148 148,1–5 149 150 150,3–4

171, 172–173, 193, 195, 201, 206, 209, 214 201, 204 203, 204, 213 204 205 204 204, 214 204 204 204 204 204 203, 204 203, 204, 205 204 204 203, 205, 206 204 203 202 204 204, 205 205 204, 205 201, 202, 203, 213, 214 201, 203, 204, 205– 206 204 23, 26, 205 3, 4, 24, 119, 200– 201, 205–208, 212 206 206 206 206, 214 206 206 206 205 77 205 72 205 200, 201, 205–206, 207, 208, 209, 212 105

150,6

201

Proverbs 1 1-9 1–9 1,1 1,1–9,18 1,7 1,8 1,8–9 1,8–19 1,9 1,10 1,10–15 1,10–19 1,11–14 1,15 1,16 1,17 1,20 1,20–33 1,23 1,25 1,30 1,33 2 2,1 2,1–4 2,1–5 2,1–6 2,1–11 2,1–22 2,3 2,3–5 2,4 2,5 2,6 2,6–8 2,7 2,20 2,21 3,1 3,1–12 3,2 3,5 3,6 3,9–10 3,10

157 45, 60 47, 49, 52, 53, 57–58 176 45 85 45, 46, 85, 126 47, 49 45, 46 46 45, 85 101 49 47 45, 85 46, 101 46 157 45, 49 181 181 181 142 51 45, 46, 51, 85 51 50, 51 50 50 45, 49–50, 53 51, 53 50 51 51, 85 50, 53 47 94 91 46 45, 46, 85 45, 49, 52 46 142 91 53 52

240 3,11 3,12 3,13–18 3,13–20 3,19–20 3,21 3,21–31 3,21–35 3,23 3,26 3,29 3,31 3,32 3,32–33 3,33–34 3,33–35 3,35 4 4,1 4,1–9 4,2 4,3–4 4,5–9 4,10 4,10–19 4,11 4,13 4,16 4,17 4,20 4,20–21 4,20–27 4,21 4,22 4,23 4,25 5,1 5,1–6 5,1–23 5,3 5,7 5,7–23 5,12 5,12–14 5,20 6 6,1 6,1–5 6,1–19

Index of Sources 45, 85, 181 46 49 45 52 45, 85 48 45, 47 142 46 142 178 46 178 47 48 47 52 45, 46, 85 45, 51 46 51 51 45, 85 45, 49 46 46, 142 46 46 45, 177 177 45, 46, 49 177 46 46 47 45, 46 49 45, 53 46 45 49 181 47, 51, 101 45, 47 157 45, 50 49 45, 50

6,3 6,12–19 6,17 6,20 6,20–35 6,23 6,24–35 6,26 6,28 7,1 7,1–3 7,1–27 7,4 7,6–23 7,6–27 7,24 7,26 8 8,1–11 8,1–36 8,4–5 8,6–7 8,7 8,10 8,12–21 8,15 8,22–31 9,1 9,1–18 9,4–6 9,7–12 9,9 9,16-18 10–29 10–30 10,1–22 10,1–31 10,3 10,7 10,9 10,16 10,17 10,25 10,29 10,30 11,15 11,20 11,28 12,1

45 49 101 45, 126 45, 49 46, 181 53 46 47 45 46 45, 53 53 47, 49 58 45 46 32, 122 49 45 127 127, 128 127, 128 112 49 112 49, 86 157 45 49 49 18 49 53, 54, 60 57–58 45, 55 58 54 54 58, 94, 142 45, 55 181 143 94 143 142 91 142 181, 187

Index of Sources 12,9 13,6 13,18 14,1 14,16 15,5 15,8 15,10 15,28 15,29 15,31 15,32 16,1–9 16,3a 16,9 17,2 17,4 18,9 19,1 19,14 19,27 20,7 20,9 20,10 20,10b-11a 20,12 20,21 20,22 20,23 21,19 22,17–24 22,29 23,15 23,17 23,17–18 23,19 23,22 23,26 24,1–2 24,2 24,7 24,8 24,13 24,19 24,19–20 24,21 24,23–34 24,27 24,30–34

55 94 181, 189 157 142 181 59, 61 181 127 59 181 181 112 142 183 144 156 192 94 144 45, 54 94 180, 181 112 112 112 142, 144 142 142 105 45, 47, 54 192 45, 54 178 186 45, 54 45, 47, 54 45, 54 178 127, 184 157 183 45, 54 141–142, 178 186 45, 54 45 192 140, 177, 212

24,32 25,1–29,27 25,4 25,5 25,6–10 25,16f 25,21f 25,24 26,1 26,12 27,1f. 27,5 27,10f. 27,11 27,13 27,23 28,1 28,6 28,9 28,14 28,25–26 29,1 29,10 29,15 29,25 30,1 30,1–4 30,1–5 30,1–6 30,1–9 30,1–10 30,1–31,31 30,1cd 30,2 30,2f. 30,2–6 30,3 30,4 30,5 30,5–6 30,5–9 30,6 30,7–9 30,8 30,10 30,11–14 30,12 30,16

241 178 45 127 127 54 54 54 105 54 54 54 181 54 45, 54 54 54 142 94 59 55 142 181 94 181 142 59–60 59 59 59 59–60, 62 59 45 59–60 60, 188 112 60 180, 188 60 60 59 59 59, 60 2, 59, 60, 62, 83, 180, 188 60 59, 62 180 180, 181 180

242

Index of Sources

31 31,1–9 31,2 31,10–30 31,10–31 31,11

58, 62 61, 62 45, 54 62 89 142

Ecclesiastes 1,8 1,12 5,1 5,14–15 7,1 7,2 7,5 7,11 7,16 7,17 8,14 8,16–17 10,15 11,7 12,12

112 176 59 184 54 105 105 144 18 18 178 184 184 105 45

Isaiah 1,10 1,15 1,16 8,9 8,19 13,10 16,7 27,8 28,23 31,4 31,14 32,9 33,18 38,14 42,23 59,3 59,11

157 129 180 157 127 112 127 127 157 127 127 157 127 127 157 127 127

59,13 64,3

127 157

Jeremiah 4,31 13,15 17,5–8 17,7–8 48,31 50,25

129 157 125 125 127 191

Lamentations 1–4 3,25–27

89 105

Ezekiel 2,10 5,15 25,17 47,12

127 181 181 126

Hosea 5,1 8,5

157 179

Joel 1,2

157

Amos 1–2 4,6 5,8

102 179 112

Micah 4,5 5,5 6,11 36,23

203 102 180 102

Habakkuk 2,1

181

New Testament Acts 13,33

13

243

Index of Sources

Apocrypha Baruch 3,9ff

122

Sirach 2,1 3,1 3,12 3,17 4,1 4,6 5 6,18 6,23 6,32 6,37 7,10 10,28 11,10 14,11 14,20 15,9–10 16,24 17,17 17,25 18,15 21,1 21,21 22,27 22,27–23,1 22,27–23,6 23, 7 23,1 23,2 23,2 23,3 23,4 23,6 23,7 23,7–15 23,7–27 23,16–27 24 24,1–22 24,8 28,2 28,4

45 85 45 45 45 63 63 45 45 45, 128 128, 129 63 45 45 45 128 63 45 176 63 45 63 45 64 64 2, 63–64, 64–66 85 64 64 64 64 64 64 45, 64 64 64, 66 64 32, 122 62 176 63 63

31,22 32,14–33 35,13–18 35,14–26 35,16–26 36,1 36,1–13a 36,1–22 36,4 36,5 36,11 36,14 36,15 36, 16b–22 36,17 36,22 36,23–37 37,15 37,25 37,27 38,9 38,14 38,16 39,5 39,6 39,11 39,12–35 39,14–15 39,35 40,28 41,14 42,15–43,33 42,15–51,30 43,30 44–50 45,5 45,11 45,17 45,23 46,1 46,5 46,10 47,1–11 47,2 47,5 47,11

45 62 63 66 66 65 65 2, 63, 65 65 65 65, 176 65 65 65 65 65 65 63 176 45 45, 63 63 45 63 11 26–27 62 67 67 45 45, 85 62 63 67 62 176 176 176 176 176 62 176 26–27 176 62 176

244 47,18 47,24 50,13 50,20 50,23 50,25–29 51,1–12 51,8 51,9 51,11 51,11d 51,12 51,12b 51,12e+-zj+ 51,13

Index of Sources 176 176 176 176 176 63 2, 62, 63, 67 67 63 67 67 67 67 62, 67 67, 68

51,13–21 51,13–22 51,13–28 51,13–30 51,14a 51,15b 51,17 51,17b 51,22 51,23 51,23a 51,24–28 51,27 51,28 51,29–30

68 67–68 68 62, 63, 67 69 63, 67 68 67–68 68, 69 68 69 68 68 68 69

Index of Authors Alexander, T. D. 172 Allen, L. 173 Apple, R. 122 Arneth, M. 125 Athanasius 214 Attard, S. 120, 164, 165, 166 Auffret, P. 146 Balentine, S. E. 36 Ballhorn, E. 29, 30, 32, 125, 200 Barbiero, G. 30, 146, 147 Barré, M. L. 89 Bellinger, W. 121, 146 Beyer, A. 146 Boadt, L. 174 Botha, P. 125, 135 Braulik, G. P. 25, 28 Brown, W. P. 55, 58–59, 61, 77, 144–145, 146, 161 Brueggemann, W. 19, 39, 138, 174–175, 183, 193–195, 197, 200, 201 Buber, M. 176–177, 179, 182, 185 Carr, D. M. 19 Casetti, P. 155 Ceresko, A. R. 89 Childs, B. 29–31, 32–33, 34 Clayton, N. J. 185 Clifford, R. 57, 59, 60 Clines, D. J. A. 11, 12 Coetzee, J. 158, 159 Cole, R. 131 Craigie, P. C. 88 Creach, J. 126, 134, 140 Crenshaw, J. L. 9, 13, 18–19, 22, 44, 45, 49, 55, 57, 59, 60, 63, 65, 102, 112, 156, 172, 177, 180, 182, 185, 189, 211 Crollius, A. A. R. 91, 92

Dahood, M. 88, 97, 99, 103, 109–110, 121, 131, 138, 143, 147, 155, 157, 166 deClaissé-Walford, N. 40, 202 Dell, K. J. 16 Di Lella, A. 62, 64, 65 Dillon, E. J. 59 Doyle, B. 94 Driver, D. 30 Durlesser, J. A. 125 Engnell, I. 11–12, 13, 122–123 Estes, D. J. 44, 48–49 Finsterbusch, K. 91 Firth, D. G. 31–32 Fischer, G. 125 Fox, M. V. 42–43, 44, 45, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 60, 61, 99, 123, 140, 177 Franklyn, P. 59 Freedman, D. N. 94 Füglister, N. 22, 30, 68 Gerstenberger, E. 17, 74, 85, 88, 89–90, 91, 92, 97, 98, 103, 105, 106, 110, 116, 122, 123, 124, 132, 138, 139, 150, 158, 160, 175, 196 Gilbert, M. 65–66 Gillingham, S. 27, 73–74, 132, 200 Gosse, B. 125 Goulder, M. D. 161, 163 Greenberg, M. 36 Gunkel, H. 5–8, 11, 72, 74, 75, 81, 85, 88, 89, 91, 92, 96–97, 99, 103, 106, 107– 108, 109, 116, 121–122, 125, 130–131, 138, 140, 147, 150, 155, 156, 158, 162, 174, 176, 201, 202, 204, 213

246

Index of Authors

Hartenstein, F. 146 Helberg, J. L. 125 Hilber, J. 73 Høgenhaven, J. 131 Holladay, W. 125 Holm-Nielson, S. 12–13 Hossfeld, F.-L. 27, 29, 86, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 106, 110–111, 112, 113, 146, 182, 192, 198, 203, 204, 205 Howard, D. M. 111, 112 Human, D. J. 89 Hurvitz, A. 17–18 Irsigler, H. 139, 140, 143, 155, 158, 159, 172, 185 Jacobson, R. A. 73, 74, 111, 133 Janowski, B. 132 Jansen, H. L. 9 Jellicoe, S. 198 Johnston, P. S. 172 Jones, S. C. 49 Kamano, N. 44 Kraus, H.-J. 74, 88, 91, 93, 94, 97, 103, 110, 112, 114, 115, 121, 122, 124, 126, 138, 145, 150, 155, 157, 163, 165, 172, 174–175, 176, 179, 182–183, 185 Kugel, J. L. 33 Kuntz, J. K. 15, 20, 59, 88, 92, 99, 106, 112, 138, 140, 155, 172, 175 Kutschera, F. 156 Liesen, J. 62 Lindblom, J. 102 Lo, A. 156 Lohfink, N. 28, 120, 140–141 Luyten, J. 175, 177, 178–179, 182, 184, 188 Maier, M. P. 161 Maloney, L. D. 138 Mandolfo, C. 35–36, 37, 79, 88, 91, 93, 148 Manfredi, S. 67, 68–69 Mays, J. L. 32, 33, 41, 126, 132, 134, 171, 209 McCann, J. C. 30, 31, 33, 151, 182, 194 McKane, W. 60 McKenna, J. E. 99 de Meyer, F. 97, 99, 102

Millard, M. 194 Miller, D. B. 99 Miller, P. 30, 33, 146, 174–175, 201 Mindling, J. A. 172 Mitchell D. C. 162, 163 Moore, R. D. 60 Mowinckel, S. 8–11, 72, 103, 107, 108, 155, 175 Mulder, O. 63, 67 Munch, P. A. 9 Murphy, R. 6, 9, 14, 19, 32, 33, 57, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, 99, 106, 112, 115, 119, 121, 122, 132, 138, 140, 147, 150, 155, 156, 157, 175 Nasuti, H. 22, 28, 29, 39, 91, 134, 171, 172–173, 177, 179–180, 187 Newman, J. H. 36 Newsom, C. A. 49, 101 Nitzan, B. 37 Owens, D. 146 Perdue, L. 16, 53, 121, 122, 131, 158, 175, 179, 187 Pinker, A. 89 Pleins, D. J. 156 Rad, G. von, 44, 54, 55, 56–57, 62, 65, 102, 122, 138, 143, 172 Reid, S. B. 74 Reindl, J. 22–23 Reitemeyer, M. 62 Reymond, E. 67 Ridderbos, N. H. 165 Ringgren, H. 174 Roth, W. 102 Ruiz, E. R. 146 Ruppert, L. 89, 94 Sanders, J. A. 29 Sarna, N. 104–105 Scaiola, D. 200 Schniedewind, W. M. 19 Scott, R. B. Y. 15 Seow, C.-L. 99 Sheppard, G. T. 22, 30, 37, 122, 131, 132, 135 Shulman, A. 71

Index of Authors Skehan, P. 62, 64, 65 Smith, M. S. 21 Soll, W. 89, 94 Spangenberg, I. J. J. 156, 159 Steins, G. 29, 30 Stolz, F. 103, 110 Suderman, W. D. 36–38, 71, 75, 80–81, 114, 135 Sumpter, P. 146 Taschner, J. 29 Terrien, S. 102, 106 van der Toorn, K. 19 Trudinger, P. L. 105, 110, 113, 114

247

Weiser, A. 94, 97, 109, 110, 123, 124, 138– 139, 140, 155, 157, 165, 173, 177, 185, 192 Wendland, E. 175, 185 Wenham, G. 126, 127 Westermann, C. 1, 133, 207 Whybray, R. N. 13, 18, 45, 46, 50, 51, 53, 54, 88 Willis, J. T. 132 Wilson, G. 23–25, 27, 131, 161, 172, 194, 201, 202 Witte, M. 198–199 Würthwein, E. 174 Yoder, C. R. 57–58, 59, 60, 61

Van Leeuwen, R. C. 19–20 Weber, B. 30, 31, 33–34, 39–40, 123, 131, 132, 135, 193–194

Zenger, E. 25–27, 28, 29, 86, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 106, 110–111, 112, 113, 120, 131, 146, 161, 175, 176, 181, 182, 185, 192, 198, 199, 200, 203, 205, 206

Subject Index Acrostic 15, 17, 86, 88, 89, 92, 94, 138, 202 Agur 2, 59–62, 83, 180, 188 David 26, 137 – Davidic monarchy 24 Death 155–156, 158–163, 165–167, 188, 196, 198–200, 207, 211 Epistemology 83, 112, 196 Exile 24, 97 Fear of the Lord 7, 14–15, 83, 85, 92 Hebrew terms – ‫ אחרית‬143, 178, 185–186, 197–198, 207 – ‫ דרך‬90–91, 95, 132, 150, 166, 181 – ‫ הבל‬99, 112, 150 – ‫ הגה‬127–129, 132, 145, 152 – ‫ הכמה‬46, 154, 157, 167 – ‫ לבב‬129, 176–178, 186, 188, 190, 192, 199 – ‫ מוסר‬46, 178, 187 – ‫ מקדשׁי־אל‬184–185 – ‫ עולם‬143–144, 187, 197–199, 203, 207, 212 – ‫ ענוים‬141 – ‫ צדיק‬121, 130, 138, 141, 200, 202 – ‫ רשׁע‬121, 138, 177, 182, 195, 197, 200, 202–203 – ‫ תהלה‬154, 201 Jerusalem Temple 6, 8–12, 86, 163 Kingship – Divine 24, 26, 164, 203– 205 – Human 24, 162, 172, 204 Lemuel 58, 61 Oracle 73–74 Post-exilic era 5, 12–13, 15–17, 22–23, 74, 94, 110, 122, 139 Pre-exilic era 11–12, 16, 139 Psalms – Asaphite 161

– – – –

Davidic collection 23, 161 Enthronement 162, 164 Eschatological Zion 162–163 Hymn 6, 7, 67, 75–76, 79, 86, 104, 153, 155, 201, 203, 206, 212–214 – Korahite 26, 161–164 – Lament 1, 3, 16, 35–37, 65, 72, 86– 90, 96–97, 109–110, 114, 122, 133, 147, 149–150, 153–154, 162, 168, 169–170, 174, 182–184, 192–193 – Mixed-genre psalms 3, 6, 87, 90, 109–110, 118, 165, 169, 210 – Royal psalm 7, 24, 104, 132, 162, 193 – Testimony 9, 14, 31, 67, 99, 107– 108, 116–117, 149,159, 169, 189– 190, 207 – Thanksgiving 3, 6, 9, 14, 16, 20, 67, 86–87, 103–109, 147, 149, 154, 166, 169–170, 174–175 – Trust/confidence 3, 86–88, 96–103 – Torah psalm 162 – Wisdom psalm 2–3, 13– 21, 26–27, 34, 88, 121, 175, 193, 207, 209 Psalmenexegese 39 Psalterexegese 39, 171 Retribution, 6–7, 9, 1–15, 92, 106, 111, 113– 116, 121, 138, 174– 175 Salvation 65, 91–92, 108, 139, 148, 164, 192 Sitz im Leben 2, 7, 13–15, 17, 19–21, 23, 90, 9 Solomon 194 Supplicant 20, 35, 37–38, 64, 71, 73, 76, 94–96, 149, 166, 182– 183 Synagogue 15, 97 – Synagogal piety 10 – Synagogal worship 123, 139

Subject Index Torah 12, 15, 17, 23, 26, 30–32, 34, 115, 122–123, 126, 130, 136–137, 145, 152, 169, 206, 210 – Torah Psalm, see Psalms, Torah psalm Wisdom forms – Admonition 7, 9, 14–15, 17, 31, 46, 50, 55, 62, 99, 101, 112, 114, 138, 140, 161, 206, 213 – ‫ אשׁרי‬saying 7, 14–15, 17, 55, 76, 86, 112, 121, 132, 134, 151, 154, 206, – Autobiographical narrative 47, 80, 138–140, 175, 212–213

249

– Exhortation 47–50, 53–57, 61, 64, 68, 78, 83, 85–86, 90, 93, 99, 117, 124, 128,130, 139– 145, 148– 149, 151, 153, 155, 186, 211, 213 – Instructions 45–59, 72, 76–78, 83, 101, 140–141, 152, 157, 210 – Numerical saying 7, 14–15, 53, 86, 99, 101–103 – Proverbs 43, 53–59, 78, 83, 99, 122 – Riddle 7, 16, 44, 53, 157 Wisdom schools 14–16, 86, 89 Zion 132, 163– 164, 205