The Return of the King: Messianic Expectation in Book V of the Psalter 9780567664334, 9780567664341, 9780567664358

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

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

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

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

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

The Return of the King Messianic Expectation in Book V of the Psalter Michael K. Snearly

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Imprint previously known as T&T Clark 50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2016 © Michael K. Snearly, 2016 Michael K. Snearly has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: HB: ePDF:

978-0-56766-433-4 978-0-56766-435-8

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Snearly, Michael K. The return of the King : Messianic expectation in Book V of the Psalter / by Michael K. Snearly. pages cm. -- (The library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament studies ; volume 624) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-567-66433-4 (hardback) 1. Messianic Psalms. 2. Royal Psalms. 3. Bible. Psalms, CVII-CL--Criticism, interpretation, etc. 4. Messiah--Prophecies. I. Title. BS1445.M4S64 2015 223'.206--dc23 2015018725 Series: Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, volume 624 Typeset by Fakenham Prepress Solutions, Fakenham, Norfolk NR21 8NN

To my beautiful wife, Elizabeth “[O God], grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together” (Tobit 8:7)

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments List of Tables List of Abbreviations 1 The Return of the King PART I: BACKGROUND 2 Editorial Criticism’s Crisis of Credibility 3 Picking up the Pieces: Best Practices in Editorial Criticism 4 New Avenues: The Way Forward for Editorial Criticism PART II: BOOK V IN PERSPECTIVE 5 Research on Book V: The State of the Field 6 Reading from the Beginning: The Book of Psalms as Book PART III: RESEARCH ANALYSIS 7 Forever Faithful: Yahweh’s Covenant Loyalty in Psalms 107–118 8 Yahweh’s Torah and the King: Royal Emphasis in Psalm 119 9 Return to Zion: The Locus of Messianic Rule in Psalms 120–137 10 The End Mirrors the Beginning: The Davidic Connection between Books I–III and Psalms 138–145 11 Coda: Psalms 146–150 as the Conclusion of the Psalter PART IV: CONCLUSION 12 Messianic Hope in Comparable Jewish Literature Appendix: Psalms 114–115 as One Psalm Bibliography Index

viii x xi 1

9 23 39

57 79

105 129 141 155 171

187 197 201 229

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I, first of all, would like to thank the series editors, Andrew Mein and Claudia Camp, for their oversight and encouragement during the publication process. I always found their comments to be constructive and helpful, and the final product has benefitted greatly from their guidance. A research-intensive work, such as this one, relies heavily on the dedication of skilled librarians. I must mention the library staff at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary—especially Sean Cowin—for accommodating my (sometimes obscure) requests. I also would like to thank Mary Moore at the San Francisco Theological Seminary library for her assistance in procuring volume after volume for me. I owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Peter J. Gentry, Professor of Old Testament Interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, for introducing me to the editorial criticism of the Psalter and for, most of all, instilling in me a deep love of the Hebrew Scriptures. I am deeply indebted to the Rev. Dr. J. Clinton McCann, Jr., Evangelical Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Eden Theological Seminary, because of his initial interest in the work and because of his enthusiastic encouragement to pursue publication. Of all my academic and scholarly influences, Dr. David M. Howard, Jr., receives pride of place. He has been a supervisor, mentor, and friend. Even before I began work on my research, he worked very closely with me on my idea, helping me to refine it, undoubtedly saving me from much future vexation. Over the years that it has taken to complete this work, his timely correspondence made it all the more pleasant and enjoyable. I could always count on him to offer substantive critique within a matter of days. But it has not just been his interaction with my work for which I am thankful. I am also indebted to him for his work because of its enduring legacy, as a new generation of students (including myself) builds on it. To modify slightly a quote from Sir Isaac Newton for my own purposes, “If I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of this giant.”

Acknowledgments

ix

Finally, I gratefully acknowledge the support of my wife, Elizabeth, who has encouraged me to work with excellence throughout the process. She had to bear a heavy burden as I gave so much attention to my work, especially as our family was growing, yet her support of my project was unwavering. If academic research is going to be conducted by someone who has a family, it truly is a team (family) project. So it is with great joy that I can share these words with my wife, “We did it!”

LIST OF TABLES

3.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 7.1 7.2 8.1 8.2 9.1 9.2 9.3

Summary of Methods Gerald Henry Wilson Klaus Koch Matthias Millard So Kun Ahn John Walton Erich Zenger Word Occurrence in Psalm 119 An Overview of ‫ דסח‬and ‫ םלוע‬in Psalms 107–118 Word Occurrence in Psalm 119 Key Words in Psalms 120–137 compared to 119 Parallel Clauses Structural Parallels between Psalms 135 and 136 Comparison of Key-word Links from Psalms 120–137 with Psalms 138–145 9.4 A Comparison of Key Words in Psalms 120–137 with the Rest of Book V 9.5 The Distribution of Key Words in Psalms 120–137 10.1 Christoph Buysch 10.2 Doxologies 10.3 Comparison of Psalms 107 and 145 11.1 Psalms 146–150 11.2 Comparison of Psalms 146–150 with 1–2

37 59 63 64 68 71 73 115 126 133 136 142 144 146 146 147 158 164 166 177 179

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ATANT

Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments

b.

Babylonian Talmud

BBB

Bonner biblische Beiträge

BBR

Bulletin for Biblical Research

BDB

The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon

BETL

Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium

BHS

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 5th edn

BKAT

Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament

BTB

Biblical Theology Bulletin

BZ

Biblische Zeitschrift

BZAW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CRB

Cahiers de la Revue biblique

FAT

Forschungen zum Alten Testament

HALOT

The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament

HBS

Herders biblische Studien

HTKAT

Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JSOT

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

List of Abbreviations

xii

JSOT Sup

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

KJV

King James Version

LXX Septuagint m

Mishnah tractate

mss Manuscripts MT

Masoretic Text

NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis NIV

New International Version

NIVAC

New International Version Application Commentary

NKJV

New King James Version

NLT

New Living Translation

OBO

Orbis biblicus et orientalis

SBLAB

Society of Biblical Literature Academia Biblica

SBLDS

Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBS

Stuttgarter Bibelstudien

SJOT

Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

TDOT

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament

ThZ

Theologische Zeitschrift

TLOT

Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament

VT

Vetus Testamentum

VTS

Vetus Testamentum Supplements

WBC

Word Biblical Commentary

WTJ

Westminster Theological Journal

ZAW

Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

1 THE RETURN OF THE KING

The purposeful arrangement of psalm groups in Psalms 107–150 signals a renewed hope in the royal/Davidic promises. Each psalm group of Book V is organized around a theme or key word that is related to the royal/Davidic hope in the earlier sections of the Psalter: Psalms 107–118 (‫ חסד‬and ‫;)עולם‬ Psalm 119 (‫ ;)תורה‬Psalms 120–137 (‫ ;)ציון‬Psalms 138–145 (‫)מלך‬. These words and themes figure prominently at the major seam psalms of the Psalter: Psalms 1–2 and 89. Thus, the content and subject matter at the end of the Psalter is integrally related to the content and subject matter at the beginning. The trajectory of the storyline is consistent throughout: Yahweh is king; he has appointed an earthly vice-regent who represents his heavenly rule on earth; the earthly vice-regent and his people travail against the rebellious of the earth. The editorial-critical method used in this study draws from recent insights in the fields of poetics and text-linguistics in order to establish a linguistically based foundation for reading the Psalter as a unified text. The methodology can best be described as an eclectic method that emphasizes parallel features, with special focus on key-word links, which are a word or phrase for which at least half of all occurrences in Book V are in one group and/or at least 20 percent of all occurrences in the Psalter are in one group. This method advances editorial criticism by not only discerning links within a group but also showing that those links do not occur with the same frequency outside of the group.1 The method used to arrive at these conclusions presupposes that parallelism extends beyond the literary level of the poem to include larger sections In this work, “editorial criticism” refers to the approach to biblical studies that investigates (1) the evidence for editorial shaping, and (2) the significance of that shaping within biblical texts, especially poetic texts. See J. A. Grant, “Editorial Criticism,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, ed. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008): 149–56.

1

2

The Return of the King

of text. Consequently, parallel features are seen as elements of cohesion, binding individual psalms into larger units. The parallel feature that is given most emphasis is the key-word link. Key-word links, then, serve a double function. First, they isolate parallel features that bind a group together. Second, they demonstrate that the parallel features do not occur with the same frequency outside of the group.

Clarifying the Direction of Research The research questions that have guided this study are: (1) What is the purpose of the editorial shaping of the Psalter? It is one thing to show that certain psalms are in some kind of literary relationship, but it is quite another to explain the significance of that literary relationship. Why did an editor or editors place the psalms in their current order in the Masoretic Text? Are they trying to tell us something?; (2) What is the best method for discerning this purpose in the editorial shaping of the Psalter? Editorial criticism rises and falls based on the quality of the method being used, thus there is a critical need for a continual refinement of editorial-critical methodologies. Questions of method and interpretation of data have guided me throughout this book; (3) How does the Book of Psalms fit within the biblical-theological message of the Old Testament? Is the voice of the Psalter in harmony with the rest of the Old Testament, or is it uniquely singing its own tune? I will chiefly interact with works within the “canonical” or “editorial” fold. And my focus on editorial criticism is not meant to demean the work of scholars who approach the Psalter differently; every methodology has its place. I have simply chosen to work within editorial criticism because it best suits the questions I am asking of the text. Due to the sheer volume of publications that have arisen within editorial criticism in the past thirty years, I will be primarily focused on works related to the macrostructure of Book V of the Psalter (Psalms 107–150). For more comprehensive analyses of interpretation of the Psalms from different scholarly epochs, there are a number of helpful resources.2 See especially, William L. Holladay, The Psalms through Three Thousand Years: Prayerbook of a Cloud of Witnesses (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993); David C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms, JSOT Sup 252 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,

2



The Return of the King

3

I contend that there is a purposeful arrangement of psalm groups in Book V and that this arrangement should be interpreted as signaling a renewed hope in the royal/Davidic promises. To make this case I have divided the work into four parts: (1) Background; (2) Book V in Perspective; (3) Research Analysis; and (4) Conclusion. I begin the background by addressing editorial criticism’s crisis of credibility. Here, I interact with the most prominent skeptics of editorial criticism as a whole and I also highlight concerns raised from within the editorial-critical fold, including my own critiques. I then make the case for editorial criticism and I propose a way forward in light of editorial criticism’s chief shortcomings. I highlight some of the exemplary work done in editorial criticism and identify best practices within the discipline. From there, I pursue two possible avenues for establishing a linguistically based foundation for reading the Psalter as a unified text and I outline different editorial-critical methods. This overview concludes with a thorough explanation of my method—an eclectic method that emphasizes parallel features, with special focus on key-word links. It must be emphasized that this method advances editorial criticism by not only discerning links within a group but also showing that those links do not occur with the same frequency outside of the group. I submit that this book is a further defense of editorial criticism because it refines the method by introducing stricter controls. Next, I seek to put Book V in perspective. I begin by providing a brief literature review of the most salient studies on Book V. I interact with the work of each scholar, weighing the pros and cons of their conclusions, while, at the same time, identifying the cruces criticorum that are common to studies of Book V. An overview of the Psalter’s storyline follows. Drawing from the insights of narrative criticism, I make the case, first of all, that there is a storyline in the book. Then, with special attention given to the key seam psalms of the Psalter (Psalms 1–2 and 89), that storyline is developed up 1997), 15–65; David M. Howard, Jr., “Recent Trends in Psalms Study,” in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches, ed. David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1999): 329–68; Jean-Marie Auwers, La composition littéraire du Psautier: Un état de la question, CRB 46 (Paris: Gabalda, 2000); Erich Zenger, “Psalmenforschung nach Hermann Gunkel und Sigmund Mowinckel,” in Congress Volume Oslo, ed. A. Lemaire and M. Sæbø, VTS 80 (Leiden: Brill, 2000): 399–435; Susan Gillingham, Psalms Through the Centuries, Volume One, Blackwell Bible Commentaries (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008); Erich Zenger, “Psalmenexegese und Psalterexegese: Eine Forschungsskizze,” in The Composition of the Book of Psalms, ed. Erich Zenger, BETL 238 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 17–65; Robert Cole, Psalms 1–2: A Gateway to the Psalter, Hebrew Bible Monographs 37 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011), 1–45.

4

The Return of the King

to Book V (Psalms 107–150).3 Essentially, the Psalter teaches that there is a heavenly king who has appointed an earthly vice-regent to establish his kingdom in a world of unruly kings. This program is not abandoned in Psalm 89, as is often assumed; the sorry state of the Davidic line is lamented, but hope in Yahweh’s earthly vice-regent has not been forsaken. The next five chapters apply the methodology to each succeeding psalm group of Book V: Psalms 107–118; 119; 120–137; 138–145; 146–150. In each chapter, I argue for the group’s cohesion—based on the uniqueness of parallel features within the group4—and then I develop the significance of each group. Interestingly, the dominant theme or key word in each group of Book V proper (i.e., Psalms 107–145)5 is related to a dominant theme or key word from the main seam psalms of the Psalter: Psalms 1–2 and 89. Psalms 107–118 pick up on the question of whether Yahweh’s ‫ חסד‬is ‫עולם‬, a question broached in Psalm 89. Psalm 119 develops the theme of ‫תורה‬, which is emphasized in Psalm 1 as the chief activity of the blessed man. Psalms 120–137 focus on place—most specifically, Zion. Zion is significant to the storyline of the Psalter because it is the place where Yahweh’s anointed reigns according to Psalm 2. Then, in Psalms 138–145, the theme of kingship (‫ )מלך‬emerges as a prevailing motif of the group. Psalms 2 and 89 are both chiefly concerned with the king. Finally, Psalms 146–150 conclude the Psalter in a swelling summons to praise, as evidenced by the oft-repeated imperatival phrase ‫הללו־יה‬. The results of the inquiry affirm that the storyline of the Psalter is unified and that Yahweh’s earthly vice-regent still plays a prominent role in his plan. The book concludes by comparing the results of my study with the evidence from comparable Jewish literature. Is the robustly royal/Davidic reading of I have limited my analysis to Psalms 1–2 and 89 because of their occurrence at the significant junctures of the storyline, that is, at the introduction and at the middle (read: turning point). This is not to say that Psalms 41, 42, 72, 73, 90, and 106 are not important or significant to the storyline. Rather, they are not the most important or most significant. An analogy would be the difference between roman numerals and capital letters in an outline. Psalms 1–2 and 89 represent the roman numerals; the other seam psalms represent the capital letters—important yet subordinate. Psalms 1–2 are structurally significant because they form the introduction. Psalm 89, on the other hand, is viewed as the turning point in the Psalter according to most scholars’ reckoning because the Davidic/ royal figure is supposedly rejected. This leads to a new narrative trajectory in Books IV–V, which witness to the reign of Yahweh. Psalm 89, then, is an extremely significant psalm in the storyline. It is, so to speak, a battleground psalm because it influences the way that Books IV–V are read. 4 Repeated words are insufficient evidence to support a group’s unity. My method demonstrates that parallel features in one group, such as repeated words, do not occur with the same frequency in other groups. 5 Psalms 146–150 function as the conclusion to the Psalter as a whole. 3



The Return of the King

5

Book V proposed in this work consistent with the portrayal of David and his dynasty in other Jewish literature? After examining pre-exilic and postexilic texts from the Hebrew Bible, as well as passages from the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, and the New Testament, I conclude that my reading of the Psalter is consistent with the portrayal of David in other Jewish literature. Future hope was tied to David and his offspring.

PART I BACKGROUND

2 E D I T O R IA L C R I T IC I SM ’ S C R I SI S O F C R E D I B I L I T Y

In his Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, published in 1979, Brevard Childs pondered the significance of the Psalter’s arrangement. He observed the five-book division, the clustering of psalms with similar superscriptions (Songs of Ascent, Asaph psalms, etc.), the placement of Psalm 1 as the introduction, and the crescendo of praise found in Psalms 146–150, and he wondered, “What significance can be attributed to these elements of the present form of the Psalter? In what way does the final editing of the Psalter testify as to how the collectors understood the canonical material to function for the community of faith?”1 These inchoate musings marked a watershed in Psalms studies and spawned a fresh trajectory of inquiry into the editorial shaping of the book.2 Since then, a number of scholars have pursued Childs’s line of thought, most notably his own student, Gerald Henry Wilson. It was Wilson’s dissertation, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, published in 1985, that established a benchmark for editorial criticism and provided impetus for the nascent field of study. Emerging from the nearly century-long hegemony of the form criticism school, associated with such scholars as Hermann Gunkel and Sigmund Mowinckel, Wilson’s work initiated a different approach for reading the Psalms as a book, intentionally arranged.3 According to Wilson’s conclu Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1979), 512–13. 2 It should be noted that European scholars will sometimes refer to the following works as the starting points of the re-emergence of this discipline: Walther Zimmerli, “Zwillingspsalmen,” in Wort, Lied, und Gottesspruch: Beiträge zu Psalmen und Propheten, ed. J. Schreiner (Würzburg: Echter, 1972), 105–13; Christoph Barth, “Concatenatio im ersten Buch des Psalters,” in Wort und Wirklichkeit: Studien zur afrikanistik und orientalistik, ed. B. Benzing, O. Böcher, and G. Mayer (Meisenheim am Glan: Hain, 1976), 30–40; Claus Westermann, “The Formation of the Psalter,” in Praise and Lament in the Psalms, trans. Keith R. Crim and Richard N. Soulen (Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1981), 250–8. 3 Although associated with the same school generally, the differences between the teacher (Gunkel) and student (Mowinckel) are sharp, accounting for the two main trajectories within form criticism. Gunkel understood the Psalter to have originally had a cult-functional purpose, but 1

10

The Return of the King

sions, the Book of Psalms should not be read as a compendium of unrelated poems, prayers, and hymns; rather, Wilson argued, readers should be sensitive to the literary context created by thematic groupings of psalms. Since the mid-1980s, a flurry of articles, monographs, and dissertations—including this work—has addressed the viability and plausibility of reading the Book of Psalms this way. But not everyone is convinced. In fact, editorial criticism faces a crisis of credibility. From both within and without the field of editorial criticism, serious concerns have been raised that potentially vitiate any further contribution.

The Primary Challenges Facing Editorial Criticism As editorial criticism has grown in prominence within the academy, key voices have sounded concerns about the viability of the entire enterprise. Even Gerald Henry Wilson himself had reservations about the future of editorial criticism—especially the lazy subjectivism that can pass for editorial-critical “analysis.” He worried that “too often the necessary in-depth analysis has not been done,”4 thus creating a scenario in which any editorial-critical hypothesis can be defended by “evidence,” which is nothing more than shallow observation. In his own words, “The articulation of a hypothesis that can be supported is taken as confirmation of the truth of that hypothesis. A few, tenuous examples of agreement are considered sufficient proof.”5 And Wilson is not alone in making these observations.

that purpose was gradually subsumed under the need for individuals to express their piety within the poems. Mowinckel, on the other hand, investigated the Psalms to discern their use within the cult, drawing on the major festivals and cult apparatus sanctioned in the Torah as well as a hypothetical “Enthronement Festival” that took place at the New Year as the background to many of the psalms. See Hermann Gunkel with Joachim Begrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen : die Gattungen der religiösen Lyrik Israels, 4th edn (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985); Hermann Gunkel, Ausgewähltete Psalmen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1904); idem, The Psalms: A Form-critical Introduction, trans. Thomas M. Horner (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967); Sigmund Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien I–VI (Kristiania: SNVAO, 1921–4); idem, Religion und Kultus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1953); idem, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2 vols, trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1962–3), which is a translation of idem, Offersang og sangoffer: salmediktningen i Bibelen (Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co., 1951). 4 Gerald Henry Wilson, “Understanding the Purposeful Arrangement of Psalms in the Psalter: Promises and Pitfalls,” in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann, JSOT Sup 159 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 48. 5 Ibid.



Editorial Criticism’s Crisis of Credibility

11

Skeptics from outside of editorial criticism

Roland Murphy is unconvinced that the Psalter can be read as a book with a literary context. He has reservations, first of all, with the way that psalms are linked together in editorial criticism. Although he grants that there are similarities between the first two psalms (Psalms 1–2), he labels their connective association as “speculation.” He goes on to write that “one can associate freely between one psalm and another in the context of a book. The associations hardly justify a solid context from which to draw conclusions.”6 Furthermore, he contends, even if an association between two psalms can be determined on literary grounds, the benefits for the interpreter are negligible. Commenting on the context created for Psalm 30 within editorial criticism, he asks and answers, “Assuming this new context as a concrete situation in which the psalm was re-used, is it a real gain? Only very minor, it seems to me.”7 And, in a similar vein, “Is the new context better than the one originally established by historical criticism? I doubt it.”8 Murphy’s issues, then, with editorial criticism are that it is speculative and very little is gained from its application to the Psalter. And he is not alone. John Goldingay is also a detractor. He rejects the notion that the Psalter is a “coherent literary whole” and thus it “does not have a structure that helps us get a handle on its contents, as the structure of (e.g.) Genesis or Isaiah helps us grasp the whole and the parts.”9 Instead, Goldingay believes that form criticism is a more fruitful discipline because it sets the psalms in their most natural context—the way in which they portray interaction with God. In his book devoted to investigating the foundational claims of editorial criticism, Norman Whybray concludes that, “There is no evidence that there was a systematic and purposeful redaction of the whole Psalter in any of the suggested ways.”10 How, and for what reasons, does he arrive at this conclusion? First, scholarly disagreement on some of the basic assertions Roland E. Murphy, “Reflections on Contextual Interpretation of the Psalms,” in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann, Jr., JSOT Sup 159 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 23. 7 Ibid., 24. 8 Ibid. 9 John Goldingay, Psalms, vol. 1 (Psalms 1–41), Baker Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 36. 10 Norman Whybray, Reading the Psalms as a Book, JSOT Sup 222 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 119. 6

12

The Return of the King

of editorial criticism causes him to be skeptical of the entire enterprise. For instance, after reviewing the scholarly discussion surrounding Psalms 1 and  2, and observing that a consensus has not emerged regarding the association of the two psalms, he counsels, “In view of these differences of opinion it is probably unwise to use the hypothesis of the unity of Psalm 1 + 2 as a basis for an understanding of the composition of the Psalter.”11 Second, he asserts, “Prominent among the themes which editors of the Psalter might be expected to have thought it necessary to reinterpret or modify for the post-exilic reader is that of sacrificial worship.”12 Whybray fails to discover evidence in support of such a redaction.13 Third, Whybray dismisses some of the leading proposals for the Psalter’s unity because they are, in his opinion, too broad and vague. He insists that any hypotheses for a unified redaction must have tighter connections, or they must be, at least, tighter than the connections adduced by scholars such as Claus Westermann and Gerald Henry Wilson.14 Finally, Whybray has fastidious standards for discerning a systematic and purposeful redaction of the entire Psalter. Even though he concedes that “in a number of instances wisdom and Torah psalms have been deliberately placed so as to reinterpret adjacent psalms or even a whole group of psalms,” this does not constitute the type of redactional evidence he is looking for.15 Furthermore, he recognizes that three royal psalms “have been placed in a prominent position,” but again, Whybray does not count this as evidence for a purposeful redaction of the Psalter.16 I fear, however, that Whybray expects too much. He wants proof; he wants to see evidence of textual manipulation.17 But the modest assertions under Ibid., 81. Ibid., 100. It must be noted, however, that no editorial critic pursues their studies under the assumption that the final redactors sought to reinterpret or modify references to sacrificial worship. This point is, then, as David Howard has already noted, a straw man—it is easily refutable, but it does not accurately represent editorial criticism. See David M. Howard, Jr., review of Reading the Psalms as a Book, by Norman Whybray, Review of Biblical Literature, April 15, 1998. 14 Ibid., 85, 120. 15 Ibid., 78. 16 Ibid., 99. 17 See, e.g. ibid., 33, 99, 118–19. See also Tremper Longman III, “The Messiah: Explorations in the Law and the Writings,” in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 23–4. Longman questions, “If the arrangement were so important to the meaning of the book as a whole, wouldn’t it be more likely that explicit indicators would be built into the text?” But, in response, there is not even punctuation in the earliest manuscripts, so 11 12 13



Editorial Criticism’s Crisis of Credibility

13

lying the methodology of editorial criticism would not yield proof, at least not the proof that Whybray is seeking (can anything, in fact, be proven about the Bible?). At best, there will be indications of purposeful textual juxtaposition. Another critique of editorial criticism is its relatively recent history. This line of reasoning has been articulated by Tremper Longman III: “The fact that this arrangement was not noticed before 1985 [the publication of Gerald Henry Wilson’s The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter] should make us pause and suggest that it was imposed rather than described from what is there.”18 Longman’s statement, however, cannot be supported by the evidence from the history of interpretation. David Mitchell’s literature review, in his book The Message of the Psalter, reveals a lengthy tradition—both Jewish and Christian—of reading the Psalms as a book.19 He audaciously concludes, “Thus a historical perspective at the end of the twentieth century seems to suggest that western scholarship from c. 1820–1970 is, in some respects, a hiatus in Psalms interpretation, during which scholarly opinion diverged sharply from what must be considered, historically speaking, the dominant views [those that propound a purposeful arrangement].”20 Even Whybray recognizes that the Psalter has been read this way “for many centuries.”21 Consequently, even though editorial criticism is a relative newcomer to the field of modern biblical criticism, its roots draw from a deep reservoir of tradition. To date, the most thoroughgoing critique of editorial criticism is Erhard Gerstenberger’s essay, “Der Psalter als Buch und als Sammlung.” He raises a number of critical issues with editorial criticism, and each one should be given attention. Consequently, I will work through his article point by point. Gerstenberger begins by charging editorial critics with divorcing history from faith. In his own words, “Whoever one-sidedly emphasizes the canonical final form of the biblical writings devalues, more or less, the historical origins of our faith tradition. He/she will be inclined to set aside the historicalness of why would we assume that there would be textual indicators of groupings. Furthermore, the desire for evidence of explicit redactional manipulation of the texts themselves should be tempered by the obscure superscriptions. In other words, if the redactor/s would not edit/translate/delete the obscure terms in the superscriptions, why would we expect them to manipulate the texts in other ways? 18 Longman, “The Messiah,” 24. 19 Mitchell, The Message, 15–65. 20 Ibid., 65. 21 Whybray, Reading, 124.

14

The Return of the King

the Word of God in favor of the abiding substance and invariable authority of the unique and ultimately fixed revelation.”22 Two issues then arise from this separation. The first is a stunted exegesis. Words, Gerstenberger contends, must be interpreted in their historical context and, due to their minimizing of the historical background, editorial critics neglect this important component of interpretation.23 Moreover, editorial critics fail to sufficiently account for, what appears to be, an extremely complex and lengthy process of redaction. Until more can be ascertained about the process of redaction, Gerstenberger does not think that it is prudent to make claims about editorial intention.24 Gerstenberger rightly recognizes that editorial criticism tends to emphasize the literary nature of the text rather than the historical background, but that does not necessarily support his objections. First of all, Gerstenberger himself divorces faith from history when he creates the false dichotomy that the study of an ancient text is not a historical endeavor—as if the only proper form of historical inquiry is to research the history that stands behind the text. Interpretation is inherently historical because any form of a text is a historical artifact, including the final form. Thus it must be interpreted as such, with special care given to defining words and understanding the nuances of syntax properly—that is, in their historical context. And the historical context of a text is other contemporary literary texts. So, while editorial critics tend to minimize the historical background of the text, this does not mean that they eschew history outright because, presumably, they are defining the words and interpreting the syntax of the text within its historical context. Moreover, editorial criticism does not deny the historical issues raised by Gerstenberger, such as the process of redaction. It simply holds them in abeyance in order to answer different questions about the text itself. Ultimately, a datum exists that invites further inquiry: the MT as we have it today, a text undergirded by over a millennium of tradition. Even if we can say nothing about the historical background of the psalms or the process of the Psalter’s redaction, we have Erhard S. Gerstenberger, “Der Psalter als Buch and als Sammlung,” in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung, ed. Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger, HBS 1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 3. “Wer einseitig die kanonische Endgestalt der biblischen Schriften betont, wertet die geschichtliche Genese unserer Glaubensüberlieferung mehr oder weniger ab. Er/sie wird dann auch geneigt sein, die Geschichtlichkeit des Wortes Gottes überhaupt zurückzustellen zugunsten einer bleibenden Substanz und unveränderlichen Autorität der einmalig oder letztgültig fixierten Offenbarung.” 23 Ibid., 3–4. 24 Ibid., 4. See also Whybray, Reading, 35, where he makes a similar point. 22



Editorial Criticism’s Crisis of Credibility

15

a text. And editorial critics seek to answer the question, “What can be said about that text?” Gerstenberger also makes multiple assumptions about the process of redaction—namely, that it was extremely lengthy, convoluted, and complex. But these are simply assumptions. The truth is that next to nothing is definitively known about the editorial process of the Psalter. Some, like Gerstenberger and Whybray, argue that it was so tortuous as to render moot the notion of editorial intention; but others, with the support of tradition, claim the process was more straightforward.25 It seems imprudent to me, then, to allow assumptions about the redactional process, for either perspective, to hamper investigation into the final form of the text. Next, Gerstenberger questions whether a compilation of individual texts can be read as a unified text. He opines that “the Psalter is possibly the book of the Old Testament that most intensely rejects an integral reading.”26 He grants that there are connections between and among psalms—he labels their existence indisputable (unbestreitbar).27 But he does not grant that these connections reveal intentionality. Like Whybray, he believes that this is very difficult to prove (sehr schwer nachweisen). As has already been stated, editorial critics would agree that editorial intentionality is difficult to prove. But, when there is the evidence that Gerstenberger himself points out—evidence of connections and links between and among the psalms—the accumulation of that evidence throughout the Psalter seems to suggest intentionality. Again, it does not prove intentionality; it simply suggests it. But the suggestion is further buttressed by the sheer volume of connections and links. Gerstenberger is suspicious of editorial criticism because he does not believe that the final redaction should “be entitled to a special dignity.”28 But editorial criticism is not built on the presumption that the final redaction has a special dignity, just that it has dignity and should, therefore, be an object See Rainer Stichel, Beiträge zur frühen Geschichte des Psalters und zur Wirkungsgeschichte der Psalmen, Abhandlungen der Nordrhein-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 116 (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2007), for the traditional views. It could be assumed that Books I–II were compiled during the monarchic period; Book III was arranged and added in the exile; and Books IV–V concluded the collection under the auspices of the Great Assembly. This is simply an assumption, but assumptions are all that can be made at this point. 26 Gerstenberger, “Der Psalter,” 4. “Der Psalter is möglicherweise das Buch im Alten Testament, welches sich einer integralen Lektüre am heftigsten widersetzt.” 27 Ibid., 5. 28 Ibid., 8. 25

The Return of the King

16

of inquiry. If editorial critics grant the final redaction any special dignity it is because the final redaction is the least speculative stage in the process of redaction—alas, there is a text. Gerstenberger concludes his article with some final objections:29 The Psalter is not a “book” in the normal sense of the word and should not be treated as such. It is simply a collection. Gerstenberger believes that discerning the Sitz-im-Leben of a work is crucial to understanding its purpose. Since the Sitz-im-Leben of the final redaction is unknown, the purpose of the final redaction will remain unknown. Psalms should be interpreted individually. Any intrusion of an outside context only obfuscates the clear meaning and the uniqueness of the individual psalm. Gerstenberger points out that there is no evidence from the ancient Near East of poems or songs being organized into a book that was meant to be read consecutively. He also finds no evidence for word links acting as a connection strategy. The ancient Near Eastern examples studied by Gerald Henry Wilson do not gainsay these claims. Finally, Gerstenberger is wary of editorial criticism because it makes grand statements about the purpose of the book as a whole, and he believes those grand statements of purpose will overshadow the contribution of the individual psalm. In another part of the essay, Gerstenberger contends that the grand statements made by editorial critics reveal more about the theological biases of the editorial critic than they do the text.

MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

I will respond to Gerstenberger’s points in order: First of all, I wholeheartedly agree that the Psalter is not a “book” in the normal sense—it is a point I will argue in Chapter 4. But that does not mean that we must then say that it is a random collection. If it were simply a random collection, why any organization at all? Why five books?

MM

These are found in ibid., 9–12.

29



MM

MM

MM

MM

Editorial Criticism’s Crisis of Credibility

17

Why are all of the Songs of Ascents together? Why are the “Yahweh reigns” psalms so close together? Certainly, to discover the Sitz-im-Leben of the final redaction would be extremely helpful, but it is not absolutely necessary. There are ways (and we can argue over which ones are best) to discover purpose and intentionality without having a clear picture of the Sitz-im-Leben. If editorial critics have obscured the brilliance of individual psalms for the sake of making sense of the whole, then it is a shortcoming. But it is a shortcoming of the interpreter and the specific method being used, not with editorial criticism as a whole. Ideally, editorial criticism will balance the unique contribution of the individual psalm with the way in which it fits into the fabric of the whole. To my knowledge, Gerstenberger’s point about ancient Near Eastern evidence is correct. But in the end, it is a non-starter. There may be numerous explanations for this. It may be that no one has attempted a study of this kind. It may be that these kinds of texts have not yet been found. Furthermore, it is not as if there are copious quantities of intact poem collections from the ancient Near East to which the Psalter could be compared. And editorial critics would object to Gerstenberger’s sweeping claims by drawing his attention to at least one ancient Near Eastern text that appears to address his concerns: the Psalter itself. Finally, Gerstenberger is correct again that there is a danger in making grand statements about the Psalter’s purpose. Those statements do have an influence on how both the whole and the parts are understood. But when editorial criticism makes grand statements about the Psalter’s purpose, those statements are backed up with evidence from the text. Of course, the evidence can be accepted or rejected, but rigorous investigation should undergird any grand statements made about the Psalter as a whole. Thus, it is a risk worth taking—and worth weighing against the evidence.

Concerns from within editorial criticism

Gerald Henry Wilson is widely recognized as the modern doyen of editorial criticism, and yet we have already seen that he had grave concerns about the

18

The Return of the King

field descending into a shallow subjectivism, dominated by impressions more than evidence. This is where editorial criticism’s crisis of credibility comes to a head. Lazy, unsubstantiated work only serves to undermine the enterprise as a whole and cast further aspersion on an approach to biblical studies already besieged by skeptics. From my vantage point, there are three serious issues that must be addressed within editorial criticism if it is going to maintain its standing in the guild of biblical studies. First, editorial critics must avoid the tendency to overreach, trying to explain the editorial purpose of a large section of text, and sometimes even the entire Psalter, based on cursory observations of the individual psalms. Wilson’s most influential work, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, is guilty of this charge. Nearly 90 percent of the book is devoted to developing his argument that the Psalter has been editorially arranged with intentionality, most all of which is quite sound. But then he seeks to explain the significance of the entire Psalter in the last few pages with scant interaction with a handful of psalms, often summarizing key seam psalms with an anemic paragraph. I would also categorize Nancy deClaissé-Walford’s work, Reading from the Beginning, under this same charge. Less than half of a 130-page book is dedicated to culling data from the psalms themselves, and yet she ventures to provide a summary of the narrative storyline of the complete Psalter. Editorial critics must be committed to a thoroughgoing analysis of the most pertinent data—the text itself—in order to make substantive contributions to biblical studies. The second issue is located on the other side of the scholarly spectrum— assiduous studies that have too small of a sample set and thus contribute very little to the revelation of the overall storyline of the Psalter. These works often have exacting methodological controls, which are to be applauded, but the trade-off is that the rigor of analysis only allows for diminutive portions of text to be investigated, and thus their contribution to the overall significance of the Psalter is more muted. David Howard’s The Structure of Psalms 93–100 is a classic example of this, a point that he himself has recognized.30 Editorial critics need to learn how to apply exacting methodological controls See David M. Howard, Jr., “Recent Trends in Psalms Study,” in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches, ed. David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1999), 339 n. 32.

30



Editorial Criticism’s Crisis of Credibility

19

to larger sections of text in order to make headway in the task of explaining the editorial significance of the book as a whole. Finally, I will borrow one of the canons of textual criticism—evidence must be weighed, not counted.31 Too often in editorial criticism, frivolous links are accumulated that either overshadow the more plausible evidence or, worse, stand in the place of genuine evidence. Robert Cole is guilty of the former. He displays a keen sense of observation in his work, but there are times when his sense of observation is overworked and thus he presses the evidence. He tends to see any similarity whatsoever as evidence of editorial significance.32 In order to make the strongest case for their work, editorial critics must filter the evidence and only present the weightiest data. Otherwise, editorial critics risk losing their audience because the evidence that supports their work presses the limits of credulity.

Concluding Observations Aside from the alarms sounded from within editorial criticism, which should be considered encouragements for better work rather than disparagements that undermine the work, there appear to be four common critiques of editorial criticism. Some of these have been addressed ad loc, but I would like to conclude this section with some final thoughts on those four critiques. (1) Gestenberger is the most forceful in his statements about the apparent subjective impressionism of editorial criticism. For him, the conclusions of editorial criticism say more about the critic than the text. But editorial criticism at its best is an evidence-based discipline, seeking to ground hypotheses in the data that arises from the text. And one advancement in the method employed in this book is that the evidence moves beyond demonstrating similarities among proximate psalms to showing that those similarities do not occur with the same frequency in other parts of the Psalter. In that way, my method See Paul D. Wegner, A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 41, 127–8. See, for example, Robert L. Cole, The Shape and Message of Book III (Psalms 73–89), JSOT Sup 307 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 28–9, where the recurrence of ‫ בוׁש‬and ‫ תאז‬in Psalms 73 and 74 is given interpretative significance. Cole also gives too much weight to phonetic similarities, which often are only loosely related. See, for example, Robert L. Cole, Psalms 1–2, Hebrew Bible Monographs 37 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2011), 47–8, 79 n. 137, 101.

31

32

20

The Return of the King

is derived from the observations that led to the delineation of the so-called Elohistic Psalter—that is, a textual phenomenon occurs with great frequency in one section of the Psalter and, at the same time, occurs with significantly less frequency in other parts of the Psalter. Further advancements in the method of editorial criticism will lead the discipline onto a more and more objective footing. (2) Whybray, followed by Gerstenberger, finds the sheer volume of proposals for the arrangement of the Psalter off-putting. Their question is: if the Psalter were intentionally arranged, why is it not easier to detect? They believe there should be more consensus. It must be remembered, however, that editorial criticism, in its current manifestation, is barely thirty years old. It would be premature to expect any field of biblical studies to achieve consensus in such a short period. Martin Noth published his influential work, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, in 1948, thus birthing a new hypothesis for biblical studies commonly referred to as Deuteronomistic History. In over six decades of study, critique, and rejoinder, few points of consensus have been reached, even by scholars who subscribe to the hypothesis. Does the lack of consensus undermine the validity of the enterprise? I think not. It simply means, rather, that more work must be done. Moreover, it is not as if scholarly proposals within editorial criticism are boundless. There are groups within the Psalter, even those not marked by a common superscription, that are approaching consensus (e.g., Psalms 15–24; 25–34; 93–100; 104–106). When combined with the groups that are easier to detect (e.g., Psalms 120–134; 146–150), a substantial portion of the Psalter can be grouped with fairly wide agreement. Finally, editorial critics concede that the questions being asked of the Psalter are complex. We should not, therefore, expect facile and tidy conclusions that lead to a quick consensus. It is, no doubt, harder to detect an editor’s strategy than it is an author’s strategy, thus there are a multiplicity of proposals of the Psalter’s arrangement within editorial criticism. Due to its relatively recent (re)emergence, the methodology is still maturing. And that is precisely what I am trying to do with this volume: advance (and improve) the methodology of editorial criticism. (3) Both Gerstenberger and Goldingay question how the Psalter, which consists of individual texts composed over a period of centuries, can be read as a unified text. The most basic response is: it happens all the time. Editors



Editorial Criticism’s Crisis of Credibility

21

of newspapers take individual texts (articles) and juxtapose them in such a way as to accomplish a certain purpose—to communicate the news, to promote an agenda, to raise awareness, or all three. Editors of anthologies arrange individual texts to be read together, some of which were composed over a period of centuries, and they do so with intentionality. I am assuming that when Erich Zenger and Klaus Seybold arranged the individual texts that comprise the volume that includes Gerstenberger’s article, they put his contribution first because it addresses basic and foundational issues. I am assuming that the placement of the individual texts was not haphazard but purposeful, with the goal, presumptively, of contributing an orderly account of “new ways of Psalms research.” And if I am allowed to make those assumptions of modern texts, why would I not be allowed to make similar assumptions of ancient texts? In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is no such thing as a haphazardly, unintentionally arranged volume of individual texts.33 To be sure, the method for discerning that purpose may be disputed, especially when it is not made explicit by the editors, but surely there is an overarching purpose that influences what texts are collected and how they are arranged. I am greatly helped in discerning the purpose of Zenger and Seybold’s volume Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung by the title, the introduction, and the table of contents. But suppose that the title, introduction, and table of contents were lost for all manuscripts, and all I knew about the volume was that it was composed of individual texts. Why would I then assume that there was no purpose or intentionality in the arrangement? Operating under the assumption that there was purpose in the volume, I could devote myself to the study of that book to see if there were clues as to its purpose within the arrangement. I could, possibly, evaluate word links between articles or see if there was a theme that united neighboring contributions. This is what editorial critics seek to do.

This includes the collection of poetic texts as well. Modern hymnals are not arranged haphazardly; rather, they are typically arranged according to theme—God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, the crucifixion, etc. Furthermore, I have a book of poems on my shelf entitled English Romantic Verse, that is a collection of poems from England during the Romantic period. Again, the arrangement is not random. The editors have compiled the poems in such a way that the reader is given an overview of how poetry progressed through the Romantic period. Thus, the poems are organized according to a historical framework—earlier poems come first, later poems appear last.

33

22

The Return of the King

Without the aid of explicit markers of purpose, they apply various methods in order to discern the purpose of the arrangement of the Psalter. (4) Although scholars like Whybray and Gerstenberger acknowledge that there are some sections of the Psalter that form a grouping, it is quite another thing to say that the entire Psalter can be arranged into groupings. For them, editorial criticism becomes a kind of Procrustean Bed into which all the data—some of which is recalcitrant—is forced to fit the general schema. I also recognize that this is a danger for editorial critics. I even mention it in the final chapter as an issue that needs further attention. But the problem with using this critique to discredit editorial criticism is that it also discredits every other school of Psalms’ interpretation. Form criticism cannot account for all the data in the Psalter. There are outliers to the hypothesis. For example, to which genre do Psalms 1 and 119 belong? The approaches that have more historical goals find some helpful guideposts in the text (e.g., in Psalms 3 and 137), but there are countless others that resist being set within a specific historical background. Even those who purport that the Psalter should be read as a guide for private devotion, as some kind of spiritual guidebook, struggle with certain sections. For who can legitimately pray the words of Psalms 26.1, 6, where the psalmist professes his perfect innocence? And how exactly does Psalms 21.2-13 apply to my spirituality? Finally, the notion that the Psalter is the prayer book of Jesus, a view promoted by Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Augustine, has a hard time incorporating Psalms 51.5, 11 into its schema. My point in exposing these issues is not to promote editorial criticism by undermining other approaches; my point, rather, is that each school of Psalms’ interpretation faces the same challenge. Therefore, this critique is not unique to editorial criticism.

3 P IC K I N G U P T H E P I E C E S : B E S T P R AC T IC E S I N E D I T O R IA L C R I T IC I SM

The case for editorial criticism can be stated more positively. Instead of answering objections, I would like to point out the evidence within the text itself that gives impetus to the field of editorial criticism. In his entry on editorial criticism, Jamie Grant argues that the enterprise is built upon three key observations:1 (1) The placement of Psalms 1–2 at the beginning of the Psalter, thus indicating their function as the introduction. I defend this point more fully in Chapter 4. (2) The fivefold division of the Book of Psalms complete with concluding doxologies. Grant states, “the organization of the psalms into books clearly is not accidental but rather points toward deliberate editorial activity.”2 (3) The presence of smaller intact groupings, such as the Songs of Ascents. These groups were kept together, as opposed to dispersing the individual psalms throughout the Psalter. This point has been advocated above.

These points demonstrate that the organization of the Psalter was not haphazard and random. In light of the intentionality that is revealed in these data, editorial critics pursue further the purpose for the intentional arrangement. There is one last datum worth mentioning. It is often overlooked because it is so obvious, yet it profoundly influences the way the Psalter should be understood: the Book of Psalms is a book that was incorporated into the canon of the Hebrew Bible. It is not an appendix to the canon; it does not come with special instructions on how it should be used in public worship. It is a part of a canon of books that was meant to be read as a book. It would be curious if the Psalter J. A. Grant, “Editorial Criticism,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, ed. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008): 150–1. 2 Ibid., 151. 1

24

The Return of the King

were the exception to the Bible in that way. There are certainly parts of other books that may have been used in public worship at some point (e.g., Exodus 15; Judges 5; 1 Samuel 2; 1 Chronicles 16; Isaiah 38; Jonah 2; Habakkuk 3), but now they serve a literary purpose. Those poems and songs are meant to be read as part of a literary fabric. Editorial critics make the same point about the Psalter in the context of the canon: regardless of their prior history they are now meant to be read as part of a literary fabric. Jamie Grant makes the point well: The Psalter is often considered to be a collection of songs for worship, and undoubtedly there is an element of truth in this idea; it is likely that many psalms were sung in public or private worship in their original setting, just as they have been throughout the ages. However, one thing is certain: the Psalter at some point became a canonical book of the Old Testament. It became a book to be read and meditated upon and applied, just like any other book of the Old Testament—not a hymnbook, but a book.3

A Question of Context Harry Nasuti, in his work entitled Defining the Sacred Songs: Genre, Tradition and the Post-Critical Interpretation of the Psalms, contends that “form criticism has, at the very least, provided a literary context out of which one can interpret each individual psalm.”4 His observation is astute. He notices that the impetus for form criticism is the desire to read the psalms in some sort of context. This is a point that I would like to explore further. Certainly, there are differences in method among the different schools of Psalms’ interpretation, but their most basic difference—and the leading factor contributing the difference in method—is the context in which the psalms are interpreted. Thus it could be said that the catalyst for all the schools of Psalms’ scholarship is a quest for context. In what context should the individual psalms be interpreted? The Book of Psalms is unique in that it does not have a transparent context in which to be interpreted. Exodus 20, for instance, falls within the Book of Ibid., 149. Harry P. Nasuti, Defining the Sacred Songs: Genre, Tradition and the Post-Critical Interpretation of the Psalms, JSOT Sup 218 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 13. Also see pp. 163–208 for his comments on editorial criticism. His is not so much of a critique as an interaction. His purposes are form-critical, and so his evaluation of editorial criticism mainly deals with how it relates to form criticism.

3 4



Picking up the Pieces

25

the Covenant (Exodus 19–24), so it has, at least, some historical and narratival connection to the rest of that section. There is, then, at least some editorial relation between the Book of the Covenant and the rest of the Book of Exodus, and, expanding the focus even further, the entire Pentateuch. Psalms, on the other hand, does not share such contextual privileges—thus the questions, debates, and schools of interpretation. As I see it, the underlying questions are: does the historical context of a psalm’s composition, or of how it was used in the cultus, provide the best backdrop for drawing out the unique hues and highlights of the poetic artistry? Or does a comparison of psalms within a certain genre help us see what is most particular about a psalm, thus providing clues as to the meaning? Or is the context to be found in the placement of the psalm—should the psalms be read consecutively and, if so, are the psalms best understood in relation to their nearest neighbors? I, for one, do not think that there is a definitive answer to these questions. Just as a portrait background may draw out certain features of the subject’s face (the color of their eyes, for example), so another background may mute those features and yet draw out and highlight others. The question of context is a question of background for interpretation. The interpreter must choose one—and make clear that they are doing so—which will certainly influence how the psalms under investigation are viewed. But this is not an absolute rejection of the other backgrounds—or, in this case, methods. Form criticism, for instance, sheds light on the anguish and despair of Psalm 88, for when that psalm is compared to the other laments, its lack of praise, or even a vow of praise, becomes conspicuous, thus highlighting its gloomy and somber artistry. In conclusion, I am not arguing that editorial criticism is the way to read the Psalter, but a way. And we can argue with Goldingay as to which perspective of Psalms’ interpretation is more fruitful without acrimoniously contending that another school is absolutely fruitless. The Book of Psalms is a lapidary treasure. Like a diamond, it was not meant to be appreciated from only one perspective. But, for the purposes of this investigation, I will be setting Book V against the backdrop of the literary context of the book as a whole.

26

The Return of the King

Methodological Overview Although editorial criticism faces certain challenges—both from within and without—there has been insightful work done that helps illuminate the editorial purpose of the Psalter. Even among those scholars whose method may be wanting in some areas, there are still aspects of their method that are commendable and worthy of application. My goal for this section is to deduce criteria for observing the editorial purpose of the Psalms. I plan to accomplish this by summarizing the approaches that scholars have used for the editorial criticism of the Psalms, focusing on their methodology and isolating their dominant criteria for establishing links and discerning the purpose of those links.5 Gerald Henry Wilson, a student of Brevard Childs, produced the first substantive attempt to validate Childs’s ruminations about the editorial organization of the Psalter. One of the greatest strengths of Wilson’s work, and quite possibly the determining factor that gave credence to the nascent discipline, was his appeal to other, extra-biblical hymnbooks for evidence that hymns could be purposefully arranged. Wilson first garners support from Sumerian Temple Hymns and Mesopotamian Hymnic incipits. Regarding the Sumerian Temple Hymns, Wilson’s research leads to three significant observations. First, hymns were composed and arranged centuries before Hebrew poetry emerged. Thus, the practice of arranging hymns is an ancient one. Second, doxologies concluded compositions. Third, colophons became “frozen,” even though the hymns were adaptable. That is, individual hymns that were used in different contexts always retained the same colophon. Based on the Mesopotamian Hymnic incipits, Wilson notices three main organizational concerns: (1) genre groupings; (2) arrangement by deity addressed; and (3) juxtaposition by similar phraseology. Next, Wilson addresses the data from Qumran with special attention given to 11QPsa in order to see if he can ascertain any editorial techniques used to bind the psalms together. His research indicates that “the criteria which are operative in the juxtaposition of pss [psalms] would seem to be of two major types: (1) Ps-types and (2) Functional concerns. The former are divided into For a fuller treatment of each scholar’s methodology, see the Appendix.

5



Picking up the Pieces

27

two categories: (a) genre-groupings and (b) author-groupings.”6 It is this comparative research that grounds Wilson’s methodology. The techniques that Wilson uses to structure the Psalter are more related to the binding of the whole, and not necessarily the phonological and lexical links between neighboring psalms—he devotes less than a page to lexical similarities between psalms. He draws attention to the explicit structural marker of Psalms 72.20, “The prayers of David son of Jesse are ended,” but he notes that it is the only explicit structural marker in the entire Psalter. Therefore, other implicit, or tacit, structural markers must be discerned. These would include the frequent combination of psalms with similar genre designations and authorial attributions in the superscription, the incidence of ‫ הודו‬psalms that begin sections and ‫ הללויה‬psalms that end them, the use of doxologies to end books, and the collocation of psalms around a common theme.7 Not long after Wilson’s dissertation was published, another important contribution appeared, this time devoted to recognizing the linguistic and thematic links within a smaller unit of psalms. David Howard’s 1986 dissertation, later published as The Structure of Psalms 93–100, clearly delineated a methodology for observing links between psalms, a methodology that has been well received within the scholarly community.8 In order to justify seeing a relationship between psalms, Howard establishes three categories of relational markers: key-word links, thematic connections, and structure/genre similarities. Key-word links are the most important category because, according to Howard, these are “the important words that were undoubtedly present in the editors’ thinking as they made decisions about bringing the Psalter together.”9 Howard distinguishes between two types of thematic connections. First, there are thematic-word links, that is, words Gerald Henry Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBLDS 76 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), 136. 7 Ibid., 139–97. 8 See Wilson’s appraisal in ibid., 49–50. Howard’s work—David M. Howard Jr., The Structure of Psalms 93–100, UCSD Biblical and Judaic Studies 5 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997)—enjoyed the endorsement of being incorporated into the Word Biblical Commentary series, as Jean-Marie Auwers explains: “Les principales conclusions de cette thèse avaient déjà été signalées par M. Tate dans son commentaire.” Idem, review of The Structure of Psalms 93–100, by David M. Howard Jr., Biblica 80, no. 1 (1999): 127. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger also incorporate Howard’s work into their commentary, idem, Psalmen 51–100, 3rd edn, Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Freiburg: Herder, 2007). The English translation of this commentary appears in the Hermeneia series. 9 Howard, The Structure, 100. 6

28

The Return of the King

that two psalms share in common, but the commonality can be attributed to a factor other than linking the psalms together. “These usually are words that are part of the general vocabulary of praise, or, more specifically, that are common to the Kingship of YHWH psalms.”10 Thematic similarities, the second type of thematic connection, are words that are similar but not identical. The third category is structure/genre similarities: a comparison of the internal structure and function of the different psalms to see if there are any parallels. Howard’s contribution to the field of Psalms study can be most keenly sensed in the presentation and application of his methodology for observing relationships within groups of psalms. The most evident strength of Howard’s methodology is how he differentiates among lexical links. A common vocabulary does not necessarily link psalms in Howard’s methodology; the lexical links must be significant. Howard provides five examples of significant lexical links: (1) repeated clauses; (2) repeated verses; (3) “complexes of identical words and ideas”; (4) “repetitions of single words that are significant structurally by virtue of their semantic importance in both psalms”; and (5) rare words that occur in close proximity.11 Howard’s work demonstrates that more is not always better. That is, it is not the quantity of links between psalms that evidence their relationship; rather, it is the quality, or significance, of those links. Inconsequential repetitions—Howard labels them “incidental links”—are noted, but they do not constitute confirmation of a relationship among psalms. One of the challenges of Howard’s methodology is applying it to larger blocks of text. The laborious and systematic nature of the method has elicited the critique that, while helpful for smaller groups of psalms, it becomes unwieldy for longer sections.12 This critique is at least tacitly confirmed by the fact that only smaller groups of texts have been investigated using this method.13 One of my goals is to address this challenge by extending Howard’s method—with modification—to a large block of psalms. Ibid. Ibid. 12 Howard himself alludes to this in a self-assessment of his method in, idem, “Recent Trends in Psalms Study,” in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches, ed. David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1999), 339 n. 32. He writes, “This method needs to be refined as the units under consideration grow larger.” 13 See the work of two of Howard’s doctoral students: Barry Craig Davis, “A Contextual Analysis of Psalms 107–118” (Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1996); Francis X. Kimmitt, “The 10 11



Picking up the Pieces

29

Whereas Wilson sought to discern the organization of the entire Psalter, and Howard limited himself to eight psalms, Cole’s study mediates the two extremes by analyzing the seventeen psalms that comprise Book III. Cole sees his methodology as an extension of recent developments within the field of poetics, specifically regarding parallelism. He describes his own approach as follows: “The original dissertation from which this work is derived examined parallelism and repetition from the level of individual cola (where abundant phonetic or sound repetition was observed), to bicola (or occasional tricola), verse paragraphs, strophes, complete psalms, and finally the stretch of psalms from 73 to 89 known as Book III.”14 In practice, Cole’s observations depend heavily on word links and syntactical similarities. Because Cole is looking for parallels within Book III, one feature that he draws attention to is dis legomena. Dis legomena is a feature in the text that only occurs twice in the Hebrew Bible, whether it is a word or grammatical construction. When the two instances occur closely in the Psalter, or even in neighboring psalms, Cole recognizes the cohesive function of such a phenomenon. An occurrence of distant dis legomena is the form ‫ איתן‬found only in Psalms 74.15 and Psalms 89.1; an occurrence of near dis legomena is ‫ למשׁואות‬in Psalms 73.18 and ‫ למׁשאות‬in Psalms 74.3; the only difference is that the word in Psalm 74 is spelled defectively.15 Gianni Barbiero begins his book, Das erste Psalmenbuch als Einheit: Eine synchrone Analyse von Psalm 1–41, by outlining the suppositions and methodological considerations that undergird the work. Limiting himself to a synchronic analysis, Barbiero describes his approach as canonical, although he does not adopt the term.16 This approach is dependent on a close reading of the text (eine aufmerksame Lektüre), with sensitivity toward “attraction principles” and concatenatio. The chief way in which psalms Shape of Psalms 42–49” (Ph.D. diss., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2000). Although they modify the method in some ways, their work is an extension of their teacher’s. Davis closely follows Howard, but he helpfully uses computer research of the entire Psalter to serve as the baseline of his study. Kimmitt extends Howard’s method further by investigating how the raw data of lexical and thematic links rhetorically shapes Psalms 42–49. 14 Robert L. Cole, The Shape and Message of Book III (Psalms 73–89), JSOT Sup 307 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 10. 15 For a fuller discussion of this phenomenon, see ibid., 236–9. 16 Gianni Barbiero, Das erste Psalmenbuch als Einheit: Eine synchrone Analyse von Psalm 1–41, Österreichische Biblische Studien 16 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1999), 20–1. He is hesitant to label his approach “canonical” because he is only investigating a portion of a book, not an entire book within the context of the canon.

30

The Return of the King

relate to one another—or are attracted to one another—is by key-word links (Stichwortverkettungen). Barbiero, under the influence of Pierre Auffret, also mentions structure as an attraction principle even though he concedes that these links are not always convincing.17 Further methods for discerning psalm groups include comparison of form. Barbiero acknowledges his dependence on the work of Millard in this respect, recognizing the value of this kind of analysis. He also distinguishes between concatenatio, which is the way that neighboring psalms relate to one another, and the way that larger psalm groups relate. Although there can be methodological overlap between these two categories, different techniques must be applied to the different layers of textual relationships.18 Some of the ways that these larger groups can be isolated are by parallels at the beginning and end of units, as well as by comparable words, themes, imagery, and genre among distant psalms.19 Finally, superscriptions and counting factor into Barbiero’s method. Holding in abeyance questions concerning the originality of the superscriptions, Barbiero is aware of their redactional importance. As regards counting, Barbiero sees value in measuring the number of verses and the occurrences of the divine name because, as he posits, there is a clear practice of counting within the scribal tradition. Barbiero believes that this practice of counting could have influenced the redactors. Silvia Ahn follows Barbiero’s method closely, as would be expected since he was her dissertation supervisor.20 She does not, however, explicitly outline her method; it must be discerned implicitly. The largest portion of her dissertation is devoted to a thorough analysis of each individual psalm in Psalms 146–150. Each psalm is translated, then structurally analyzed. Ahn subsequently provides extensive commentary on the texts—with attention given to both higher and lower criticism. When Ahn compares the texts, she relies heavily on lexical and thematic parallels, both of which are related to Barbiero’s key-word links (Stichwortverkettungen). One noticeable way that she extends her teacher’s method is by showing how her work fits within Ibid., 21. Barbiero describes it as the difference between “chain-linking” (Verkettung) and “networking” or “cross-linking” (Vernetzung). See ibid., 24–5. 19 Barbiero calls this “distant-binding” (Fernverbindung). See ibid., 24–5, 719. 20 So Kun (Silvia) Ahn, “I Salmi 146–150 come conclusione del Salterio” (Ph.D. diss., Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2008), premessa. 17 18



Picking up the Pieces

31

the major contours of the Psalter. An entire chapter investigates the parallels between Psalms 146–150 and Psalms 1–2, 41, 72, 89, and 106. Although Nancy deClaissé-Walford, in her book Reading from the Beginning: The Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter, is not fastidiously devoted to a certain method per se, she does, however, demonstrate the validity of reading the Psalms with the big picture in mind.21 For her, the big picture can be summarized as follows: The Psalter is shaped traditionally into five books which narrate a history of ancient Israel. Books One and Two celebrate the reigns of David and Solomon; Book Three laments the dark days of oppression during the divided kingdoms and the Babylonian exile; and Books Four and Five look forward to and rejoice in Israel’s restoration to the land and in the reign of YHWH as king.22

Regardless of whether one agrees with her historically influenced understanding of the book as a whole, the fact that she is thinking of the book as a whole warrants attention. In the body of the book, where she argues her case, she only examines the beginning and ending psalms of the five books. Although this can be quite impressionistic—and exegetical rigor is lacking when the individual psalms are treated—deClaissé-Walford makes a case for highlighting psalms that occur at significant junctures. This helps to keep the big picture in mind and facilitates understanding the book as a whole. Psalms that occur at those key junctures should influence the way other parts of the Psalter are read. In his book Konzeptionen des Königtums Gottes im Psalter, Martin Leuenberger outlines his method for dividing the psalms into groups. From the outset of his presentation, Leuenberger emphasizes his desire to study the Psalter from both a diachronic and synchronic perspective—he wants to explain how the Psalms function compositionally (“ihre kompositionellen Funktionsweise”; emphasis his) and how they developed redactionally (“ihre

Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford, Reading from the Beginning: The Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997). Her study focuses more on the community that has shaped the Psalter—which bespeaks her indebtedness to James Sanders’ form of canonical criticism. Her stated thesis confirms this: “The postexilic community shaped the traditional and cultic material of ancient Israel and early Judaism into a constitutive ‘charter of existence’—the Hebrew scriptures. Why did Israel survive and the nations around it did not? Israel survived because it found in its authoritative texts, including the Psalter, a hermeneutical rationale for survival” (29). 22 Ibid., 5. 21

32

The Return of the King

redaktionsgeschichlichen Relevanz”; emphasis his).23 He believes that the best criteria for these purposes are fivefold. First, superscriptions are the most important. Second, form-critical sequence indicates a grouping. The most common progression is lamentation to thanks and praise. Third, lexical links bind psalms together in groups. Fourth, the positioning of a phrase is significant. Leuenberger explains, “The positioning of a phrase—that is, its place, its context, and the shape of the structure—in the midst of a psalm or the entire Psalter can indicate special significance in conjunction with other signs.”24 Finally, thematic concepts can bind a cluster of psalms together. Leuenberger describes these criteria within a methodological circle. Individual psalms are studied in their own way, but the results of that study contribute to the understanding of how the Psalter as a whole is shaped. The understanding of the Psalter’s shape, then, influences how each individual psalm is read. The same can be said about investigating the Psalter diachronically and synchronically. As redactional elements are observed in the text (diachronic), they influence the synchronic interpretation of the text’s shape. On the other hand, the results of a synchronic analysis may yield clues about redactional influence, that is, how the redactor/s knit sections together.25 According to the section on method in Egbert Ballhorn’s monograph, Zum Telos des Psalters, he is chiefly concerned with discerning “structure” and “frameworks” in the Psalter. The clearest articulation of how he demarcates that structure is described as follows: “With the search for compositional features in the Psalter, which effectively guide the reader, both of the following key ideas should serve as a foundation: the first is the isolation of textual markers and division signals, the other is the observation of semantic

Martin Leuenberger, Konzeptionen des Königtums Gottes im Psalter: Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Redaktion der theokratischen Bücher IV–V im Psalter, ATANT 83 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004), 35. 24 Ibid., 37. “Die Positionierung einer Aussage—d.h. ihr Ort, ihr Kontext und das Gefälle der Anordnung—innerhalb eines Psalms resp. des Psalters insgesamt kann im Verbund mit anderen Anzeichen besondere Aussagekraft anzeigen.” 25 See ibid., 35. “This plan takes place in a methodological circle, in which a structure of redactionalhistorical rules are erected before the presentation of individual psalm analysis. This circle is hermeneutically and methodologically undetectable; in reality, however, it can be profitably used through the steady cross-examination and linking of the method and individual psalm analysis.” “Dieses Vorhaben spielt sich in einem methodischen Zirkel ab, indem bereits vor der Darstellung der Einzelanalyse ein Gebäude von redaktionsgeschichtlichen Regeln erstellt wird; dieser Zirkel ist hermeneutisch-methodisch unhintergehbar, de facto jedoch durch die stetige Gegenprüfung und Verknüpfung von Methodik und Einzelanalyse recht gut handhabbar.” 23



Picking up the Pieces

33

links.”26 So again, as with Leuenberger, superscriptions are ascendant, but Ballhorn would add any text-structuring feature, including doxologies and ‫הודו‬-formulas, to this criterion. Ballhorn also references concatenatio—what he calls “Psalmenverkettung”—as a way that psalms form groups. This type of linking can be observed by semantic networking or linking, which extends beyond the simple lexical link to include thematic parallels and phrase repetition. Jerome Creach uses a unique method for editorial criticism in Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. Building off Psalms 2.12d, Creach wants to demonstrate that “a related field of words (‘refuge’) represents an editorial interest that may be observed throughout the Psalter. One burden of this study is to show that ‘refuge’ is part of an intentional editorial schema, not a subjective structure imposed on the collection.”27 Creach’s method analyzes how one dominant word group influences the shape of the Psalter: “This study attempts to show that ‘refuge’ is central to the shape of the Psalter, both in the general sense of the ‘thought world’ of the book and in the more specific sense of literary structure.”28 And for Creach, the method yields results: It is generally recognized that the present Psalter is based primarily on previously existing collections. Therefore, the present literary structure partly is determined and limited by the shape of earlier collections. I attempt to show, however, that the end result of combining these collections has the effect of encouraging readers to seek refuge in Yahweh, that is, to choose the eternal king as a source of protection and sustenance vis-à-vis human power.29

Creach contributes to the field of editorial criticism by demonstrating that it is not simply key-word links among psalms that exhibit cohesion, it is also key-word placement. Furthermore, if one word group can be interpreted as dominant, attention should be given to its placement in the section under consideration. His helpful and illuminating study supports this thesis. Egbert Ballhorn, Zum Telos des Psalters: Der Textzusammenhang des Vierten und Fünften Psalmenbuches (Ps 90–150), BBB 138 (Berlin: Philo, 2004), 23. “Bei der Suche nach kompositionellen Merkmalen des Psalters, die lektüre-lenkend wirksam sind, sollen die folgenden beiden methodischen Leitideen als Grundlage dienen: Die eine ist die Unterscheidung der Textebenen und makrostrukturellen Gliederungssignale, die andere die Beachtung der semantischen Vernetzungen.” 27 Jerome F. D. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, JSOT Sup 217 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 17. 28 Ibid., 19. 29 Ibid., 18. 26

34

The Return of the King

Consequently, Creach provides the editorial critic with one more way to determine the editorial shape of the Psalms. As would be expected from the title of his book—Die Komposition des Psalters: Ein formgeschichtlicher Ansatz—Matthias Millard approaches the Psalter from a form-critical perspective. As a result, the foundation of his editorial-critical method is a rigorous form-critical assessment of individual psalms and larger psalm groupings.30 In many ways he nuances and advances the discipline of form criticism. But Millard posits more than form as a potential method for dividing the Psalter into its constituent groups; he also recognizes the validity of psalm pairings (Zwillingspsalmen), superscriptions, and the apparent structure of psalm groups.31 This underscores the need for eclecticism in methodology when investigating the Psalter from an editorialcritical perspective. Even Millard, who emphasizes the form-critical aspect of his research, takes into account other features that may contribute to the shape of the Psalter. Because the Psalter was not uniformly organized around one principle, the editorial critic should be open to the possibility that there are a variety of ways that psalm groups cohere. Erich Zenger’s methodology for discerning groupings consists of lexical, structural, thematic and developmental links.32 After describing and critiquing the macrostructures of Book V offered by Gerald Henry Wilson, Klaus Koch, and Reinhard Kratz, Zenger begins to build his case for the organization of Psalms 107–145 (he considers Psalms 146–150 to be the conclusion to the entire Psalter). First, he observes that Psalms 107 and 145 form a frame around For more detail about his specific form-critical method, see Matthias Millard, Die Komposition des Psalters: Ein formgeschichtlicher Ansatz, FAT 9 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994), 47–62. Ibid., 19–46. 32 As evidence for the consistency of his methodology, consider these criteria used in the previously mentioned article for the relationship between Psalms 25 and 34: a) Both psalms are alphabetic acrostics consisting of 21 bicola, which begin with the successive consonant of the alphabet; in both psalms the consonant waw is missing (it should stand between v. 7 and v. 8 in each). b) Four lines in both psalms begin with the same word. c) Both psalms agree in their view of God and in their ethical program. d) Both psalms conclude with a bicolon that extends beyond the bounds of the normal alphabetic sequence. “a) Beide Psalmen sind alphabetische Akrosticha aus 21 Bikola, die mit den fortlaufenden Konsonanten des Alphabets beginnen; in beiden Psalmen fehlt der Konsonat waw (er müste jeweils zwischen V. 7 und V. 8 stehen!). b) Vier Zeilen in beiden Psalmen beginnen jeweils wortgleich. c) Beide Psalmen stimmen im Gottesbild und in der ethischen Programmatik überein. d) Beide Psalmen schließen mit einem Bikolon, das gegenüber der Alphabetabfolge überschüssig ist.” Zenger, “Der Psalter,” 21. 30

31



Picking up the Pieces

35

the book, adducing lexical, thematic, and developmental links between them. Next, he breaks down the intervening psalms into their constituent groups. Zenger outlines his method more systematically in “Psalmenexegese und Psalterexegese: Eine Forschungsskizze.”33 There, he organizes the most helpful methods for editorial criticism under three main headings. The first is titled “Relationships between Consecutive Psalms,” and it subsumes both concatenatio and iuxtapositio. Concatenatio is the act of linking psalms by key word or motif; iuxtapositio, on the other hand, refers to “the purposeful placement of psalms in relationship according to a definite thematic conception.”34 Zenger admits that there can be overlap between these two concepts. He then shares five techniques used by the redactors to utilize these two methods. They are: (1) continuation from the end of one psalm to the beginning of the next psalm (e.g., Ps. 7.18→Ps. 8.2, 10→Ps. 9.2-3); (2) word-for-word repetition with a change in meaning/context (e.g., Ps. 134.1-2 and Ps. 135.1-3); (3) creation of psalm pairs for mutual interpretation (e.g., Psalms 111 and 112); (4) cluster composition with redactional link (often related to form) (e.g., Psalms 3–7); and (5) redactional insertion of psalms or psalm verses (e.g., Ps. 24.6 within Psalms 22–25).35 These redactional techniques are not methods that can be used by the interpreter; rather, they can help the interpreter know where to look for links. Zenger’s second heading is “Psalm Groups and Psalter Sections.” He argues that these groups can be discerned in three ways. Some psalm groups are marked by their structure, most often by a chiastic pattern. Other groups are linked by superscription, as is the case with the Songs of Ascents. Psalm groups can also be observed by comparison with other known groups. Zenger uses the example of Psalms 42–48 in comparison with the Songs of Ascents, a widely recognized group. When they are compared, the cohesive features It should be noted that these methodological considerations underlie the Psalms commentaries Zenger co-wrote with Frank-Lothar Hosseld; see Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Die Psalmen I: Psalm 1–50, Die Neue Echter Bibel 29 (Würzburg: Echter, 1993); idem, Psalmen 51–100, 3rd edn, Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Freiburg: Herder, 2007); idem, Psalmen 101–150, Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Freiburg: Herder, 2008). English translations of the last two volumes appear in the Hermeneia series; the first volume is forthcoming. 34 Erich Zenger, “Psalmenexegese und Psalterexegese: Eine Forschungsskizze,” in The Composition of the Book of Psalms, ed. Erich Zenger, BETL 238 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 31. “die gezielte Nebenbzw. Hintereinanderstellung von Psalmen nach einer bestimmten thematischen Konzeption.” 35 Ibid., 31–47. 33

36

The Return of the King

of Psalms 42–48 appear in starker relief due to their affinity with the clearer grouping.36 The last heading used by Zenger is “Macro-redactional Phenomena.” He points to macrostructural composition links, such as the doxologies at the end of the first four books and the ‫ הודו‬formula that appears for the first time toward the end of Book IV. He also considers the phrase ‫ הללו־יה‬to be one of these phenomena because of its apparent text-structuring function.37 Zenger’s method could be described as “eclectic” since he employs different criteria at different textual levels. For neighboring psalms, the key word and motif are paramount, but for larger sections he is sensitive to the structure of the group and common superscriptions, as well as macrostructural elements such as the doxologies. A brief critique of Zenger’s presentation would include the circularity of parts of his methodology. For example, it is difficult to see how the structure of a group can be used as evidence that it is a group. Should not the group be delineated using some other method and then the structure be determined? In fact, that is what Zenger appears to do with Psalms 25–34 in his example: he demonstrates the relationship between the psalms by comparing their form and features.38 This then yields a coherent structure. But the structure of a group, by itself, is not persuasive evidence. The inclusion of ‫ הללו־יה‬as a macro-redactional phenomenon is also based on circular argumentation. There is still some question about the role and function of this phrase within the Psalter, yet Zenger claims it has a macroredactional function—that is, a clear text-structuring function. But that claim is hard to substantiate since there is no uniformity in how the phrase is used, even in Zenger’s schema, not to mention the text-critical issues raised by the differing traditions of its placement in the LXX and MT. Zenger’s method also fails to account for key-word links within larger groups. He only mentions key-word links in the section about consecutive psalms, but Howard, most notably, has shown that lexical and thematic links bind larger groups of psalms together.39 Overall, however, Zenger’s eclectic 38 39 36 37

Ibid., 47–59. Ibid., 59–64. See n. 32 above. See Howard, Structure.



Picking up the Pieces

37

method has merit, especially since he provides different techniques for establishing larger groups of psalms. The following is a summary of the methods described above: Table 3.1: Summary of Methods Gerald Henry Wilson explicit structural markers; grouping by genre in superscription; grouping by author attribution in superscription; ‫ הודו‬to begin sections; ‫ הללויה‬to end sections; doxologies end sections; common theme David Howard key-word links; thematic connections; structure/genre similarities Robert Cole parallelism at all literary levels; especially dis legomena Gianni Barbiero key-word links; parallel structure; comparison of form; distant parallelism (Fernverbindung); superscriptions So Kun (Silvia) Ahn key-word links; “reading from the beginning” Nancy L. deClaissé- “reading from the beginning” Walford Martin Leuenberger superscriptions; form-critical sequence; lexical links; positioning of a phrase; thematic concepts Egbert Ballhorn division signals; semantic links Jerome F. D. Creach key-word placement Matthias Millard form-critical assessment; also psalm pairings, superscriptions, and structure of psalm groups Erich Zenger lexical, structural, thematic, and developmental parallels; structure of groups; macro-redactional phenomena like ‫הללו־יה‬

The five criteria that serve as the soundest ways of demonstrating links between neighboring passages are: (1) key-word links; (2) distant parallelism (e.g. dis legomena, parallelism of syntactical constructions, inclusio); (3) common superscriptions; (4) common theme; and (5) structural parallels. Howard’s differentiation between thematic-word links and key-word links stands behind the idea of key-word links. It allows the interpreter to adjudicate which repeated words are significant and which repeated words are trivial. Distant parallelism is parallelism at any level that crosses psalm boundaries. This would include dis legomena, inclusio, parallel syntactical constructions, and parallel stanzas.40 Organization according to the superscription is an For more on distant parallelism, see Dennis Pardee, Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetic Parallelism: A Trial Cut ( ’nt I and Proverbs 2), VTS 39 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988), 187–91, 198–201. For more on distant parallelism as an indicator of macrostructure, see Marjo C. A. Korpel, “Introduction to the Series Pericope,” in Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship, ed. Marjo C. A. Korpel and Josef M. Oesch, Pericope 1 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2000), 47–8.

40

38

The Return of the King

important macrostructural consideration, to which the Songs of Ascents testify (Psalms 120–134). Thematic similarities should also be entertained as a linking technique, as many of the scholars have noted. Finally, structural parallels can also contribute to the cohesion of a section.

4 N EW A V E N U E S : T H E W AY F O RWA R D F O R E D I T O R IA L   C R I T IC I SM

The purpose of this chapter is twofold: (1) to explore two possible avenues for establishing a linguistically based foundation for reading the Psalter as a unified text; (2) to outline the methodology used in this study. Stemming from the aforementioned purposes, I will argue that text-linguistics and poetics offer promising principles for recognizing that the Psalter is a unified text and that five criteria distinguish themselves as the soundest, most controlled ways of demonstrating links among neighboring passages. Those five criteria are: (a) key-word links;1 (b) distant parallelism (e.g. dis legomena, parallelism of syntactical constructions, inclusio); (c) common superscriptions; (d) common theme; (e) structural parallels. I consider these criteria most valid because of their relationship to foundational elements established throughout the chapter, but chiefly in the first section.

Linguistic Foundations The issue regarding whether the Psalter should be read as a unified text, rather than an anthology of disparate texts, raises the question of literary unity. What is the highest level of literary unity among poetic texts? Is it the poem itself? Is it a cluster of poems? Or is it an entire collection of poems? J. P. Fokkelman is helpful in illustrating this. He provides a model for literary orientation that delineates different levels of literary significance. For poetry, it looks like this:2

A key-word link is defined as a word or phrase for which at least half of all occurrences in Book V are in one psalm group and/or at least 20 percent of all occurrences in the Psalter are in one psalm group. 2 J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel (Dover, NJ: Van Gorcum, 1986), 2, 4. 1

40

The Return of the King

11. collection or book 10. sections/groups of songs 9. poems 8. stanzas 7. strophes 6. verses 5. half-verses/cola 4. phrases 3. words 2. syllables 1. sounds Fokkelman refers to a text of literature as “a system of systems,” that is, “each level [of significance] is included or contained in the next one up. Sounds link up to form syllables, which in turn become words etc.”3 Notice that level nine, poems, is italicized. This is intentional because “here we are for the first time concerned with portions of text which can be understood practically entirely on their own … The poem is a relatively independent unit which has its own interpretive horizon.”4 Certainly, with a book like Job, it is easy to recognize that there is a continuous relationship between the poems that make up the bulk of that text because successive poems are dependent on and built around prior poems. Because the poems are united, the highest level of literary significance extends to the entire book. No one poem should be read by itself; it must be read in the context of all the other poems to be understood properly. With a book like Psalms, however, this issue becomes acute.5 The relationship between the poems is not as evident. How, then, can it be said that the Book of Psalms is a literary unit? What is the highest level of literary significance Ibid., 4–5. Ibid., 5. 5 This tension is even seen in Fokkelman himself. When explaining his diagram, he only mentions Job and Deutero-Isaiah as examples of poetic texts that rise above level 9 on the literary significance scale. Furthermore, in Reading Biblical Poetry: An Introductory Guide, trans. Ineke Smit (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), he reproduces the diagram, but only up to level 9 (p. 30). It seems that since Fokkelman considers the majority of the poetic books in the Bible (i.e., Psalms and Proverbs) to be collections of individual poems that lack literary context, he does not consider it necessary to make his readers aware of the higher levels of significance. 3 4



New Avenues

41

in the Psalter? Is it level 9, or does it extend further? Leading scholars in the field still have their doubts about broadening the literary significance beyond the individual poem. Robert Alter, for instance, contends that “Psalms, together with Proverbs and perhaps the Song of Songs, is distinguished from all other biblical books by its manifestly anthological nature. We know little about how the anthology was made or when most of the pieces included in it were composed.”6 Is the Book of Psalms a unified text, or is it an anthology of unrelated texts? Editorial criticism has defended the notion that the Book of Psalms is a unified text, meant to be read as a literary unit, but critics have chided editorial-critical methodology as subjective and impressionistic. Is there any way beyond the impasse? Can editorial-critical methodology be more objectively grounded, or must it always be subject to the impressions of the reader? In the next sections I want to establish a foundation for reading the Psalter as a unified text from two different fields within linguistics: textlinguistics and poetics. Text-linguistics

The field of text-linguistics may be able to clarify these questions. Text-linguistics, as the name implies, analyzes the functions and features of language (i.e., the linguistics) within texts. Of utmost importance to this realm of study, then, is the question, “What is a text?” This dovetails nicely with my purpose since the question under consideration is, “Is the Book of Psalms a unified text, or is it an anthology of unrelated texts?” Arriving at and working from an established definition of textuality could provide a foundation for recognizing that the Psalter is a literary unit, if the Psalter meets the criteria found in the definition. According to Robert-Alain de Beaugrande and Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler, who have produced the work that has dominated text-linguistics over the past three decades, there are “seven standards of textuality: cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality, and intertextuality. These standards function as constitutive principles of textual communication: they define and create the form of behaviour identifiable as textual Robert Alter, “Psalms,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, eds. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), 244.

6

42

The Return of the King

communicating, and if they are defied, that form of behaviour will break down.”7 That is to say, if these seven standards are met, it is a text. But how are these standards defined? Cohesion can occur at close proximity and also at distant levels of a text. Short-range cohesion happens when “stretches of surface structure are set up as closely-knit patterns of grammatical dependencies.”8 Put simply, it happens when sentences flow together smoothly, often accompanied with binding elements such as “but,” “although,” “however,” and “furthermore.” One sentence or phrase finds its semantic value in dependence on those around it. Long-range cohesion “could be handled by re-utilizing previous elements or patterns, economizing where possible.”9 Long-range cohesion is a form of repetition. Anaphoric and cataphoric pronouns, abbreviated names, and repeated words create long-range cohesion in a text.10 More technically, Sara Stoddard argues for six properties of cohesion: “number [how many links or connections there are], distance [how far apart are the elements], directionality [anaphoric or cataphoric], re-entry [repetition of an element], intersection [overlapping of networks] and type [pronoun, conjunction, etc.].”11 The key property, and the one that seems to bind them all together, is re-entry, which could be repetition of a word, sound, or syntactical construction. This repetition may not be overt, and the reader may not consciously notice it, but it is there nonetheless. Stoddard compares it to classical music: If we listen, for instance, to a Bach Brandenburg Concerto, we may or may not be aware of the recursiveness of themes which at times involves the intracacies Robert-Alain de Beaugrande and Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler, Introduction to Text Linguistics (London: Longman, 1981), 11. 8 Ibid., 79. 9 Ibid. 10 An anaphoric pronoun is used when the antecedent is understood. For instance, “he” is the anaphoric pronoun in this “cohesive” literary unit: “Michael Snearly is a dad. He is blessed.” A cataphoric pronoun adumbrates a later reference. “He” is used cataphorically in this instance: “Although he enjoyed the food, Michael Snearly would not recommend the restaurant.” The next example is an abbreviated name: “Snearly needs to finish this footnote.” It is dependent on the previous sentences and creates cohesion with them. Cohesion also occurs when words are repeated. For example, if I related how my car broke down in Reno during a family vacation in one paragraph, and then described how it was fixed at a garage in San Anselmo in the next paragraph, the repeated word “car” would create cohesion even though the scene and most all of the characters would have changed. 11 Sara E. Stoddard, Text and Texture: Patterns of Cohesion, Advances in Discourse Processes, vol. XL, ed. Roy O. Freedle (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1991), 20. For further discussion of cohesion, see M. A. K. Halliday and R. Hasan, Cohesion in English, English Language Series (Harlow: Longman, 1976). 7



New Avenues

43

of inversions and mirroring. Yet, as we listen, we are affected in particular ways by this texture … This dimensionality, this depth and recursiveness, is more than the sequentiality of the notes printed on the sheet of music; it is synergism which is generated by the variety and number of instruments which are playing at any one time, by the relative loudness or softness of the tones, by the harmonic patterns and by our collective experience as we listen.12

So these six properties are used to create cohesion, and “if cohesive elements permeate a text, we would expect that readers will perceive a written text to be cohesive, as held together by the various components of which it is constituted.”13 The next standard for textuality, coherence, can be defined as “the outcome of actualizing meanings in order to make ‘sense.’”14 Behind all the jargon is the simple axiom that a text must make sense. Here is an example of cohesive sentences that are not coherent without more context: “Michael is a dad. He is in the library.” There are cohesive elements in those sentences, but they do not “make sense” together. So both cohesion and coherence must be present in order to satisfy the requirements for textuality. The next five standards are not as strong as the first two, serving only to verify that a text is cohesive and coherent, a fact that is admitted by the authors: The cohesion of surface texts and the underlying coherence of textual worlds are the most obvious standards of textuality [my emphasis]. They indicate how the component elements of the text fit together and make sense … People can and do use texts which, for various motives, do not seem fully cohesive and coherent. We should therefore include the attitudes of text users among the standards of textuality [their emphasis].15

Thus, the last five standards relate more to the attitudes of the text producer and the text receiver than they do to the actual text itself. Consequently, it seems most practical to eschew further pursuit of those standards since determining attitudes can be such a difficult and tenuous task. It will be assumed that, if written communication is cohesive and coherent, then it is also Stoddard, Text, 4. Ibid., 97. 14 de Beaugrande and Dressler, 109. 15 Ibid., 113. 12 13

44

The Return of the King

necessarily intentional, acceptable, informative, situational, and intertextual.16 This is also the assumption of de Beaugrande and Dressler according to the block quote above. Notice that the next five standards apply to texts that “do not seem fully cohesive and coherent.” It seems, then, that if the standards of cohesion and coherence are met, it is a text. Text-linguists have observed the close connection between cohesion and coherence. Stoddard comments that “Cohesion serves several rhetorical functions. The major function, of course, is to give unity to a text. In order to write a coherent text, writers must use every device possible to create both intratextual and contextual unity” (my emphasis).17 While there can be a cohesive text that is not coherent, it does not seem possible that there could be a coherent text that is not cohesive. Consequently, if coherence is achieved, then it is highly probable that there is some measure of cohesion within the text. In fact, according to Stoddard, there cannot be coherence without cohesion.18 Closely related to the coherence of a text is its structure, and Peter Cotterell and Max Turner tie structure and coherence together this way: It is becoming increasingly clear that all discourse is carefully structured so as to ensure some measure of development through the discourse. To put it at the most elementary level, discourse has a beginning, a middle and end, and the beginning could not be confused with the end: the parts could not randomly be interchanged and still leave recognizable discourse. Discourse, in fact, is characterized by coherence, a coherence of supra-sentential structure and a coherence of topic. (their emphasis)19

Robert Longacre, with his brand of “tagmemics,” draws a similar inference. He argues that all language can be filtered into two function slots called

For more information regarding these standards, see ibid., 113, 139, 163, 182. See also Michael Shepherd, The Verbal System of Biblical Aramaic: A Distributional Approach, Studies in Biblical Literature 116 (New York: Peter Lang, 2008), 27–8. Shepherd corroborates that, “They [de Beaugrande and Dressler] only consider cohesion and coherence to be text-centered.” 17 Stoddard, 103. 18 In her own words, “It seems certain from the data that cohesion and texture are components of every text,” ibid., 102. 19 Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989), 230. For a more theoretical explanation of how structure relates to coherence, see the seminal work by Teun A. van Dijk, Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse, Longman Linguistics Library, vol. 21, eds. R. H. Robins and G. N. Leech (London: Longman, 1977), 130–66. 16



New Avenues

45

tagmemes and syntagmemes. These two components “yield a systematic theory of grammatical hierarchy (part–whole relationships). At every level of structure from the stem level to the discourse level, tagmemes compose syntagmemes.”20 These relationships are crucial for discerning semantic value, or meaning. For instance, the tagmeme “ann” is semantically valueless unless it is formed into a syntagmeme like, “anniversary.” “Anniversary,” however, is semantically meaningless unless it is formed into a syntagmeme such as “Today is my anniversary.” That sentence will not be properly understood, though, until it is related to the highest level of syntagmeme available. Whose anniversary is it? Why is it necessary to know that? What kind of anniversary is it? The point of this excursus into Longacre’s brand of linguistics is that tagmemics demonstrates the close relation between structure and meaning, or structure and coherence. For a story (or text?) “to be considered a distinct entity … then it must be considered to have a macrostructure of its own, that is, an overall meaning and plan.”21 The reason for this is that, in Longacre’s view, all the components of the language will not be properly understood, their semantic value will not be properly assigned, unless they are seen in light of the whole. Therefore, structure contributes to coherence.22 One of the questions that this chapter seeks to clarify is whether the Psalter is a unified text, or an anthology of unrelated texts. Text-linguistics has provided a working definition of what a text is, supplying practical criteria upon which a solid case can be built. In summary, a text is written communication that is both cohesive and coherent. Some of the key elements in discerning cohesion and coherence are structure, development, repetition, and related theme. Consequently, if the Psalter displays elements of cohesion (that is, repetition and related theme) and coherence (that is, discernible structure and development), then it would meet the text-linguistic requirements for being called

Robert E. Longacre, Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39–48 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989), 312. Ibid., 42. 22 For a more thorough introduction to tagmemics, see Robert E. Longacre, “Tagmemics,” Word 36 (1985): 137–77; K. L. Pike, Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior, 3 vols (The Hague: Mouton, 1954–7); idem, “Beyond the Sentence,” College Composition and Communication 15 (1964): 129–35. 20

21

The Return of the King

46

a text.23 The highest level, and thus controlling level, of literary significance would be the entire book.24 Poetics

The second linguistic field that may lay a foundation from which to understand the Book of Psalms as a literary unity is poetics. According to Bruce Waltke, poetics is “the study of the literary devices an author uses to construct his composition.”25 The analogy most often used to describe poetics is that poetics is to literature what linguistics is to language. That is, linguistics is the study of language while poetics is the study of literature—a study that seeks to observe and classify the different components that create a piece of literature. Adele Berlin is helpful here: “Poetics, the science of literature, is not an interpretive effort—it does not aim to elicit meaning from a text. Rather it aims to find the building blocks of literature and the rules by which they are assembled.”26 To borrow an analogy from Berlin, poetics seeks to discern the “ingredients” to the recipe of literature. Parallelism permeates Hebrew poetry; it is the main “ingredient” in poetic literature. Although not the first to observe parallelism, Robert Lowth receives pride of place in articulating the classic definition. He contends: “The correspondence of one verse or line with another, I call parallelism. When a proposition is delivered, and a second is subjoined to it, or drawn Can text-linguistics be applied to poetry? Elizabeth Hayes helpfully addresses this point (n.b., discourse analysis is a subset of text-linguistics):

23



Although the term discourse is often associated with narrative passages, there is a tendency on the part of modern linguists to broaden the definition. Discourse, according to Cotterell and Turner, comprises “any coherent stretch of language” structure to exhibit “some measure of development” (230). Or, in other words, a discourse exhibits elements of cohesion, coherence, and prominence.” Consequently, Hayes examines the Egyptian Hallel (Psalms 113–118) using text-linguistic methods. See idem, “The Unity of the Egyptian Hallel: Psalms 113–18,” BBR 9 (1999): 145–56.

The quote is from p. 146. See also Susan Anne Groom, Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2008), who does not distinguish between narrative and poetry in linguistic analysis. She simply states that text-linguistics applies to Hebrew texts, which would include both narrative and poetry (pp. 159–60). 24 The purpose of this foray into text-linguistics is to establish the criteria for reading the Psalter as a unified text. This should be distinguished from what follows in the next chapter on narrative theory, which builds on these foundational criteria and takes the implications of them one step further. 25 Bruce K. Waltke with Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 113. 26 Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, Bible and Literature Series 9 (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983), 15.



New Avenues

47

under it, equivalent, or contrasted with it in sense, or similar to it in the form of grammatical construction, these I call parallel lines; and the words or phrases, answering one to another in the corresponding lines, parallel terms.”27 Elsewhere, he uses words like “equality” and “resemblance” to give the sense of parallelism.28 The influence of Lowth’s formulation can be seen in almost every treatise on the topic during the next two centuries.29 More recently, however, a reorientation of what constitutes parallelism has occurred, modifying Lowth’s definition in scope and extent. Berlin’s work, The Dynamics of Hebrew Parallelism, represents the culmination of that reorientation. While recognizing the great service that Lowth provided for the study of Hebrew poetry—most significantly, his observation that parallelism is a correspondence between two things—she also draws attention to the shortcomings of his definition. For one, Lowth limited the distance of parallel occurrences to two lines, neglecting to account for parallelisms that were smaller (at the phonological level) and larger (at the level of the entire poem, like inclusio) than two juxtaposed cola. Second, Lowth focused on parallelisms that were related by theme or sense, which excludes the possibility of observing parallels at the different layers of a well-textured poem. As she put it: The definition of parallelism offered here is much broader than that found in most biblical studies, in which parallelism is usually considered to involve only semantic and/or grammatical equivalences and to operate only between two or more consecutive lines. This narrow view of parallelism would seem to be a legacy of Lowth, who spoke of the correspondence of one verse, or line, with another. Once we admit smaller segments as being parallel—e.g., words, Robert Lowth, Isaiah: A New Translation; with a Preliminary Dissertation, and Notes, Critical, Philological, and Explanatory, 13th edn (London: Balne Brothers, 1839), viii. 28 Robert Lowth, Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, trans. G. Gregory (London: S. Chadwick, 1847), 210. 29 See Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, rev. edn (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 1–2. For example, strong Lowthian “parallels” can be recognized in this postulation by Louis Newman over a century and a half later: 27



[I]n the field of literary expression, thought answers thought and word answers word. For the human mind, richly-stored, rarely contents itself with a single formulation of a theme close to its interests: to express a thought in brief laconic form merely once, does not satisfy it. In prose, the author usually seeks to reaffirm and elaborate his statements either by repetition of favorite phrases, or by the use of new words and expressions; and this is true even more strongly of poetry, the language of feeling.

From Louis I. Newman, “Parallelism in Amos,” in Studies in Biblical Parallelism, Louis I. Newman and William Popper (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1917), 1.

48

The Return of the King phrases, even sounds—though the lines to which they belong are not parallel, we raise the incidence of parallelism within a text. And if we do not restrict our search for linguistic equivalences to adjacent lines or sentences, but take a global view, finding equivalences anywhere within a text, we raise the incidence of parallelism still more.30

This reorientation not only applies to the study of sounds, lines, and stanzas within a poem, but it also bears upon the focus of this study: the relationship between poetic texts. Berlin’s restatement of biblical parallelism opens an avenue for grounding the relationship between psalms in the field of poetics. If parallelism exists at higher literary levels than the line, then it could be possible to demonstrate that parallelism exists at the highest literary levels: groups of poems and books. And if it could be shown that parallelism exists at those highest levels, then a case could be made that those highest levels were meant to be read as literature due to the presence of the “ingredients.” More than a decade earlier, James Muilenburg’s presidential address to the Society of Biblical Literature, entitled “Form Criticism and Beyond,” adumbrates this development. He argued that “repetition serves many and diverse functions in the literary compositions of ancient Israel, whether in the construction of parallel cola or parallel bicola, or in the structure of the strophes, or in the fashioning and ordering of the complete literary units.”31 One of those functions is the structuring of literary unity. Later he stated, “It is the key-word which may often guide us in our isolation of a literary unit, which gives to it its unity and focus, which helps us to articulate the structure of the composition, and to discern the pattern or texture into which the words are woven.”32 In summary, Muilenburg is saying that parallels provide grounds for discerning structure at all literary levels: lines, strophes, and beyond. Consequently, it stands to reason that wherever parallels can be observed, they are evidence for an intentionally structured textual unit. Berlin, The Dynamics, 3. Berlin acknowledges her debt to Roman Jakobson for these insights. Some of his influential writings are: Roman Jakobson, “Linguistics and Poetics,” Style in Language, ed. T. Sebeok (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1960), 350–77; idem, “On Poetic Intentions and Linguistic Devices in Poetry. A Discussion with Professors and Students at the University of Cologne,” Poetics Today 2 (1980): 87–96; idem, “Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry,” Lingua 21 (1968): 597–609. 31 James Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” JBL 88 (1969): 17. 32 Ibid. 30



New Avenues

49

The scholar who has exploited this development for Psalms studies most explicitly is Robert Cole. His most substantive contribution to the field, The Shape and Message of Book III (Psalms 73–89), begins with this assertion: “The study of Hebrew poetry has evolved in the modern era in a manner that could be described as the extension of parallelism.”33 By following the trajectory initiated by Muilenburg and Berlin, Cole articulates how a proper understanding of parallelism applies to the organization of the Psalter: It has become clear in recent years that the phenomenon of parallelism and repetition in the Psalter must be extended beyond that of individual poems to the surrounding psalms and finally the entire collection. The ordering and shaping of the collection casts the individual psalms in a new light, even beyond that discerned through rhetorical criticism. Such a focus moves from what the individual poem expresses to a meaning implied by the final compilation, the latter becoming a single “text.” Consequently, the study of the final shape of the Psalter is simply a recognition that parallelism is not restricted to the individual poem.34

The implications for the present study could not be stated more clearly. Parallelism binds texts; the literary unity of the Psalter can be discerned by the parallels that exist within it. Poetics, then, provides key insights into the shaping of literary units. The element of poetics that has been most closely scrutinized in this section of the chapter is parallelism, the repetition that binds literary units. Following Muilenburg and Berlin, parallelism should be extended to the highest literary units. If parallels can be discerned in those highest units, then there is a solid foundation for recognizing the unity of those units.

Conclusion So, is the Psalter a unified text or an anthology of unrelated texts? The purpose of this section was to pursue foundations for answering this question in the field of linguistics. Specifically, I examined text-linguistics and poetics for their benefit in providing criteria for textuality and the “ingredients” that make up Robert L. Cole, The Shape and Message of Book III (Psalms 73–89), JSOT Sup 307 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 9. Ibid., 10.

33

34

50

The Return of the King

a text, respectively. Based on this study, the two best criteria for textuality are cohesion and coherence. Cohesion occurs when there is repetition; coherence when there is a discernible structure that “makes sense.” Moreover, parallels bind texts; they are one of the “ingredients” of a text. Whenever parallels can be observed, there is strong evidence that the parallel elements were meant to be read together. Consequently, if I can show that parallels exist within collections of poems and books, then a case can be made that those literary units were meant to be read as a unified text. Now, in an effort to bring the tributaries of the last two chapters into confluence, I will defend each criterion deemed most valid in the last chapter in the light of one of the foundational elements examined in this chapter. (1) Key-word links relate both to parallelism and text-linguistic cohesion; important words that are parallel across psalm boundaries provide the cohesion that is necessary for the text of the Psalter to be considered a unified text. (2) The criterion of distant parallelisms builds on Berlin’s extension of parallelism to all literary levels, an extension that the field of poetics has warranted. (3) Using the superscriptions as a structuring device draws from Wilson’s confirmation that hymnbooks were organized according to the “prolegomena” of the hymn in the ancient Near East. (4) Thematic similarities supply coherence—the second component of textuality—to a text, helping to “make sense” of the parts. (5) Finally, structural parallels are a type of parallelism.

Two other insights are helpful for doing editorial criticism because they are closely related to the criteria listed above. The first is Nancy L. deClaisséWalford’s understanding of “reading from the beginning.” Since the corpus under consideration appears at the end of the Psalter, it will be important to give attention to key psalms that precede in order to become familiar with some of the key words and themes that shape the message of the book. For this study, Psalms 1–2 and 89 occur at the key junctures.35 Second, Jerome Creach’s idea of key-word placement is also significant for editorial criticism. Although it does not necessarily provide evidence for how psalms relate to one another within groups, it does help guide the reader toward the message of the text.

A defense will be presented in Chapter 6 for using these psalms as structurally significant psalms in the Psalter.

35



New Avenues

51

Thus, words that occur at key junctures within Book V will be considered more significant. There is a way forward in the methodology of editorial criticism. It is to be found not in subjective, impressionistic readings of juxtaposed texts, but rather in the careful pursuit of evidence based on criteria grounded in the fields of text-linguistics, poetics, and ancient Near Eastern backgrounds.

Method used for this Study The approach I use is eclectic—using different methods at different literary levels. Erich Zenger has demonstrated the viability of such an approach, employing different criteria for different layers of text (links among psalms, links within a group, and links within a book). The method has developed from Howard’s emphasis on significant key-word links, placing the most stress on this phenomenon. The goal of the method is to arrive at one of the five criteria deemed most helpful for editorial criticism. This will be accomplished by an intensive investigation of Book V at all literary levels of the text.36 In order to be exhaustive with a large corpus like Psalms 107–150, I created a concordance for Book V with the assistance of Logos Bible Software. Using the search features of their updated interface, I could account for and compare every lexeme in the corpus.37 This allowed me to comprehensively analyze all of Book V in a fraction of the time it would take to compare every lexeme using a hard-bound concordance such as Lisowsky or Evan-Shoshan.38 Once the concordance was created, the data underwent analysis for repetitions and parallels. Words that were used infrequently were compared quickly. Were they My project is a synchronic analysis of Book V. The scope of this work is limited to the editorial arrangement of the MT because diachronic investigations are often dependent on hypothetical stages of development. The subject matter of a synchronic study is more objective because it is the text as it now stands (with the help of textual criticism), not the text as it may have been at various stages. 37 The thorough analysis of each psalm included checking textual variants. In those cases when variants had credible internal and external evidence, they too were checked within the concordance. For example, Ps 110.3—a notable text-critical crux—was analyzed within Book V not only as it stands in the MT but also how it could be reconstructed based on other textual sources. Even in cases when the variant was not adopted, it was still checked within the concordance. The key was whether or not there was credible evidence supporting the variant. To be more technical—on an A–B–C–D grading scale, any variant that was graded as a C or above was checked, even though only variants with a B or above were adopted. 38 In personal correspondence, David Howard has related to me how he had to place note cards all over an entire room to be able to make comparisons within a corpus of seven psalms. 36

52

The Return of the King

used in adjacent psalms? Were they used in proximal psalms? Common words had to be physically checked in the text to see if there was true commonality between them. For instance, the word ‫ ארץ‬occurs frequently in Book V, so each individual occurrence was investigated to determine whether there were more parallels between the passages than the repetition of a common word. This technique often yielded parallels at the phrase level. Once I distinguished key words within Book V, I then analyzed them within broader corpora with the assistance of the search features in Logos Bible Software. For example, ‫ חסד‬occurs frequently within Book V. But is that truly significant, or is it simply because ‫ חסד‬occurs with regularity throughout the Psalter and/or The Writings? Words like ‫ חסד‬were subjected to further comparison in order to ascertain their level of significance in Book V. The results of this research were not solely dependent on the information produced by a computer program, however.39 I employed a close reading of the text in order to observe parallels at higher and lower literary levels than the word or phrase. Attention was given to syntactical constructions and structural relationships. Notes were made for each individual psalm. Those notes then grew into creating hypothetical groupings. I then compared the hypothetical groupings to the individual psalms, producing a type of hermeneutical spiral.40 When combined with the results of the lexical research, I established the psalm-group boundaries. The method, then, is a mixture of a computer-assisted analysis of the text and a close reading of the text. It combines both Psalmenexegese and Psalterexegese into a hermeneutical spiral, with the results of each influencing the other. My goal is not only to discern relationships among neighboring psalms, but also to determine the make-up of entire groups and how those larger groups relate to one another. It is a method that reveals the structure of larger corpora at higher literary levels without losing sight of the smaller groups and individual psalms. Part III of this study is devoted to outlining the results of this research method. Each major section of Book V is given an entire chapter, with a Indeed, each significant link was double-checked in Lisowsky’s concordance. For more on this approach to interpretation—where the parts are compared to the whole and then the whole compared to the parts—see Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, rev. and exp. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006).

39 40



New Avenues

53

presentation and explanation of the most important reasons for dividing the psalms into their constituent groups. Although the analysis has been exhaustive, I limit the presentation of evidence to those data that are deemed most weighty and persuasive—an exhaustive treatment of all the parallels and connections within a psalm group would far surpass the bounds of this study. What this looks like—the actual outworking of the method—will be manifest in that section. But first, Book V must be put into its proper perspective, and it is to that task that the following section relates.

PART II BOOK V IN PERSPECTIVE

5 R E SE A R C H O N B O O K V: T H E S TAT E O F T H E F I E L D

My work on Book V has been influenced by previous studies on the subject— both positively and negatively. Positively in that I have built upon the soundest conclusions of prior work; negatively in that I have tried to avoid some of the common pitfalls in research on Book V. It will become clear to the reader how these works have helped guide my ideas in the direction of my final conclusions. The purpose of this chapter is to outline the leading proposals for the structure of Book V. Attention will be given to the overall structure, with special emphasis placed on how scholars subdivide the book into units and their rationale for these subdivisions. A perusal of the literature reveals that there are two general schematics for Book V: one that sees the units delineated by the interface of ‫הללו־יה‬/‫ הודו‬at the conclusion and introduction, respectively, of consecutive psalms; a second schematic uses different, more variegated criteria—like the presence or absence of superscriptions, and lexical and thematic correspondences.1 The first group will be referred to as the ‫הללו־יה‬/‫ הודו‬Taxonomy, and the second group will be referred to as the Variegated Taxonomy.

The ‫הללו־יה‬/‫ הודו‬Taxonomy Book IV ends with the phrase ‫( הללו־יה‬Psalm 106.48d); Book V begins with the imperative ‫( הדו‬Psalm 107.1).2 Based on this boundary, some scholars This is not to say that proponents of the ‫הללו־יה‬/‫ הודו‬taxonomy are not aware of the superscriptions or other correspondences, nor is it to say that those who espouse the more variegated taxonomy disregard the interplay between ‫הללו־יה‬/‫הודו‬. Rather, it is more a matter of emphasis: how much emphasis is each scholar willing to give to the different editorial features in Book V? 2 All chapter and verse numbers will be based on the Masoretic Text (MT). In cases where the Septuagint (LXX) or an English version is referenced, a special demarcation will accompany the chapter and verse. 1

58

The Return of the King

have developed their structure of Book V on the assumption that ‫ הללו־יה‬ends units and ‫ הודו‬begins them. One of the conspicuous features of Book V is that this same juxtaposition occurs in two different places—at Psalm 117.2c/Psalm 118.1 and Psalm 135.21c/Psalm 136.1. Moreover, Psalms 107, 118, and 136 all begin with the same sentence, not just the same word, leading these scholars to the conclusion that all units of Book V begin the same way:3 Ps. 107.1—‫הדו ליהוה כי־טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬ Ps. 118.1—‫הודו ליהוה כי־טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬ Ps. 136.1—‫הודו ליהוה כי־טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬ Gerald Henry Wilson

The chief delineating feature of Wilson’s schema is the juxtaposition of ‫־יה‬ ‫הללו‬/‫הודו‬. His reasoning is as follows: “In the Mesopotamian hymns and catalogues, ‘praise’ and ‘blessing’ (Hallel and Doxology) frequently concluded documents or sections within documents. It is not surprising then to discover a similar technique in the Hebrew hymnic literature. The study of 11QPsa has revealed the use of hllwyh pss to indicate internal divisions within that scroll.”4 Later on he argues that the ‫ הודו‬psalms should not be considered part of the concluding groupings—as the evidence from Qumran suggests—but as the introduction to subsequent sections.5 This yields three major groupings: 1) Psalms 107–117; 2) Psalms 118–135; 3) Psalms 136–150. Wilson observes that, excluding the introduction (Psalm 107) and the conclusion (Psalms 146–150), Book V is framed by Davidic collections (108–110; 138–145). The significance of these groupings for Wilson is that David becomes a paradigmatic figure whose piety and relation to God should be imitated. A hallelujah cluster follows—and concludes—both of the Davidic groups. Wilson’s central section of Book V (Psalms 118–135) “is dominated by the massive, acrostic Torah Psalm 119.”6 Psalm 119 becomes the “focus” of

The only difference between these verses is that ‫ הודו‬in 107 is spelled defectively. Gerald Henry Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBLDS 76 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), 186. 5 Ibid., 187. 6 Ibid., 222–3. 3 4



Research on Book V

59

this section, leading to the conclusion that all of the surrounding psalms are in some way infused with Torah significance. In a later work, Wilson maintains the framework outlined in his dissertation: The fifth book is possibly the most diverse and difficult to sort out, partially because there are so few roadsigns and landmarks in these predominantly untitled psalms. There are three major segments marked out by hwdw introductions and hllwyh conclusions, namely Psalms 107–117 (a first Davidic group); Psalms 118–135 (which frame Psalm 119 and Psalms 120–134, the Songs of Ascents); and Psalms 136–145 (a second Davidic group). The positioning of these three segments provides a collection characterized by a Davidic frame and a center focused on the massive acrostic Psalm 119.7

In addition to these points he adds that Psalms 107 and 145 provide a “wisdom frame” to the whole.8 This yields the following schematic: Table 5.1: Gerald Henry Wilson Davidic Frame Torah 107  117 118                  135 136  145 Wisdom Frame

Reinhard Gregor Kratz

Reinhard Gregor Kratz deduces the same tripartite structure to Book V as Wilson, for the same reasons as Wilson, although he emphasizes its significance differently. For Kratz, the problem confronted in Book V is the exile. The readers, both as individuals and communities, need to be instructed how to overcome their present historical circumstance. Whereas Wilson highlights the sapiential nature of Psalms 107–150, Kratz discerns a more concrete, historical function.9 Kratz summarizes the message of Book V this way:

Gerald Henry Wilson, “Shaping the Psalter: A Consideration of Editorial Linkage in the Book of Psalms,” in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann, JSOT Sup 159 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 78–9. 8 Ibid., 79. 9 Reinhard Gregor Kratz, “Die Tora Davids: Psalm 1 und die doxologische Fünfteilung des Psalters,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 93 (1996): 26. Kratz ties the historical perspective of Book V to the Chronicler. 7

The Return of the King

60

The collection of the people and the deliverance from all kinds of danger (107–117), the way and entrance into the sanctuary and the pilgrimage (118–135), as well as the care of the returnees and each individual rescued in the city in the framework of the creation and preservation of the world, these are the aspects which are determinative for the doxological reception of the Psalter in the three segments of the fifth book. In them it sees the circumstance of the exile, which remains a national and collective problem (cf. Ps 137), at least for the individual, to be overcome; the hope for a salvation-history restitution [is seen] to be a reality for those who, in their individual lives, have already experienced and continue to experience deliverance and the return to the temple and the safe, well maintained city.10

Book V, then, claims that the individual restoration acts as a deposit guaranteeing a full historical and national restoration. The program for this greater restoration will mirror the individual restoration. Consequently, the returnees are advised to continue living in the same manner as they have been, for they can have hope that what led to their deliverance as individuals will lead to their deliverance as a people.11 Leslie Allen

In his contribution to the Word Biblical Commentary series, Leslie Allen avowedly follows Wilson’s work closely. In the introduction to Book V, he articulates his position: This book falls into three sections, like Book IV. Each section is introduced by a psalm beginning with the praise formulation ‫הדו ליהוה כי־טוב‬, “Give thanks to Yahweh for his goodness” (Pss 107, 118, 136), and closes with psalms that have the rubric ‫הללו יה‬, “Hallelujah,” attached to them (Pss 111–17, 135, and 146–150; G. H. Wilson, Editing, 124–29, 186–90, 220–22). In the three sections, Pss 107–17, 118–35, 136–50, this framework is set around a collection of Davidic Ibid., “Sammlung aus den Völkern und Rettung aus allen Nöten (107–117), Weg und Einzug ins Heiligtum und Wallfahrt (118–135) sowie Versorgung der Heimkehrer und jedes einzelnen Geretteten in der Stadt im Rahmen von Schöpfung und Erhaltung der Welt (136–150), dies sind die Aspekte, die für die doxologische Rezeption des Psalters in den drei Abschnitten des fünften Buchs bestimmend sind. In ihnen siegt sie den Zustand des ‘Exils,’ der als nationales und killektives Problem andauert (vgl. Ps 137), jedenfalls für den einzelnen überwunden und die Hoffnung auf die heilsgeschichtliche Restitution für den Wirklichkeit warden, der in seinem individuellen Leben auf welche Weise auch immer Rettung und Heimkehr zum Tempel und in die sichere, wohlversorgte Stadt schon erlebt hat und auch weiterhin erlebt.” 11 See also Reinhard Gregor Kratz, “Die Gnade des täglichen Brots: Späte Psalmen auf dem Weg zum Vaterunser,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 89 (1992): 36–8, especially n. 106. 10



Research on Book V

61

psalms (Pss 108–110) in the first instance; around Ps 119 and the collection of processional songs (Pss 120–34) in the second instance; and around another Davidic collection (Pss 138–45) in the third instance. It may be mentioned that in the second section three of the processional songs are titled ‫לדוד‬, “Davidic” (Pss 122, 124, 131), and one ‫לשׁלמה‬, “Solomonic” (Ps 127; cf. Ps 72).12

Allen also notices the significant positioning of royal psalms at the conclusion of the three core sections within Book V, namely, Psalms 110, 132, and 144. In his view, this demonstrates “their ongoing importance for the postexilic believing community.”13 Psalm 110 emphasizes the eternal nature of the Davidic covenant; Psalm 132 builds on the concluding exhortation in the previous two psalms (130.7; 131.3) to trust in the Lord; Psalm 144 democratizes the royal promises so that they are now fulfilled in the believing community. Consequently, Book V represents a reappropriation of the royal ideology, which is coupled with the consistent invocation to praise. Allen summarizes: It [Book V] celebrates what the God of the covenant has already done for the elect and restored community, is even now doing, and will yet do via messianic kingship. The community shares a conviction that it is already richly blessed with a realistic consciousness that it is the “lowly” victim of enemies and needs a full and final vindication that will bring glory to the God who created and controls the world of nature and nations.14

The praise is, then, rooted in the fulfillment of the Davidic promises within the community, yet the community still awaits the dawning of a messianic kingdom. Martin Leuenberger

Martin Leuenberger takes a mediating position—a position that is sensitive to diachronic development and the final literary structure. The diachronic development, however, does not accord with the final literary structure, although Leuenberger acknowledges the differences and accounts for the alteration. As he outlines his methodology in Konzeptionen des Königtums Gottes im Psalter: Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150, rev., Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 21 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 75. 13 Ibid., 76. 14 Ibid., 80. 12

62

The Return of the King

Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Redaktion der theokratischen Bücher IV–V im Psalter, Leuenberger combines compositional elements of the final form of the Psalter (psalmenübergriefende Kompositionsstrukturen) with redactionalhistorical considerations (redaktionsgeschichtliche Wachstumsprozesse).15 This double emphasis creates a bifurcation in his results. Leuenberger contends that there were three stages in the development of Book V. First, it consisted of Psalms 107–118, which displayed Yahweh’s kingdom in basic salvation experiences from the people’s perspective. Second, it grew to include Psalms 107–136, which then transformed the overall theme of Book V into the following: the kingdom is experienced in Yahweh’s salvation and benevolence evident in creation and history. Finally, Book V was completed, yielding the final message of the universal and particular Kingdom of God evidenced in the abundance of provision (especially food) and Yahweh’s salvation.16 As the book reached its final form, however, the last editor recognized a redactional strategy in Book IV—namely, the relationship between ‫הללו־יה‬/‫—הודו‬and purposefully added Psalms 137–150 to create redactional symmetry along those lines. Leuenberger adduces the ‫הללו־יה‬/‫ הודו‬division at Pss. 100.4 (‫—הודו‬beginning) and 106.48 (‫—הללו־יה‬ending), and then again at the Book IV–Book V boundary (‫ הללו־יה‬in 106.48 and ‫ הודו‬in 107.1). Consequently, this editor added a hallelujah group to conclude the Psalter, intending for Book V to be read along the bounds of ‫ הודו‬introductions and ‫ הללו־יה‬conclusions: 107–117; 118–135; 136–150.17

The Variegated Taxonomy As previously mentioned, scholars emphasize the ‫הללו־יה‬/‫ הודו‬junctures for dividing Book V, so other scholars emphasize a variety of textual features in organizing the book. No one feature is consistently ascendant—sometimes superscriptions are dominant, other times it is the form of the psalms, and then there are lexical and thematic parallels. Often, the same author will

Martin Leuenberger, Konzeptionen des Königtums Gottes im Psalter: Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Redaktion der theokratischen Bücher IV–V im Psalter, ATANT 83 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004), 35 16 See ibid., 367–80. 17 See especially, ibid., 276–8. 15



Research on Book V

63

employ different criteria for different sections. Thus, this approach is labeled “variegated”—that is, variegated in the sense that no one criterion supersedes the others and all the criteria work together to yield the book’s division. Klaus Koch

Klaus Koch presents his outline of Book V in his article “Der Psalter und seine Redaktionsgeschichte.” There he argues that a similar pattern occurs in Book V: a group of psalms with similar superscriptions is concluded by hallelujah psalms. His arrangement looks like this: Table 5.2: Klaus Koch Psalms 107–110—Psalms of David (Psalm 107 is an introductory psalm) Psalms 111–118—Hallelujah psalms Psalm 119 Psalms 120–134—The Songs of Ascents Psalms 135–136—Hallelujah psalms (For 136 as a hallelujah psalm, see LXX) Psalm 137 Psalms 138–145—Psalms of David Psalms 146–150—Hallelujah psalms

Two observations emerge from Koch’s arrangement. First, he relies heavily on the superscriptions in the LXX. Psalm 136 is not a hallelujah psalm— properly speaking—in the MT; it is, however, in the LXX. This is also seen when Koch comments on the final form of Book V: “The last Psalm book begins with hallelujah in Ps 107:1 (according to the sensible partition in G) and ends with hallelujah in 150:6.”18 Second, Psalms 119 and 137 do not fit. This does not seem to bother Koch, who conveniently describes Psalm 119 as Klaus Koch, “Der Psalter und seine Redaktionsgeschichte,” in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung, ed. Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger, HBS 1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 251. “Das letzte Psalmenbuch beginnt mit Halleluja 107,1 (nach der sinnvolleren Abrennung in G) und endet mit Halleluja 150,6.”

18

The Return of the King

64

a “post-compositional addition” and Psalm 137 as “having been inserted postcompositionally.”19 Due to the inability of his schema to include all the data, the persuasiveness of Koch’s proposal is diminished. Matthias Millard

Matthias Millard combines the two dominant Psalms schools of the last century—form criticism and editorial criticism—in his work about the structure of the Psalter, Die Komposition des Psalters. Approaching the Psalms from a form-critical perspective, Millard searches for clues regarding the overall make-up of the book as a whole. Starting from known groups, like the Asaph psalms or the Egyptian Hallel, Millard queries whether any formcritical patterns emerge, and, to his satisfaction, they do. These patterns, then, form the basis of analyzing other sections of psalms to see if the pattern holds. Again, to Millard’s satisfaction, it does. This is how Book V divides according to Millard:20 Table 5.3: Matthias Millard Introduction

Core 1

Middle Section

Zion Wisdom (Royal) Thanks Lament OracleWisdom Hymn 107 108ff. 110 (119) 122 120.1 120–131 132 139 (137?) 138 140–143

Core 2

Conclusion

Royal Thanks (Zion) Lament Wisdom

111ff. 113–115; 117 116;118 127ff. 134–136 144ff. 146–150

(119) 137

(119)

Clearly, Millard posits a wisdom redaction, which he dates post-cultic, since wisdom psalms provide the framework for his schema.21 The core of the different psalm groups, then, consists of a lament–oracle–hymn pattern. Thus, it can be observed that lament gives way to praise because of an oracle.

Ibid., 255, 258. “Also bildet 119 vermutlich einen nachkompositionellen Zusatz, der in 1QPsa und 11QPsa zudem an anderer Stelle eingefügt wird” (255). “Insofern wird auch 137 nach kompositionell hinzugefügt worden sein” (258). 20 This table appears in Matthias Millard, Die Komposition des Psalters: Ein formgeschichtlicher Ansatz, FAT 9 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994), 168. 21 See ibid., 165: “Bereits innerhalb der Psalmgruppen fanden wir Hinweise auf einen zumeist weisheitlichen Rahmen, der oft in die Struktur der Gruppe selbst hineinverwoben und deswegen meist nicht vom Kern der Psalmgruppen abtrennbar war.” 19



Research on Book V

65

Egbert Ballhorn

Egbert Ballhorn traverses the boundary between Books IV and V in his proposal. In Zum Telos des Psalters, he vitiates the division between Psalms 106 and 107, including them together in one subgroup. This is due to the close relationship between Books IV and V, according to his reckoning, which is evident in the subtitle of his work—Der Textzusammenhang des Vierten und Fünften Psalmenbuches (Ps 90–150). Consequently, Book V is not treated as its own entity; rather, its compositional structure is linked with the overall structure of the final 61 psalms. When taken with the end of Book IV, the structure of Book V appears like this:





105–107 (Hinge group—links two major groups) 108–110 (Davidic psalms) 111–118 (‫הללו־יה‬/‫)הודו‬ Historically oriented—Exodus and Conquest 119 (Torah meditation) 120–134 (Zion Psalter) 135–136 (‫הללו־יה‬/‫)הודו‬

137 (Hinge psalm—links two major groups) 138–145 (Davidic psalms) Community oriented—Democratizing the royal promises 146–150 (Hallelujah psalms)



Psalms 105–107 function as a bridge between the preceding Mosaic Psalter and the subsequent ‫ הודו‬psalms. They are considered one group because they contain every division signal used in the Psalter: a concluding doxology, ‫־יה‬ ‫הללו‬, and a framing ‫ הודו‬formula.22 Psalms 108–110 are linked by their common Davidic superscription. Psalms 111–118 follow much the same pattern as Psalms 105–107, that is, they are ‫ הללו־יה‬psalms capped off by a ‫ הודו‬psalm. Ballhorn describes Psalm 119 as an “erratic block.”23 It does, however, function as its own group, a veritable “Psalter within the Psalter.” Regarding the next Egbert Ballhorn, Zum Telos des Psalters: Der Textzusammenhang des Vierten und Fünften Psalmenbuches (Ps 90–150), BBB 138 (Berlin: Philo, 2004). See p. 364: “Indem in Ps 105–107 alle drei Gliederungselemente vorkommen, bilden diese drei Psalmen auch in formaler Hinsicht eine Verbindung zwischen den Bereichen des Psalters.” 23 Ibid., 366: “Ps 119 ist durch keinerlei redaktionelle Strukturen in seine Umgebung eingebunden, so daß er als erratischer Block dasteht.”

22

66

The Return of the King

group, Psalms 120–134, Ballhorn prefers the heading “Zion Psalter” more than the traditional “Songs of Ascents,” even though it is the common superscription that binds these psalms. For him, “Zion” represents three distinct aspects: the geographical and social center Jerusalem, the people of God, and the Temple. Psalm 135 is a “Florilegium” of Psalms 111–118 and 120–134, and could even be considered part of the Zion Psalter due to its affinity to Psalm 134. It encapsulates the historical high points of the previous historically oriented psalms. Psalm 136 represents the climax of the ‫ הודו‬psalms. Consider this progression: Psalm 105 begins “Give thanks to the Lord”; Psalms 106 and 107 introduce the formula, “Give thanks to the Lord for He is good; His love endures forever”; Psalm 118 repeats this phrase at both the beginning and the end; Psalm 136, then, reaches a crescendo as this phrase is repeated in every verse. The hinge occurs at Psalm 137—a Janus psalm. Because of its historical orientation—originating in an exilic setting—it can be viewed as a continuation of the previous group. At the same time, though, it introduces questions and themes that are handled in the subsequent psalms.24 Psalms 138–145 cohere because of their ascription to David, Psalms 146–150 because of their ‫ הללו־יה‬framework. Both of these groups democratize the royal promises, picturing the people as the inheritors of those promises and the embodiment of the monarchical ideal. Ballhorn explains, “The final portion of the Psalms carries through a democratization and carries out the expansion of the characteristics of the anointed king on the people as a whole. This represents a movement, which was already observed in other ways in Psalm 90 (and possibly in Psalms 108–110), and which is also consummated in the final Hallel.”25 Joseph P. Brennan

Joseph Brennan is not usually recognized as a forerunner to the recent resurgence of studying Psalms within their literary context, but he should be. Before both Childs’ and Wilson’s work, Brennan penned this clairvoyant thesis: Ibid., 367–8. Ibid., 369: “Der Schlußteil des Psalms führt eine Demotisierung durch und vollzieht die Ausweitung der Kennzeichnungen des gesalbten Königs auf das ganze Volk. Dies stellt eine Bewegung dar, die schon in anderer Weise in Ps 90 zu beobachten war (möglicherweise auch in Ps 108–110), und die auch im Schlußhallel noch einmal vollzogen wird.”

24 25



Research on Book V

67

I would like to suggest in this article that a careful reading indicates that the Psalter has not developed in a haphazard and arbitrary way, but has been carefully woven together in such a manner that previously independent compositions, or smaller collections of such compositions, now comment upon or respond to one another. Hence, for a proper understanding of the Psalter it is not enough to study each of its 150 components in the historical context from which it originally sprang. They must all be studied in their relationship to each other, since all of them together convey more than they do if looked at separately.26

In the same essay, Brennan contributes his understanding of the arrangement of Book V. He proposes three major sections, or cycles as he calls them: 107–119, 120–136, and 137–150. He then goes on to say: Within each of these cycles there is a roughly similar ascending movement, each of them beginning with a retrospective reference to life in exile, and each of them moving gradually upward into the realms of praise and thanksgiving. There are links between the three cycles, but they seem to have an existence of their own, and an inner dynamic which sets them off one from the other. The first cycle (107–119) looks back to the events of the Exodus and to the gift of the Law, and sees these as renewed in the events of the return from Babylon. The second (120–136) highlights the various phases of the annual pilgrimage to restored Jerusalem, and the third (137–150), with its moments of desperation and exaltation, anticipates the final great confrontation in which all creation will ultimately join Yahweh’s covenant-people in acknowledging him as God and King.27

The remainder of the article is Brennan’s justification for reading the Psalms as a cohesive unit. He most often employs a lectio continua method, that is, each succeeding psalm casts some light on the previous one. An example of this is, “This Psalm [111] is best understood as a royal reply to the divine assurances of Psalm 110, although in its post-exilic setting it has become a prayer of the whole community.”28 Brennan also adduces lexical correspondences. It should be noted, however, that he is mainly concerned with the relationship between neighboring psalms, which weakens the force of his argument regarding the Joseph P. Brennan, “Some Hidden Harmonies in the Fifth Book of Psalms,” in Essays in Honor of Joseph P. Brennan, ed. Robert F. McNamara (Rochester, NY: Saint Bernard’s Seminary, 1976), 126–7. 27 Ibid., 128. 28 Ibid., 132. 26

The Return of the King

68

larger cycles. Beyond the “roughly similar ascending movement” of the three cycles, Brennan does not offer strong textual support for his divisions. So Kun (Silvia) Ahn

Silvia Ahn addresses the arrangement of Book V in her 2008 dissertation at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, and like Brennan she divides Book V into three major sections, but those three sections do not share the same boundaries. Although the primary focus of her work relates to Psalms 146–150, which constitute the conclusion to the Psalter in her opinion, Ahn devotes an entire chapter to how those final psalms fit into the context of Book V. She discerns a tripartite structure organized around the repeated sequence of Davidic psalms– ‫ הללו־יה‬psalms–‫ הודו‬psalms. The following table illustrates her proposal:29 Table 5.4: So Kun Ahn 107–119

120–137

138–150

107 108–110 111–118 119 120–134 122; 124; 131; 133 135–136 137 138–145 146–150

‫הודו‬ ‫לדוד‬ ‫הודו‬, ‫הללו־יה‬ ‫תורה‬ ‫שׁיר המעלות‬ ‫לדוד‬ ‫הודו‬, ‫הללו־יה‬ ‫ציון‬ ‫לדוד‬ ‫הללו־יה‬

In each section there is a similar pattern of Davidic psalms followed by ‫־יה‬ ‫ הללו‬psalms, followed by a ‫ הודו‬psalm. Ahn believes that the entire book is organized around a Davidic rubric—the core of each subsection is the psalms attributed to David. This core is then complemented by ‫ הללו־יה‬psalms that celebrate what has been revealed about him. Finally, the ‫ הודו‬psalms provide a fitting conclusion to the Davidic themes. There is a development of how David is viewed within Book V. In the first section, David and Israel are parallel. David is Israel personified—what David overcomes, Israel overcomes; Israel triumphs as David triumphs. David represents the deposit of promise in the second section. That is, David was the So Kun (Silvia) Ahn, “I Salmi 146–150 come conclusione del Salterio” (Ph.D. diss., Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2008), 209.

29



Research on Book V

69

recipient of the promises, so the people must be connected to David if they are to receive the promises. The final section portrays the democratization of David, meaning that the people as a whole are the fulfillment of the Davidic ideal. There is no longer a person, David, or an ideal person, David, but only a people, and these people inherit all his promises. To further support her Davidic-‫הללו־יה‬-‫ הודו‬framework, Ahn observes a transition from lament to praise in each section, hinging on a key Davidic psalm. Each section begins with David lamenting, but turns to praise, and ultimately to the people’s praise. The transition psalms are 110, 132, and 144.30 Finally, Ahn notices that the Davidic psalms are predominantly individual, but the ‫ הללו־יה‬and ‫הודו‬ psalms are communal. For these reasons she sees a close relationship between the Davidic psalms and the praise psalms that conclude each section. Jamie A. Grant

Like Ahn, Jamie Grant’s primary focus is not Book V as a whole, but due to the nature of his thesis in The King as Exemplar he spends some time addressing its structure. The overall thrust of Grant’s work is that the organization of the Book of Psalms has been influenced by the stipulations regarding kingship found in Deuteronomy 17.14–20. There, he sees an integral relationship between the king and Torah, which he then applies to the shaping of the Psalter. Grant finds royal and Torah psalms juxtaposed at three key junctures: 1–2, 18–19, and 118–119. These three pairs bracket the overall structure of the Psalms, with 1–2 introducing the book, 18–19 standing at the center of Book I, and 118–119 standing at the center of Book V. Building around the center of Psalms 118 and 119, Grant’s outline looks like this:31 A Ps. 107—Historical Frame B Pss. 108–110—Davidic Frame Ibid., 207: “Il passaggio dal lamento alla lode avviene all’interno degli stessi salmi davidici. Particolare attenzione meritano al riguardo i salmi regali che si trovano verso la fine dei gruppi di salmi davidici, i Salmi 110; 132 (non attribuito a Davide) e 144. Nel libro V, questi tre salmi regali marcano il momento del passaggio alla lode in ciascuna delle tre parti e rivelano l’importanza della figura regale: essi fanno vedere che la speranza messianica è presente non solo nei libri I–III, ma anche nel libro V. Effettivamente, in questi salmi il «re» terreno non si oppone alla sovranità di Dio.” 31 Jamie A. Grant, The King as Exemplar: The Function of Deuteronomy’s Kingship Law in the Shaping of the Book of Psalms, SBLAB 17 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 240–4. 30

70

The Return of the King

C Pss. 111–117—Festal Frame D Pss. 118–119—Torah-Kingship Center C' Pss. 120–134—Festal Frame A' Pss. 135–137—Historical Frame B' Pss. 138–145—Davidic Frame Grant relies on the superscriptions to form the Davidic groups as well as the final festal frame (the Songs of Ascents). He refers to Psalms 111–117 as the ‫ הללו־יה‬group, since each psalm is characterized by that call to praise. Finally, he categorizes Psalms 107 and 135–137 as historical psalms because of their similarity to the historical psalms that conclude Book IV. Grant’s proposal for Book V depends entirely on the relationship between Psalms 118 and 119. The evidence for viewing these two psalms as a minigroup is, however, unpersuasive. Grant rests his argument on canonical, lexical, and theological links between the psalms. Canonically, Grant supposes the unity of these psalms based on “their canonical position between two larger groupings of psalms and their lack of superscription.”32 To the contrary, the lack of superscription is a more common feature of Book V and does not carry the same weight as it would in other books, and the “canonical position” argument is circular. Any group in the middle of a book stands “between two larger groups.” Lexically, there are links between the psalms, which probably accounts for their juxtaposition, but to say that they form their own mini-group neglects the more significant links between Psalm 118 and the psalms that precede it. Finally, the theological links observed by Grant are common and rather bland. It is not as if Psalms 118 and 119 are the only two adjoining psalms to emphasize “dependence upon Yahweh for salvation, name theology, Yahweh as refuge, the ‘two ways,’ and the importance of a proper piety before Yahweh.”33 John H. Walton

In an article appearing in 1991, John Walton contributes his understanding of the editorial arrangement of the Psalter. Walton finds much that is of merit in Wilson’s work. Nevertheless, Walton breaks from Wilson’s focus on the titles to explore whether or not there may be a different organizing principle. For Ibid., 175. The punctuation of this quotation has been slightly modified from the original. Ibid., 180.

32 33



Research on Book V

71

Walton, that organizing principle is the content of each psalm: “The search focuses on the content of each psalm, though it is possible that the element in a psalm that led to its placement may not be the major theme of the psalm.”34 Walton posits that the major theme of the Psalter is the Davidic covenant, and that this theme unfolds historically throughout the Psalter. That is, each successive book of the Psalter addresses the theme of the Davidic covenant in consecutive historical epochs. Thus, Book I focuses on David’s conflict with Saul—in light of the Davidic covenant, of course—which is followed by the major theme of Book II, David’s reign in light of the Davidic covenant. Book III, which Walton finds “the most difficult to assess,” reflects on the Assyrian crisis of the late eighth century.35 Book IV is a response to the exile and the destruction of the Temple. Book V, then, celebrates the return from exile. In his treatment of each book, Walton does not provide a clear structural arrangement of the different groupings that make up the book, so the reader must assume that his paragraph divisions reflect his understanding of how the book is structured. Walton divides Book V this way:36 Table 5.5: John Walton Psalm Groups

Significance

107–109

Celebrates the return from exile (107.1-4), which is related to the ‫ חסד‬of Yahweh (108). “Psalm 109 is imprecatory and could be construed as being applied to Babylon.”37 Strong royal ideology, with emphasis on theocracy; re-establishment of the covenant. Celebrates the re-establishment of the covenant at 110. Yahweh’s ‫חסד‬, rule, and deliverance are all major themes. 118 provides a summary to the collection. A reminder to the exiles that they must live in accordance with the law. Reflects on the ascent to Jerusalem par excellence, that is, the return from exile. Strong emphasis on deliverance. Denounces idols (135); celebrates Yahweh’s ‫( חסד‬136); curses Babylon (137). A final Davidic series that emphasizes Yahweh’s kingship and the need for Israel’s/David’s deliverance from enemies (139.19-22; 144.10-14).

110 111–118 119 120–134 135–137 138–145

John H. Walton, “Psalms: A Cantata about the Davidic Covenant,” JETS 34 (1991): 24. Ibid., 27. 36 See ibid., 29–30. 37 Ibid., 29. 34 35

72

The Return of the King

Psalms 146–150 function as the conclusion to the entire Psalter, recapitulating the various themes of the previous books. In response to Walton’s arrangement, two critiques are in order. First, the inner cohesion within each group is not always apparent. For instance, what is the binding element of Psalms 135–137 according to Walton’s description? They could just as easily be considered three individual groups due to the lack of connectedness. Moreover, the groupings 107–109 and 110 seem curious considering the common Davidic superscriptions among 108–110, and to assume that all imprecation (Psalm 109) is directed toward Babylon is special pleading. Second, as Robert Cole notes in his book Psalms 1–2, the notion of a chronological Psalter was shown to be problematic no later than the writing of the Babylonian Talmud.38 There, the rabbis point out the anachronism between Psalms 3 (flight from Absalom) and 57 (flight from Saul), concluding that chronology cannot explain the order of the Psalter.39 Erich Zenger

Erich Zenger devotes an article to his understanding and arrangement of Book V. After articulating some of the unique features of the book, and reviewing the proposals of three other scholars, Zenger outlines the key structural signals within the book. He begins by arguing that Psalms 107 and 145 form a frame around the book. Closest to the frame are two Davidic collections—Psalms 108–110 and 138–145—each with a close relationship to acrostic poems (Psalms 111–112 and 145). Three collections appear between the Davidic frame—Psalms 113–118; 119; 120–136—each representing successively the three major Hebrew festivals: 113–118 represents Passover, 119 represents Pentecost,40 and 120–136 represents the Feast of Booths. Zenger considers Psalm 137 to be a Janus psalm that provides theological commentary on the Zion psalms (120–136), while at the same time forming the contextual

See Robert Cole, Psalms 1–2: A Gateway to the Psalter, Hebrew Bible Monographs 37 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011), 29. b. Ber. 10a. 40 It should be noted that Pentecost, or the Feast of Weeks (or Shavuot), is traditionally celebrated as the day when Yahweh revealed the Torah to Israel from Sinai. For the fullest treatment of this tradition, see Sejin Park, Pentecost and Sinai: The Festival of Weeks as a Celebration of the Sinai Event, Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 342 (New York: T&T Clark, 2008). 38

39



Research on Book V

73

backdrop for the final Davidic collection. Zenger’s proposal is represented in this table:41 Table 5.6: Erich Zenger 107–112

113–118

107 108–110 111–112

119

Royal psalms Acrostics Acrostic

120–137

120–136

138–145

137 138–144 145

David (eschatological/messianic) Exodus (Passover) Torah (Pentecost) Zion (Feast of Booths)

Royal psalms Acrostic

David (eschatological/messianic)

As is evident, there are five major divisions within Book V. Psalm 119 occurs at the center of the book, a point that Zenger finds theologically significant. He contends that “according to the theological perspective of the fifth book of psalms which has the Torah Psalm 119 intentionally placed in the middle of the composition, the psalms are a means of opening oneself to the living Torah of YHWH.”42 Thus, Torah becomes the gateway to experiencing43 and the end product of experiencing44 a spiritual pilgrimage to Zion. Zenger summarizes the message of Book V in this way: “For this reason one cannot help but submit the thesis that particularly the fifth book of Psalms is postcultic and meant to be recited/meditated upon as a ‘spiritual pilgrimage’ to Zion which is the seat of the universal king YHWH and of the God of Sinai who teaches his Torah from Zion.”45 Zenger’s structure of Book V is largely commendable. The only issue with it is that he separates Psalms 107–112 from 113–118. It will be shown in a later chapter why this is unnecessary. When Zenger comments on the message of This table is closely related to that which appears in Ahn, “I Salmi,” 170–1, which is, of course, dependent on the table that appears in Erich Zenger, “The Composition of the Fifth Book of Psalms, Psalms 107–145,” JSOT 80 (1998): 98. Zenger’s English article is a slight modification of idem, “Komposition und Theologie des 5. Psalmenbuchs 107–145,” Biblische Notizen 82 (1996): 97–116. 42 Zenger, “The Composition,” 101. 43 Ibid., 98. 44 Ibid., 100. 45 Ibid. 41

74

The Return of the King

Book V, however, two criticisms emerge. First, his connection of the three inner groups to the three major Hebrew festivals is more convenient than convincing, mainly because the correlation between Pentecost and the giving of the Torah at Sinai is traditional, not biblical. Second, Zenger overemphasizes the experience of the reader in meditating on these psalms; the reader becomes the main subject.46 It could be that instead of guiding the reader on a pilgrimage to Zion where Yahweh reigns, these psalms are pointing to a different subject who reigns from Zion on behalf of Yahweh (cf. Ps. 2.6). Thus, the pilgrimage is to a person, not a place.47 Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger

In the commentary of Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3, the presentation of Book V’s organization represents a significant modification— one could even say a total abandonment—of Erich Zenger’s proposal in his article “The Composition of the Fifth Book of Psalms, Psalms 107–145.” More concerned with diachronic development, the commentary posits a progressively expanding Psalter. With respect to Book V (properly, Psalms 107–145), they contend that there were two main redactional additions: Psalms 107–136 and 138–145. Psalms 107–136 represent a collection of psalms focused on Zion, especially the restoration of Zion that occurred after the return of the exiles. Hossfeld and Zenger assert that this group is a unity based on the hôdâ formula that begins Psalms 107, 118, and 136. These psalms highlight the main themes of this section: Yahweh’s goodness, graciousness, and steadfast love. These attributes are made manifest in “Israel’s rescue, restoration, and renewal, which began as a second exodus (Psalms 113–118) and continues in the pilgrimage to Zion as the center of Israel (Psalms 120–134).”48 They refer to the Psalter at this stage of development (Psalms 2–136) as “the Psalter of Zion,” arguing that the addition of Psalms 107–136 was accomplished by (Levitical) Temple singers The word “subject” is being used here in the sense of acting and/or grammatical subject, not in the sense of topic. To be sure, Zenger is not arguing that this is a literal pilgrimage to the place of Zion. Nevertheless, he does contend that the pilgrimage is to a spiritual/metaphorical place where one meets a person, not to the person himself. 48 Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150, trans. Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 2. 46

47



Research on Book V

75

around 400 bce. The groups within this larger collection are: 107; 108–110; 111–112; 113–118; 119; 120–134; 135–136. In this organization, Psalm 119 acts as a transition psalm from the “Passover Hallel” (Psalms 113–118), with its emphasis on exodus (from exile), to the “Pilgrim Psalter” (Psalms 120–134), with its emphasis on pilgrimage to Zion. Because of its significant placement, Psalm 119 demonstrates that “the Torah is the means of survival in the midst of a hostile world.”49 The next stage in the development added Psalms 138–145 to the existing “Psalter of Zion.” This Davidic collection shaped the Psalter into a five-part book that could now be viewed as the “Torah of David,” which brought it into correspondence with the five-part “Torah of Moses.” According to Hossfeld and Zenger, the role of David as a figure (whether historical or eschatological) is muted in these final psalms, which emphasize instead Yahweh’s universal royal rule and His care for the poor. Psalm 137, which receives almost no attention and comes off as an afterthought within Book V, was inserted as a “bridge text” between Psalms 135–136 and 138–145 in this redaction. Finally, Psalms 146–150 concluded the Psalter, creating the book as it stands now, a Book of Praises (Sefer Tehillim). These psalms maintain the themes presented in Psalms 138–145, especially Psalm 145, namely, Yahweh’s royal rule and His care for the poor. Again, the Davidic character is subdued, giving way to the democratization of his role among the poor, righteous, and faithful. Hossfeld and Zenger “imagine this redaction taking place between 200 and 150 bce, in the context of the struggle against the Seleucids, but it could have been completed as early as the third century.”50 It seems odd that Zenger’s laudable organization of Book V in “The Composition of the Fifth Book of Psalms” did not find its way into the commentary he co-wrote with Hossfeld. A few updates and minor variations would be expected, but the organization presented in the commentary differs both in delineation of the groups and the criteria used to substantiate their unity. Most notably, the literary features within the groups yield prominence to diachronic concerns and putative developments.

Ibid., 284. Ibid., 7.

49 50

76

The Return of the King

One of the pitfalls of diachronic study (this also applies also to Leuenberger’s work) is the speculative nature of developmental hypotheses.51 For instance, Hossfeld and Zenger contend that Psalms 107–136 were added as one redactional layer by Temple singers around 400 bce. Each component of that statement cannot be supported with clear, concrete evidence. If it can be supposed that the hôdâ formula ties Psalms 107–136 together as one unit, could it not be just as easily supposed that Psalms 107–118 were first added to the Psalter, and then Psalms 119–136 followed? This would maintain the binding function of the hôdâ formula, but it leads to a different result. Moreover, how can the identity of the redactors (Temple singers) and the date of the redaction (400 bce) be substantiated with any level of certainty? Hossfeld and Zenger do not adduce a tradition or a historical circumstance that buttresses their position. Their diachronic hypothesis relies largely on scholarly fiat.

Conclusion In this chapter the leading proposals for the structure of Book V were outlined. Each scholar’s delineation of the overall structure of the book was presented, as well as—when applicable—their reasoning for it. Two general schematics for Book V emerged. The first was called the ‫הללו־יה‬/‫ הודו‬Taxonomy because the boundary markers ‫הללו־יה‬/‫ הודו‬dominate the divisions. The second schematic was referred to as the Variegated Taxonomy because it utilizes a wide range of criteria for demarcating groups. In light of the scholarship summarized in this chapter, three concluding points need to be made. First, the bounds of this study are Psalms 107 and 150. In contrast, certain scholars transgress the traditional book boundary and read Psalms 105–107 as a group, thus initiating their investigation of “Book V” at either Psalm 105 or 108. Some scholars, such as Hartmut Gese, have rejected the book divisions as redactional impositions that do not respect

This is the primary reason why this dissertation has jettisoned diachronic questions, favoring a synchronic analysis of the final form of the MT instead. This is not to say that diachronic investigation is invalid or unhelpful; rather, diachronic studies must submit to a rigorous set of controls that inhibit imaginative speculation, thus necessitating an intensive study that would extend beyond the bounds of this project.

51



Research on Book V

77

the natural boundaries of smaller collections.52 More recently, Ballhorn has argued that the doxology at the end of Psalm 106 (v. 48) concludes the psalm and not necessarily an entire book. He sees Pss. 66.20, 68.36, and 135.21 as parallels.53 The issue is especially acute with Psalms 105–107, since they share a ‫ הודו‬introduction and other thematic and lexical similarities. In defense of the traditional book boundary, however, is the similarity of the doxologies at the end of the books (as will be demonstrated later). Psalm 106.48 has more in common with them than with the three examples given by Ballhorn. Moreover, Ahn helpfully observes that Psalm 107 differs from the previous psalms in the distribution of the phrase ‫הללו־יה‬. She notes that Psalms 104 and 105 have ‫ הללו־יה‬at the end and Psalm 106 has it at the beginning and end. Psalm 107, on the other hand, lacks it. This may have been an indication to the redactor that there was a caesura between Psalms 106 and 107.54 It seems most plausible, therefore, to begin this study of Book V at Psalm 107. Second, is there enough value in the ‫הללו־יה‬/‫ הודו‬taxonomy to merit its adoption? Although there is good evidence in favor of it (see especially Leuenberger’s argumentation), two significant critiques vitiate its persuasiveness. First, there are strong correspondences between Psalms 118 and 113–117, and especially between Psalms 135 and 136. Yet, by creating fissures at Psalms 117/118 and 135/136, the ‫הללו־יה‬/‫ הודו‬taxonomy separates these similar psalms. In fact, the correspondences are so close that Kratz, a proponent of the ‫הללו־יה‬/‫ הודו‬taxonomy, posits an older phase of the Psalms in which 118 and 136 were included with their predecessors.55 Second, Psalm 119 fits awkwardly into this schema. Wilson argues that “the massive presence of Psalm 119, along with its clear relation to the introductory Ps 1 with its blessing on the student of Torah (1:1-2) and its emphasis on the contrasting “ways” of the righteous and wicked (1:3-6), make it difficult not to view this See Hartmut Gese, “Die Entstehung der Büchereinteilung des Psalters,” in Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch: Beiträge zu Psalmen und Propheten, ed. Josef Schreiner, Forschung zur Bibel 2 (Würzburg: Echter, 1972), 57–64; Notker Füglister, “Die Verwendung und das Verständnis der Psalmen und des Psalters um die Zeitenwende,” in Beiträge zur Psalmenforschung: Psalm 2 und 22, ed. Josef Schreiner, Forschung zur Bibel 60 (Würzburg: Echter, 1988), 319–84, esp. 341–2. 53 Ballhorn, Zum Telos, 134–6. 54 Ahn, “I Salmi,” 179–80. She also mentions the correspondences between Psalms 90 and 105–106, correspondences which are lacking in 107. See also Tiziano Lorenzin, I Salmi: nuova versione, introduzione e commento, Primo Testamento 14 (Milan: Figlie di San Paolo, 2001), 409 n. 40. 55 See Kratz, “Die Tora,” 30, esp. n. 76. Leuenberger maintains a similar position to Kratz; see idem, Konzeptionen, 276–82. Wilson also recognizes the parallels between Psalms 118 and 113–117; see idem, Editing, 223. 52

78

The Return of the King

ps as the focus of this central section [Psalms 118–135].”56 But that seems like special pleading since Psalm 119 is only one of eighteen psalms in the group and it is not located in a significant position—that is, it is not the first psalm, last psalm, or in the middle.57 Consequently, the variegated approach will be adopted in this study because it can accommodate the evidence of Book V better than the ‫הללו־יה‬/‫ הודו‬taxonomy. Finally, and this critique applies to both approaches, it should be observed that many authors find it difficult to account for Psalms 119 and 137. They are consistently the problem texts. Koch represents the counsel of despair since he simply eschews them as post-compositional additions.58 But he is not alone in struggling with their placement. The pitfalls of how Psalm 119 fits within the ‫הללו־יה‬/‫ הודו‬taxonomy have been summarized above—second position in a group seems odd for a psalm that has such individual distinctiveness—but the same could be said for Psalm 137. And that seems to be the issue with both of these psalms: they are individually distinct. The sheer size of Psalm 119 sets it apart, along with its complex acrostic form and its clear emphasis on Torah, which is made all the more significant since it is the only psalm in Book V to use the word “Torah.” Psalm 137, on the other hand, does not share the ‫ הללו־יה‬or ‫ הודו‬of the previous two psalms, and it lacks the ‫ לדוד‬superscription of the following psalms, and then there is its biting and visceral content. Consequently, there is no consistency in how these psalms are treated. The strength of a proposal regarding the organization of Book V is, then, related to how seamlessly these two psalms fit—a challenge that this study takes seriously.

Ibid. See Zenger, “Composition,” 88. Koch, “Der Psalter,” 255, 258.

56 57 58

6 R E A D I N G F R OM T H E B E G I N N I N G : T H E B O O K O F P S A L M S A S B O OK

I operate under the assumption that the Psalter is a unified text and, consequently, should be read as such—that is, with a storyline and a literary context.1 The psalms under consideration in this study appear at the end of the Psalter. If my underlying assumption is true, then it should be expected that Psalms 107–150 are related to and build on the psalms that precede.2 The purpose of this chapter is to outline the major storyline(s) present within the Psalter so that Book V can be studied in its proper literary context. This will be done by analyzing the psalms that influence the narrative arc of the Psalter most clearly—Psalms 1–2 and 89. Not only will I study each psalm individually but I will also make a case for why these psalms should be considered most significant to the plotline of Psalms. Then, I will summarize the key words and dominant motifs that emerge from these psalms. Finally, the chapter will conclude with a brief synopsis of the storyline of the Psalter up to Book V—that is, from Psalms 1 to 106.

It should be noted that this is not simply a blind assumption. It is derived from the overviews of editorial criticism referenced in the previous three chapters, and it is also related to the insights from text-linguistics and poetics mentioned earlier. 2 An interesting corollary to this point is that Psalms 107–150 have a profound effect on the narrative arc of the whole because they occur at the conclusion. (For examples of how the conclusion to a biblical book influences the way the whole work is read, see Deut. 34.10-12 (the Pentateuch); Josh. 22–24; Judg. 21.25; 2 Kgs 25.27-30 (1–2 Kings); Job 42; Eccl. 12.9-14; Hos. 14.9.) Book V is integral to the interpretation of the whole because it is the last word. Consider this statement from Gerald Henry Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBLDS 76 (Chico, CA: Scholar’s Press, 1985), 11: “While this movement [to unify the 150 psalms into a coherent whole] is not a totally new rearrangement of all 150 pss, it does move consistently and purposefully and so joins and arranges early collections, individual pss and later groupings, that the final product speaks the message intended by the final editor(s); a message which is distinct from and which intends to supersede [my emphasis] that of the earlier pss-collections on which it is partly based.” This chapter will investigate the psalms that occur at two of the most significant junctures of a storyline: the beginning and middle. The rest of the work will focus on the final significant juncture: the end. 1

80

The Return of the King

Implications of a Unified Text Narrative theory elucidates the implications of reading the book of Psalms as a unified text because it seeks to answer the fundamental question, “What is a story, or what is a narrative?” Building from the foundational work in the previous chapter on text-linguistics, which provides the categories for reading the Psalter as a unified text, narrative theory extends the inquiry one step further to establish that there can be a storyline to a unified text such as the Psalter. Text-linguistics sets the parameters for what can be considered a unified text; narrative theory helps to pursue what the storyline of that unified text is. Most theoreticians trace the roots of the discipline back to Aristotle’s Poetics, in which the famed tutor of Alexander the Great outlines the key elements of what he deems “poetry” but what most scholars understand to mean “story” or “narrative.” In the treatise, Aristotle focuses almost exclusively on the nature of tragedies, but the components of tragedy delineated by Aristotle have a wider application than to just one genre. Mimesis, or representation, is the foundational aspect of his theory. A story is a type of representation. Aristotle most succinctly describes the components of mimesis in this way: “Tragedy as a whole, therefore, must have six components, which give it its qualities— namely, plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle, and lyric poetry. The media of the mimesis are two components [diction, lyric poetry], its mode one [spectacle], and its objects three [plot, character, thought]; there are no others.”3 Because the media referenced by Aristotle are more related to style, and because the mode has to do with the production, they are not as applicable to narrative theory per se. It is the objects of mimesis—plot, character, and thought—that have most influenced narrative theorists. For Aristotle, a story must represent some kind of action (plot) performed by some kind of actor (character) that makes some kind of point (thought). Of the three components, plot is the most important, followed by character and then thought. Aristotle goes on to define plot more particularly as a “whole” action; that is, an action that has “a beginning, middle, and end.”4 This famous dictum, Aristotle, Poetics, ed. and trans. Stephen Halliwell, Loeb Classical Library 199 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), 6. Ibid., 7.

3

4



Reading from the Beginning

81

although seemingly unsophisticated, continues to influence the discussion about narrative theory. Fast-forwarding to the present day, narrative theorists have recognized that defining narrative can be “fuzzy.”5 Even after a century of contributions from New Criticism, Russian Formalism, French Structuralism, and the Prague school, an objective definition of “narrative” or “literature” or “poetry” has proven elusive. Definitions proved to be too restrictive, unable to account for various kinds of narrative.6 Consequently, narratology scholars have increasingly resorted to the concept of “narrativity”—that is, elements of narrative. Instead of a strict dichotomy between narrative and non-narrative, the concept of narrativity allows for the distinction to be more akin to a continuum. H. Porter Abbott describes the concept in this way: The term’s advantage in this postclassical renaissance is built into its grammatical status as a reference to a property or properties rather than to a thing or class. As what one might call an “adjectival” noun, narrativity suggests connotatively a felt quality, something that may not be entirely definable or may be subject to gradations. [Marie-Laure] Ryan’s distinction between “being a narrative” and “possessing narrativity” brings out the difference: where a narrative is a “semiotic object,” narrativity consists in “being able to inspire a narrative response.” This flexibility and comparative freedom from restrictive categorizing (must a narrative have more than one event? [→ Event and Eventfulness] must narrative events be causally connected? [(→ Coherence)] must they involve human or humanlike entities? [→ Character] also gives the term a certain user-friendliness. To adapt Ryan’s language, if we ask: “Does Finnegans Wake have more or less narrativity than Little Red Riding Hood?” we will get For more on the concept of narrativity, see René Audet, “Narrativity: Away from Story, Close to Eventness,” in Narrativity: How Visual Arts, Cinema and Literature are Telling the World Today, eds. René Audet et al. (Paris: Dis Voir, 2007), 7–35; Fotis Jannidis, “Narratology and the Narrative,” in What Is Narratology? Questions and Answers Regarding the Status of a Theory, ed. T. Kindt and H.-H. Müller (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 35–54; Marie-Laure Ryan, “Semantics, Pragmatics, and Narrativity: A Response to David Rudrum,” Narrative 14 (2006): 188–96; idem, “Toward a Definition of Narrative,” in The Cambridge Companion to Narrative, ed. D. Herman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 22–35, esp. 28; Meir Sternberg, “Telling in Time (II): Chronology, Teleology, Narrativity,” Poetics Today 13 (1992): 463–541; idem, “How Narrativity Makes a Difference,” Narrative 9 (2001): 115–22; Philip J. M. Sturgess, Narrativity: Theory and Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992). The term “fuzzy” is borrowed from H. Porter Abbott, “Narrativity,” in Handbook of Narratology, ed. Peter Hühn et al., Narratologia 19 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 310. 6 Many definitions of narrative have been heavily influenced by one particular author, thus the definition has been crafted around the style of that author. Aristotle, for instance, relies on Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad; Roland Barthes on Rabelais; and Mikhail Bakhtin on Dostoevsky. Although Homer, Rabelais, and Dostoevsky wrote exemplary narratives, much that should be considered narrative cannot be accounted for because the standard set by these authors is given too much emphasis. 5

82

The Return of the King much broader agreement than if we ask “Is Finnegans Wake a narrative?” In short, if narrative itself is a “fuzzy concept,” narrativity is a term more closely attuned to its fuzziness.7

But can “narrativity” be defined with any specificity? Marie-Laure Ryan proposes eight conditions of narrativity—starting with the most general and narrowing to more specific—that help clarify what can and cannot be called a narrative. Those eight conditions are: (1) Narrative must be about a world populated by individual existents. (2) This world must be situated in time and undergo significant transformations. (3) The transformations must be caused by non-habitual physical events. (4) Some of the participants in the events must be intelligent agents who have a mental life and react emotionally to the states of the world. (5) Some of the events must be purposeful actions by these agents. (6) The sequence of events must form a unified causal chain and lead to closure. (7) The occurrence of at least some of the events must be asserted as fact for the storyworld. (8) The story must communicate something meaningful to the audience.8

And Psalms meets many of these criteria. In the storyworld of Psalms, there is a righteous king who is threatened by enemies, some physical—such as unruly nations; some immaterial—such as death or Sheol. Thus there are “individuated existents.” Transformation occurs within the storyline as the prominent royal figure of the early books fades into insignificance later in Book IV. This transformation is caused by a crisis, or a “non-habitual physical event,” most likely described in Psalm 89.9 Finally, it can be said that the royal figure “react[s] emotionally to the states of the world.” Consequently, the first four conditions of narrativity can be discerned in the Psalter. Rick Altman, in A Theory of Narrative, incorporates many of the insights about narrativity already discussed. There, he argues that three components are Abbott, “Narrativity,” 310. The works by Marie-Laure Ryan referenced in this quotation are idem, “On the Theoretical Foundations of Transmedial Narratology,” in Narratology beyond Literary Criticism: Mediality, Disciplinarity (sic), ed. J. Ch. Meister (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 1–23; idem, Avatars of Story: Narrative Modes in Old and New Media (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006). 8 Ryan, “Toward,” 29. 9 See below for a defense of this. 7



Reading from the Beginning

83

required for narrative—narrative material, narrational activity, and narrative drive—and that these components are “open to a more inclusive range of texts and experiences.”10 Narrative material “encompasses the minimal textual characteristics necessary to produce narrative.”11 For Altman, that means action and character. Something must happen to someone. Or, to quote Altman, “The existence of narrative depends on the simultaneous and coordinated presence of action and character. Narratives are not made of characters here and actions there but of characters acting.”12 But action and character are not sufficient to create a narrative; there must also be narrational activity. Narrational activity consists of both following and framing. Following refers to the intentional sequencing of action such that the audience senses a progression in the storyline. Framing, on the other hand, has to do with the bounds of the story. Both of these require a narrator of some sort (this can include a movie director or a campaign manager, according to Altman). When these concepts are related to the classic Aristotelian definition of narrative, following is the middle and framing is the beginning and end. Altman uses the example of a soap opera to illustrate the difference: a soap opera is all following without framing. You can join the storyline at any point without much difficulty, and yet there is rarely, if ever, any type of final resolution. Thus soap operas contain “some” narrative, while “a” narrative must be framed.13 Finally, Altman includes narrative drive in his definition of narrative. He argues that “while it [narrative drive] may be conditioned by textual characteristics, it can never be wholly dependent on elements that are internal to the text. In other words, without narrative drive on the part of the reader, texts are not read as narrative.”14 An example of narrative material and narrational activity that lacks narrative drive is [t]he Blackhawk Films version of D. W. Griffith’s classic thriller short, The Lonedale Operator. Instead of stressing the growing love affair between the train engineer and the telegraph operator, Blackhawk’s version provides an insert describing the locomotive visible on the screen. Rather than attend to the burglars’ attack, another insert explains that the locomotive is pointing in Rick Altman, A Theory of Narrative (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008), 2. Ibid., 10. 12 Ibid., 15. 13 See ibid., 15–18. 14 Ibid., 19. 10 11

The Return of the King

84

the wrong direction. Initially distributed to railroad fans, Blackhawk’s infamous version of The Lonedale Operator substitutes what we might whimsically term “locomotive drive” for “narrative drive.”15

What is often the case, however, is that the presence of narrative material and narrational activity arouse narrative drive. Consequently, the three components are closely connected. Altman then goes on to describe three different types of narrative: singlefocus, dual-focus, and multiple-focus. Dual-focus narratives pit two characters or groups against one another in one system; the system dominates the story and transcends the characters. Dual-focus narratives are typically stories about transcendental values and timeless truths. Single-focus narratives, on the other hand, follow one character, and this character dominates the storyline, for better or for worse. The character may be evil or noble, it matters not which, because the story is solely concerned with the character qua character. It is multiple-focus narratives, however, that are most applicable to this study. Multiple-focus narratives often incorporate single-focus and dual-focus narratives, but the meaning of the multiple-focus narrative transcends (by incorporating) the meaning/s of the single-focus and dual-focus narratives. Altman explains: Whereas single-focus and dual-focus authors are usually presented as creators, the multiple-focus author is often styled as the editor of preexisting material. An art of juxtaposition rather than invention, multiple-focus narration does not need to create the materials from which it is built. Whether the raw material of individual multiple-focus following-units is traditional (Grail romances), narrated by someone other than the principal narrator (story collections, “Spanish Inn” novels), written by someone other than the principal narrator (multiple-writer epistolary novels), historical (the late-nineteenth-century novel), derived from stock footage (historical documentary films), assembled from existing fragments of reality (cubism), or made up of interviews (newspaper articles), this raw material gains its specifically multiple-focus sense only when integrated by an editor into a coherent—albeit interlaced—narrative.16

Consequently, the Psalms should be considered a multiple-focus narrative because a principal narrator/editor has collected and juxtaposed single-focus Ibid., 20. Ibid., 252.

15 16



Reading from the Beginning

85

and dual-focus narratives into a coherent narrative whose collective meaning transcends the meaning of each individual psalm. Regarding this transcendence of meaning, Altman contends: The multiple-focus nature of Spanish Inn episodes (which often occur in texts otherwise organized according to single-focus principles) depends on the inclusion of numerous independent stories which, told by different individuals, have no apparent unity of plot, theme, or tone. The Renaissance story collection gains its complexity from the multivalence of individual stories. However we may interpret any individual tale in The Decameron or The Heptameron, juxtaposition of that tale to other tales told on the same day (or other tales told by the same storyteller) forces us to build a new interpretive framework, separate from the strategy used for reading individual tales.17

This kind of multiple-focus understanding does justice to the salience of the individual psalms, which are typically single-focus and dual-focus in perspective, while leaving room for an interpretation of the Psalms as a whole.18 The Psalter, then, displays characteristics of narrativity and should be interpreted as a multiple-focus narrative. Although it is not a narrative like The Brothers Karamazov, or even Samuel or Kings, for example, the Psalter as a whole should be read with an overarching narrative framework in view. Put simply, and most classically, the Psalter has a beginning, middle, and end, and there is one dominant character (the royal/Davidic figure) who acts. Consequently, the Psalter should be read with sensitivity toward the storyline and literary context of the entire book. This understanding has been shaped by investigating narrative theory—specifically the notion of narrativity; and types of narrative—specifically multiple-focus narrative.19 Ibid., 254. Compare the analysis of John H. Walton in idem, “Psalms: A Cantata about the Davidic Covenant,” JETS 34 (1991): 24: “The hypothesis that I have developed views the Psalms as a cantata around the theme of the Davidic covenant. The cantata analogy is helpful for it carries with it the idea that many of the pieces may not have been composed specifically for the cantata. Rather, compositions created for other reasons at other times have been woven together into a secondary framework in order to address a particular subject.” 19 It could be argued that narrative criticism (and the same could be said about text-linguistics from the previous chapter) does not apply to poetic texts such as the Psalms. But this line of reasoning assumes that poetic texts are, by nature, non-narrative. It unnecessarily conflates two categories (poetry and non-narrative), while failing to distinguish between two separate dyads: prose/poetry and narrative/non-narrative. Poetry is not the opposite of narrative; rather, it stands in distinction to prose. But both prose and poetry can be narratives, and both prose and poetry can be non-narratives. Examples of poetic texts that are narratives (or better, display narrativity) include the works 17 18

86

The Return of the King

Key Psalms in the Psalter Working from the assumption that the Psalter displays narrativity, the question now becomes, “What is the storyline of the book?” The purpose of this section is to highlight the psalms that occur at the most significant junctures of the book—the beginning and middle—in order to better understand the literary context of the end (Book V). Psalms 1–2 as the introduction

The introduction influences the direction of a narrative. Consequently, delineating the introduction to a work has important interpretive significance. While editorial critics seem to be agreed that there is an introduction to the Psalms, the question is: where is it? Is it Psalm 1, or is it Psalms 1 and 2 together? I will argue from the perspective that Psalms 1 and 2 together constitute the introduction.20 Lexical links between the two psalms lend support to this position. At the most cursory level, roots like ‫( נתן‬1.3; 2.8) and ‫עת‬/‫( עתה‬1.3; 2.10) connect the two. More significant is the placement of some of these links. For instance, ‫ אשׁרי‬forms an inclusio within the psalms (1.1; 2.12). The root ‫ הגה‬appears at the beginning of both works (1.2; 2.1). And the roots ‫ אבד‬and ‫ דרך‬occur together at the end of both psalms (1.6; 2.12). Furthermore, each psalm lacks a superscription, which is unusual within Book I—the only other psalms that do not have a superscription are 10 and 33, and there are textual traditions that join them with the previous psalm. Other thematic links bind the two psalms, such as the apparent correlation between the wicked of Psalm 1 (vv. 4–6) with the rebellious kings of Chapter 2 (vv. 2–3).21 of William Shakespeare, John Milton’s Paradise Lost, Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, The Song of Roland and Beowulf, Virgil’s Aeneid, and Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. It is worthy of note that these poetic narratives are all rather ancient, which may indicate that the disassociation of poetry and narrative is a recent phenomenon. 20 See Robert Cole, Psalms 1–2: A Gateway to the Psalter, Hebrew Bible Monographs 37 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011) for a more thorough study into the individual analysis of these psalms, as well as how these psalms correspond to one another. 21 See also, Pierre Auffret, The Literary Structure of Psalm 2, JSOT Sup 3 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1977); Robert Cole, “An Integrated Reading of Psalms 1 and 2,” JSOT 98 (2002): 75–88; David M. Howard, Jr., The Structure of Psalms 93–100, UCSD Biblical and Judaic Studies 5 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 202–5; idem, “The Proto-MT Psalter, the King, and Psalms 1 and 2: A Response to Klaus Seybold,” in Jewish and Christian Approaches to the Psalter: Conflict and Convergence, ed. S. Gillingham (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 182–9; Patrick D. Miller, “The Beginning



Reading from the Beginning

87

Some scholars dispute this, however. They contend that Psalm 1 should be understood as the introduction by itself. John T. Willis, for instance, adduces the different forms of the two psalms (wisdom and royal, respectively), the weak verbal and thematic parallels between the two, their divergent subject matter and setting, and the overwhelming manuscript evidence in favor of viewing these psalms as distinct units. He also recognizes that each psalm stands on its own well enough; the other is not needed to complete either one.22 Gerald Henry Wilson develops his thesis based on the work of Willis and the resemblance shared by Psalms 2, 41, 72, and 89. In light of these parallels, Wilson argues that Psalm 2 began an early collection of psalms (2–89), and that Psalm 1 was added to introduce the Psalter as a whole.23 Following a similar line of reasoning, Walter Brueggemann contends, “The Psalter begins with Psalm 1, placed there intentionally as a preface to the entire collection.”24 It should be noted, however, that Willis’s argument is not against whether Psalms 1 and 2 should be read together as one unit, but whether they should be read together as one psalm.25 My position is not that Psalms 1 and 2 should be considered one psalm, but rather that these two distinct psalms form an introductory unit. Moreover, Wilson appears to have mitigated his position in a later work. In his Psalms commentary in the NIVAC series he acknowledges three levels of meaning for Psalm 2, one of which is “the enduring function of the psalm in its present connection with Psalm 1 as a joint introduction to the

of the Psalter,” in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann, Jr., JSOT Sup 159 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 83–92; G. T. Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), 142–3; W. D. Tucker, Jr., “Psalms 1: Book of,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, ed. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 578–93. 22 John T. Willis, “Psalm 1—An Entity,” ZAW 9 (1979): 381–401. 23 Wilson, Editing, 204–6. See also idem, “Shaping the Psalter: A Consideration of Editorial Linkage in the Book of Psalms,” in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann, JSOT Sup 159 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 74, 80; idem, “Understanding the Purposeful Arrangement of Psalms in the Psalter: Pitfalls and Promise,” in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann, JSOT Sup 159 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 44. 24 Walter Brueggemann, “Bounded by Obedience and Praise: The Psalms as Canon,” JSOT 50 (1991): 64. 25 Willis makes this point clearly at the beginning and end of his article. He is refuting the notion that “Ps 1 and 2 were originally a single piece” (381), which leads to the conclusion that “the overwhelming thrust of the evidence warrants the conclusion that Ps 1 and 2 are not a single psalm, but two separate self-contained entities” (400–1). He is specifically addressing William H. Brownlee’s overzealous article, “Psalms 1–2 as a Coronation Liturgy,” Biblica 52 (1971): 321–36. Brownlee emphasizes the ancient tradition that Psalms 1–2 were one psalm.

88

The Return of the King

complete and final form of the canonical Psalter.”26 It seems best, therefore, to conclude that Psalms 1 and 2 form the introduction to the Psalter as a whole. Psalm 1: Individual analysis

Psalm 1 can be divided into three stanzas.27 The first stanza includes verses 1–3, which describe the righteous man. Verse 1 uses kinesiological imagery to illustrate what actions the righteous man does not take. Verse 2, then, presents what the righteous man does—that is, he delights in and meditates on Yahweh’s instruction. Strong parallels exist between verse 2 and Deuteronomy 17.14-20, suggesting that the man of these verses should be viewed in a “royal” light. Arboreal imagery dominates verse 3, picturing the righteous man as a healthy, fruitful tree—a sign of Yahweh’s blessing.28 A break occurs at verse 4, initiating the second stanza, because the wicked ones now come to the fore. They are compared to chaff, which corresponds to the arboreal imagery used to describe the righteous man. Whereas the righteous man is like a stable, sturdy tree, even the wind can remove the wicked. Regarding chaff, the eschatological connotation with judgment should also not be missed.29 Verse 5 describes what the wicked will not do—that is, arise in the judgment. This verse corresponds to verse 1, where the righteous man is portrayed by what he does not do. The third stanza is made up of verse 6, which provides a fitting summary to the poem. In this verse, the “man” of verses 1–3 is expanded to “people,” and the two opposing perspectives are clearly contrasted. The structure can be displayed as follows:30 A: The righteous man (vv. 1–3) 1) What he does not do (v. 1) Gerald H. Wilson, Psalms, vol. 1, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 114. See also idem, “King, Messiah, and the Reign of God: Revisiting the Royal Psalms and the Shape of the Psalter,” in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, eds. P. W. Flint and P. D. Miller, Jr., VTS 99 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 391–406; idem, “The Structure of the Psalter,” in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches, eds. P. Johnston and D. Firth (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), 229–46. 27 The terminology used to differentiate among different blocks of poetic texts is as follows: colon: a thought unit, phrase; bi/tri-colon: a collection of related thought units; verse: the verse as marked in the MT; stanza: a collection of related bi/tri-cola; strophe: a collection of related stanzas. 28 Cf. Lev. 26.3-4; Jer. 17.7-8. 29 Cf. Isa. 17.13; 29.5; Hos. 13.3. See also, Gianni Barbiero, Das erste Psalmenbuch als Einheit, Österreichische Biblische Studien 16 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999), 39–40. 30 This structure is essentially corroborated by Walter Vogels, “A Structural Analysis of Psalm 1,” Biblica 60 (1979): 410–16, esp. 411. 26



Reading from the Beginning

89

a) Walk in the counsel of the wicked b) Stand in the way of sinners c) Sit in the seat of scoffers 2) What he does do (v. 2) a) Delight in Torah b) Meditate on Torah 3) What he is like (v. 3) a) A tree i) Planted by streams of water ii) Bears its fruit in its season iii) Its leaf does not wither b) Everything he does, prospers B: The wicked ones (vv. 4–5) 1) What they are like (v. 4) a) Unstable chaff 2) What they will not do (v. 5) a) Arise in the judgment b) Arise in the assembly of the righteous AB: Summary point (v. 6) 1) The Lord knows the way of the righteous 2) The way of the wicked will perish Psalm 1 is typically classified as a “wisdom” psalm by form-critics because of its didactic nature.31 It contrasts the two ways—between the righteous and the wicked—implicitly encouraging the reader to choose the way of the righteous. It is significant, however, that the first three verses of the psalm focus on an individual man, portraying him as the righteous one. It is only in the final verse that the class “righteous” includes more than one individual.

See Hermann Gunkel with Joachim Begrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen: Die Gattungen der religiösen Lyrik Israels, Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1933), 385; Artur Weiser, The Psalms, trans. Herbert Hartwell, Old Testament Library (London: SCM Press, 1962), 89; John T. Willis, “Psalm 1—An Entity,” ZAW 9 (1979): 392; Bernhard W. Anderson labels it a “Torah” psalm, which he says is “closely related to the wisdom psalms”; see idem with Steven Bishop, Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for us Today, 3rd edn, rev. and exp. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 190.

31

90

The Return of the King

Psalm 2: Individual analysis

In Psalm 2, two types of kings are contrasted, and as in Psalm 1, the contrast is between a wicked group and a righteous individual. The group of kings is described as rebellious and unruly, blatantly opposing the authority of Yahweh. The individual king is referred to as Yahweh’s son, the anointed of Yahweh whom he has installed on Mount Zion. It is not simply a contrast between two groups, however, because Yahweh figures prominently in this psalm. In fact, Psalm 2 is structured along the bounds of the three different characters. The structure can be displayed as follows: A : The rebellious kings (vv. 1–3) third-person description (vv. 1–2) first-person address (v. 3) B : The heavenly king (vv. 4–6) third-person description (vv. 4–5) first-person address (v. 6) B' : The anointed king (vv. 7–9) All first-person address A' : Instruction for the rebellious kings (vv. 10–12) All third-person address The first stanza of Psalm 2, verses 1–3, presents the rebellious kings of the earth. They are described in the third person in verses 1–2 as rebellious schemers, and then they speak for themselves in the first person in verse 3, confirming their rebelliousness.32 Then in the second stanza, Yahweh is depicted in the third person in verses 4–5. The text says that he laughs at the threats of the rebellious kings, even mocking them.33 He then addresses the kings in the first person (v. 6), reminding them what he has already done—namely, install his king on Mount Zion. The third stanza, verses 7–9, contains a first-person address by Yahweh’s anointed king. The king recounts all that has been decreed about him, including his relation to Yahweh (v. 7), his inheritance from Yahweh (v. 8), and the manner of his rule (v. 9).34 Finally, This alternation between third and first person occurs throughout the psalm. See Prov. 1.26, where ‫ לעג‬and ‫ שׂחק‬are used in parallel as “wisdom’s” responses to rebellion. 34 When the preposition ‫ אֶל‬occurs with the Piel of ‫ספר‬, it marks that which is being announced. See Ps. 69.27. 32 33



Reading from the Beginning

91

the rebellious kings re-enter the picture, this time addressed by the narrator. This comprises the fourth stanza, verses 10–12. Each consecutive verse in the fourth stanza is related to the previous three stanzas, in order—that is, verse 10 is related to stanza 1, verse 11 to stanza 2, and verse 12 to stanza 3. In verse 10, the kings are counseled to be wise (‫ ׂשכל‬Hiphil). This corresponds to what the kings said in verse 3 of the first stanza: “Let us throw off (‫ׁשלך‬ Hiphil) their ropes.” The kings are commanded to serve Yahweh with fear in verse 11, and Yahweh is the central character of the second stanza. Then in verse 12, the imperatives are all related to the son (‫)בר‬, who is the speaker of the third stanza. Key words that emerge from these psalms

The observation that Psalms 1–2 function together as the introduction to the Psalter has interpretive significance. Instead of simply interpreting Psalm 1 by itself and Psalm 2 by itself, another layer of interpretation is added—namely, how each psalm influences the interpretation of the other. And when read together, a royal theme emerges from these two psalms. In The King as Exemplar, Jamie Grant contends that the editing of the Psalter was heavily influenced by Deuteronomic theology, especially the kingship law found in Deut. 17.14-20. When he examines Psalms 1–2, he understands that the individual figures of the two psalms represent the same person—the ideal king as explicated in Deuteronomy 17. He writes: Ps 1 celebrates the law of the Lord and Ps 2 the reign of Yahweh and the co-reign of his anointed king. The only task assigned the king in Deut 17 is that he should “write out for himself on a scroll a copy of this law” (v. 18). That scroll is “to be with him and he is to read it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to revere Yahweh his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and the decrees … and he is not to turn from it to the left or to the right” (vv. 19–20). Deut 17 presents a picture of kingship which cannot be separated from a life of devotion to Yahweh through the study and keeping of his torah: Ps 1 presents a picture of exactly this type of torah-piety. Ps 2 represents an eschatological hope for the restoration of Yahweh’s king, but he is a king who is entirely dependent upon God rather than the trappings of kingship, as is the instruction of Deut 17:16-17. Furthermore, he is to be an exemplar of the piety represented by Ps 1, as is indicated by the close lexical links between the two psalms, in much the

92

The Return of the King same way as Deut 17 presents Israel’s king as an example of true devotion to Yahweh.35

Grant sees a close connection between the man (‫ )ׁאיש‬of Psalm 1 and the king anointed by Yahweh in Psalm 2. And he is not alone.36 Patrick Miller also sees the connection in his essay “The Beginning of the Psalter.” He argues: One recognizes a major link between Psalms 1 and 2 that is provided by Deuteronomy in its latest editorial stages. In the Deuteronomic law of the king, the ruler is given only one responsibility, one assignment. It is to have “a copy of this law” (Deut 17:18) with him always, to read in it all the days of his life, and to learn to fear the Lord by keeping all its words. In the Deuteronomic ideal of human rule, the ’îš or “one” whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and who meditates on it continually, is the king.37

According to Miller, Psalm 2 portrays the ideal human ruler, and the man of Psalm 1 is described as doing what the ideal ruler should do—meditating on the Torah. David Howard makes a similar point in The Structure of Psalms 93–100. In an appendix, where he is arguing that Psalms 1–2 should be read as the introduction to the Psalter, he adduces this evidence in favor of his thesis: “YHWH’s anointed king in Psalm 2 functions as the ideal exemplar of a divinely appointed king; he exemplifies in his own person the qualities of the righteous one in Psalm 1.”38 This point connects Psalm 2 to Psalm 1. He goes on to show how Psalm 1 is connected to the royal themes of Psalm 2: “The focus on study of the Torah links Psalm 1 back to the Charter for Kingship in Deut 17:14-20, where the ideal king is instructed to make the study of Torah his all-consuming concern, leaving military and other concerns to YHWH.”39 Robert Cole presents the most thorough treatment of this topic in his book, Psalms 1–2: A Gateway to the Psalter, and his article, “An Integrated Reading J. A. Grant, The King as Exemplar: The Function of Deuteronomy’s Kingship Law in the Shaping of the Book of Psalms (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 67. For further corroboration, beyond the works referenced below, see W. H. Brownlee, “Psalms 1–2 as a Coronation Liturgy,” Biblica 52 (1971): 321–36; Sheppard, Wisdom, 142; D. C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms, JSOT Sup 252 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1997), 87. Although he does not explicitly tie Psalms 1 and 2 together, James L. Mays notes the royal nature of Psalm 1 in idem, The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psalms (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 125. 37 Miller, “Beginning,” 91. 38 Howard, Structure, 202. 39 Ibid. 35

36



Reading from the Beginning

93

of Psalms 1 and 2.” He observes many of the same points noticed above, but he adds two new perspectives on the issue. First, he emphasizes the parallels between Psalms 1–2 and Joshua 1.40 The two most significant thematic parallels are (1) meditating on Torah night and day for success (Psalms 1.2-3, Joshua 1.8) and (2) victory over enemies (Psalms 2.8-9, Joshua 1.5-6). Based on the thematic and lexical similarities between the two passages, Cole concludes, “It becomes increasingly clear that Psalms 1 and 2 at the head of the Psalter do not present two different themes of wisdom and/or Torah and kingship respectively, but rather both depict the ideal kingly warrior who enjoys complete domination of his enemies.”41 Cole also points out the sacerdotal parallels between Psalms 1 and 2, and how this influences the interpretation of the royal motif. He relies heavily upon Jerome F. D. Creach’s article, “Like a Tree Planted by the Temple Stream: The Portrait of the Righteous in Psalm 1:3.” Creach demonstrates that the simile of Ps. 1.3—that is, the righteous man is like a tree planted by streams of water—is influenced by Temple imagery, especially in these texts: Pss. 46.5 and 65.10, and Ezek. 47.12. Creach concludes, “Hence, Ps 1:3 perhaps should be read with other psalms (Pss 52:10; 92:13-15) in which the righteous person is depicted with the image of a tree planted in the holy place.”42 What Creach does not do, however, is equate the righteous man of Psalm 1.3 with the king of Psalm 2, nor does he draw the parallel between Psalms 1.3 and 2.6—the king in the Temple. Building on Creach’s conclusion, Cole states, “The parallel text of Ps 2:6 reveals that the righteous one of Ps 1:3a planted in the temple is identical to the king established on Mt. Zion, site of the sanctuary. Thus, the evidence cited by Creach from further afield for a temple context is supported in the immediately following Psalm 2.”43 There is, therefore, a priestly nuance in the royalist introduction to the Psalter.44 In his most recent work, Cole develops these ideas even further, Some of the lexical parallels include: ‫( שׂכל‬hiph) Ps. 2.10, Josh. 1.7, 8; √ ‫ נחל‬Ps. 2.8, Josh. 1.6; ‫דרך‬ Pss. 1.1, 6 (x2), 2.12, Josh. 1.8; ‫( צלח‬hiph) Ps. 1.3, Josh. 1.8; ‫( יצב‬hiph) Ps. 2.2, Josh. 1.5; ‫ תורה‬Ps. 1.2, Josh. 1.7, 8; ‫ הגה‬Pss. 1.2, 2.1, Josh. 1.8; ‫ יום ולילה‬Ps. 1.2, Josh. 1.8. 41 Cole, “Integrated,” 80. 42 Jerome F. D. Creach, “Like a Tree Planted by the Temple Stream: The Portrait of the Righteous in Psalm 1:3,” CBQ 61 (1999): 46. 43 Cole, “Integrated,” 76. 44 Other passages that merge the monarchy and Zion are 2 Sam. 5.1-10, where David assumes the throne and promptly dispossesses Zion from the Jebusites, making Zion his home, and Ps. 110.2, where the earthly king’s authority extends from Zion. See also, S. L. Klouda, “Zion,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical 40

94

The Return of the King

concluding, “the man of Psalm 1 is portrayed as a priest, king and conqueror, which functions are also attributed to the anointed one in the second psalm. He is in fact the central figure and dominating ‘Motiv’ of the Psalter’s entire introduction.”45 In light of these emphases, some of the key words that emerge from Psalms 1–2 are ‫תורה‬, ‫ציון‬, and ‫מלך‬. This is not to say that these are the only key words in the introduction, but their relationship to the main themes of the two psalms heightens their significance. And these are the words most closely related to the purposes of this work, namely, delineating the structure and message of Book V. Based on the royalist overtones of Psalms 1–2, then, these words address the nature of the main character (‫)מלך‬, whence he rules (‫)ציון‬, and what he does (‫)תורה‬. They picture the ideal ruler of God’s people. Psalm 89: individual analysis46

Psalm 89 can be divided into five major sections. This division emphasizes two aspects of the psalm’s literary character: speaker change and content. Excising the superscription and the doxology (vv. 1, 53) yields this structure: 1) vv. 2–5: Yahweh has placed David securely on his throne. 2) vv. 6–19: Yahweh on the throne. 3) vv. 20–38: The covenant with David. 4) vv. 39–46: A lament over the forgotten covenant. 5) vv. 47–52: A plea for Yahweh to remember his covenant with David.

Scholarship, ed. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 936–41, esp. 937. Cole, Psalms 1–2, 37–8. 46 A select bibliography of works that specifically address Psalm 89 includes Gösta W. Ahlström, Psalm 89: Eine Liturgie aus dem Ritual des leidenden Königs (Lund: Gleerup, 1959); Richard J. Clifford, “Psalm 89: A Lament over the Davidic Ruler’s Continued Failure,” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 35–47; Knut M. Heim, “The (God-)forsaken King of Psalm 89: A Historical and Intertextual Enquiry,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, JSOT Sup 270 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 296–322; Hans Ulrich Steymans, Psalm 89 und der Davidbund: Eine strukturale und redaktionsgeschichtiliche Untersuchung, Österreichische Biblische Studien 27 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2005). The most thorough treatment belongs to Steymans. Although he acknowledges his debt to Structuralists such as Algirdas Julien Greimas and Lucien Tesnière, he subjects Psalm 89 to rigorous analysis from a variety of perspectives, including text-critical, metrical, grammatical, semantic, and intertextual analyses. 45



Reading from the Beginning

95

Generally, scholars divide the psalm into three or four major sections.47 Indeed, some scholars include more nuance in their presentation. Take, for instance, Hans Ulrich Steymans in his work Psalm 89 und der Davidbund. He devotes a lengthy section of his book to dividing the psalm into its parts based on “speaker change” (Redeverb) and the use of selah. He concludes that there is a seven-part chiastic structure:48 A (2) B (3–5) C (6–19) D (20–38) C' (39–46) B' (47–49) A' (50–52)

Self-incitement to sing God’s speech Hymn God’s speech Lament Questions and appeals Questions and appeals

It should be noted, however, that this is, essentially, a five-part structure when the praise and its grounds (AB) are combined, along with the “Questions and appeals:” 1) AB (2–5); 2) C (6–19); 3) D (20–38); 4) C' (39–46); 5) B'A' (47–52). The first section, verses 2–5, introduces the key words of the psalm, adumbrating its main theme: the Davidic covenant. The psalm opens with a call to praise followed by the grounds for that praise. The focus of the praise is Yahweh’s eternal (‫ )עלם‬covenant loyalty (‫)חסד‬49 and faithfulness (‫)אמן‬, which is manifest in the eternal (‫ )עלם‬covenant (‫ )ברית‬with his servant (‫ )עבד‬David.50 The second section, verses 6–19, depicts Yahweh in ways consistent with classic theology. He is incomparable (vv. 7, 9), awesome (v. 8), omnipotent (vv.

See A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, Volume II: Psalms 73–150, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 630–48; Derek Kidner, Psalms 73–150: A Commentary on Books III-V of the Psalms, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1973), 319–25; Willem A. VanGemeren, Psalms, in Psalms, vol. 5, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, rev. ed., eds. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 666–81; Weiser, Psalms, 587–94. 48 Steymans, Psalm 89, 55–258, 448. 49 This noun will be translated “covenant loyalty.” For more on its meaning and usage, see H.-J. Zobel, “‫חֶס ֶד‬,” TDOT 5.44-64; H. J. Stoebe, “‫חֶס ֶד‬,” TLOT 2.449-64; Nelson Glueck, Hesed in the Bible, ed. Elias L. Epstein, trans. Alfred Gottschalk (Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1967); Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible (Missoula, MT: Scholar’s Press, 1978); G. R. Clark, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible, JSOT Sup 157 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). 50 Other key words include ‫כון‬, ‫כסא‬, and ‫זרע‬, and heavenly terms like ‫שׁמים‬. 47

96

The Return of the King

10–11), creator (vv. 12–13), righteous (vv. 15, 17), and just (v. 15). Yahweh is the boast and praise of his people (vv. 6, 17–19). These verses laud Yahweh for his faithfulness as creator and sovereign of the universe. And Yahweh—the faithful and just creator—has made a covenant, even an eternal covenant, with David, his chosen servant (vv. 4–5). The third section, verses 20–38, explains the nature of the promises made to David in 2 Samuel 7, expanding on the preliminary reference to these promises (now called a “covenant” in Psalm 89) in verses 4–5. Many of the words used in the first section about Yahweh’s kingship are repeated here— these roots include ‫חסד‬, ‫אמן‬, and ‫( עלם‬also ‫ עד‬and ‫)דר ודר‬.51 In fact, the three roots just mentioned are the most repeated roots in the third section, with each root (or a synonym) occurring four times in verses 20–38.52 The message of the psalm up to verse 38 is that Yahweh is a covenantally loyal (‫ )חסד‬and trustworthy (‫ )אמן‬God whose loyalty and trustworthiness never change (‫)עלם‬ as manifest in creation, and his covenant with David is based on these three truths. Then, a dramatic shift occurs. Starting with the “but you” of verse 39, the tone of the psalm becomes accusatory. Point by point the author shows how Yahweh has transgressed the covenant and his nature.53 It is almost as if the author uses the first three sections to “set up” the lament, transforming the praise of verses 2–38 into the venom of the accusation. This section culminates with the allegation that Yahweh has “cut short the days of his [the anointed’s] youth (√‫)עלם‬.” The psalmist compares the eternal nature of the covenant (‫ עלם‬in vv. 2–38) with the present reality of its interruption (‫ עלם‬in v. 46). The psalm concludes with a supplication for Yahweh to remember his anointed in verses 47–52. As the conclusion to the psalm, these verses fulfill a significant literary function, guiding and even determining the reader’s

The intertextuality between 2 Samuel 7 (esp. vv. 12–17) and Psalm 89 is striking, as all of the key words of Psalm 89 are drawn from 2 Samuel 7. See also Nahum M. Sarna, “Psalm 89,” in Biblical and Other Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 29–46. 52 ‫( חסד‬vv. 20, 25, 29, 34); ‫( אמן‬vv. 25, 29, 34, 38); ‫( עלם‬vv. 29, 30 (‫)לעד‬, 37, 38). 53 Use of ‫ משׁח‬in vv. 21 and 39; Yahweh has rejected the “covenant of [His] servant” (v. 40, cf. vv. 4, 21, 29); use of ‫ חלל‬in vv. 11, 32, 35, and 40; compare what is said about enemies in v. 43 with vv. 11, 23, and 24; Yahweh has changed the position of David’s throne (vv. 37, 45; cf. also vv. 5, 15). 51



Reading from the Beginning

97

understanding of the whole. In light of its importance, I will give more attention to this section. The structure of these six verses follows a nearly uniform pattern: A) Verses 47–49: Interrogative → Imperative (‫סלה → )זכר‬54 B) Verses 50–52: Interrogative → Imperative (‫ → )זכר‬final verse of the psalm The chief emphasis of this section is the repeated imperative ‫זכר‬. The psalmist pleads with Yahweh to remember. The verb ‫ זכר‬is significant in this context because it suggests that the psalmist holds out hope for a change of events. Gianni Barbiero explains, “A strong criticism is expressed, but at the same time there is hope for divine intervention, signaled by the verb ‘remember,’ ‫זכר‬. The ‘remembrance’ of Yahweh changes the course of events (cf. Gen 8:1; Ex 2:24).”55 Furthermore, ‫ זכר‬is a covenantal term. The psalmist is not asserting that Yahweh has forgotten or is ignorant of the severity of the circumstances. Rather, the psalmist prays that Yahweh fulfill his covenant promises.56 The covenant promises in mind are outlined in verses 2–5 and 20–38, where the key-roots are ‫עלם‬, ‫אמן‬, and ‫חסד‬. It is no surprise, then, that these same roots influence the final supplication (vv. 46, 50). Most commentators contend that Psalm 89 ends negatively. John Goldingay is an example: “It is astonishing that Book III of the Psalter comes to an end with two psalms that terminate with Yhwh’s having abandoned Israel … Whereas Ps 72 implies a conviction that the reign of God might be embodied in the reign of the king, Ps 89 makes clear that God has abandoned the king.”57 Gerald Henry Wilson is even more pessimistic in his assessment: “At the conclusion of the third book, immediately preceding the break observed separating the earlier and later books, the impression left is one of a covenant remembered, but a covenant failed. The Davidic covenant introduced in Ps 2

‫ סלה‬seems to be a text-structuring device in Psalm 89 because it occurs at other significant junctures (vv. 5, 38, 46), although its occurrence here indicates a minor section break, not a major break. 55 Gianni Barbiero, “Alcune osservazioni sulla conclusione del Salmo 89 (vv. 47–52),” Biblica 88 (2007): 539: “Esse esprimono una forte critica, ma allo stesso tempo la speranza di un intervento divino, segnalata dal verbo ‘ricordare,’ ‫( זכר‬v. 48). Il ‘ricordo’ divino cambia il corso degli eventi (cfr. Gen 8,1; Es 2,24).” 56 Cf. Gen. 9.15-16; Exod. 6.5; Jer. 14.21; Ezek. 16.60; Pss. 25.6-7, 98.3, 105.8, 106.45, 111.5. See Leslie C. Allen, “‫זכר‬,” in NIDOTTE 2.1100–6; H. Eising, “‫זכר‬,” in TDOT 4.64-82. 57 John Goldingay, Psalms: vol. 2, Psalms 42–89, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament: Wisdom and Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 691. 54

98

The Return of the King

has come to nothing and the combination of three books concludes with the anguished cry of the Davidic descendants [emphasis his].”58 But the final section suggests otherwise because the psalm does not end in lament but in supplication, and supplication entails hope.59 Barbiero argues that the final section “indicates a strong element of trust. Psalm 89 is not concluded with a lament about the end of the monarchy, but with the hope of the fulfillment of the promises made to David, beyond the present negative situation.”60 He goes on to say that this explains the messianic hope found in later books (e.g., Psalms 101, 110, 132, and 144), which is a hope in a personal messiah, not simply a collective messiah or a democratized messiah. This observation has important implications for how the storyline of the Psalter is understood and how the Psalter is read. Instead of reading Psalm 89 negatively such that the Davidic/messianic hope is jettisoned, the structure and message of the psalm indicates that, yes, the present situation is deplorable, and yes, it appears that Yahweh has forgotten the covenant with David, but his covenant loyalty (‫ )חסד‬is eternal (‫)עולם‬, so there is reason for hope. The hope of the psalmist rests on these two key words (‫ חסד‬and ‫)עולם‬, and these two key words figure prominently in Book V.61

Wilson, Editing, 213. See also H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60–150: A Commentary, trans. Hilton C. Oswald (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1989), 210; Egbert Ballhorn, Zum Telos des Psalters: Der Textzusammenhang des Vierten und Fünften Psalmenbuches (Ps 90–150), BBB 138 (Berlin: Philo, 2004), 74–81, 379; Martin Leuenberger, Konzeptionen des Königtums Gottes im Psalter: Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Redaktion der theokratischen Bücher IV–V im Psalter. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 83 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004), 117; Ulrich Berges, “Die Knechte im Psalter: Ein Beitrag zu seiner Kompositionsgeschichte,” Biblica 81 (2000): 153–78, esp. 157; Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, “Ps 82 und das vierte Psalmenbuch (Ps 90–106),” in “Mein Sohn bist du” (Ps 2,7): Studien zu den Königspsalmen, ed. Eckart Otto and Erich Zenger, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 192 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH, 2002), 178–9. 59 The question “how long?” (v. 47) also implies that the psalmist understands the present circumstances to be temporary. See also Heim, “The [God-]forsaken,” 305; Barbiero, “Alcune,” 537–8. 60 Ibid., 544: “… fa intravedere un forte elemento di fiducia. Il Ps 89 non si chiude con un lamento sulla fine della monarchia, ma con la speranza in un compimento della promessa fatta a Davide, al di là della presente situazione negativa.” 61 This is not to say that these are the only two key words in Psalm 89, but the hope of the psalmist is most closely related to these two terms. See J. Becker, “Die kollektive Deutung der Königspsalmen,” Theologie und Philosophie 52 (1977): 562–78, who argues that ‫ חסדי דוד‬is the central theme of Psalm 89. Based on my analysis, ‫ עולם‬should be added as well. 58



Reading from the Beginning

99

The Storyline of the Psalter An investigation into these three psalms helps provide the literary background to Book V. To be sure, other psalms contribute to the development of the storyline, but these psalms are unique because of their significant placement at key junctures within the Psalter.62 In fact, most scholars agree that Psalm 89 functions as the turning point in the message of the Psalter63—usually understood to be negative in the sense that Davidic/messianic hope is abandoned. The notion that the storyline of the Psalter hinges on Psalm 89 is approaching a consensus among canonical critics. Three factors contribute to this understanding. First, the influence of Wilson’s The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter cannot be underestimated.64 Second, there is the evidence within the MT itself.65 The final reason Psalm 89 has received such emphasis is because of On the importance of seam psalms, see Anton Arens, Die Psalmen in Gottesdienst des Alten Bundes: eine Untersuchung zur Vorgeschichte des christlichen Psalmengesanges, Trierer theologische Studien 11 (Trier: Paulinus, 1961), 169–70. Most analyses of the overall message of the Psalter place most emphasis on the psalms that appear at the seams of the book divisions. See also, Wilson, Editing, 209. I have limited my analysis to Psalms 1–2 and 89 because of their occurrence at the significant junctures of the storyline, that is, at the introduction and at the middle (read: turning point). Psalm 72, for example, is not as significant because it does not influence the narrative trajectory of the Psalter. It simply affirms and maintains the storyline of Books I–II, which emphasizes the role of the Davidic/royal figure in Yahweh’s kingdom, which can be traced back to Psalms 1–2. As J. Clinton McCann, Jr., argues, “Psalm 2 establishes the intimate relationship between God and the Davidic king; Psalm 72 reinforces this relationship; and while Psalm 89 begins as a comprehensive rehearsal of all the features of this relationship (vv. 1–37), it concludes with a wrenching description of God’s rejection of the covenant with David (vv. 38–45) and with the pained, poignant prayer of the spurned anointed one (vv 45–51),” in idem, Psalms, in 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, vol. 4, New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996), 660. See also J. Clinton McCann, Jr., A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as Torah (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1993), 43. 63 Walter Brueggemann represents the exception. In “Bounded by Obedience and Praise: The Psalms as Canon,” JSOT 50 (1991): 63–92, Brueggemann maintains that Psalm 73 is the Janus psalm transitioning the overall tenor of the Psalter from obedience to praise, from doubting (Psalm 25) to trusting (Psalm 103), (p. 80). It should be noted, however, that Brueggemann recognizes that this division is based on his theological understanding of the book, not on the insights gleaned from form, literary, or canonical criticism (p. 81). 64 See especially pp. 207–14. 65 Hossfeld and Zenger observe eight linguistic and compositional differences between Psalms 3–89 and 90–150: (1) superscriptions occur much less frequently after Psalm 90; (2) there are no indications of the melody after Psalm 90; (3) ‫ למנצח‬occurs only three times after Psalm 90 (109, 139, 140), yet it appears frequently before; (4) ‫ סלה‬occurs only four times after Psalm 90 (140.4, 6, 9; 143.6), but it is ubiquitous in Psalms 3–89; (5) there are no references to Asaph or the Korahites after Psalm 90; (6) Books IV–V use structurally relevant super- and sub-scripts, such as “Give thanks to the Lord for He is good; His love endures forever,” which are lacking in Books I–III; (7) a phrase common to Books IV–V, ‫הללו־יה‬, does not occur prior to Psalm 90; and (8) there are fewer laments and more hymns of praise in Books IV–V. See Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150, trans. Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2011), 1. See also Gerald Henry Wilson, “The Use of Royal Psalms at the “Seams” of the Hebrew Psalter,” JSOT 35 (1986): 85–94. 62

100

The Return of the King

its placement at the conclusion of the so-called “Messianic Psalter” (Psalms 2–89).66 Based on these key seams, the typical explanation of the Psalter is that it begins with ebullient hope in a royal/Davidic figure who will inaugurate Yahweh’s kingdom purposes. This hope has proven fruitless, however, because Yahweh has rejected the royal/Davidic figure, as explained in Psalm 89. The last two books of the Psalter, then, affirm that Yahweh alone is king (see Psalms 93–100) and the messianic hope is democratized among the people, that is, the promises made to David are fulfilled in the people.67 Wilson is indicative of this reading, as is evident in the last paragraph of his influential dissertation: “Finally, David, in Pss 145–146, returns to the theme of YHWH’s kingship that so dominates the formative Book Four and stands in tension with Pss 2–89. YHWH is eternal king, only he is ultimately worthy of trust. Human ‘princes’ will wither and fade like the grass, but the steadfast love of YHWH endures for ever [sic, emphasis his].”68 And the idea is that the steadfast love of Yahweh endures forever among the people, not on behalf of the anointed king. To the contrary, I will argue that Book V reaffirms the importance of the Davidic figure in the Psalter. This is built on a proper interpretation of Psalm 89 and the key-word relations between Psalms 1–2, 89, and Book V. It will be shown that the key words ‫( תורה‬Psalms 1–2), ‫( ציון‬Psalms 1–2), ‫( מלך‬Psalms 1–2), ‫( חסד‬Psalm 89), and ‫( עולם‬Psalm 89) are integral to the macrostructure of Book V, and that the concluding prayer of Psalm 89 is addressed in Book V—yes, Yahweh remembers his servant and his covenant loyalty is eternal. The storyline I adopt is that Psalms 1–2 introduce the royal theme that permeates Books I–III. Instead of reading a caesura in the Davidic covenant at Psalm 89, the psalm should be understood as a lament For more on this concept, see Christoph Rösel, Die messianische Redaktion des Psalters: Studien zu Entstehung und Theologie der Sammlung Psalm 2–89 (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1999); Leuenberger, Konzeptionen, 3, 6, 45, 85–92, 117–23. 67 For more on this idea of collectivization or democratization within the royal ideology, see Becker, “Die kollektive Deutung”; Marko Marttila, Collective Reinterpretation in the Psalms: A Study of the Redaction History of the Psalter, FAT 2nd series, vol. 13 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); Erich Zenger, “Die Provokation des 149. Psalms: Von der Unverzichtbarkeit der kanonischen Psalmenauslegung,” in “Ihr Völker alle, klatscht in die Hände!”, ed. Rainer Kessler et al., Exegese in unserer Zeit 3 (Münster: LIT, 1997), 194, esp. n. 24; idem, “The Composition and Theology of the Fifth Book of Psalms Psalms 107–145,” JSOT 80 (1998): 98–9; Silvia So Kun Ahn, I Salmi come conclusione del Salterio (Ph.D. diss., Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2008), 278. 68 Wilson, Editing, 228. 66



Reading from the Beginning

101

over the present, shameful state of the Davidic dynasty, yet hope remains that Yahweh’s covenant loyalty will reverse this deplorable condition. Book IV, then, highlights the sovereign reign of Yahweh, which should not be read as a rejection of the human, Davidic line, but rather as consistent with the program introduced at the beginning of the Psalter (cf. Psalm 2 where Yahweh and his king reign together—Yahweh appoints the king and the king represents Yahweh’s rule).69 The Psalter concludes with Book V—the significance of which awaits explanation.

See especially Howard, The Structure; Hossfel, “Ps 82.” Even though Hossfeld argues that Psalm 89 should be understood in the negative sense, he shows how Book IV depicts Yahweh as king of his people.

69

PART III RESEARCH ANALYSIS

7 F O R EV E R F A I T H F U L : Y A H W E H ’ S C OV E NA N T L OYA LT Y I N P S A L M S 1 0 7 – 1 1 8

The dominant theme of Psalms 107–118 begins and ends the section ‫־טוב כי‬ ‫( לעלם חסדו ה)ו(דו ליהוה כי‬Pss. 107.1; 118.29). Yahweh should be praised because his covenant loyalty is eternal. Following the storyline of the Psalter, the covenant loyalty in view here is the covenant loyalty promised to David.1 This collection of psalms begins Book V with a redounding response to the concluding plea of Psalm 89 (vv. 47–52)—Yahweh’s covenant loyalty to David will never end; all the promises made to him will be fulfilled (see 2 Samuel  7). Interestingly, the notion of Yahweh’s eternal ‫ חסד‬is adumbrated toward the end of Book IV (Pss. 100.5; 103.17; 106.1), preparing the reader for its fuller treatment at the beginning of Book V. And this theme permeates what follows in Book V, demonstrating its foundational importance to the entire book. The purpose of this chapter is twofold: (1) relying on text-immanent features and the comparison of key-word links, I will make a case for the unity of this section;2 (2) I will compare the significance of this section to the storyline of the Psalter, showing how it is consistent with that trajectory.

The Case for the Unity of Psalms 107–118 Where to begin

This section begins with Psalm 107, which would appear to be obvious because Psalm 107 is the first psalm of Book V, but the boundary between Books IV and V is disputed. Most broadly, some have argued that all of the book

See the exposition of Psalm 89 in the previous chapter. For a more detailed description of the method, see the final section of Chapter 3.

1 2

106

The Return of the King

boundaries are dubious.3 But Gerald Henry Wilson has shown that the book boundaries are integral to the final form of the Psalter. Based on his method of author designation and genre grouping, he concludes, “The abrupt authorchanges, unrelieved by any binding effect of genre-designations, precisely at the accepted divisions between the Five Books, confirms these breaks as real, intentional, editorially introduced divisions and not accidental ones as some have supposed.”4 Furthermore, the closely parallel doxologies (Psalms 41.14; 72.19-20; 89.53; 106.48; 145.21) also add support to the intentionality of the book divisions. More locally, others have argued that the boundary between Books IV and V is a soft boundary due in large part to affinities among Psalms 105–107, especially 106–107. Consequently, some scholars group psalms across the boundary.5 Egbert Ballhorn, for instance, has argued that the doxology at the end of Psalm 106 (v. 48) concludes the psalm and not necessarily an entire book.6 He sees Pss. 66.20, 68.36, and 135.21 as parallels of doxologies that conclude psalms.7 The issue is especially acute with Psalms 105–107 since they share a ‫ הודו‬introduction and other thematic and lexical similarities. Barry C. Davis, although supporting the traditional book boundaries, shows that “the beginning 3 verses of Psalm 107 echo lexically and respond thematically to the terminology and issues presented in the concluding five See Mitchell Dahood, Psalms I (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965/66), xxx; N. H. Tur-Sinai, “The Literary Character of the Book of Psalms,” Oudtestamentische Studien 8 (1950): 264–5; Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, vol. II (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1962), 197; Hartmut Gese, “Die Entstehung der Büchereinteilung des Psalters,” in Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch: Beiträge zu Psalmen und Propheten, ed. Josef Schreiner, Forschung zur Bibel 2 (Würzburg: Echter, 1972), 57–64; Notker Füglister, “Die Verwendung und das Verständnis der Psalmen und des Psalters um die Zeitenwende,” in Beiträge zur Psalmenforschung: Psalm 2 und 22, ed. Josef Schreiner, Forschung zur Bibel 60 (Würzburg: Echter, 1988), 319–84, esp. 341–2. 4 Gerald H. Wilson, “Evidence of Editorial Divisions in the Hebrew Psalter,” VT 34 (1984): 352. 5 See especially Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107–150): Studies in the Psalter, IV, JSOT Sup 258 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 14–16; Egbert Ballhorn, Zum Telos des Psalters: Der Textzusammenhang des Vierten und Fünften Psalmenbuches (Ps 90–150), BBB 138 (Berlin: Philo, 2004), see p. 364: “Indem in Ps 105–107 alle drei Gliederungselemente vorkommen, bilden diese drei Psalmen auch in formaler Hinsicht eine Verbindung zwischen den Bereichen des Psalters.” 6 For a fuller treatment of the issues surrounding Ps. 106.48 and whether or not it is a doxology, see Jean-Marie Auwers, La composition littéraire du Psautier: Un état de la question, CRB 46 (Paris: Gabalda, 2000), 80–6. Auwers appears to affirm that v. 48 is simply the doxology to Psalm 106, and not to Book IV as a whole. He relies on the similarities among Psalms 105–107, the parallels between Ps. 106.48 and 1 Chron. 16.36, and the work of Amos Hakam, who demonstrates a close correspondence between the introduction and the conclusion of Psalm 106. See idem, ‫ספרתה לים‬ (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1981), 2:294. 7 Ballhorn, Zum Telos, 134–6. 3



Forever Faithful

107

verses of Psalm 106. Of the 15 lexeme families of Ps 107:1-3, 7 (47 percent) are replicated in Ps 106:44-48 [sic].”8 The similarities include ‫( ידה‬107.1; 106.47), ‫( יהוה‬107.1, 2; 106.47, 48(x2)), ‫( עולם‬107.1; 106.48(x2)), ‫( חסד‬107.1; 106.45), ‫( אמר‬107.2; 106.48), ‫( צרר‬107.2; 106.44), and ‫( קבץ‬107.3; 106.47). Furthermore, The beginning of Psalm 107 also provides a thematic response to the plea recorded in Ps 106:47 for the LORD to deliver (‫ )יׁשע‬his people from distress and to gather (‫ )קבץ‬them from exile among the nations (‫)גוי‬. Psalms 107:2-3 reports that the people of God have been redeemed (‫ )גאל‬out of their disastrous situation and gathered (‫ )קבץ‬from the lands (‫ )ארץ‬to which they had been dispersed.9

The link between ‫ קבץ‬in Pss. 106.47 and 107.3 is particularly significant because this root occurs only four times in the Psalter (Pss. 41.7 and 102.23 are the other occurrences), and these are the only occurrences of the root in the Piel in the Psalms. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger observe eight major links between Psalms 106 and 107 in their commentary. Most notable is their observation that the phrase ‫( בצר להם‬Ps. 106.44) is repeated in one of the refrains of Psalm 107 (vv. 6, 13, 19, 28).10 In defense of the traditional book boundary, however, is the similarity of the doxologies at the end of the books (as will be demonstrated later). Psalm 106.48 has more in common with them than with the three examples given by Ballhorn (Pss. 66.20, 68.36, and 135.21). Moreover, the parallels between Ps. 106.48 and 1 Chron. 16.36 do not gainsay the former’s role as a doxology. In fact, Hossfeld and Zenger argue that 1 Chron. 16.36 “presupposes” Ps. 106.48, which would mitigate suggestions that Ps. 106.48 is not a legitimate doxology.11 The same can be said about correspondences between the introduction and conclusion to Psalm 106. The parallel lexemes witness to the cohesion of the psalm, not to the illegitimacy of the concluding doxology.

Barry C. Davis, “A Contextual Analysis of Psalms 107–118” (Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1996), 68. 9 Ibid., 69–70. 10 Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150, trans. Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 93–4. See also J. Clinton McCann, Jr., Psalms, in 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, vol. 4, New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996), 1116–17. 11 Ibid., 76. 8

108

The Return of the King

Consequently, Ps. 106.48 should be understood as a doxology concluding Book IV, demonstrating that there is a break between Psalms 106 and 107. Other evidence militates against seeing a soft boundary between Psalms 106 and 107. There is, first of all, the cohesion of Book IV (Psalms 90–106). Although that topic would require another full-length study, some preliminary observations appear significant. The name Moses (‫ )משׁה‬occurs eight times in the Psalter. Seven of those occurrences are in Book IV (Pss. 77.21; 90.1; 99.6; 103.7; 105.26; 106.16, 23, 32). Furthermore, the majority of those occurrences are clustered at the bounds of Book IV (Pss. 90.1; 105.26; 106.16, 23, 32), which places a Mosaic stamp on the nature of the whole book. I find it significant, then, that this Mosaic emphasis does not carry over to Psalm 107 and the rest of Book V. Further evidence of cohesion within Book IV is the use of ‫( נחם‬Niphal). Toward the close of Psalm 90 a supplication is presented to Yahweh: “Have pity [‫נחם‬, Niphal imperative] upon your servants” (v. 13b). Then, toward the close of Psalm 106, ‫ נחם‬occurs again in the Niphal, only this time the tense is wayyiqtol: “He [Yahweh] had pity according to the greatness of his covenant loyalty” (v. 45b).12 It could be that these occurrences correspond to one another—Psalm 90 prays for pity and Psalm 106 reports that Yahweh has shown it. Although there are many lexical and thematic parallels among Psalms 105–107, there are also some significant differences. Silvia Ahn observes that Psalm 107 differs from the previous psalms in the distribution of the phrase ‫הללו־יה‬. She notes that Psalms 104 and 105 have ‫ הללו־יה‬at the end and Psalm 106 has it at the beginning and end. Psalm 107, on the other hand, lacks it. This may be an indication that there is a caesura between Psalms 106 and 107.13 Furthermore, ‫ זכר‬is a key root in Psalms 105–106 (105.5, 8, 42; 106.4, 7, 45), emphasizing that Yahweh remembers his covenant (105.8; 106.45). Hossfeld Although this root is notoriously multivalent (the LXX uses twelve different words to translate the forty-seven occurrences of ‫ נחם‬in the Niphal according to Hatch and Redpath’s Concordance, although T. Muraoka would decrease that number to ten according to his revision), it is translated the same here because the notion of pity best fits the context of both passages (use of ‫ עד־מתי‬in 90.13a and ‫ םחר‬in 106.46). 13 Silvia So Kun Ahn, “I Salmi 146–150 come conclusione del Salterio” (Ph.D. diss., Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2008), 179–80. Ahn also mentions the correspondences between Psalms 90 and 105–106, correspondences which are lacking in 107. See also Tiziano Lorenzin, I Salmi: nuova versione, introduzione e commento, Primo Testamento 14 (Milan: Figlie di San Paolo, 2001), 409 n. 40. 12



Forever Faithful

109

and Zenger contend that this theme (Yahweh remembers his covenant) is “the principal link” between the two psalms.14 Yet, the root ‫ זכר‬is lacking in Psalm 107.15 Finally, Psalms 105–106 appear to be addressing the problem of the exile (106.47) through a Pentateuchal (105.6, 9-10, 17, 26; 106.7, 16, 23, 32) lens, whereas Psalm 107 is written from a perspective of restoration (107.3; cf. also 7, 14, 20, 30).16 It seems most plausible, therefore, to affirm that there is a literary “gap” between Psalms 106 and 107. While there are many correspondences between them—which should be expected because they are neighboring psalms—the evidence suggests that there is also a clear distinction. Thus, the preliminary boundary for the first group must be set at Psalm 107. Where to end

The next question that must be answered is, where does the first section end? It is argued that Psalm 118 functions as the conclusion to the preliminary grouping of Book V. Not only will I make a case in favor of this thesis, but I will also show why other options (e.g. Psalms 117 and 119) are not viable. The most common proposal for dividing Book V follows what was termed the “‫הללו־יה‬/‫ הודו‬taxonomy” in the literature review in Chapter 2. According to this view, the boundaries of the various sections are marked by the interface of a ‫ הללו־יה‬conclusion and a ‫ הודו‬introduction. Book IV ends with the phrase ‫( הללו־יה‬Ps. 106.48d); Book V begins with the imperative ‫( הדו‬Ps. 107.1). One of the conspicuous features of Book V is that this same juxtaposition occurs in two different places—at Ps. 117.2c/Ps. 118.1 and Ps. 135.21c/Ps. 136.1. Moreover, Psalms 107, 118, and 136 all begin with the same sentence, not just the same word, leading these scholars to the conclusion that all units of Book V begin the same way:17

Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms, 75. See also Walther Zimmerli, “Zwillingspsalmen,” in Wort, Lied, und Gottesspruch: Beiträge zu Psalmen und Propheten, ed. J. Schreiner (Würzburg: Echter, 1972), 105–13. Zimmerli analyzes Psalms 105–106 and demonstrates their similarity, leading to the conclusion that they are “twins.” 15 It should be noted, however, that Psalm 107 picks up the theme of Yahweh’s faithfulness, but with a slightly different bent. 16 Barry Davis puts it this way: “Psalm 106 concludes Book IV of the Psalter on less than a joyous note, having just surveyed Israel’s history of rebellion; by contrast, Psalm 107, as it introduces Book V, offers hope for those who turn to God” (“A Contextual Analysis,” 31). 17 The only difference between these verses is that ‫ ודוה‬in Psalm 107 is spelled defectively. 14

110

The Return of the King

Ps. 107.1: ‫הדו ליהוה כי־טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬ Ps. 118.1: ‫הודו ליהוה כי־טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬ Ps. 136.1: ‫הודו ליהוה כי־טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬ Thus, according to this view, the conclusion to the first section is Psalm 117.18 More persuasive evidence can be marshaled for ending the first section at Psalm 118, however. If the first group of psalms concludes at Psalm 118, then an inclusio is formed that includes the dominant theme within these psalms. Psalm 118 ends the same way Psalm 107 begins: ‫ליהוה כי־טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬ ‫( ה)ו(דו‬107.1; 118.29). It is true that Ps. 118.29 also forms an inclusio with Ps. 118.1, but as Davis contends, “This fact does not negate the possibility of Ps 118.29 having double-duty responsibility as the concluding component of an inclusio with Ps 107.1. If anything, the existence of two verses in Psalm 118 that parallel Ps 107.1 should arrest the attention of astute readers of the Psalter, drawing their thoughts back to that earlier verse.”19 Davis’s point is well made. The double repetition of the book’s opening verse in Psalm 118 witnesses to the literary parallelism between the two psalms, which is strong evidence for grouping them together. Adele Berlin describes the function of inclusios this way: “by framing the text they provide cohesion and unity for the text as a whole.”20 That is precisely the function of this inclusio: it demonstrates the cohesion and unity of Psalms 107–118. Psalm 118 has more in common with what precedes it than what follows it; that is, it serves better as a conclusion than as an introduction. As John Walton puts it, “Though Psalm 118 is not strictly part of the hallĕlûyāh series, I would see it

See especially Martin Leuenberger, Konzeptionen des Königtums Gottes im Psalter: Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Redaktion der theokratischen Bücher IV–V im Psalter, ATANT 83 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004), 276–8; Gerald Henry Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBLDS 76 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), 129, 186–7; Yong Kyu Cho, “The Hallelujah Psalms in the Context of the Hebrew Psalter” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1998). 19 Davis, “A Contextual,” 8 n. 12. 20 Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, rev. edn (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 132. For inclusio as parallelism, see ibid., 3; Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 282–7. Consider also these observations: “The presence of the inclusio can aid the critic in determining the limits of an idea or tradition, particularly in the analysis of material that is composite in nature, such as the prophetic literature,” in Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 3rd edn, rev. and exp. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 85; “The use of identical words at the beginning and end of a poem serves to delimit it,” in Watson, Classical, 284. Assuming that the Psalter is a unified text, the inclusio that encompasses numerous psalms serves to delimit the larger macrostructure of psalm groupings. 18



Forever Faithful

111

as giving a summary conclusion to the themes of that collection.”21 Traditionally grouped with Psalms 113–117 into the so-called Hallel, or Egyptian Hallel, the thematic correspondences among these psalms have long been recognized.22 In fact, the traditional unity of this section is so strong that Peter Craigie grants it the same status as organization by superscription—the tradition has become an unwritten superscription.23 Moreover, Benjamin Kennicott notes twenty-one manuscripts in which Psalm 118 is combined with Psalm 117 into one psalm.24 Only four manuscripts, on the other hand, combine Psalms 118 and 119, two of which have a habit of combining psalms (mss 97 and 133).25 The Aleppo Codex also witnesses to the unity of the group. There, a blank line divides most of the psalms from one another. In the sequence 113–117 (BHS 113–118),26 however, there is no space between the psalms; only the phrase ‫ הללויה‬intervenes.27 Thus, the traditions—both textual and liturgical—provide evidence that Psalm 118 should be grouped with the psalms that precede it. Verbal and thematic parallelisms also link Psalm 118 with the preceding psalms. Psalm 118 mirrors Psalm 107 in many ways, not simply in the repetition of the verse comprising the inclusio (Psalms 107.1; 118.1, 29). MM

Davis points out that 15 percent of the lexemes used in Psalm 107 are also used in Psalm 118 (23 of 153), and 32 percent of the lexemes used in Psalm 118 are used in Psalm 107 (23 of 72).28

John H. Walton, “Psalms: A Cantata about the Davidic Covenant,” JETS 34 (1991): 29. Yair Zakovitch traces the tradition back to the Mishnah. See idem, “The Interpretive Significance of the Sequence of Psalms 111–112.113–118.119,” in The Composition of the Book of Psalms, ed. Erich Zenger, BETL 238 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 220. References within the Jewish literature include mPes 10.6, yBer 2.4, and tSuk 3.2. Other allusions to this tradition may also be evident in Jub. 49.6, Mk 14.26, and Mt. 26.30. 23 Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50, WBC 19 (Waco: Word Books, 1983), 28–9. 24 Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum: Cum Variis Lectionibus, ed. Benjamin Kennicott (Oxford: n.p., 1780), 2:411. See also the textual note in BHS for Ps. 118.1: “mlt Mss cj c 117 [multiple manuscripts join with 117].” 25 Kennicott, 2:416. Other psalms that mss 97 and 133 combine include 90–91, 92–95, 96–99, 103–104, and 134–135. 26 Interestingly, both Codex Leningradensis (L) and the Aleppo Codex (A) combine Psalms 114 and 115 into one psalm. Although BHS represents the same biblical text as L, the arrangement of the text is based on the decisions of the editors. For more on this, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd rev. edn (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2001), 374–6. 27 See G. T. M. Prinsloo, “Unit Delimitation in the Egyptian Hallel (Psalms 113–118),” in Unit Delimitation in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Literature, ed. Marjo C. A. Korpel and Josef M. Oesch, Pericope 4 (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003), 232–63. Prinsloo cautions against reading too much significance into the colometry of ancient manuscripts, however (238 n. 16). 28 Davis, “A Contextual,” 64. It should also be noted that the lexeme total for each psalm represents the number of lexemes searched. Certain particles were jettisoned in the search because they would yield incidental links. Beyond the words used in the inclusio, other links include ‫( אמר‬107.2, 11, 25; 21

22

112 MM

MM

The Return of the King

The words ‫ חסד‬and ‫ עולם‬appear together only at the bounds of the proposed group (107.1; 117.2; 118.1, 2, 3, 4, 29). Consequently, the combination of ‫ חסד‬and ‫ עולם‬may bracket the group. ‫ הדי‬may also serve a bracketing function for the group. Of the 30 occurrences of the root in Book V, 11 of them are found in Psalms 107 and 118 (107.1, 8, 15, 21, 22, 31; 118.1, 19, 21, 28, 29).

The parallels among Psalms 113–118 reveal that Psalm 118 was intended to be read with the psalms that precede. MM

MM

Strong parallels exist within the so-called Egyptian Hallel (Psalms 113–118).29 The link between ‫ חסד‬and ‫ עולם‬being used together has already been mentioned (Pss. 117.2; 118.1, 2, 3, 4, 29). The root ‫תומ‬ occurs nine times in Book V, six of which are found in the Egyptian Hallel (115.17; 116.3, 8, 15; 118.17, 18).30 ‫ תומ‬does not occur again until Ps. 143.3. The phrase ‫ בית אהרן‬occurs four times in the entire Bible, three of which are found in the Egyptian Hallel (115.10, 12; 118.3).31 Furthermore, ‫ נדיב‬occurs five times in Book V, yet three of those occurrences are in Psalms 113–118 (113.8 (x2); 118.9).32 Jacques Trublet, in his article “Approche canonique des Psaumes du Hallel,” adduces six reasons for reading Psalms 113–118 as one unit. Only two of them are persuasive. (1) The psalms share common themes, such as the praise of Yahweh and the love and faithfulness of Yahweh. (2) Each psalm references foundational texts of Scripture. Examples include: Ps. 113.5—Exod. 15.11; Ps. 114.4-6—Exod. 14.21-22/Josh. 3.15-17; Ps.

118.2, 3, 4), ‫( צרר‬107.2, 6, 13, 19, 28; 118.5), ‫( פלא‬107.8, 15, 21, 24, 31; 118.23), ‫( עזר‬107.12; 118.7, 13), ‫( ישׁע‬107.13, 19; 118.14, 15, 21, 25), ‫( ספר‬107.22; 118.17), ‫( עשׂה‬107.22, 23, 24, 37; 118.6, 15, 16, 17, 24), ‫( רנה‬107.22; 118.15), ‫( רום‬107.25, 32; 118.16, 28), ‫( שׂמח‬107.30, 42; 118.24), ‫( ברך‬107.38; 118.26 (x2)), ‫( נדיב‬107.40; 118.9), and ‫( מות‬107.18; 118.17-18). 29 The links emphasized in this bullet point will show that Psalm 118 should be considered a part of the preceding psalms, thus all links will reference Psalm 118. Further links within the Egyptian Hallel that do not necessarily include Psalm 118 will be presented in a later section. For more, see Elizabeth Hayes, “The Unity of the Egyptian Hallel: Psalms 113–18,” BBR 9 (1999): 145–56. On Psalm 118’s function as the conclusion to the Egyptian Hallel, see especially Jutta Schröten, Entstehung, Komposition und Wirkungsgeschichte des 118. Psalms, Bonner Biblische Beiträge 95 (Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995), 100–12. Both authors argue that Psalm 118 should be grouped with the psalms that precede. 30 One of the other occurrences is Ps. 107.18. 31 The other occurrence is Ps. 135.19. 32 Again, one of the other occurrences is in Psalm 107 (107.40; 146.3).



MM

Forever Faithful

113

115.4-5—Deut. 4.28; Ps. 116.5-7—Exod. 34.6; Ps. 117.2—Exod. 34.6; Ps. 118.14, 21—Exod. 15:2.33 When Psalm 118 is understood to be the introduction of a group of psalms, as it is with the ‫הי־וללה‬/‫ הודו‬taxonomy, Psalm 119 fits awkwardly into this schema. Wilson argues that “the massive presence of Ps 119, along with its clear relation to the introductory Ps 1 with its blessing on the student of Torah (1:1-2) and its emphasis on the contrasting ‘ways’ of the righteous and wicked (1:3-6), make it difficult not to view this ps as the focus of this central section [Psalms 118–135].”34 But that seems like special pleading since Psalm 119 is only one of 18 psalms in the group and it is not located in a significant position—that is, it is not the first psalm, last psalm, or in the middle.35

Yair Zakovitch, in his article “The Interpretative Significance of the Sequence of Psalms 111–112.113–118.119,” contends that Psalms 111–119 should be read as a unit. If he is correct, then Psalm 118 cannot function as the conclusion to the first group of psalms, as is proposed in this study. His argument relies on two main points: (1) the parallels between Psalms 111–112 and 119; (2) the parallels between Psalms 118 and 119.36 At one stage in the formation of the Psalter, Zakovitch posits that “Psalm 119 was placed directly following Psalms 111–112.”37 His reasoning is based on the acrostic form of the psalms and their parallel lexemes and themes. Chief among the parallel lexemes and themes is the Torah emphasis of all three psalms, most clearly seen in the introduction to both Psalms 112 (v. 1) and 119 (vv. 1–2). There, each introductory verse begins with ‫ אשׁרי‬and extols those who are committed to Yahweh’s instruction. Beyond ‫אשׁרי‬, however, there are no key-word links, only thematic links.38 Zakovitch sees parallels between words that he claims are synonymous—‫( מצוה‬112.1) and ‫תורה‬ (119.1); ‫( חפץ‬112.1) and ׁ‫( דרש‬119.2)—but these words are better described as Jacques Trublet, “Approche canonique des Psaumes du Hallel,” in The Composition of the Book of Psalms, ed. Erich Zenger, BETL 238 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 339–76. 34 Ibid. 35 See Zenger, “Composition,” 88. 36 Silvia Ahn also combines Psalm 119 with those that precede in “I Salmi,” 180–1, 193–4. She relies on word links between Psalms 111–118 and 119 to make her case. The same critique that applies to Zakovitch regarding the significance of these links also applies to her (see below). 37 Zakovitch, “The Interpretative,” 218. 38 For more on the differences between these two technical terms, see Chapter 3 on methodology. 33

114

The Return of the King

word pairs or as having overlapping semantic fields, not as synonyms. These words may display a thematic link, but they do not constitute a key-word link, which is the strongest evidence of cohesion among psalms. Zakovitch observes other lexical parallels among the three psalms—such as ‫( נפלאות‬111.4; 119.18, 27), ‫( מצוה‬112.1; 119 (x22)), and ‫( פקוד‬111.7; 119 (x22)). The strongest links are ‫ מצוה‬and ‫ פקוד‬because these two words only appear in Psalms 111–112 and 119 in Book V. But neither word is prominent in Psalms 111–112 because the Torah theme is not as pronounced in these psalms as Zakovitch claims. The key themes of these two psalms are righteousness and eternality.39 While there are clearly similarities among the psalms, these parallels demonstrate the need for a weighted system of comparing links such as introduced in the chapter on methodology. Repeated words do not constitute a significant link among psalms—the repetitions must be more than incidental. The same can be said about the parallels between Psalms 118 and 119 observed by Zakovitch.40 In each of the eight correspondences posited by Zakovitch, repeated words are used as evidence of cohesion—examples include ‫( ירא‬118.4; 119 (x5)), ‫( ספר‬118.17; 119.13, 26), and ‫( חיה‬118.17; 119 (x16)). But in every case the words are not used in the same type of contexts. In fact, in every case, when the words are used in Psalm 118, they are not related to Yahweh’s Torah; but in Psalm 119, in every case, the words are related to Yahweh’s Torah. This reveals the sharp thematic chasm between Psalms 118 and 119. Although there are some parallels between the psalms (which should be expected because they are juxtaposed), the key themes are distinct—Psalm 118 celebrates Yahweh’s eternal covenant loyalty and Psalm 119 is dominated by reflection on Yahweh’s Torah. And the themes do not overlap. Psalm 118 lacks any mention of the ten key terms of Psalm 119 (‫תורה‬, ‫חק‬, ‫משׁפט‬, ‫אמרה‬, ‫דרך‬, ‫פקוד‬, ‫מצוה‬, ‫אמונה‬, ‫עדות‬, and ‫)דבר‬. One of these words appears in every See Erich Zenger, “Psalmenexegese und Psalterexegese: Eine Forschungsskizze,” in The Composition of the Book of Psalms, ed. Erich Zenger, BETL 238 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 37–9: “Die wortgleichen Zeilen 111,3b und 112,3b nennen das Thema der beiden Psalmen: Es geht um die Gerechtigkeit und deren Langzeitwirkungen” (38). See also Pierre Auffret, “En mémoire éternelle sera le juste: Étude structurelle du Psaume cxii,” VT 48 (1998): 2–14. There Auffret argues that Psalm 112 hinges on v. 6: “For he will not be shaken forever; a righteous man will be remembered forever.” 40 James L. Mays also observes a connection between Psalms 118 and 119 in idem, “The Place of the Torah-Psalms in the Psalter,” JBL 106 (1987): 11. 39



Forever Faithful

115

verse of Psalm 119 except for verse 122.41 The disjunction between Psalms 118 and 119 is demonstrated by the fact that Psalm 118 does not use even one of these words. On the other hand, the dominant theme of Psalm 118 is Yahweh’s eternal (‫ )עולם‬covenant loyalty (‫)חסד‬. Although these words are used with some frequency in Psalm 119,42 Davis rightly notes that ‫ חסד‬is not used in the same way: “The 2 psalms of the present corpus [107 and 118] recognize God’s ‫ חסד‬as a reason for giving praise and thanks to God. Psalm 119, however, presents God’s ‫ חסד‬as the way in which the individual speaker in the psalm desires to be dealt with by God, rather than as a grounds for his praising God.”43 The same could be said about ‫עולם‬. In Psalm 118, ‫ עולם‬is always used in conjunction with ‫חסד‬. In Psalm 119, it is most often used with one of the Torah words (vv. 52, 89, 98, 111, 112, 152, 160), but it is also used in reference to Yahweh’s righteousness (vv. 142 and 144) and the psalmist’s commitment to remember Yahweh’s Torah (vv. 44 and 93).44 Moreover, the words ‫ חסד‬and ‫ עולם‬appear together at the bounds of the proposed group (107.1; 117.2; 118.1, 2, 3, 4, 29), yet they do not occur together in Psalm 119. Psalm 119 is unique within Book V. It is not closely related to any other psalm because the dominant word group and the prevailing theme of the psalm are unique to Book V. The statistics of the dominant word group underscore this fact. Table 7.1:45 Word Occurrence in Psalm 119 Word

Occurrences in 119

Elsewhere in Book V

‫תורה‬ ‫פקוד‬ ‫מצוה‬ ‫עדות‬ ‫חק‬

25 22 22 23 21

0 1 1 2 2

There is debate about how many Torah-related words are in Psalm 119. The traditional view is that there are ten. More recently, however, scholars have favored the perspective that sees eight words related to Torah. A case will be made in the next chapter that affirms the traditional view. 42 ‫ עולם‬is used eleven times in Psalm 119 (vv. 44, 52, 89, 93, 98, 111, 112, 142, 144, 152, 160); ‫ חסד‬is used seven times (vv. 41, 64, 76, 88, 124, 149, 159). 43 Davis, “A Contextual,” 10. 44 There is some ambiguity regarding the use of ‫ עולם‬in v. 52. It could refer to ‫ זכר‬or ‫משׁפט‬. The LXX and the Vulgate (both Iuxta Hebraeos and the Gallican Psalter) interpret ‫ עולם‬as modifying ‫משׁפט‬. That understanding is consistent with the usage of ‫ מעולם‬in the Psalter (see 25.6; 93.2; 103.17), where the same phrase modifies nouns, not verbs. Of the English translations, the NIV and NLT make this connection most explicit. 45 The words of this table are in descending order according to the percentage of usage in Psalm 119. 41

The Return of the King

116 ‫אמרה‬ ‫אמונה‬ ‫משׁפט‬ ‫דבר‬ ‫דרך‬

19 5 23 24 13

2 1 9 11 13

The most striking feature of this table is that the most common word of Psalm 119—‫—תורה‬does not occur anywhere else in Book V. With the exception of ‫משׁפט‬, ‫דבר‬, and ‫דרך‬, all of the other words rarely appear in Book V. Furthermore, a case could be made that the usage of ‫משׁפט‬, ‫דבר‬, and ‫ דרך‬in Psalm 119 is unique because these words have assumed a technical meaning related to Yahweh’s Torah, whereas they do not necessarily have this same meaning in the rest of Book V.46 This is another reason why Psalm 119 should not be grouped with the psalms that precede it. The accumulation of the evidence suggests, therefore, that the preliminary group of Book V concludes with Psalm 118. Inner cohesion

Now that the boundaries of the group have been set, I still need to demonstrate the inner cohesion of the group. Because it would exceed the bounds of this project to catalog all of the connections among all the psalms, the case for inner cohesion will be limited to those links that are deemed most significant. In other words, only the strongest evidence will be cited.47 It should be remembered from the chapter on methodology that literary cohesion is demonstrated through parallelism, so parallels at different literary levels will be showcased in order to make a case for the cohesion of this psalm grouping (some of these parallels have already been listed in the sections on the boundaries of the group).

For example, ‫ דבר‬means “the word(s) of the Torah” in Psalm 119, except in v. 42a. Of the other eleven occurrences in Book V, only one has the sense of “words of the Torah” (147.19). Consequently, even though ‫ דבר‬is somewhat common in Book V, the technical usage of ‫ דבר‬witnesses to the uniqueness of Psalm 119 within Book V. 47 For an exhaustive catalog of all the significant links among Psalms 107–118, see Davis, “A Contextual.” Davis’s dissertation succeeds in demonstrating the inner cohesion of this psalm group by listing all of the significant links among the psalms, providing substantial evidence that these psalms comprise a group. 46



Forever Faithful

117

Key-word links among psalms are a form of parallelism.48 Consider how the following key-word links bind this unit together:49 The root ‫ ישׁר‬occurs twenty-eight times in the Psalter and eleven times in Book V. Six of those occurrences are within this group (107.7, 42; 111.1, 8; 112.2, 4). ‫ אביון‬occurs sixty-one times in the Bible, twenty-three times in the Psalter, and eight times in Book V. Nearly 10 percent of all biblical usage (107.41; 109.16, 22, 31; 112.9; 113.7) is within this group. The adjective ‫ חנון‬occurs thirteen times in the Bible, six times in the Psalter, and four times in Book V. Three of those occurrences are in this group (111.4; 112.4; 116.5). The interjection ‫ אנא‬occurs thirteen times in the Bible and four times in the Psalter. All four occurrences are in this group (116.4, 16; 118.25 (x2)). The particle ‫ נא‬occurs sixteen times in the Psalter and thirteen times in Book V. Eight of those occurrences are in 107–118 (115.2; 116.14, 18; 118.2, 3, 4, 25 (x2)). There are eleven occurrences of ‫ גוי‬in Book V, six of which are in 107–118 (110.6; 111.6; 113.4; 115.2; 117.1; 118.10). The noun ‫ זכר‬occurs twenty-three times in the Bible, eleven times in the Psalter, five times in Book V. Three occurrences are in this group (109.15, 111.4; 112.6). The root ‫( חכם‬this includes the noun/s, adjective, and verb) occurs thirteen times in the Psalter, and four times in Book V. Three of those occurrences are in Psalms 107–118 (107.27, 43; 111.10). Outside of Ps. 139.11-12, the only other occurrences of the root ‫ ךׁשח‬in Book V are in this group (107.10, 14; 112.4). The noun ‫ מצר‬is a tris legomenon within the Bible. Two of those occurrences are in this group (116.3 and 118.5; Lam. 1.3 is the other occurrence).

MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

See Chapter 3 on methodology. The purpose of the following bullet points is to show that these key-word links occur with significantly greater frequency in Psalms 107–118 than elsewhere in the Bible, the Psalter, or Book V. Each example represents at least 50 percent of the usage within Book V and/or 20 percent of the usage within the Psalter.

48 49

118 MM

MM

MM

MM

The Return of the King

The root ‫ נוע‬occurs forty-one times in the Bible, seven times in the Psalter, four times in Book V. All four of the occurrences in Book V are in 107–118 (107.27; 109.10 (x2), 25). The verb ‫ רום‬occurs nine times in Psalms 107–118 (107.25, 32; 108.6; 110.7; 112.9; 113.4, 7; 118.16, 28), but only six more times in Book V. Even though it falls just outside of the statistical criteria for these links, ‫ ימין‬should also be mentioned. It occurs forty-two times in the Psalter, and seventeen times in Book V. Eight of those occurrences are in Psalms 107–118. Notice also the concatenation within Psalms 108–110 (108.7; 109.6, 31; 110.1, 5; 118.15, 16 (x2)). Another root that falls just outside the statistical criteria is ‫ראׁש‬. It occurs fourteen times in Book V, with six occurrences in Psalms 107–118. Yet, five of those occurrences form another concatenation (108.9; 109.25; 110.6, 7; 111.10).

Other forms of parallelism that exist within the group include structural parallelism, common superscriptions, and phrasal parallelism. Psalms 111–112 display structural parallelism: both are acrostics, both begin with ‫הללו־יה‬, and both have the same number of lines (twenty-three, if ‫ הללו־יה‬is included). In that way, the two psalms mirror one another, indicating that they, though distinct, are meant to be read as a cohesive unit.50 Using the mirror analogy, Michael Goulder interprets these psalms’ correspondence in this way: “Psalm 112 is the verso of Psalm 111: the character of Yahweh, set out in 111, is mirrored in the character of his follower … The theme of Psalm 112 is that Yahweh’s faithful are his reflection, both in their disposition and in their blessedness.”51 There are two superscriptions that bind psalms within this group. The first is ‫לדוד‬. Moreover, in each psalm that ‫ לדוד‬occurs (Psalms 108–110), the noun ‫ מזמור‬also occurs. After Book I, there are only three places in which a Davidic superscription is combined with ‫ מזמור‬in a group of three or more psalms—Psalms 62–65; 108–110; 139–141. The superscription ‫ הללו־יה‬also For a more detailed analysis of how these two psalms are structurally related, see Pierre Auffret, “Essai sur la structure littéraire des Psaumes CXI et CXII,” VT 30 (1980): 257–79. There he calls them an “ensemble.” See also Robert L. Alden, “Chiastic Psalms (III): A Study in the Mechanics of Semitic Poetry in Psalms 101–150,” JETS 21 (1978): 199–210. 51 Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107–150): Studies in the Psalter, IV, JSOT Sup 258 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 156. 50



Forever Faithful

119

functions to bind psalms together within this group. Starting in Psalm 111, the phrase ‫ הללו־יה‬occurs as a superscript or subscript in every psalm until Psalm 117 except for Psalm 114. It could be argued, however, as G. T. M. Prinsloo cautiously does in his article “Unit Delimitation in the Egyptian Hallel,” that ‫ הללו־יה‬should be understood as a superscript for each psalm within Psalms 111–118.52 Text-critical considerations notwithstanding, the clustered occurrence of ‫ הללו־יה‬among Psalms 111–117 bears witness to the group’s unity. There are also phrasal parallels within Psalms 107–118. As has already been noted, the sentence ‫ ה)ו(דו ליהוה כי־טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬occurs three times in these Psalms (107.1; 118.1, 29), forming an inclusio around the entire group. This sentence occurs in this form in only three other places in the Bible (Pss. 106.1; 136.1; 1 Chron. 16.34).53 Another phrasal parallel exists between Pss. 113.2 and 115.18: Ps. 113.2: ‫יהי שׁם יהוה מברך מעתה ועד־עולם‬ Ps. 115.18: ‫ואנחנו נברך יה מעתה ועד־עולם‬ These verses use in common the root ‫ברך‬, a form of the name Yahweh, and the phrase ‫מעתה ועד־עולם‬. This may form a type of inclusio around these psalms, which share other thematic similarities.54 Psalms 111.4, 112.4, and 116.5 also share common phrasing: Ps. 111.4: ‫חנון ורחום יהוה‬ Ps. 112.4: ‫חנון ורחום וצדיק‬ Ps. 116.5: ‫חנון יהוה וצדיק ואלהינו מרחם‬ Four words occur in Pss. 111.4 and 112.4—‫חנון‬, ‫רחום‬, ‫צדיק‬, and ‫יהוה‬. Each of these roots occurs in Ps. 116.5. These phrasal parallels are further evidence of the inner cohesion of Psalms 107–118.55 Prinsloo, “Unit Delimitation,” 246–51. This contention assumes two things: (1) that Psalms 114–115 are one psalm; (2) that the ‫ הללו־יה‬subscripts of Psalms 113 and 115–117 should be read as superscripts of the following psalms. There is evidence within the LXX and Masoretic textual traditions to support both claims. 53 Variations of the sentence can also be found in Jer. 33.11; Ezra 3.11; 2 Chron. 7.3. 54 On the thematic similarities of these psalms, see Erich Zenger, “Götter- und Götterbildpolemik in Ps 112–113 LXX = Ps 113–115 MT,” in Der Septuaginta-Psalter: Sprachliche und theologische Aspekte, ed. Erich Zenger, HBS 32 (Freiburg: Herder, 2001), 229–55. He sees both a polemic against idols in these psalms, as well as an emphasis on the incomparability (Unvergleichbarkeit) of Yahweh. 55 There may also be a phrasal parallel between Pss. 110.3 and 113.8, although this one is admittedly looser and fraught with text-critical difficulty: Ps. 110.3: ‫עמך נדבת‬ 52

120

The Return of the King

Thematic parallels

The dominant theme of Psalms 107–118 is Yahweh’s eternal (‫ )עולם‬covenant loyalty (‫)חסד‬.56 Although these words do not meet the stringent criteria used for the key-word links above, their influence can be demonstrated in other ways.57 For instance, they only occur together—that is, in the same verse— at the boundaries of the group.58 There is also the evidence of the inclusio between Psalms 107.1 and 118.29, in which these two words constitute the reason for praise. Their significant placement at the bounds of the group, then, reveals their importance.59 One of these two words appears in every psalm of this corpus, and, moreover, they are integral to the interpretation of each psalm.60 Psalm 107 appears to be a direct response to the plea of Ps. 106.47, where the psalmist requests that Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬gather (‫ )קבץ‬his people from the nations (‫ )גוים‬so that they might give thanks (‫ )ידה‬to Him. Psalm 107.1-3 calls God’s people to give thanks (‫ )ידה‬to Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬because he has gathered (‫ )קבץ‬them from the lands (‫)ארצות‬. Psalm 107, then, represents a providential reversing, and each section of the psalm highlights this. Whether it is those wandering in the desert (vv. 4–9), or those who are imprisoned (vv. 10–16); whether it is those who are sick (vv. 17–22), or those who are on the sea (vv. 23–32), Yahweh is a God who reverses the fortunes of his people when they cry out to him (Pss. 106.47; 107.6, 13, 19, 28).61 The final section (vv. 33–42) summarizes what has Ps. 113.8: ‫עם־נדיבים עם נדיבי עמו‬ The text-critical crux is Ps. 110.3, and there are various possible emendations and/or variations of reading the consonantal text for this passage. Regardless of where one lands with those questions, however, the consonantal similarity is noteworthy. 56 See Pss. 107.1; 118.1-4, 29. 57 The use of these roots fall below the necessary percentages to be considered a key-word link: 50 percent of all occurrences in Book V and/or 20 percent of all occurrences in the Psalter. The root ‫ חסד‬occurs sixty-nine times in Book V, and only nineteen of those occurrences are in Psalms 107–118 (28 percent). ‫ עולם‬occurs sixty-eight times in Book V, with fifteen of those occurrences in Psalms 107–118 (22 percent). 58 See Pss. 107.1; 117.2; 118.1-4, 29. 59 Another root that occurs with conspicuous frequency at the boundaries of this section is ‫ידה‬. This root appears fifteen times in Psalms 107–118, with eleven of those occurrences in Psalms 107 and 118 (107.1, 8, 15, 21, 22, 31; 118.1, 19, 21, 28, 29). It was not included as a major theme of the group because it does not influence the rest of the psalms like ‫ חסד‬and ‫ עולם‬do. 60 This statement assumes that Psalms 114–115 are, in fact, one psalm. See the Appendix. 61 Jorge Mejía discerns a chiastic structure in the first four major sections of Psalm 107 that broadly conforms to the structural analysis presented here, although in some cases he presses the data: A: Traveling (Wanderers) B: Sin (Prisoners (of exile?)) B': Sin (Healed from sickness (sin?))



Forever Faithful

121

already been illustrated by example: Yahweh should be praised because he can reverse fortunes, both in judgment and salvation. The wise understand this (v. 43; cf. Hos. 14.10). It is striking that ‫ חסד‬occurs toward the end of each of these sections (vv. 1, 8, 15, 21, 31, 43), functioning as a type of summary of what has been described. Yahweh’s gathering of his people is a proof of his covenant loyalty (vv. 1–3), as is confirmed in each of the following sections (vv. 8, 15, 21, 31, 43). Moreover, the entire psalm is framed by references to Yahweh’s ‫( חסד‬vv. 1, 43), which further clarifies the theme of this opening psalm. Psalm 108, which is a conflation of Psalms 57.7-11 and 60.5-12,62 continues the theme of Yahweh’s ‫חסד‬, only this time victory over the nations—specifically Edom—is in view. As in Psalm 107, the grounds for praise is Yahweh’s ‫( חסד‬vv. 1–5), along with his ‫אמת‬. In Psalm 108, Yahweh’s ‫ חסד‬is displayed in his sovereignty over the nations (vv. 6–14), whether in salvation from the nations (v. 10) or in judgment by the nations (v. 12). According to Erich Zenger, “Psalm 108 expresses the theme of the entire composition [108–110]: the salvation of Israel as proof before all nations of the h.esed and the ῟met of YHWH and hence the revelation of YHWH’s universal reign.”63 Psalm 109 portrays David in a battle with his enemies. The first section of the psalm (vv. 1–5) describes his plight. This is then followed by a lengthy imprecation (vv. 6–20) in which David lobbies for his enemies’ destruction.64 Finally, there is a request for salvation and blessing (vv. 21–31). The theme highlighted by Zenger—namely, salvation from enemies as proof of Yahweh’s ‫—חסד‬is made explicit in Psalms 109.26-27. David’s enemies will see Yahweh’s ‫ חסד‬at work when Yahweh delivers him. Moreover, Walter Brueggemann A': Traveling (Seafarers) For more, see idem, “Some Observations on Psalm 107,” BTB 5 (1975): 56–66. 62 For more on this, see E. A. Knauf, “Psalm lx und Psalm cviii,” VT 50 (2000): 55–65; Raymond Jacques Tournay, “Psaumes 57, 60 et 108: analyse et interprétation,” Revue biblique 96 (1989): 5–26. 63 Erich Zenger, “The Composition and Theology of the Fifth Book of Psalms, Psalms 107–145,” JSOT 80 (1998): 90. 64 Debate surrounds whether or not this middle section is an imprecation of the psalmist or a quotation of the enemies of the psalmist. A detailed treatment of this topic cannot be undertaken here, but a few remarks can be made. The impetus for reading this as a quotation of the enemies derives largely from the supposed “unchristian” nature of the imprecation, as argued by H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60–150: A Commentary, trans. Hilton C. Oswald (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1989), 341. This section is understood to be an imprecation spoken by David because (1) it is understood to be so in Acts 1.16, 20 and (2) imprecation is not necessarily “unchristian.” For more, see ibid., 335–42; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms, 128–30; Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150, rev., WBC 21 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 102–5.

122

The Return of the King

suggests that Psalm 109 cannot be understood without taking into account the fourfold use of ‫( חסד‬vv. 12, 16, 21, 26). As he puts it, “I propose that the main flow of the argument of the poem can be traced through the uses of this word [‫ … ]חסד‬The argument of the psalm, I submit, depends on being able to recognize that it is the same word in all uses.”65 Psalm 110, then, continues the theme of deliverance from enemies, only this time, Yahweh does the speaking, assuring the longed-for deliverance (cf. Psalms 108–109). Holding in abeyance the text-critical and translational challenges of this psalm, the structure is straightforward. There are two decrees by Yahweh that dominate the two major sections: I. Rule with Yahweh (vv. 1–3) II. An eternal priesthood in the order of Melchizedek (vv. 4–7) It should be noted that ‫ חסד‬does not occur in this psalm, yet the theme can still be discerned because of the emphasis on deliverance from enemies, which is a sign of Yahweh’s ‫( חסד‬cf. Ps. 109.26-27). Although ‫ חסד‬is lacking, ‫ עולם‬is not. The priesthood of this warrior-king is an eternal one (v. 4). These themes are directly related to the psalms that precede, and they even hark further back. Willem VanGemeren explains: “The reminder of God’s rejection (108:11) and the prayer for vindication (Ps 109) after Psalm 107 (Yahweh’s deliverance and unfailing love) raise the question of the position of the Davidic agent in Yahweh’s kingdom. This question lingers from the charge of rejection in 89:38.”66 Psalm 110 affirms the place of the Davidic ruler, testifying that Yahweh’s covenant loyalty—manifest in deliverance—is not forsaken. The chief lexical link between Psalms 110 and 111 is ‫עולם‬. Mentioned at one of the key junctures of Psalm 110 (v. 4), this word and its synonyms become prominent in Psalm 111. Derek Kidner contends that this theme of eternality “almost dominates the psalm,”67 which becomes more evident in the structure of the psalm: Walter Brueggemann, “Psalm 109: Three Times ‘Steadfast Love,’” Word & World 5 (1985): 149. Willem VanGemeren, Psalms, in Psalms, vol. 5, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, rev. edn, ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 813. VanGemeren is referring to the English verse divisions, so his v. 38 is v. 39 in BHS. 67 Derek Kidner, Psalms 73–150: A Commentary on Books III–V of the Psalms, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 398. 65 66



Forever Faithful

123

Introduction (v.1): Praise the Lord! A (vv. 2–4): Yahweh’s righteousness abides (‫ )עמדת‬forever (‫)לעד‬. B (vv. 5–6): Yahweh remembers his covenant (‫ )בריתו‬forevermore (‫)לעולם‬. X (vv. 7–8): All Yahweh’s precepts are steadfast forever and ever (‫)לעד לעולם‬. B' (v. 9): Yahweh commands his covenant (‫ )בריתו‬forevermore (‫)לעולם‬. A' (v. 10): Yahweh’s praise abides (‫ )עמדת‬forever (‫)לעד‬.68 Psalm 111 portrays Yahweh and all that is associated with him as eternal, including, most significantly, his faithfulness to his covenant (vv. 5, 9). As has already been argued, Psalm 112 is, in many respects, a mirror of Psalm 111. Whereas Yahweh is described in 111, the man of Yahweh is the focus of Psalm 112. It becomes conspicuous that the man of Yahweh (112) reflects the character of Yahweh (111). The most prominent feature of the man of Yahweh is the correlation between righteous/righteousness (‫ )צדק‬and the use of ‫ לעד‬and ‫עולם‬.69 These two words have been in close conjunction since Psalm 110 (110.4; 111.3), and now they are paired three times. In fact, Auffret’s proposed structure of Psalm 112 is organized around the tripartite occurrence of these semantic fields. He even claims that the psalm hinges on verse 6, which creates this broad outline:70 A (vv. 1–5): ‫( וצדקתו עמדת לעד‬3b). X (v. 6): The righteous man ([‫ )]צדיק‬will never (‫ )לעולם‬be moved (6a). The righteous man (‫ )צדיק‬will be remembered forever (‫( )עולם‬6b). A' (vv. 7–10): ‫( צדקתו עמדת לעד‬9b). ‫עולם‬, then, once again fulfills an integral function within the psalm. Psalm 113 beautifully juxtaposes the transcendence and immanence of Yahweh, which accounts for the impetus to praise in the psalm. This comes out most clearly in the structure of the psalm:

This structure is based on the work of Dae-i Kang in a Psalms seminar at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, Fall 2008. It is the most persuasive structural analysis of Psalm 111, a psalm that can be difficult to subdivide as is evident by the plethora of competing scholarly suggestions. Kang’s analysis is a slight modification (and amelioration) of Pierre Auffret’s work on the psalm, where Auffret also highlights the structural significance of ‫ םלוע‬and its synonyms in Psalm 111. See idem, “Essai,” 259; idem, “En mémoire,” 13. See also Zenger, “Psalmenexegese,” 38, where he contends that the major theme of Psalm 111 is that Yahweh’s righteousness abides forever (111.3b). 69 Cf. vv. 3, 6, 9. 70 Auffret, “En mémoire,” 2–14. 68

124

The Return of the King

A. Call for praise (vv. 1–3). B. Reason for praise (vv. 4–9). 1. Yahweh’s character (vv. 4–6) (transcendence). 2. Yahweh’s deeds (vv. 7–9) (immanence). Although the twin themes of ‫ חסד‬and ‫ עולם‬are not as dominant in Psalm 113, they can still be discerned. Verse 2 calls for the name of the Lord to be blessed from now and forevermore (‫)ועד־עולם‬. VanGemeren sees in this a link to the constancy of Yahweh’s loyalty to his people evidenced later in the psalm: “The emphasis on the continuity of praise is a corollary of the emphasis on the continuity of God’s loyalty to his people.”71 Though muted, the themes are still present. Psalm 114 is the only psalm in the corpus that lacks any reference to ‫חסד‬ or ‫עולם‬, but two considerations vitiate the force of this omission. First, the psalm references the mighty works of Yahweh in the exodus and the conquest (vv. 3–6), and the salvific acts of Yahweh in rescuing his people are closely associated with his ‫( חסד‬cf. Pss. 107.8, 15, 21, 31; 109.26-27). Second, there is weighty evidence that suggests that Psalm 114 should be combined with Psalm 115.72 Nevertheless, the point being made in this section is not that the twin themes of ‫ חסד‬and ‫ עולם‬dominate every psalm in this group, but rather that these twin themes are the most dominant themes in the group as a whole. Psalm 115 picks up the themes again, beginning with ‫( חסד‬v. 1) and ending with ‫( עולם‬v. 18). In this psalm about the worship of the true God, Yahweh’s ‫ דסח‬is the reason for praise (v. 1) and his people’s praise will never end (v. 18).73 Interestingly, if Psalms 113–115 are read as a mini-group, which is plausible considering the inclusio between Pss. 113.2 and 115.18,74 then ‫עולם‬ occurs at the bounds of the group and ‫ חסד‬occurs at the mid-point.75 The only occurrence of either root in Psalm 116 is in verse 15, where it reads, “Precious in the eyes of Yahweh is the death of his loyal ones (‫)לחסידיו‬.” VanGemeren, Psalms, 832. See Appendix. 73 This reading takes ‫ על‬in v. 1 to mean “on account of.” The phrase ‫( מעתה ועד־עולם‬v. 18) occurs eight times in the Bible. Five of those occurrences are in Book V (Isa. 9.6; 57.21; Mic. 4.7; Pss. 113.2; 115.18; 121.8; 125.2; 131.3). 74 For more evidence on Psalms 113–115 as a mini-group, see Zenger, “Götter-,” 229–55; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms, 178–9, 210–11. 75 From Ps. 113.2 (‫ )עולם‬to 115.1 (‫)חסד‬, there are fifteen verses. From 115.1 (‫ )חסד‬to 115.18 (‫)עולם‬, there are sixteen verses. 71 72



Forever Faithful

125

Michael Barré divides the psalm into two main sections (vv. 1–9 and 10–19), which represents the traditional division because the LXX divides this psalm into two at that juncture. He then subdivides those sections into two so that his outline looks like this: Part I A: vv. 1–4 Part I B: vv. 5–9 Part II A: vv. 10–14 Part II B: vv. 15–19 In Part I, he observes the recurrence of life/death lexemes (‫מות‬, ‫נפשׁי‬, and ‫)חיים‬. One of these words occurs in five of the nine verses, making it clear that the psalmist is in deathly straits.76 He then contends that there are no occurrences of any of these lexemes in the second section, arguing that ‫ המותה‬in verse 15 should be read as ‫המנותה‬, “the well-attested Aramaic word for ‘trust, faith(fulness).’”77 But if ‫ המותה‬is not emended, then it becomes a strong link to the first section and may even be considered the resolution to the psalm. Thus, ‫ חסיד‬occurs at a structurally significant position in the psalm.78 Psalm 117, the shortest chapter in the Bible, contains the re-emergence of ‫ חסד‬and ‫ עולם‬in close proximity (v. 2). This has not happened since Psalm 107. The psalm opens with a call for the nations to praise (v. 1), and the reason for praise is Yahweh’s ‫ חסד‬and ‫ אמת‬toward his people (v.2), presumably displayed in the mighty works of Yahweh recounted in Psalms 113–116.79 The twin themes dominate Psalm 118. They form an inclusio around the psalm (vv. 1, 29), and the phrase ‫ כי לעולם חסדו‬produces an echo effect at the beginning as it is repeated four times (vv. 1–4). Furthermore, the strong links between Psalm 118 and the rest of the Egyptian Hallel suggest that even

Michael L. Barré, “Psalm 116: Its Structure and its Enigmas,” JBL 109 (1990): 67–8. Ibid., 72. Although this verse has posed challenges for translators, the problem has not been how to interpret ‫המותה‬. The challenge, rather, has been how to understand ‫יקר‬. Does Yahweh find pleasure in the death of his people? This, Barré suggests, is the only possible interpretation if one reads ‫המותה‬ as “death” (71). If ‫יקר‬, however, is understood to mean “precious, valuable” (see HALOT, s.v.), then the meaning of the verse is that the death of those loyal to Yahweh is not a flippant event—Yahweh knows when his people are in deathly straits because their death is costly/weighty/precious. 78 Auffret organizes the psalm around the occurrences of ‫ תומ‬in idem, “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 116,” Biblische Notizen 23 (1984): 32–47. 79 See also the references to other nations in those psalms (113.4; 115.2ff.). 76 77

The Return of the King

126

though ‫ חסד‬and ‫ עולם‬may not be as prominent in Psalms 113–116, these psalms should be viewed in the light of Psalm 118.80 Table 7.2: An Overview of ‫ חסד‬and ‫ עולם‬in Psalms 107–118 107

108

109

‫חסד‬ ‫עולם‬

‫חסד‬

‫חסד‬

110

111

112

113

114/115 116

117

118

‫עולם‬

‫עולם‬

‫עולם‬

‫עולם‬

‫חסד‬ ‫עולם‬

‫חסד‬ ‫עולם‬

‫חסד‬ ‫עולם‬

‫חסד‬

With the evidence in view, the most dominant theme running through these psalms is that Yahweh is eternally (‫ )םלוע‬loyal to his covenant (‫)דסח‬.81 Even though ‫ חסד‬and ‫ עולם‬are not the main themes in each of these psalms, their presence can be discerned, in some way, in all of them. These psalms portray Yahweh not only as a God who is loyal to his covenant, but as a God who is eternally loyal to his covenant. Yahweh’s love, manifest in his loyalty, is a love that lasts.

The Significance of the Unity of Psalms 107–118 Two significant points emerge from Psalms 107–118. First, the whole group affirms that Yahweh’s ‫ חסד‬is ‫עולם‬. It should be remembered that this point comes under question in Psalm 89, but the psalmist concludes that work in measured hope that Yahweh’s covenant loyalty to David has not been discarded.82 Psalms 107–118 are a resounding affirmation of that hope. Yahweh’s ‫ חסד‬is celebrated because he has a history of rescuing the downcast, exiled, and defeated. J. Clinton McCann, Jr., affirms this viewpoint: Book V begins by establishing a post-exilic perspective (see Ps 107:2-3) and by commending consideration of God’s steadfast love (see 107:43). Not coincidentally perhaps, Psalm 118 begins and ends with the same verse that opens Book V (107:1), suggesting the possibility that Psalms 107–118 together offer a perspective from which to face the reality of continuing oppression: recollection See these significant links: ‫נדיב‬: Ps. 113.8 with 118.9; Ps. 115.9-11 with 118.2-4; ‫מצר‬: Ps. 116.3 with 118.5; ‫מות‬: 116.3, 8, 15 with 118.18. Elizabeth Hayes concurs with the observation about ‫חסד‬: “Clearly the theme of God’s faithfulness is central to the larger grouping [Psalms 107–118],” in idem, “The Unity of the Egyptian Hallel: Psalms 113–18,” BBR 9 (1999): 147. 82 McCann, Psalms, 1117, notes that “Psalm 107, for instance, serves as a pointed response to the question raised in Ps 89:49: ‘Lord, where is your steadfast love [‫ ]חסד‬of old?’” 80

81



Forever Faithful

127

of God’s past activity as a basis for petition and grateful trust in God’s future activity on behalf of the people.83

But, even more than these reasons, it is celebrated because it is eternal. The inclusio and the dominant theme of this group suggest this. Second, David re-emerges in Psalms 107–118. Although he is not absent from Book IV, his presence is more subdued.84 Psalms 108–110, however, constitute the first Davidic group of psalms since Book II.85 So, in this group, not only is Yahweh’s ‫ חסד‬affirmed to be ‫עולם‬, but David becomes a prominent figure again. Even the placement of the Davidic psalms (at the beginning of the group) implies that they are meant to influence that which follows. The message is: David is back! Psalms 107–118 appear, then, to be a response to Psalm 89. They complement Book IV’s dominant theme—Yahweh’s kingship—by witnessing to the re-emergence of Yahweh’s vice-regent. Yahweh has not jettisoned his covenant with David because his covenant loyalty is eternal.

Ibid., 1153–4. For an excellent treatment of how Psalm 118 has been interpreted messianically, see ibid., 1156; idem, A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as Torah (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1993), 166–8. 84 The only references to him are in Pss. 101.1 and 103.1. 85 Psalms 111–112 could also be added in support of the re-emergence of David because they pick up lexemes and themes from Psalm 110. Could they be intended as a type of commentary on Psalm 110? Moreover, they seem to portray Yahweh and the ideal man in ways consonant with Psalm 2, and the links between Psalms 2 and 110 are numerous, especially if ‫ ילדתיך‬is pointed as a Qal perfect 1cs with a 2ms sfx. as is witnessed by the LXX (on which see Dominique Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, vol. 4, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50 (Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 748, who reports that a majority of the committee was in favor of the Qal pointing). 83

8 Y A H W E H ’ S T O R A H A N D T H E K I N G : R OYA L E M P HA SI S I N P S A L M 1 1 9

Yahweh’s Torah, or instruction, permeates Psalm 119. Only one verse (v. 122) of this massive psalm—the longest psalm in the Psalter—does not mention it or one of its synonyms. This thematic homogeneity has dismayed some scholars, leading them to denigrate the psalm’s artistry. Artur Weiser is representative of this viewpoint: In accordance with the number of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet twentytwo such “poems” are joined together; these, however, neither show a consistent thought-sequence one with another nor represent units complete in themselves. This formal external character of the psalm stifles its subject-matter. The psalm is a many-coloured mosaic of thoughts which are often repeated in a wearisome fashion.1

More recently, however, scholarship has grown to appreciate the singular focus of the psalm, recognizing that its creativity may actually be heightened by its recursive theme.2 J. Clinton McCann, Jr., contends, “When commentators consider this repetition tedious, they are missing the point. Psalms 119 Artur Weiser, The Psalms, trans. Herbert Hartwell, Old Testament Library (London: SCM Press, 1962), 739. See also W. O. E. Oesterley, The Psalms: Translated with Text-critical and Exegetical Notes (London: SPCK, 1953), 486; Bernhard Duhm, Die Psalmen, 2nd edn, Kurzer Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament 14 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1922), 427; Moses Mendelssohn, Die Psalmen (Berlin: Friedrich Maurer, 1783), 284–5. 2 See Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150, trans. Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2011), 257–62; Kent Aaron Reynolds, Torah as Teacher: The Exemplary Torah Student in Psalm 119, VTS 137 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 14; David Noel Freedman with Jeffrey C. Geoghegan and Andrew Welch, Psalm 119: The Exaltation of Torah, UCSD Biblical and Judaic Studies 6 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 87–8; Will Soll, Psalm 119: Matrix, Form, and Setting, CBQ Monograph Series 23 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1991), 1–2, 6–11; Pierre Auffret, Voyez de vos yeux: Étude structurelle de vingt Psaumes, dont le Psaume 119, SVT 48 (Leiden: Brill, 1993); idem, Mais tu élargiras mon couer: Nouvelle étude structurelle du psaume 119, BZAW 359 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006); Marcus Nodder, “What is the Relationship between the Different Stanzas of Psalm 119?” Churchman 119 (2005): 323–42. 1

130

The Return of the King

is more artistic than artificial. As a literary artist, the psalmist intended the structure of the poem to reinforce its theological content. In short, torah— God’s revelatory instruction—is pervasive and all-encompassing.”3 The form-critical designation of the psalm is also a point of contention among scholars. Some argue that it is a lament psalm,4 others argue that it is a wisdom psalm,5 and still others contend that it is a Torah psalm.6 A final, prominent proposal suggests that the psalm should be understood as a mixed form (Mischgattung), incorporating different elements of the standard forms into a variegated style.7 Due to the wide variety of form-critical elements within the psalm, it seems most reasonable to conclude that Psalm 119 is a mixed form. It should be noted, however, that Psalm 119 demonstrates one of form criticism’s greatest shortcomings: its inability to account for all the data, including Psalm 119. For this reason, form criticism does not significantly factor into my thesis. It is clear that Torah is the overriding theme of Psalm 119, but how many “Torah” words are there in the psalm: eight or ten? The leading proposal maintains that there are eight words related to Torah.8 The case for limiting the number of Torah words to eight is typically built on the frequency of usage

J. Clinton McCann, Jr., Psalms, in 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, vol. 4, New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996), 1166. 4 Soll, Psalm 119, 59–86; Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), 2:77–8. 5 J. Kenneth Kuntz, “Reclaiming Biblical Wisdom Psalms: A Response to Crenshaw,” Currents in Biblical Research 1 (2003): 145–54; Avi Hurvitz, “Wisdom Vocabulary in the Hebrew Psalter: A Contribution to the Study of ‘Wisdom Psalms,’” VT 38 (1988): 41–51. 6 Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms, 256–7; Bernhard W. Anderson with Steven Bishop, Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for Us Today, 3rd edn, rev. and exp. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 223; James L. Mays, “The Place of the Torah-Psalms in the Psalter,” JBL 106 (1987): 3. It should be noted that Anderson labels this psalm a “Torah (wisdom) psalm.” See also Egbert Ballhorn, “Der Torapsalter: Vom Gebetbuch zum Buch der Weisung,” Bibel und Kirche 65 (2010): 24–7, who recognizes both Torah and wisdom influences in Psalm 119, but places emphasis on the presentation of Torah. 7 Reynolds, Torah, 28–9; Alfons Deißler, Psalm 119 (118) und seine Theologie: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der anthologischen Stilgattung im Alten Testament (München: Karl Zink, 1955); Hermann Gunkel with Joachim Begrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen: Die Gattungen der relgiösen Lyrik Israels, 4th edn (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1985), 403–4. 8 These include ‫אמרה‬, ‫דבר‬, ‫חק‬, ‫מצוה‬, ‫משׁפט‬, ‫עדות‬, ‫פקוד‬, and ‫תורה‬. See Soll, Psalm 119, 35–48; Freedman, Psalm 119, 30–55; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms, 258–60; Reynolds, Torah, 16, 109–21; F. Zorell, “Textkritisches zum 119. (118.) Psalm,” Biblica 4 (1923): 375–80; David J. Eckman, “A Rhetorical and Theological Study of Psalm 119 with Special Reference to the Parenetic Expressions of Deuteronomy” (Ph.D. diss., Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1994), 173–4; R. N. Whybray, “Psalm 119—Profile of a Psalmist,” in Wisdom, You are my Sister, ed. Michael L. Barré, CBQ Monograph Series 29 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1997), 31. 3



Yahweh’s Torah and the King

131

within Psalm 119 (the eight words occur between nineteen and twenty-five times) and the symmetry that exists between the eight words and the eightline stanzas.9 David Noel Freedman goes a little further, arguing that there is also symmetry between masculine/feminine nouns and singular/plural nouns among the eight words, as well as the distribution of key words between the two halves of the poem.10 A better case can be made, however, that there are ten Torah words in Psalm 119. This position rests on the observation that there are, in fact, ten words used in Psalm 119 that refer to Torah.11 Even though the two added words are not used with the same frequency as the other eight, nor are they used as synonyms of Torah in every occurrence, ‫ ךרד‬and ‫ הנומא‬are used as synonyms of Torah in three places (vv. 3, 37, 90).12 This is also the traditional understanding. The Masorah of verse 122 states, “There is one of these ten words in every verse, except for this one (and these ten words hint at the Ten Words [the decalogue]): ‫דרך‬, ‫עדות‬, ‫פקוד‬, ‫מצוה‬, ‫אמורה‬, ‫תורה‬, ‫משפט‬, ‫צדק‬, ‫חק‬,

See Soll, Psalm 119, 46–7; Reynolds, Torah, 16–19; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms, 258–60. Hossfeld and Zenger further outline the significance of the number “eight” in the Bible in ibid., 257–8. 10 Freedman, Psalm 119, 35–55. Although the data can be impressive, Freedman’s results rely upon emendation at points and, whenever the data do not fit his scheme, he claims that the psalmist intentionally broke from the pattern to portray the chaos of the world. See ibid., 93–4. 11 The two words that are added are ‫ דרך‬and ‫( אמונה‬although ‫ ארח‬sometimes replaces ‫)אמונה‬. 12 Soll admits that a stronger case can be made for including ‫ דרך‬as a synonym, but he refrains because it is not used with the same frequency as the other eight words and because it begins some lines in the ‫ד‬-stanza, something that the other eight words never do (idem, Psalm 119, 46–7). In response, if a word is used as a synonym, then it should be considered a synonym regardless of how many times it is used as a synonym. Furthermore, the two key occurrences of ‫( דרך‬vv. 3 and 37) do not begin the line, so Soll’s argument about placement is mitigated somewhat. Soll claims that the argument against ‫ אמונה‬is much stronger, mainly because there are other instances in which ‫ אמונה‬clearly does not refer to Torah (e.g. vv. 75 and 86). Nevertheless, the parallelism with v. 89 strongly suggests that ‫ הנומא‬is being used as a synonym of Torah in v. 90. Consider these two verses of the psalm (the colors indicate elements that align with one another): 9

 

‫לעולם יהוה דברך נצב בשׁמים‬ ‫לדר ודר אמונתך כוננת ארץ ותעמד‬

Based on a poetic analysis, ‫ אמונה‬is parallel to ‫דבר‬, which is indubitably one of the Torah words. Consequently, in this case, it appears that ‫ אמונה‬is also being used as a Torah synonym.

132

The Return of the King

and ‫דבור‬.”13 Many scholars then drew upon this tradition.14 The popularity of this proposal has waned in more recent years, the work of Jon D. Levenson representing the exception, but this is due to the two chief factors already mentioned: (1) many scholars observe multiple elements related to the number “eight” in the psalm; and (2) eight words are used with great frequency, while the added two refer to Torah a total of three times. Nevertheless, a synonym is a synonym regardless of how many times it is used or how it might dissolve a putative symmetrical arrangement.15 What is not as controversial is the observation that there are two prominent features of Psalm 119: it is an acrostic poem and Torah words dominate. Will Soll refers to these as the “two axes” that constitute the “matrix” of the psalm.16 Psalm 119 is a “complete” acrostic because it follows the order of the alphabet and does not lack any of the letters.17 Moreover, eight lines are devoted to each letter, thus each letter forms its own stanza. And every one of the 22 stanzas is predominantly focused on one theme: Torah. At no point in the psalm does the psalmist’s orientation stray from this singular vision.

‫מקראות גדולות‬: ‫( תהלים‬Jerusalem: Brockman, n.d.), 753:

13

 ‫בכל פסוק חד מן עשרה לישני אילין דרך עדות פקוד מצוה אמורה תורה משפט צדק חק דבור רמז לעשרת‬  ‫הדברים במ״א פסוק לית ביה חד מכל אלו‬. It should be noted that the Masorah includes ‫ צדק‬as one of the ten words, but the key point of this passage is that v. 122 is the only verse that does not contain a Torah word, and if that is the case, then ‫ אמונה‬must have been intended. In fact, Franz Delitzsch references this passage in the Masorah, and he notes that ‫ צדק‬is the alternate reading to ‫ אמונה‬in the Masorah. That is, the reading is ‫אמונה‬, but there are some manuscripts that have ‫צדק‬. See idem, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, trans. Francis Bolton (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949), 3:243. 14 See ibid.; J. A. Alexander, The Psalms: Translated and Explained (New York: Charles Scribner, 1853), 3:150; A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms: With Introduction and Notes: Books IV–V (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1901), 2:703–4. Kirkpatrick trades ‫ ארח‬for ‫אמונה‬, which later proponents of the ten-word schema do as well. See Deißler, Psalm 119, 74–86; Jon D. Levenson, “The Sources of Torah: Psalm 119 and the Modes of Revelation in Second Temple Judaism,” in Ancient Israelite Religion, ed. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1987), 562–3. ‫ ארח‬has not been adopted in this study because in most instances it clearly does not refer to Torah (vv. 9, 101, 104, 128), and in the one possible exception (v. 15), ‫ ארח‬refers to the outcome of Torah study: notice the form ‫ואביטה‬, which signifies purpose or result (see vv. 18, 33, 34, 73). 15 The observation of the Masorah, which links the ten words of Psalm 119 to the Ten Words of the Decalogue, provides its own kind of symmetry. Thus, the ten-word proposal may not be asymmetrical after all. 16 Soll, Psalm 119, 1–2. See also Reynolds, Torah, 16. 17 For more on acrostics, see Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 190–200; Soll, Psalm 119, 5–34; David Noel Freedman, “Acrostic Poems in the Hebrew Bible: Alphabetic and Otherwise,” CBQ 48 (1986): 408–31. See also K. C. Hanson who argues that acrostics should be considered their own genre in idem, “Alphabetic Acrostics: A Form Critical Study” (Ph.D. diss, Claremont Graduate School, 1984).



Yahweh’s Torah and the King

133

The Placement of Psalm 119 within Book V Psalm 119 is a crux criticorum within the macrostructure of Book V. Earlier, I pointed out that Psalms 119 and 137 are hardest to classify—they are the two psalms on which there is most disagreement. Klaus Koch does not even bother including them in his proposal, choosing instead to label them “postcompositional.”18 My purpose in this section is to defend the thesis that Psalm 119 stands alone within Book V.19 This will be done by presenting evidence in support of the thesis and by interacting with some of the competing suggestions. The first reason why Psalm 119 should be considered a section unto itself is because it is unique within Book V. As stated above, the unmistakable theme of Psalm 119 is Torah—it is one of the few aspects of the psalm that enjoys scholarly consensus—but this theme, and the words associated with this theme, is lacking elsewhere in Book V. Thus, the dominant word group and the prevailing theme of the psalm are unique to Psalm 119 within Book V. The statistics of the dominant word group underscore this fact. Table 8.1:20 Word Occurrence in Psalm 119 Word

Occurrences in 119

Elsewhere in Book V

‫תורה‬ ‫פקוד‬ ‫מצוה‬ ‫עדות‬ ‫חק‬ ‫אמרה‬

25 22 22 23 21 19

0 1 1 2 2 2

See Klaus Koch, “Der Psalter und seine Redaktionsgeschichte,” in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung, ed. Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger, HBS 1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 255, 258. 19 This understanding is shared by other scholars, although the way the case is made here will be unique. For scholars who agree that Psalm 119 should stand alone, see Klaus Seybold, Introducing the Psalms, trans. R. Graeme Dunphy (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990); Matthias Millard, Die Komposition des Psalters: Ein formgeschichtlicher Ansatz, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 9 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994); Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107–150): Studies in the Psalter, IV, JSOT Sup 258 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998); Egbert Ballhorn, Zum Telos des Psalters: Der Textzusammenhang des Vierten und Fünften Psalmenbuches (Ps 90–150), BBB 138 (Berlin: Philo, 2004); John H. Walton, “Psalms: A Cantata about the Davidic Covenant,” JETS 34 (1991): 21–31; Erich Zenger, “The Composition of the Fifth Book of Psalms, Psalms 107–145,” JSOT 80 (1998): 77–102; Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1979), 512–13; Jinkyu Kim, “The Strategic Arrangement of Royal Psalms in Books IV–V,” WTJ 70 (2008): 143–57. 20 The words of this table are in descending order according to the percentage of usage in Psalm 119. That is, 100 percent of occurrences of ‫ הרות‬within Book V are in Psalm 119, descending to 50 percent of occurrences within Book V for ‫ךרד‬. 18

The Return of the King

134 Table 8.1: (cont.) Word

Occurrences in 119

Elsewhere in Book V

‫אמונה‬ ‫מׁשפט‬ ‫דבר‬ ‫דרך‬

5 23 24 13

1 9 11 13

This applies to the psalms that precede and follow Psalm 119. Consequently, if a significant criterion for grouping psalms is key-word links, Psalm 119 should be considered its own group because other psalms do not share its key words. Even though Psalm 119 contains key words from other sections—most notably ‫ חסד‬and ‫ עולם‬from Psalms 107–118—the opposite is not true; that is, Psalms 107–118 rarely use the Torah-related vocabulary of Psalm 119.21 This is significant because the Torah lexemes are the key words of Psalm 119. With the exception of ‫מׁשפט‬, ‫דבר‬, and ‫דרך‬, all of the other words rarely appear in Book V. Furthermore, a case could be made that the usage of ‫משׁפט‬, ‫דבר‬, and ‫ דרך‬in Psalm 119 is unique because these words have assumed a technical meaning related to Yahweh’s Torah, whereas they do not necessarily have this same meaning in the rest of Book V.22 The most striking feature of this table is that the most common word of Psalm 119—‫—תורה‬does not occur anywhere else in Book V. Again, the consensus viewpoint is that ‫ תורה‬represents the one, monotonous theme of the psalm, and yet it is unique to Psalm 119. This is another reason why Psalm 119 should not be grouped with any other psalms. It may be objected, however, that Psalm 119 is only one psalm, and how can one psalm be considered its own “group?” In response, the size of Psalm 119 mitigates this objection. As a complex acrostic, it could easily be considered 22 short poems combined into one massive poem. Moreover, a simple word count lends support to viewing the psalm as its own group.

It should also be noted that both ‫ חסד‬and ‫ עולם‬are used differently in Psalm 119 than they are in Psalms 107–118. For more, see the previous chapter. 22 For example, ‫ דבר‬means “the word(s) of the Torah” in Psalm 119, except in v. 42a. Of the other eleven occurrences in Book V, only one has the sense of “words of the Torah” (147.19). Consequently, even though ‫ דבר‬is somewhat common in Book V, the technical usage of ‫ דבר‬witnesses to the uniqueness of Psalm 119 within Book V. 21



Yahweh’s Torah and the King

135

According to Freedman, there are 1,065 words in Psalm 119.23 Compare that number to the 1,227 words that occur in the following group, Psalms 120–137. Psalm 119 can, therefore, be considered its own group because of its size. A strong case has been made in the previous chapter that Psalm 119 should not be grouped with the psalms that precede it, Psalms 107–118. But what about the psalms that follow? Are there any data that suggest combining Psalm 119 with Psalms 120–137 in some way? Kirsten Nielsen thinks so. She argues from a religio-political perspective that the MT preserves two distinct ways of participating in pilgrimage. One way is to “walk” in the Torah of Yahweh. By doing so, groups who were separated from the Jerusalem Temple—whether by choice or by distance—could still approach Yahweh by studying his word. Nielsen contends that “those who did not go up to Jerusalem may have claimed that walking in accordance with the Torah was their way of fulfilling the statues about pilgrimage.”24 The second way is to participate in one of the three yearly pilgrimages to Jerusalem celebrated in the Songs of Ascents. Thus, by juxtaposing these two perspectives, the MT represents a type of compromise between differing factions of Judaism. Evidence for this hypothesis is lacking, however. The only textual evidence that she garners for seeing a close, editorial relationship between Psalm 119 and the Songs of Ascents is the overlapping usage of metaphors related to “walk” and “way.” As she argues: In the Songs of Ascents the superscript indicates that the pilgrim is on his way to the temple on Zion. In Ps 119 a main theme is to walk according to the Torah of the Lord. Keeping God’s statutes is described through the image of being on the right way. For a reader who is not able to walk to the temple in Jerusalem or does not want to do so, Ps 119 gives another possibility: to walk according to the Torah of the Lord.25[Italic in original.] Freedman, Psalm 119, 30. This number is corroborated by F. I. Anderson and A. D. Forbes, “‘Prose-Particle’ Counts of the Hebrew Bible,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Carol Myers and Michael O’Connor (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 165–83. 24 Kirsten Nielsen, “Why Not Plough with an Ox and an Ass Together? Or: Why Not Read Ps 119 together with Pss 120–134?” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 14 (2000): 66. For Psalm 119 as preparation for the Songs of Ascents, see Marvin E. Tate, “Psalms,” in Mercer Commentary on the Bible, ed. Watson E. Mills and Richard F. Wilson (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1995), 526. 25 Ibid., 62–3. Although not in the same way, and not from the same religio-political perspective, Erich Zenger also observes pilgrimage overtones in Psalm 119, specifically, and Book V, in general, 23

The Return of the King

136

Two critiques, however, undermine Nielsen’s thesis. First, the theme of “way” is discernible in Psalm 119, especially with the use of words like ‫ דרך‬and ‫ארח‬.26 In the Songs of Ascents, on the other hand, the theme is not apparent in the text. It may be implied in the superscriptions, but there are few parallel features—whether words or phrases—within the text. For instance, ‫ דרך‬is only found one time in the Songs of Ascents (128.1), and ‫ ארח‬not at all.27 The only words that appear more than once in both groups are ‫ רגל‬and ‫הלך‬, but these do not constitute key-word links.28 Repeated words are not enough to establish a psalm grouping. Second, neither metaphor—“walk” or “way”—is the dominant theme of the respective groups. As has been stated, Torah is the dominant theme of Psalm 119. Of the ten Torah words found in Psalm 119, only four of them are found in Psalms 120–137, comprising five occurrences.29 Moreover, the key words from the following section are not used in Psalm 119. For the psalms that follow, ‫ׁשיר‬, ‫ציון‬, ‫ירוׁשלם‬, ‫יׂשראל‬, and ‫ מעלה‬are the key words that bind the group together. None of these key words occurs in Psalm 119: Table 8.2: Key Words in Psalms 120–137 compared to 119 Words

Occurrences in Psalm 119

Occurrences In Psalms 120–137

‫ׁשיר‬ ‫ציון‬ ‫ירוׁשלם‬ ‫יׂשראל‬ ‫מעלה‬

0 0 0 0 0

20 10 9 15 15

Due to the lack of overlap between the key words, these two groups should be kept separate.30 in idem, “The Composition and Theology of the Fifth Book of Psalms, Psalms 107–145,” JSOT 80 (1998): 77–102. See also idem, “Der Psalter als Buch,” in Der Psalter in Judentum und Christentum, HBS 18, ed. Erich Zenger (Freiburg: Herder, 1998), 47–8; Matthias Millard, Die Komposition des Psalters: Ein formgeschichtlicher Ansatz, FAT 9 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994), 227–30. 26 ‫ דרך‬is used thirteen times in Psalm 119, and ‫ ארח‬is used five times. 27 The same can be said about other words that witness to the “walk” and “way” metaphor in Psalm 119. ‫( נתיב‬119.35) is not found in Psalms 120–134. Neither is ‫( נתיבה‬119.105). The verb ‫תעה‬ (119.110, 176) is absent from the Songs of Ascents. 28 ‫ רגל‬occurs in Pss. 119.59, 101, 105; 121.3; 122.2; 132.7. ‫ הלך‬occurs in Pss. 119.1, 3, 45; 122.1; 125.5; 126.6 (x2); 128.1; 131.1. 29 ‫( עדות‬Pss. 122.4; 132.12); ‫( משׁפט‬122.5); ‫( דבר‬130.5); ‫( דרך‬128.1). 30 Nielsen even concedes that Psalm 119 and Psalms 120–134 represent “different points of view” (64).



Yahweh’s Torah and the King

137

The Significance of Psalm 119 If Psalm 119 acts as its own macrostructural unit within Book V, how does it contribute to Book V’s emerging storyline? Psalm 119—with its unmistakable emphasis on Torah, and especially Torah study—recollects the royal figure of Psalm 1, who is portrayed as a devoted student of Yahweh’s Torah. By highlighting the importance placed on Torah study within the psalm and by presenting parallels between Psalm 119 and Psalm 1, as well as Psalm 119 and Deut. 17.14-20, the connection is most clearly seen. Others have argued that the “I” of Psalm 119 may be a royal figure, so the contention itself is not unique.31 Building on these observations, I want to present fresh avenues of understanding that support this argument. First, numerous parallels exist between Psalms 1 and 119.32 MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

‫ אׁשרי‬begins both psalms (1.1; 119.1). Both psalms contain the phrase ‫( בתורת יהוה‬1.2; 119.1). These are the only two places in the Psalms that this phrase occurs. It only occurs seven times in the Bible.33 ‫ אבד‬appears in the last verse of both psalms (1.6; 119.176). Of the thirty-six occurrences of ‫ תורה‬in the Psalter, 27 of them are in these two psalms. Both psalms progress from ‫ א‬to ‫ת‬.34 Both psalms are chiefly about individuals.

See Augustus Bedlow Prichard, Christ in Psalm CXIX: An Attempt to Analyze Psalm CXIX and Identify its Contents with the Lord Jesus Christ (Los Angeles: Bible House of Los Angeles, 1938), 7; Mitchell Dahood, Psalms III: 101–150, Anchor Bible 17a (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970), 173; Soll, Psalm 119, 126–54; John H. Eaton, Kingship in the Psalms, 2nd edn, Biblical Seminar 3 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 24, 86, 149. 32 See Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 263; Reinhard Gregor Kratz, “Die Tora Davids: Psalm 1 und die doxologische Fünfteilung des Psalters,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 93 (1996): 8; Claus Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms, trans. Keith R. Crim and Richard N. Soulen (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1981), 253. Although scholars have recognized the parallels, their significance has not always been made explicit. Westermann at least attempts to draw a conclusion about the affinities between the psalms, even if his conclusion is not adopted here. Due to the similarities, he posits an early stage in the development of the Psalter when Psalms 1 and 119 formed a frame around the whole. 33 2 Kgs 10.31; Pss. 1.2; 119.1; 1 Chron. 16.40; 2 Chron. 31.3, 4; 35.26. 34 The first word of Psalm 1 begins with ‫ א‬and the last word begins with ‫ת‬. See Gordon Wenham, Psalms as Torah: Reading Biblical Song Ethically, Studies in Theological Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 82. 31

138 MM

MM

The Return of the King

Torah is studied night and day (1.2; 119.55, 62, 97, 164). Torah is a source of delight (1.2; 119.14, 16, 24, 35, 47, 97, 113).35

It appears, then, that the “I” of Psalm 119 is portrayed in ways consistent with the ideal ruler described in Psalm 1. Reynolds concurs: “The speaker in Ps 119 is an instantiation of an exemplary type of person, specifically the torah student who is introduced in Ps 1.”36 The “I” does what the ideal ruler does and delights in what the ideal ruler delights in. In fact, there are such strong affinities between Psalm 119 and Ps. 1.2 that Psalm 119 could be considered a 176-verse expansion of Ps. 1.2. Moreover, parallels exist between Psalm 119 and Deut. 17.14-20.37 These parallels have gone largely undetected, even by scholars who compare Psalm 119 to Deuteronomy.38 The similarities are striking: MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

MM

Four of the ten Torah words appear in Deuteronomy 17.14-20 (‫דבר‬, ‫תורה‬, ‫( חק‬v. 19); ‫( מצוה‬v. 20); ‫( דרך‬v. 16) also occurs, but not in relation to Torah). The king of Deuteronomy 17.14-20 is not to turn (‫ ;סור‬vv. 17, 20) from Torah (cf. Ps. 119.29, 102, 115). Torah is better than silver and gold (‫ )זהב וכסף‬in Ps. 119.72—cf. Deut. 17.17 (cf. also Ps. 119.127). The king is admonished to learn (‫ )למד‬Torah in Deuteronomy 17.19—cf. Ps. 119.7, 12, 26, 64, 66, 68, 71, 73, 99, 108, 124, 135, 171. The purpose of this learning is that the king would fear (‫ )ירא‬Yahweh (Deut. 17.19)—cf. Ps. 119.38, 120. The king is called to keep (‫ )ׁשמר‬Torah in Deuteronomy 17.19. This verb occurs twenty-one times in Psalm 119. Everyday (‫—כל־היום‬it is in a bound phrase with a 3ms sfx.) Torah is to be studied by the king (Deut. 17.19)—cf. Ps. 119.97.

See Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 263: “When the one praying Psalm 1 says that he finds his delight in YHWH’s Torah, when he meditates on it ‘day and night,’ he puts his finger precisely on the nervus rerum of Psalm 119.” 36 Reynolds, Torah, 65. 37 It should be remembered that there are also links between Psalm 1 and Deut. 17.14-20. See the chapter entitled “Reading from the Beginning.” 38 See Eckman, A Rhetorical; Deißler, Psalm 119. See also Soll, Psalm 119, 127–33. Both Soll (pp. 128–9, 150–1) and Deißler (p. 202) briefly mention Deut. 17.14-20 in their studies, but they do not substantively develop the parallels. 35



Yahweh’s Torah and the King

139

The “I” of Psalm 119 is also doing what the king of Deut. 17.14-20 is called to do. Finally, some scholars have opted to describe the “I” of Psalm 119 simply as a Torah student39 or a Torah copyist.40 Indeed, Reynolds has persuasively demonstrated that Psalm 119 depicts the exemplary Torah student. But, within the Bible, who is called to be the exemplary Torah student? According to Deut. 17.14-20, the answer is the king. Hossfeld and Zenger contend that Psalm 119 “was used as a kind of ‘professional prayer’ by those who copied the Torah” (italic in original).41 But, within the Bible, who is called to copy the Torah? Again, according to Deut. 17.14-20, the answer is the king. Consequently, Psalm 119, along with Psalms 107–118, witnesses to the re-emergence of the ideal Davidic ruler within the storyline of Psalms because Psalm 119 depicts an individual who is doing what the ideal ruler is called to do.

See Reynolds, Torah, 65. Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 263. Ibid.

39 40 41

9 R E T U R N T O Z IO N : T H E L O C U S O F M E S SIA N IC R U L E IN PSALMS 120–137

My thesis in this chapter is that Psalms 120–137 should be read as a group. The coherence among the Songs of Ascents (Psalms 120–134) has long been recognized due to the clustering of a common superscription that is unique to these 15 psalms.1 It is not as accepted, however, that Psalms 135–137 should also be grouped with these psalms.2 In this chapter I will first demonstrate that the Songs of Ascents and Psalms 135–137 are coherent units, each individually. Then, I will make a case for combining the two groups into one. Finally, the chapter will close with an evaluation of the significance of the group.

The Cohesion of the Songs of Ascents (Psalms 120–134) The Songs of Ascents display many parallel elements that bind them together. The most conspicuous feature—and the one for which they are named—is the common superscription.3 All the psalms begin with the super It should be noted that Chapter 5 reveals that every scholar who weighs in on Book V maintains the unity of Psalms 120–134. 2 Erich Zenger contends that Psalms 120–137 are a group in idem, “The Composition of the Fifth Book of Psalms, Psalms 107–145,” JSOT 80 (1998): 77–102, which is a slight modification of idem, “Komposition und Theologie des 5. Psalmenbuchs 107–145,” Biblische Notizen 82 (1996): 97–116. So Kun (Silvia) Ahn also groups Psalms 120–137 together, albeit more broadly in idem, “I Salmi 146–150 come conclusione del Salterio” (Ph.D. diss., Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2008). See also Matthias Millard, Die Komposition des Psalters: Ein formgeschichtlicher Ansatz, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 9 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994), 40; Corinna Körting, Zion in den Psalmen, FAT 48 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 82–3. 3 For literature related to the superscription, see Loren D. Crow, The Songs of Ascents (Psalms 120–134): Their Place in Israelite History and Religion, SBLDS 148 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996), 1–27; David C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms, JSOT Sup 252 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 108–14; Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107–150): Studies in the Psalter IV, JSOT Sup 258 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 20–4. It will be assumed in this work that ‫ תולעמה ריׁש‬means “song of (the) ascents” and demarcates pilgrimage songs sung on the way up (“song of the goings up”) to Jerusalem/Zion. 1

142

The Return of the King

scription ‫ שׁיר המעלות‬except for Psalm 121, which begins ‫שׁיר למעלות‬. This minor difference does not diminish the homogeneity of the superscription. Moreover, the Songs of Ascents are unique because they are the only cluster of psalms that contains all occurrences of the same superscription in order.4 With only one exception (Psalm 132), the Songs of Ascents are all short.5 Loren Crow points out that “the average length of a psalm in the Psalter is 16.9 verses. The average length of a psalm in the Songs of Ascents is 6.7 verses (bracketing out Psalm 132, the figure is 5.9 verses).”6 Averaging 54 words per psalm, the brevity of the Songs of Ascents stands in sharp contrast to the expansive Psalm 119. There are also a significant number of parallel clauses within these psalms, as displayed in the following table: Table 9.1: Parallel Clauses Phrase

Occurrences

‫עׁשה ׁשמים וארץ‬

121.2; 124.8; 134.3

‫מעתה ועד־עולם‬

121.8; 125.2; 131.3

‫יאמר־נא יׂשראל‬

124.1; 129.1

‫ׁשלום על־יׂשראל‬

125.5; 128.6

‫יברכך יהוה מציון‬

128.5; 134.3

‫יחל יׂשראל אל־יהוה‬

130.7; 131.3

The nearly identical lines of Pss. 124.1-2 and 129.1-2 do not constitute a clause repetition because the repeated clause is in the same psalm (except for ‫ישׂראל‬ ‫יאמר־נא‬, which is listed above), but the feature of nearly identical lines can also be considered a parallel within the Songs of Ascents. Michael Goulder observes the high incidence of step parallelism in the

See Gerald H. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBLDS 76 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), 143; Egbert Ballhorn, Zum Telos des Psalters: Der Textzusammenhang des Vierten und Fünften Psalmenbuches (Ps 90–150), BBB 138 (Berlin: Philo, 2004), 222; Daniel Grossberg, Centripetal and Centrifugal Structures in Biblical Poetry, SBLMS 39 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989), 17. 5 See also Goulder, Psalms, 24; Klaus Seybold, Die Wallfahrtspsalmen: Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte von Psalm 120–134, Biblisch-theologische Studien 3 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 20; Erich Zenger, “Der Zion als Ort der Gottesnähe: Beobachtungen zum Weltbild des Wallfahrtspsalters Ps 120–134,” in Gottes Nähe im Alten Testament, ed. G. Eberhardt and K. Liess, SBS 202 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH, 2004), 96. 6 Crow, Songs, 129. 4



Return to Zion

143

Songs of Ascents.7 This rather uncommon form of parallelism heightens a comparison, and it is found with regularity in the Songs of Ascents (cf. Pss. 121.3-4; 127.1; 129.1-2; 131.2). Moreover, he notes the “frequency of similes, and especially of homely similes, in the Songs” (italic in original).8 He adduces references to children and other aspects of home life (cf. Pss. 123.2; 127.4; 128.3; 131.2) and the dearth of martial images as evidence of the generally irenic nature of the Songs.9 For a comprehensive list of all the lexical parallels within Psalms 120–134, see Hendrik Viviers, “The Coherence of the ma῾alôt Psalms (Psalms 120–134).” Viviers provides a catalog of all the parallelisms at the level of the lexeme, and he extends his research to include syntactic and phonological parallels.10 Because the data already exists, and because there is little dispute regarding the cohesion of the Songs of Ascents, the details will not be reproduced here. In light of all the evidence, then, there is good reason to hold to the cohesion of the Songs of Ascents.11

The Cohesion of Psalms 135–137 As much consensus as there is regarding the cohesion of Psalms 120–134, there is a proportional lack of consensus regarding Psalm 137’s placement in the macrostructure of Book V. Those who hold to the ‫הללו־יה‬/‫ הודו‬taxonomy contend that Psalm 137 appears at the beginning of a new section. Weaknesses with this supposition have already been outlined, but I have still not made

Goulder, Psalms, 25. See also Mitchell, The Message, 108; Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150, trans. Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2011), 295–6. 8 Goulder, Psalms, 26. See also Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms, 295–296; Zenger, “Der Zion,” 98–9. 9 See also Marianne Grohmann, “The Imagery of the ‘Weaned Child’ in Psalm 131,” in The Composition of the Book of Psalms, ed. Erich Zenger, BETL 238 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 513–22. 10 See Hendrik Viviers, “The Coherence of the ma῾alôt Psalms (Psalms 120–134),” ZAW 106 (1994): 275–89. 11 For more studies that argue for the unity of the Songs of Ascents, see Pierre Auffret, La sagesse a bâti sa maison: Études de structures littéraires dans l’Ancien Testament et spécialment dans les Psaumes, OBO 49 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 439–531; Évode Beaucamp, “L’unité du recueil des montées: Psaumes 120–134,” Liber Annuus Studii Biblici Franciscani 29 (1979): 73–90; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms, 286–99; Marina Mannati, “Les psaumes graduels constituent-ils un genre littéraire distinct à l’interieur du psautier biblique?” Semeia 29 (1979): 85–100; Rick R. Marrs, “The Šyry-Hm῾lwt (Psalms 120–134): A Philological and Stylistic Analysis” (Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1982); Seybold, Die Wallfahrtspsalmen; Zenger, “Der Zion,” 84–114. 7

144

The Return of the King

a case for where Psalm 137 fits.12 In this section I will argue that Psalm 137 should be grouped with the psalms that precede it. James Todd argues in his recent dissertation that Psalm 137 is most closely related with Psalms 135–136.13 After a thorough treatment of the three psalms, Todd persuasively demonstrates the contextual relationship among them. His presentation of the evidence is on the whole compelling.14 He begins by confirming the close editorial relationship between Psalms 135 and 136.15 He outlines a notable array of lexical parallels, but most impressive are the psalms’ parallel structures. Table 9.2:16 Structural Parallels between Psalms 135 and 136 Structure

Psalm 135

Psalm 136

Frame (call to praise/thanksgiving) Theme Setting Verse of Body Proofs of Yahweh’s Uniqueness Yahweh’s Acts of (or in) Creation (Proof 1) Yahweh’s Acts for His People/Against His Enemies (Proof 2) Yahweh’s Care for His People (Proof 3)

vv. 1–3, 21 v. 5 vv. 6–14 vv. 6–7 vv. 8–12

vv. 1–3, 26 v. 4 vv. 5–24 vv. 5–9 vv. 10–22

vv. 13–14

vv. 23–24

He then includes Psalm 137 in his contextual assessment. The less-compelling evidence notwithstanding, Todd shows that Psalm 137 is contextually related to Psalms 135–136 because of lexical and thematic links. The strongest lexical links include the repetition of ‫( זכר‬Pss. 135.13; 136.23. 137.1, 6, 7), ‫( ציון‬Pss. See Chapter 5 for a critique of the ‫הללו־יה‬/‫ הודו‬taxonomy. James M. Todd III, “A Poetic and Contextual Analysis of Psalms 135–137” (Ph.D. diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2010). 14 Todd’s case is weakest when he argues for distant phonological parallels such as ‫ ל־נ־ו‬in Pss. 136.23 and 137.2-3, and the presence of two sibilants in Ps. 136.23, which corresponds with the sibilantheavy beginning of Psalm 137. He also adduces the similarity between ‫ בזכרנו‬in Ps. 137.1 and ‫ברוך‬ in Ps. 135.21. See ibid., 191, 193. 15 The relation between Psalms 135 and 136 enjoys wide scholarly assent. See Ahn, “I Salmi,” 188–91; Christoph Levin, “Psalm 136 als zeitweilige Schlussdoxologie des Psalters,” SJOT 14 (2000): 23–6; Erich Zenger, “Lieder der Gotteserinnerung: Psalm 137 im Kontext seiner Nachbarpsalmen,” in “Für alle Zeiten zur Erinnerung:”Beiträge zu einer biblischen Gedächtniskultur, SBS 209 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH, 2006), 40–1; Zenger refers to these psalms as “Zwillingspsalmen” (41). The strongest lexical parallels include the use of ‫נכה‬, ‫בכור‬, and ‫ מצרים‬in Pss. 135.8 and 136.10; the repetition of ‫ ונתן ארצם‬in Pss. 135.12 and 136.21; the only two references to the Pharaoh are in Pss. 135.9 and 136.15; ‫נכה‬, ‫הרג‬, ‫ מלכים‬in Pss. 135.10 and 136.17-18; the exact repetition of ‫האמרי‬ ‫ לסיחון מלך‬and ‫ לעוג מלך הבשׁן‬in Pss. 135.11 and 136.19-20. Moreover, both psalms recount Israel’s history up to the conquest. For these reasons, the separation of Psalms 135 and 136 represents one of the greatest weaknesses of the ‫הודו‬/‫ הללי־יה‬taxonomy. 16 This table appears in Todd, “A Poetic,” 175. Both Zenger and Matthias Millard concur with these structural parallels. See Zenger, “Lieder,” 41; Millard, Die Komposition, 40. 12 13



Return to Zion

145

135.21; 137.1, 3), ‫( תוך‬Pss. 135.9; 136.11, 14; 137.2), and ‫( ירושׁלם‬Pss. 135.21; 137.5, 6, 7). Erich Zenger develops the ‫ זכר‬link further, arguing that the prayer for Yahweh to remember (Psalm 137.7) is made in the context of the display of his power in Psalms 135–136 against Israel’s enemies.17 There is also a strong thematic link related to land—both Psalms 135 and 136 reference the giving of the land (‫ ונתן ארצם‬in Psalms 135.12 and 136.21) and Psalm 137 laments being away from the land (‫ על אדמת נכר‬in 137.4). But the strongest evidence in favor of including Psalm 137 with the previous psalms—and this is evidence that Todd minimizes—is the close contextual relationship between the Songs of Ascents and Psalm 137.18

The Cohesion of Psalms 120–137 The purpose of this section is to show that Psalms 120–137 should be read together. The true unity is among Psalms 120–137: there should be no division. The links within Psalms 135–137, though present, are not convincing enough to settle the case regarding Psalm 137’s placement alone because there are also links between Psalms 137 and 138, as will be shown below. What tips the balance, however, is the river of evidence that flows from Psalm 120 to Psalm 137. As I have maintained throughout, the issue is not just links, but key-word links. My methodology seeks to show that there are dominant words in a psalm group that do not appear with the same frequency in other groups. This is how the macrostructure of a larger section can be delineated. So, what are the key-word links that bind Psalms 120–137 together into a cohesive unit? Five words function as key-word links within Psalms 120–137: ‫שׁיר‬, ‫ציון‬, ‫ירשׁלם‬, ‫ישׂראל‬, and ‫מעלה‬. These words appear with great frequency within this group, but their frequency of occurrence wanes dramatically in the other parts

Ibid., 47: “Vor allem der an JHWH gerichtete Imperativ Ps 137,7 ‘Erinnere dich!’ erhält von Ps 135–36 eine Tiefendimension: Der Appell richtet sich an das in der kanonischen ‘Urgeschichte’ Israels offenbar gewordene spezifische Gott-Sein JHWHs, gerade im Gegenüber zu den Göttern der Feindvölker. Aber auch die in Ps 137,1b, 6b, beschworene ‘Zionserinnerung’ erhält im Horizont von Ps 135,13 eine weitere Dimension: Das ‘Erinnern’ is das Israel in Ex 3,15 von JHWH selbst geschenkte bzw. Aufgetragene Medium der Bewahrung seines Ursprungs und seiner kollektiven Identität ‘von Generation zu Generation.’” 18 See Todd, “A Poetic,” 225–8. 17

The Return of the King

146

of Book V. Consider, first, this table comparing the key-word links of Psalms 120–137 with the section that follows, Psalms 138–145. Table 9.3: Comparison of Key-word Links from Psalms 120–137 with Psalms 138–145 Words

Occurrences in Psalms 120–137

Occurrences in Psalms 138–145

‫שׁיר‬ ‫ציון‬ ‫ירשׁלם‬ ‫ישׂראל‬ ‫מעלה‬

20 10 9 15 15

3 0 0 0 0

The only key-word link that occurs in the following section is the root ‫שׁיר‬. The verbal form of the root occurs in Psalms 138.5 and 144.9, and the noun occurs in Psalm 144.9 as a cognate accusative with the verbal occurrence in the same verse. The other four key words do not appear at all. The same evidence emerges when these key words are compared to Book V as a whole. The vast majority of the occurrences of these words are in Psalms 120–137.19, 20, 21, 22 Table 9.4: A Comparison of Key Words in Psalms 120–137 with the Rest of Book V Words

Occurrences in Psalms 120–137

Occurrences elsewhere in Book V

‫שׁיר‬ ‫ציון‬ ‫ירושׁלם‬ ‫ישׂראל‬ ‫מעלה‬

20 10 9 15 15

719 420 321 922 0

No less than 60 percent of the occurrences of each of these five words appear in Psalms 120–137. The clustering occurrence of these key words suggests that Psalms 120–137 should be viewed as a macrostructural unit. Furthermore, the five words are distributed throughout Psalms 120–137. In fact, at least one of the words appears in every psalm, demonstrating that the dominant motifs are referenced all through the group: 21 22 19 20

Pss. 108.1, 2; 138.5; 144.9 (x2); 149.1 (x2). Pss. 110.2; 146.10; 147.12; 149.2. Pss. 116.19; 147.2, 12. Pss. 114.1, 2; 115.9, 12; 118.2; 147.2, 19; 148.14; 149.2.



Return to Zion

147

Table 9.5: The Distribution of Key Words in Psalms 120–137 ‫שׁיר‬ ‫מעלה‬ ‫ציון‬ ‫ירושׁלם‬ ‫ישׂראל‬

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X X

X

X X X X X

X X X

X

X X X X X

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

X X

X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X

X

X

Table 9.5 (cont.) ‫שׁיר‬ ‫מעלה‬ ‫ציון‬ ‫ירושׁלם‬ ‫ישׂראל‬

137 X

X X X

X

X X

Fourteen of the eighteen psalms in this group contain at least three of the key words. Only one psalm, Psalm 136, contains one of the key words, but it has been shown to be closely linked with Psalms 135 and 137. Moreover, it complements—both in theme and in content—the emphasis on land and place in Psalms 120–137. The data in Table 9.5 reveal that the key words used in Psalms 120–134 continue to be used in Psalms 135–137, with the exception of ‫הלעמ‬. When coupled with the data of Table 9.3, which shows that the use of these key words lessens significantly after Psalm 137, it becomes apparent that Psalms 135–137 should be grouped with the psalms that precede them.23 When Psalms 135–137 are combined with Psalms 120–134, the collection is bookended by similar psalms. Both Psalms 120 and 137 are written from the perspective of exile. Psalm 137 famously begins, “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and wept, when we remembered Zion” (v. 1). Psalm 120, though, also laments living among a foreign people: “Woe to me, because I have sojourned in Meshech, and I have dwelt among the tents of Kedar” (v. 5).24 In both psalms, the Although he does not go so far as to group these psalms together, J. Clinton McCann, Jr., sees a close editorial relationship among them, describing Psalms 135–137 as “a sort of appendix to the Songs of Ascents.” See idem, Psalms, in 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, vol. 4, New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996), 664. 24 Even though Hossfeld and Zenger refer to this as “theological topography,” it still does not minimize the point that the psalmist writes from a perspective of exile from the land. See idem, 23

148

The Return of the King

psalmist is the victim of verbal attacks. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger contend that there are three reasons for reading Psalm 137.3 as a provocation: (1) In the middle of Babylon, the center of the power that had liquidated Zion, they are asked to sing about the unshakability of Zion and its election by YHWH as the place of his presence in the world—which seemed to have been revealed before the whole world by the historical events as a gigantic selfdeception. (2) They are to do this for the entertainment or jollification of their Babylonian overseers … (3) Although they themselves are full of sorrow, their tormentors command them to show joy and jubilation.25

Likewise, the psalmist in Psalm 120 complains of the distress that arises “from lying lips, from a deceitful tongue” (v. 2). Consequently, there is symmetry at the edges of the collection. Strong parallels exist among Psalms 133–135, which includes the putative seam separating these two groups. (1) ‫ ציון‬and ‫ ברך‬appear together in all three psalms (Pss. 133.3; 134.3; 135.21), and blessing is inextricably linked to Zion in all three. Moreover, each of these occurrences is in the final verse of the psalms, acting as a conclusion to the psalm. (2) Both Psalms 134 and 135 commence in parallel fashion, exhibiting parallelism at the structural and phrasal levels (the color scheme indicates elements that align with one another): Psalm 134.1 ‫הנה ברכו את־יהוה כל־עבדי יהוה‬ ‫העמדים בבית־יהוה בלילות‬ Psalm 135.1–2 ‫הללו את־שׁם יהוה הללו עבדי יהוה‬ ‫שׁעמדים בבית יהוה בחצרות בית אלהינו‬ In addition, both psalms begin with a plural imperative, the object of which is Yahweh in both psalms.26 (3) Psalm 135.19-21 corresponds closely to Ps. Psalms 3, 309–10. See also Léopold Sabourin, Le livre des Psaumes: Traduit et interprété, Recherches: Nouvelle série 18 (Montreal: Bellarmin, 1988), 533. On ‫ךׁשמ‬, see Gen. 10.2; Ezek. 27.13; 38.2; 38.3; 39.1. On ‫רדק‬, see Gen. 25.13; Isa. 21.16, 17; 42.11; 60.7; Jer. 2.10; 49.28 (x2); Ezek. 27.21; Song 1.5. 25 Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 515. 26 ‫ שׁם יהוה‬in Ps. 135.1 functions as a metonymy for Yahweh himself. For metonymy, see Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 3rd edn, rev. and exp. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), s.v.



Return to Zion

149

134.1-3.27 In Psalm 134.1-2, the phrase ‫ ברכו את־יהוה‬is repeated twice, with special emphasis placed on those standing (and serving) in the Temple. The same phrase (‫ )ברכו את־יהוה‬appears verbatim in Ps. 135.19-20 four times, again with special emphasis placed on those serving in the Temple. Both psalms conclude with the aforementioned link between blessing and Zion, as well as a participial phrase describing Yahweh. This is how the parallels appear in the MT: Psalm 134.1-3 ‫הנה ברכו את־יהוה כל־עבדי יהוה‬ ‫העמדים בבית־יהוה בלילות‬ ‫שׂאו־ידכם קדש ׁ וברכו את־יהוה‬ ‫יברכך יהוה מציון עשׂה שׁמים וארץ‬ Psalm 135.19-21 ‫בית ישׂראל ברכו את־יהוה בית אהרן ברכו את־יהוה‬ ‫בית הלוי ברכו את־יהוה יראי יהוה ברכו את־יהוה‬ ‫ברוך יהוה מציון שׁכן ירושׁלם‬ Finally, the use of the relative pronoun ‫ ׁש‬is also worthy of note. It occurs twenty-one times in the entire Psalter, all of which are in Book V. Seventeen occurrences are in Psalms 120–137.28 Of those seventeen occurrences, ten are in Psalms 120–13429 and seven are in Psalms 135–137.30 It appears, then, that the use of the relative pronoun ‫ ׁש‬also binds these psalms together. A benefit of grouping the psalms in this way is that Psalm 137, one of the cruces criticorum of Book V, fits cohesively within the macrostructure. The insights and methodology of editorial criticism, and specifically my methodology, elucidate the purposeful placement of this seemingly orphan psalm.31 When its lexemes and subject matter are compared to the psalms around it, it becomes apparent that Psalm 137 should be included with Psalms 120–136. Norbert Lohfink avers, however. He asserts that Psalm 137 introduces the Davidic group that follows: “The collection (Psalms 138–145) is initiated See Auffret, La sagesse, 541; Zenger, “Lieder,” 48. The other four are Pss. 144.15 (x2); 146.3; 146.5. Pss. 122.3, 4; 123.2; 124.1, 2, 6; 129.6, 7; 133.2, 3. 30 Pss. 135.2, 8, 10; 136.23; 137.8 (x2), 9. 31 See Martin Leuenberger, Konzeptionen des Königtums Gottes im Psalter: Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Redaktion der theokratischen Bücher IV–V im Psalter, ATANT 83 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004), 321. 27 28 29

150

The Return of the King

by the lament of those exiled in Babylon.”32 He adduces the reference to gods in Psalm 138.1 (‫ )אלהים‬and the theological difficulties that would have arisen “upon foreign soil” (‫ ;על אדמת נכר‬Ps. 137.4). The Davidic collection then becomes a response to those difficulties. Joseph Brennan develops the response to Psalm 137.4 further: “The answer to their question: ‘how shall we sing Yahweh’s song on alien soil?’ (137,4) is given in Psalm 138. When the rulers of the nations themselves sing the glories of Yahweh the God of Israel [Ps. 138.4-5], there will no longer be any alien soil anywhere!”33 Todd observes a wider web of connections between Psalms 135–137 and 138. He produces an impressive table of parallels among the psalms, chief of which is the nearly identical quotation of the refrain in Psalm 136 in 138.8, where it reads ‫יהוה חסדך לעולם‬. There are also strong links among ‫( גדול‬Pss. 135.5; 136.4; 138.5) and ‫( שׁם‬Pss. 135.1, 3; 138.2).34 But the links between Psalms 135–137 and the psalms that follow are strongest at the seam (with Psalm 138); the links do not continue after Psalm 138.35 While there may be parallels between Psalms 135–137 and 138, there are not parallels between Psalms 135–137 and 138–145 like there are parallels between Psalms 135–137 and 120–134. Consequently, Psalms 120–137 should be read as a group.

Implications of the Cohesion Now that I have shown that Psalms 120–137 are a cohesive unit, I must still explain the implications of that cohesion. The chief observation that emerges from the macrostructural group is the emphasis on people and place. Three of the five key words refer to a people or a place (‫ציון‬, ‫ירושׁלם‬, and ‫ )ישׂראל‬and one

Norbert Lohfink, Lobgesänge der Armen: Studien zum Magnifikat, den Hodajot von Qumran und einigen späten Psalmen, SBS 143 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH, 1990), 103: “Die Sammlung wird ausgelöst durch die Klage der in Babylonien Exilierten.” See also Wilson, Editing, 221–2; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms, 6–7, who consider Psalm 137 a “bridge psalm” between groups; and Levin, “Psalm 136,” 17–27, who argues that Psalm 136 represents the conclusion of a stage in the development of the Psalter, thus making Psalm 137 a part of what follows. 33 Joseph P. Brennan, “Some Hidden Harmonies in the Fifth Book of Psalms,” in Essays in Honor of Joseph P. Brennan, ed. Robert F. McNamara (Rochester, NY: Saint Bernard’s Seminary, 1976), 143. 34 See Todd, “A Poetic,” 211–16. See also Auffret, La sagesse, 544–9. 35 Todd attempts to demonstrate connections between Psalms 137 and 144, but they are not particularly persuasive in ibid., 220–4. With respect to Psalms 135–137 and 138–145, Todd recognizes a switch to first-person singular in Psalms 138–145 (p. 216). So, while there may be links at the seam (which is to be expected), there is a caesura between Psalms 137 and 138. 32



Return to Zion

151

of the other two (‫ )מעלה‬assumes a movement toward a place.36 One of these words appears in all but three psalms of the corpus. Only Psalms 120, 123, and 127 lack a reference to ‫ציון‬, ‫ירושׁלם‬, and ‫ישׂראל‬, but it should be noted that each of these psalms still mentions a place: Psalm 120 speaks of ‫ משׁך‬and ‫קדר‬ (v. 5); Psalm 123 addresses “the one dwelling in the heavens” (v. 1); and Psalm 127 references a conditional situation in which Yahweh does not “guard a city.” Moreover, other words that refer to specific people or places appear in this section. ‫ משׁך‬and ‫ קדר‬have already been mentioned (Ps. 120.5).37 Other occurrences include place names such as ‫( נגב‬Ps. 126.4), ‫( אפרתה‬Ps. 132.6), ‫יער‬ (Ps. 132.6), ‫( חרמון‬Ps. 133.3), ‫( מצרים‬Pss. 135.8, 9; 136.10), ‫( אמרי‬Pss. 135.11; 136.19), ‫( בשׁן‬Pss. 135.11; 136.19), ‫( כנען‬Ps. 135.11); ‫( ים־סוף‬Ps. 136.13, 15), ‫בבל‬ (Ps. 137.1, 8), and ‫( לבני אדום‬Ps. 137.7). With the exception of ‫מצרים‬, none of these words occurs more than six other times outside of Psalms 120–137. In fact, the only occurrences of ‫נגב‬, ‫אפרתה‬, ‫יער‬, and ‫ אמרי‬as proper nouns in the Psalter are in this section. For ‫ חרמון‬and ‫בבל‬, there is only one other occurrence of these words outside this group in the Psalter.38 Outside of Psalm 136, ‫ ים־סוף‬is mentioned in one other psalm: Psalm 106 (vv. 7, 9, 22). ‫ כנען‬occurs three times in the Psalter, here in Ps. 135.11 and also in Pss. 105.11 and 106.38. Noticing this theme, Egbert Ballhorn writes, “The one praying [in Psalm 120] is present in foreign lands, and concrete place names are used, which is comparatively unusual in the Psalter. More broadly, it will be shown that topographical designations represent a characteristic of the Songs of Ascents.”39 As I have demonstrated, this characteristic carries over into the following psalms as well, and thus they are grouped with the Songs of Ascents. Both Thomas Willi and Klaus Seybold recognize the purpose of the geographical designations: to focus in on the one location par excellence—Zion/Jerusalem.40 Seybold concludes, “On the whole it can be said that the relevant psalms, from For more on the meaning of ‫מעלה‬, and the superscription as a whole, see footnote 3. The noun ‫ משׁך‬occurs only twice in the Psalms (120.5 and 126.6), but the occurrence in Ps. 126.6 is not a reference to a place. Psalm 120.5 is the only occurrence of ‫ קדר‬in the Psalter. 38 ‫( חרמון‬Ps. 89.13); ‫( בבל‬Ps. 87.4). 39 Ballhorn, Zum Telos, 225. “Es tritt die Existenz des Beters in der Fremde hinzu, wobei—vergleichsweise ungewöhnlich im Psalter—konkrete Ortsangaben verwendet werden. Im weiteren Verlauf wird sich herausstellen, daß topographische Angaben ein Charakteristikum des Wallfahrtspalters [sic] darstellen.” For more on Zion as the dominant theme in these psalms, see p. 251. 40 For more on the relationship between Zion and Jerusalem, see Georg Fohrer, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie und Geschichte (1949–1966), BZAW 115 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969), 195–241; Körting, Zion, 11–86. 36 37

152

The Return of the King

the geographical perspective of the peripheral Palestinian fringes, know that their destination point—in so far as it is knowable in the individual texts—is Zion in Jerusalem.”41 Thus, in a section that highlights places, Zion emerges as the most prominent location. But what is the significance of Zion? Royal overtones permeate the Bible’s depiction of Zion.42 Ben Ollenburger claims that “the presence of Yahweh as king on Zion is the central theologoumenon” of the Jerusalem cult tradition.43 In the Book of Psalms especially, another related theme emerges: the co-regency of Yahweh’s anointed, whose reign is established on Zion.44 More than a peripheral issue, this theme introduces the entire book, adumbrating the Psalms’ keen awareness of the role played by the king in Yahweh’s kingdom. Yahweh’s response to the raging of the nations in Psalm 2 is to declare, “I have installed my king on Zion, my holy mountain” (Ps. 2.6). Books I and II particularly emphasize the role of the king because almost every psalm is introduced with a Davidic superscription and the king is a prominent figure in a majority of the psalms.45 As outlined earlier in Chapter 4, however, many scholars contend that the royal themes of the Psalter (related to the human king) become muted in Book III and are largely abandoned in Books IV and V. J. Clinton McCann, Jr., represents this position when he suggests that Book III seeks to “reach a reorientation based upon the rejection of the Davidic/Zion theology that had formerly been Judah’s primary grounds for hope.”46 Seybold, Die Wallfahrtpsalmen, 39. “So wird man insgesamt sagen können, daß die betreffenden Psalmen unter geographischem Gesichtspunkt in die Peripherie der palästinischen Randgebiete weisen … daß ihr Zielpunkt—soweit in den Grundtexten erkennbar—der Zion in Jerusalem ist.” See also Willi, “Das ‫שׁיר המעלות‬,” 157; Philip Satterthwaite, “Zion in the Songs of Ascents,” in Zion, City of our God, eds. Richard Hess and Gordon Wenham (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 105–28, esp. 105–8. 42 See especially Ben C. Ollenburger, Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult, JSOT Sup 41 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987). 43 Ibid., 59. 44 Ibid., 64–5. See also Körting, Zion, 196–205, 215–16; Satterthwaite, “Zion,” 127. 45 Even if the king is not specifically mentioned in a psalm, the individual portrayed in most psalms appears to resemble a royal figure. See Bruce K. Waltke, “A Canonical Process Approach to the Psalms,” in Tradition and Testament, ed. John Feinberg (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), 10–12; Wilson, Editing, 209–13; Jamie A. Grant, The King as Exemplar: The Function of Deuteronomy’s Kingship Law in the Shaping of the Book of Psalms (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2004), 25, esp. n. 79; idem, “The Psalms and the King,” in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches, ed. David Firth and Philip S. Johnston (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2005), 101–18; Robert Cole, Psalms 1–2: A Gateway to the Psalter, Hebrew Bible Monographs 37 (Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2011), 54–79. 46 J. Clinton McCann, Jr., “Books I–III and the Editorial Purpose of the Hebrew Psalter,” in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann, Jr., JSOT Sup 159 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 99. 41



Return to Zion

153

It is significant, then, that Zion re-emerges as a key theme in Book V because, based on the editorial arrangement of the Psalter, it suggests that Yahweh has not abandoned Zion. Moreover, the close relationship between the king and Zion introduced in Psalms 1–2 also resurfaces in this section. Not only are there five royal superscriptions in this group (David: Psalms 122, 124, 131, and 133; Solomon: Psalm 127), but Psalm 132 explicitly connects David and Zion, suggesting that Yahweh has not abandoned Zion or his king. Psalm 132 deserves closer inspection because of how it influences this group and the way the Psalter is read as a whole. Structurally, it divides into two sections: 1) verses 1–10; 2) verses 11–18. Each section commences with verb-‫יהוה‬-‫( לדוד‬vv. 1, 11).47 The first section recounts David’s commitment (‫ )נשׁבע‬to secure Yahweh’s dwelling place; the second section relates Yahweh’s commitment (‫ )נשׁבע‬to secure David’s dwelling place—most closely associated with his throne. It is significant that the thrones—that is, dwelling places—of the heavenly ruler and the earthly ruler are coterminous: they both reign from Zion. Space does not permit an in-depth study of this psalm,48 but two points merit mention. First, the promises made to David regarding the perpetuity of his line are reaffirmed in verses 11–12 and 17–18, which casts doubt on the thesis that Psalm 89 bears witness to the absolute rejection of the Davidic covenant.49 Second, these promises are closely bound with Yahweh’s commitment to Zion (v. 13). Hossfeld and Zenger interpret this to mean that “the election of Zion precedes the election of David and in a sense implies it.”50 The connection between Zion and the Davidic throne—which is implicit in verse 13—is made explicit in verses 17–18. Following the statement of Zion’s election by Yahweh in verse 13, the text expresses a variety of blessings that flow from this decision—one of which is the installation of a Davidic king at Zion.51 By linking Zion with the king, Psalm 132 demonstrates that the See Mitchell, The Message, 123. The ways in which the two sections mirror one another is intriguing. Some of the parallels are mentioned in the body of the chapter. Others include the use of ‫ שׁוב‬in vv. 10 and 11, and the repetition of ‫כהן‬, ׁ‫לבש‬, ‫חסיד‬, and ‫ רנן‬in vv. 9 and 16. 49 See Mitchell, The Message, 268. 50 Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 465. Although McCann understands Psalm 89 as a rejection of the Davidic dynasty, he reads Psalm 132 messianically: “Thus the references to David [in Psalm 132] are to be heard messianically; they are a way of symbolizing concretely the hope for the future of God’s people.” See McCann, Psalms, 1211. 51 Notice the adverb ‫ שׁם‬in v. 17, which is an anaphoric reference to Zion. 47 48

154

The Return of the King

program outlined in Psalm 2 still stands: Yahweh’s reign will be represented by an earthly king whose throne is on Zion.52 It could be argued, however, that Psalm 132 does not count as a witness to the Davidic/royal figure because it was frozen in a collection prior to the final redaction. Consequently, its placement at the end of the Psalter loses its significance. In other words, the Songs of Ascents may have been originally collected when hope in the Davidic/royal figure was still robust, which could account for Psalm 132’s placement in the group. Later on, however, when all hope in the monarchy was lost, as is supposedly affirmed in Psalm 89, Psalm 132 was already a part of a pre-existing collection and could not, therefore, be excised. It could be argued, then, that it is one of the diachronical accidents of the final redaction that such a pro-Davidic psalm appears after Psalm 89. Three points should be made in response. First, this point is only valid if Psalm 89 witnesses to the rejection of the Davidic covenant. If, however, Psalm 89 laments the deplorable state of the Davidic dynasty but maintains hope in the Davidic covenant, as I contend, then the placement of Psalm 132 is not so out of place. Second, Psalm 132’s Davidic emphasis corresponds to the re-emergence of the Davidic figure in Book V, as evidenced by the macrostructural strategy outlined in this work. Third, other individual psalms in Book V, such as Psalms 110 and 144, also share Psalm 132’s perspective that the Davidic figure is still a prominent part of the storyline. Consequently, the witness of Psalm 132 remains valid. Zion’s prominence in Psalms 120–137 corresponds to Zion’s prominence in the introduction to the Psalter, Psalms 1–2. In the first two psalms, Zion is the only specific place name mentioned. Moreover, Zion is the place where Yahweh has installed his king who will represent his worldwide dominion. So, once again, the dominant motif in a psalm group plays a prominent role in one of the key seam psalms of the Psalter. In the case of Psalms 120–137, Zion re-emerges as a place of prominence, the place from which blessing flows (see Pss. 133.3; 134.3; 135.21), and the place from which Yahweh’s anointed king reigns (Ps. 132.10-13, 17-18). The purpose of this emphasis on Zion in Psalms 120–137 is to reorient the reader’s attention back to the place where the royal promises will be fulfilled. See Ahn, “I Salmi,” 200–1; Todd, “A Poetic,” 205–7; Körting, Zion, 113.

52

10 T H E E N D M I R R O R S T H E B E G I N N I N G : T H E D AV I D IC C O N N E C T IO N B E T W E E N B O O K S I – I I I A N D PSALMS 138–145

Psalms 138–145 form the next grouping of psalms in Book V. In this chapter I will make the case for the group’s cohesion, outlining the significance of that cohesion and exploring ways in which these psalms contribute to the storyline of the Psalter. One of the important points of this chapter is that Psalms 138–145 resemble Books I–III in many ways, including Psalms 1–2—all of which will be elucidated further below. I will argue that these psalms witness the return of the dominant themes of the beginning of the Psalter. It is almost as if these eight psalms are a little slice of Books I–III tucked into the back of the collection. Moreover, this is the final group of Book V proper—I contend that Psalms 144–145 conclude Book V, so that Psalms 146–150 constitute the conclusion to the Psalter as a whole, much like Psalms 1–2 function as the introduction to the whole. My thesis in this chapter is that the body of the Psalter ends the way it started: with a king and his kingdom, ruled by his appointed vice-regent.

Key-word Links within Psalms 138–145 The key-word links within Psalms 138–145 witness to their cohesion and support the contention that they form a group. Primary among these links is the phrase ‫לדוד‬, which appears in the superscription of all eight psalms. This phrase occurs a total of fifteen times in Book V—eight of which are in this cluster. In only one other place, however, are the occurrences in sequence (Psalms 108–110).1 Psalms 138–145, then, represent the largest group of ‫ לדוד‬also occurs in Psalms 122, 124, 131, and 133.

1

156

The Return of the King

Davidic psalms in Book V. In fact, Psalms 138–145 represent the largest group of Davidic psalms in Books IV or V. After Psalm 89 only nineteen psalms have a personal name in the superscription, and there are only two places in which a personal name appears in succession: Psalms 108–110 and 138–145.2 So the phenomenon of David’s name appearing in the superscription of successive psalms is rare in Books IV and V, and the high number of successive occurrences within Psalms 138–145 makes them unique. The Davidic superscription is the most prominent feature that binds these psalms together.3 Another feature that distinguishes Psalms 138–145 from the rest of Books IV and V is the use of ‫סלה‬. The enigmatic interjection, often simply transliterated in translations, only occurs four times in Psalms 90–150—and all of the occurrences are in this group (Pss. 140.4, 6, 9; 143.6). The root ‫ ידע‬is a key link among these psalms. The verb ‫ ידע‬and the noun ‫ דעת‬occur twenty-one times in Book V. Thirteen of those occurrences are in Psalms 138–145—nearly two-thirds of all occurrences in the book. In fact, the root ‫ ידע‬appears in only four other psalms outside of Psalms 138–145: Psalms 109.27; 119.66, 75, 79, 125, 152; 135.5; 147.20. Moreover, this root occurs in every psalm in the group except for Psalm 141. Thus it is distributed throughout the corpus. Four words related to trapping birds function as key-word links in this section. The noun ‫ פח‬appears in Psalms 140.6, 141.9, and 142.4. These three occurrences represent half of the total usage within Book V. The verb ׁ‫יקש‬ and the related noun ׁ‫ מוקש‬are also key-word links within this group. ׁ‫יקש‬ occurs twice in Book V, and one of those occurrences is in Psalm 141.9. The noun ׁ‫ מוקש‬also occurs twice in Book V, but both of those occurrences are in this group: Psalms 140.6 and 141.9. Finally, the only occurrence of ‫ תׁשר‬in See Gerald H. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBLDS 76 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), 155–6. 3 See Egbert Ballhorn, Zum Telos des Psalters: Der Textzusammenhang des Vierten und Fünften Psalmenbuches (Ps 90–150), BBB 138 (Berlin: Philo, 2004), 264, where he writes “Psalms 138–145 distinguish themselves in that all eight psalms contain an authorial ascription to David in their superscription. The last time this phenomenon occurred was in the Davidic collection of three psalms in Psalms 108–110. Psalms 138–145 are bound to a larger group through the commonality of the Davidic ascription.” “Die Psalmen Ps 138–145 zeichnen sich dadurch aus, daß alle acht Psalmen in ihrer Überschrift eine Autorenzuschreibung an David enthalten. Das letzte Mal zuvor war dieses Phänomen im davidischen Triptychon Ps 108–110 begegnet. Durch die Gemeinsamkeit der Davidzuschreibung sind Ps 138–145 zu einem engen Bündel geschnürt.” See also Klaus Seybold, “Zur Geschichte des vierten Davidpsalters: (Pss 138–145),” in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, ed. Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller, VTS 99 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 368. 2



The End Mirrors the Beginning

157

Book V is in Psalm 140.6. When the usage statistics for each of these words is combined, almost two-thirds of all occurrences for words related to bird trapping in Book V appear in Psalms 138–145. Other key-word links within Psalms 138–145 include ‫ְׁשאוֹל‬, the root ‫חקר‬, and the root ‫חסה‬. ‫ ְׁשאוֹל‬occurs three times in Book V, with two of those occurrences in this group: Pss. 139.8 and 141.7. The root ‫ חקר‬also occurs three times in Book V, but all of the occurrences are in Psalms 138–145: Pss. 139.1, 23; 145.3. In fact, the root ‫ חקר‬only occurs in one other place in the Psalter—Ps. 44.22. The root ‫ חסה‬appears five times in Book V (Pss. 118.8, 9; 141.8; 142.6; 144.2). Three of the five occurrences are in this group.4 These links demonstrate the cohesion of Psalms 138–145. The links adduced not only show that there are roots, words, and phrases that occur regularly within these psalms, but they also show that these features do not occur with the same regularity in other parts of Book V—thus they are key-word links.

Other Elements of Cohesion within Psalms 138–145 Other features of Psalms 138–145 bear witness to the cohesion of this section. One such feature is how the vocabulary found in Psalm 138 reappears in the other psalms, seemingly asserting a lexical influence over the whole group and introducing the key themes that run throughout. Christoph Buysch explains it this way: A preliminary survey of the last Davidic Psalter reveals that [Psalm 138] introduces a very tight network of key words and themes. Even though it is only eight verses long, Psalm 138 already establishes many of the key words. Among these key words, the unintentional word repetitions should be separated from the purposeful references—that is, more specifically, the [editorially] shaped word choices. The best way to do that is to present the data in a table so that the worth of the repetitions can be weighed.5 For more on the significance of this word group in Book V, see Jerome F. D. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, JSOT Sup 217 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 124. 5 Christoph Buysch, Der letzte Davidpsalter: Interpretation, Komposition und Funktion der Psalmengruppe Ps 138–145, Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge 63 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH, 2009), 62. “Ein erster Blick auf den letzten Davidpsalter zeigt bereits, dass hier ein sehr enges Stichwort- und Themengeflecht vorliegt. Obwohl nur acht Verse kurz, gibt doch Ps 138 4

The Return of the King

158

The following table is a reproduction of Buysch’s. Table 10.1: Christoph Buysch Ps. 138

Ps. 139

Ps. 140 Ps. 141 Ps. 142 Ps. 143

Ps. 144 Ps. 145

‫ידה‬ ‫לב‬ ‫אלהים‬ ‫זמר‬ ‫היכל‬ ׁ‫קדש‬ ‫אמת‬ ‫גדל‬ ‫ׁשם‬ ‫חסד‬ ‫יום‬ ‫קרא‬ ‫ענה‬ ‫נפׁש‬

vv. 1, 2, 4 v. 1 v. 1 v. 1 v. 2 v. 2 v. 2 vv. 2, 5 v. 2 vv. 2, 8 v. 3 v. 3 v. 3 v. 3

v. 14 v. 23 – – – – – – – – vv. 12, 16 – – v. 14

v. 14 v. 3 – – – – – – v. 14 – v. 3, 8 – – –

– – vv. 9, 15 v. 9 v. 12 – – v. 12 – v. 2 v. 4 – – –

v. 10 – v. 1 – – v. 21 v. 18 vv. 3, 6, 8 vv. 1, 2, 21 vv. 8, 10, 17 v. 2 v. 18 – –

‫עז‬ ‫מלך‬ ‫ארץ‬ ‫ׁשמע‬ ‫פה‬ ‫ׁשיר‬ ‫דרך‬

v. 3 v. 4 v. 4 v. 4 v. 4 v. 5 v. 5

– v. 10 – – vv. 8, 11 v. 9 (x2) –

– v. 1 – v. 19 v. 21 – v. 17

‫כבוד‬ ‫רום‬ ‫ראה‬ ‫רחק‬ ‫ידע‬

v. 5 v. 6 v. 6 v. 6 v. 6

‫הלך‬ ‫קרב‬ ‫צרה‬ ‫חיה‬/‫חי‬ ‫אף‬

v. 7 v. 7 v. 7 v. 7 v. 7

– v. 8 – – v. 15 v. 12 – – – – – – vv. 3, 24 – (x2) – – – v. 9 vv. 16, 24 – v. 2 – vv. 1, 2, 4, v. 13 6, 14, 23 v. 7 – – – – – – – – –

– v. 4 – – – – – – – v. 5 – v. 1 – v. 8

v. 8 – – – – – – – v. 8 – – – – vv. 5, 8

– – v. 7 v. 6 vv. 3,7 – –

– – v. 6 – – – –

– v. 4 v. 10 – – – – – v. 11 vv. 8, 12 v. 5 – vv. 1, 7 vv. 3, 6, 8, 11, 12 – – vv. 3, 6, 10 vv. 1,8 – – v. 8

– – – – –

– – v. 5 – v. 4

– – – – v. 8

– v. 7 – – v. 3

vv. 5, 11, 12 v. 1 – – v. 12

– – – – –

v. 4 – v. 3 v. 6 –

v. 8 – v. 11 vv. 2, 3, 11 –

– v. 1 – – –

– – – v. 16 v. 8

bereits viele dieser Stichworte vor. Dabei ist zwischen eher zufälligen Wortwiederholungen und arrangierten Bezügen bzw. ausdrücklicher geprägter Wortwahl zu differenzieren. Dies soll zunächst für relevant erscheinende Stichwortverbindungen in einer Tabelle dargestellt und anschließend in Bezug auf geprägte Themen und/oder Wortfelder ausgewertet werden.” It should be noted that Buysch uses “key word” differently than it is used throughout this work. For Buysch, a “key word” is a word repetition. In this work the expression “key word” is a technical term that has been defined so that it only refers to words that occur with frequency in one section but do not occur with the same frequency in other sections. Thus, the methodology employed in this work differentiates between “zufälligen Wortwiederholungen” and “geprägter Wortwahl.”



The End Mirrors the Beginning

159

Table 10.1: (cont.) Ps. 138

Ps. 139

Ps. 140 Ps. 141 Ps. 142 Ps. 143

‫איב‬ ‫ׁשלח‬ ‫די‬

v. 7 v. 7 vv. 7, 8

v. 22 – v. 10

– – – – – – vv. 5, 6 vv. 6, 9 –

‫יׁשע‬ ‫ימין‬

v. 7 v. 7

– v. 10

v. 8 –

– –

– v. 5

‫עולם‬

v. 8

v. 24

–

–

–

vv. 3,9, 12 – – vv. 6, 7 vv. 5,6 vv. 1, 7 (x2), 11 – v. 10 – vv. 8 (x2), 11 (x2) v. 3 –

‫ מעׂשה‬v. 8

v. 14

–

–

–

v. 5

–

–

v. 9

vv. 4, – 5, 8

v. 7

–

‫אל־‬

v. 8

Ps. 144 Ps. 145 – – v. 16 v. 19 –

vv. 1, 2, 13, 21 vv. 4, 9, 10, 17 –

Not all of the words listed in the table qualify as “key-word links” according to my definition of the term.6 It is noteworthy, however, that so many of the words used in Psalm 138 reappear later in the group. This suggests that Psalm 138 functions as an introduction to this section. Moreover, it appears that Psalms 138 and 145 form a frame around the group. After commenting about the parallels among Psalm 138 and the following psalms, Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger contend: There are stronger bridges to the final Psalm 145: the petitioner thanks God (Pss 138:1-2, 4; 145:10), emphasizes the Name of YHWH (Pss 138:2; 145:1-2, 21), offers multiple praises of God’s characteristics and his love (Pss 138:2, 8; 145:8), his glory (Pss 138:5; 145:5, 11-12), his help (Pss 138:7; 145:19), his greatness (Pss 138:2, 5; 145:3, 6), and above all the petitioner lauds God’s works (Pss 138:8; 145:4, 9, 10, 17). Thus, the increasing number of links from the beginning to the end of the fifth Davidic Psalter shows us a frame that must be further examined.7

Chief among these parallels is the overall tone of the two psalms: both Psalms The key-word links within Psalms 138–145 are ‫לדוד‬, ‫סלה‬, ‫ידע‬, ‫דעת‬, ‫פח‬, ‫רׁשת‬, ‫יקׁש‬, ‫מוקׁש‬, ‫ְׁשאוֹל‬, ‫חקר‬, and ‫חסה‬. 7 Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150, trans. Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2011), 532. 6

160

The Return of the King

138 and 145 begin with thanks and praise, and they maintain this attitude throughout.8 This stands in contrast to the lament-laden vocabulary of Psalms 140–143, and to the downbeat Psalm 139, which ends in impreca tion.9 Psalm 144 comes closest to matching the grateful tones of the frame psalms, but requests for vindication dominate the psalm (vv. 5, 6, 7, 11), especially when the concluding catalog of blessings (vv. 12–15) is understood to be the result of the answered supplication in verse 11.10 The unique correspondence, therefore, between Psalms 138 and 145—the boundary psalms of the group—witness to the cohesion of this section.

Parallels between Psalms 138–145 and Books I–III Many of the features that demonstrate the cohesion of this unit (Psalms 138–145) bear a resemblance to earlier sections of the Psalms—most notably, Books I–III. Most striking about this phenomenon is that many of these features do not appear in the intervening sections of Psalms, thus highlighting their distinctiveness and their importance for understanding the book as a whole. Erich Zenger summarizes these similarities into four major categories: 1) individual laments; 2) individual prayers of supplication; 3) distress caused by enemies; and 4) the profile of a persecuted and threatened king.11 In the J. Clinton McCann, Jr., sees Psalms 138 and 145 “forming an envelope of praise around a core of laments,” in idem, Psalms, in 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, vol. 4, New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996), 664. He later states that Psalm 145, “recalls Psalm 138 as it explicitly asserts God’s sovereignty and celebrates God’s steadfast love,” in ibid., 4:1231. 9 Some scholars observe a concentric organizational pattern within this group. Erich Zenger argues that Psalms 138–145 are organized according to genre in idem, “‘Daß alles Fleisch den Namen seiner Heiligung segne’ (Ps 145,21): Die Komposition Ps 145–150 als Anstoß zu einer christlichjüdischen Psalmenhermeneutik,” BZ 41 (1997): 13. See also Christoph Buysch, Der letzte, 16, and Klaus Seybold, “Zur Geschichte,” 375. I, however, do not support a concentric structure for the group. 10 The relative particle ‫( אׁשר‬v. 12) is ambiguous in the context, but it is best understood in a consecutive sense. Ps. 144.11-12 should read, “Rescue me … so that (‫ ”… )אׁשר‬See Iuxta Hebraeos; KJV; NKJV; NIV; BDB, s.v. 8; HALOT, s.v. B,d; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 581; Dominique Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, vol. 4, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50 (Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 872–4. 11 See Erich Zenger, “Das Buch der Psalmen,” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 7th edn, ed. Erich Zenger et al., Studienbücher Theologie 1.1 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995), 353: “Die fünf durch die Überschrift ‘von/für David’ also Davidsammlungen gekennzeichneten Gruppen (Davidpsalter I: Ps 3–41; Davidpsalter II: Ps 51–72; Davidpsalter III: Ps 101–103; Davidpsalter IV: Ps 108–110; Davidpsalter V: Ps 138–145) stimmen darin überein, dass sie überwiegend individuelle Klage- und Bittgebete in feindlicher Bedrängnis sind, denen aber an pointierter Position in der Sammlung (im Einzelnen unterschiedlich) einige Lob- und Dankpsalmen zugeordnet sind, die die Erhörung der Klage bzw. die Errettung aus der Not betonen. Das betende Ich hat einerseits häufig das Profil 8



The End Mirrors the Beginning

161

next few paragraphs, I will catalog these parallels between Psalms 138–145 and Books I–III, and I will explain their significance. As has already been mentioned, the interjection ‫ סלה‬occurs four times in this section of Book V, yet it does not occur anywhere else in Books IV or V. In Books I–III, however, it occurs sixty-seven times, making it a common feature of these earlier sections. Egbert Ballhorn explains its significance: This cannot be perceived in any other way than as a reference back to the lexicon of a previous section of the Psalter—it is a type of intertextual reference. The end of the Psalter falls back upon the first psalm collections in the most obvious way in order to present this particular collection with new emphases. The significance of the fact that this particle is not used anywhere else in the entirety of Books IV–V cannot be overestimated. The appearance of the particle selah in the last Davidic group acts as an incalculable signal. Here, a compendium of psalm-prayers with a Davidic stamp reappears according to the model of the first three books.12

Based on these data, then, a prominent element of Books I–III reappears in Psalms 138–145, thus reminding the reader of those earlier psalms. Certain lexemes associated with lament, which appear frequently in the first three books, reappear with significant regularity in Psalms 138–145. The noun ‫ חמס‬occurs eleven times in Books I–III, yet the only place it occurs in Books IV–V is in this section, appearing three times in Psalm 140 (vv. 2, 5, 12). The statistics of usage for ‫ ְׁשאוֹל‬are similar: it occurs thirteen times in Books I–III, but only three times in Books IV–V, with two of the three occurrences in this section (Pss. 139.8; 141.7). The noun ‫ רׁשת‬appears seven times in Books I–III, yet its only occurrence in Books IV–V is in Ps. 140.6. The adjective ‫ רע‬and the noun ‫ רעה‬follow the same pattern. ‫ רעה‬occurs 24 times in Books I–III and only nine times in Books IV–V; two of the nine occurrences eines verfolgten und bedrängten Königs, der zu dem im Tempel als seinem irdischen Palast bzw. in seinem himmlischen Palast residierenden Gott-König JHWH um Beistand und Rettung schreit. Andererseits präsendtiert sich das Ich oft als ‘Armer’ und als ‘Gerechter’, der eben als solcher an die rettende Gerechtigkeit JHWHs appelliert.” See also Buysch, Der letzte, 15. 12 Ballhorn, Zum Telos, 277: “In der Lektüre kann dies nicht anders den als gezielter Rückverweis auf vorgängige Psalmensprache wahrgenommen werden, als Moment intertextueller Bezugnahme. Das Ende des Psalters greift überdeutlich auf die Dichtung der ersten Psalmensammlungen zurück, um gerade dadurch mit der eigenen Sammlung neue Akzente zu setzen. Die Bedeutung des Faktums, daß im gesamten Vierten und Fünften Buch die Partikel Sela durchgängig nicht begegnet, kann kaum hoch genug veranschlagt werden. Das Auftauchen der Partikel Sela im letzten Davidbündel hat somit unübersehbare Signalwirkung. Hier wird noch einmal ein Kompendium davidisch geprägten Psalmengebets nach dem Vorbild der ersten drei Bücher präsentiert.”

162

The Return of the King

in Books IV–V are in this section (Pss. 140.3; 141.5). ‫ רע‬appears 20 times in Books I–III and eleven times in Books IV–V, yet of those eleven occurrences in Psalms 90–150, four are found in Psalms 138–145 (Pss. 140.2, 12; 141.4; 144.10).13 Moreover, every psalm is written from a first-person perspective. The voice of the praying and praising “I” returns. This is not to say that there are no psalms written from a first-person perspective in Books IV–V—there are exceptions, such as Psalms 101–104, 108, 109, and 119. But in this case, the exceptions prove the rule: there is a dearth of psalms written from an individual perspective in the last two books. In the first three books, however, the first-person dominates, especially Books I–II. The praying “I” is hounded by enemies and needs deliverance. The “I” represents the “righteous” and “upright,” while the enemies are “violent” and “evil.” It is this perspective that re-emerges in Psalms 138–145. But who is the “I” of this collection? The Davidic superscriptions suggest that the “I” of these psalms is a royal figure,14 thus bringing the themes of Yahweh’s kingdom and his appointed king into the foreground of Psalms 138–145. As evidence of this proposition, the root ‫ מלך‬and similar terms occur with significant regularity within and at significant junctures of this collection.15 Words related to kingship and kingdom (‫מלך‬, ‫מלכות‬, and ‫)ממׁשלה‬ appear at the boundaries of the group—Psalms 138, 144, and 145—presenting this section as a contest among kings (see Ps. 138.4) in which Yahweh ultimately triumphs (Psalm 145). And Yahweh’s human representative is still See also ibid., 274–6. Ballhorn also highlights the juxtaposition of the “righteous” and “upright” with the “poor” and “afflicted” (see Ps. 140.13-14). See Jamie A. Grant, “The Psalms and the King,” in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches, ed. David Firth and Philip S. Johnston (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2005), 104–6; John H. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms, 2nd edn, Biblical Seminar 3 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 1–26; Bruce K. Waltke, “Theology of the Psalms,” NIDOTTE, 4:1101–2. See also S. J. L. Croft, The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms, JSOT Sup 44 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987). Croft argues that the “I” could be a variety of personages from ancient Near Eastern society, but, as Grant points out, the king is the only one of his suggestions that, according to the biblical witness, actually wrote psalms (cf. 2 Sam. 23.1). See also Marko Marttila, Collective Reinterpretation in the Psalms, FAT 13 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). Marttila argues that, according to the editorial arrangement of the Psalter, the “I” of the Psalms should be understood collectively as the suffering people of Israel. 15 None of these words (that is, ‫ ךלמ‬and related words) constitute key-word links in Psalms 138–145 due to the strict criteria I apply to the term “key words.” That does not, however, completely mitigate the significance of the data regarding their usage. In fact, the vast majority of occurrences of the ‫ךלמ‬ root and its synonyms are in Psalms 135–136, where they are used to describe historical events of Israel’s past—the conquering of kings and kingdoms. If Psalms 135–136 are removed from the data set, then these words would qualify as key-word links in Book V: seven out of 14 occurrences of the root ‫ ךלמ‬would be in this section; one out of two occurrences of ‫ הלׁשממ‬would be in this section. 13

14



The End Mirrors the Beginning

163

a prominent part of this contest, as is apparent in the superscriptions and the specific mention of David’s name as Yahweh’s servant in Ps. 144.10.16 Finally, a strong case can be made that the ‫ מלך‬root dominates the structural center of Psalm 145.17 Verse 1 lays out the themes of the psalm: eternality and Yahweh’s kingship.18 Verses 2 and 21 correspond in the blessing (‫ )ברך‬of Yahweh’s name (‫ )ׁשם‬forever (‫)לעולם ועד‬. Verses 3–6 speak of Yahweh’s greatness (notice how this section is framed by the root ‫)גדל‬, vv. 7–10 speak of Yahweh’s goodness (notice how the words ‫ טוב‬and ‫ מעׂשה‬occur twice in this section), followed by the center section, vv. 11–13. Verses 14–16 mirror the earlier emphasis on Yahweh’s goodness and greatness (notice how this section is framed by the syntactical construction “Participle + ‫)”לכל‬, as do vv. 17–20 (notice how Yahweh’s righteousness is contrasted with wickedness at the boundaries—‫צדיק‬/ ‫)רׁשע‬. At the structural center of the psalm stands a section that highlights the themes outlined in verse 1—eternality and Yahweh’s kingship. Only this time, the concepts are merged: Yahweh’s kingdom is eternal (v. 13). Words related to Yahweh’s kingdom are repeated five times, and there is even a reverse acrostic in the beginning letters of these verses (‫כ‬-‫ל‬-‫ )מ‬that reveals the dominant root.19 The emphasis on Yahweh’s kingdom and his royal representative in this section recalls these same prevailing themes in Books I–III. But what is the significance of these parallels? These parallels suggest that there is cohesion to the book as a whole. Instead of reading one message in Books I–III and then reading another in Books IV–V, the correspondences reveal a unity to the message of the book. David/the king is a prominent figure in the beginning of Psalms; he is a prominent figure in the end. He needs deliverance from enemies in the beginning of the Psalter; he needs deliverance from enemies in the end. He laments in the first person in the beginning of Psalms; For more on “servant” as a royal title, see Eaton, Kingship, 24, 149–50. For those who disagree with this assessment, see Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150, rev., WBC 21 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 368–9; Adele Berlin, “The Rhetoric of Psalm 145,” in Biblical and Related Studies, ed. A. Kort and S. Morschauser (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 17–22; J. Chinitz, “Psalm 145: Its Two Faces,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 24 (1996): 229–32; Pierre Auffret, “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 145,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux, ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 212 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 15–31. 18 This structure is based on the work of Erich Zenger, “‘Daß alles Fleisch den Namen seiner Heiligung segne’ (Ps 145,21): Die Komposition Ps 145–150 als Anstoß zu einer christlich-jüdischen Psalmenhermeneutik,” BZ 41 (1997): 8–12; B. Lindars, “The Structure of Psalm cxlv,” VT 39 (1989): 23–30; Buysch, Der letzte, 308–12. 19 See especially Wilfred G. E. Watson, “Reversed Rootplay in Ps 145,” Biblica 62 (1981): 101–2. 16 17

The Return of the King

164

he does the same in the end. Readings of the Psalter that postulate a caesura in the storyline at Psalm 89 do not take the evidence of Psalms 138–145 (and Psalms 110 and 132) seriously enough—evidence that should be given even more weight because these psalms conclude the storyline of Book V.20

Psalms 144–145 as the Conclusion to Book V In each of the first four books of Psalms, there is a doxology that concludes the book as a whole, and these doxologies are clearly apparent due to lexical similarity. The fifth book, however, seems to lack this feature, or the doxology is reappropriated in such a way as to be barely discernible. Klaus Koch represents the opinion that there is a doxology in Book V (Ps. 150.6), but it is radically different than those that precede: “The observations lead to the conclusion that the structural difference at the end of the 5th Book of Psalms presents a changed organizational expression, compared with the weighty [more clear] preceding divisions.”21 There may not be need for such pessimism if the doxology can be found in a different location. When Ps. 145.21 is compared to the previous four doxologies, some noteworthy similarities emerge: Table 10.2: Doxologies Ps. 41.14 Ps. 72.19 Ps. 89.53 Ps. 106.48 Ps. 145.21

‫ברוך יהוה אלהי יׂשראל מהעולם ועד העולם אמן ואמן‬ ‫וברוך ׁשם כבודו לעולם וימלא כבודו את־כל הארץ אמן ואמן‬ ‫ברוך יהוה לעולם אמן ואמן‬ 22 ‫ברוך־יהוה אלהי יׂשראל מן־העולם ועד העולם ואמר כל־העם אמן הללו־יה‬ ‫תהלת יהוה ידבר־פי ויברך כל־בשׂר ׁשם קדשׁו לעולם ועד‬

See especially Grant, “The Psalms,” 108–9, where he writes, “[Gerald] Wilson comments that the emphasis on royal psalms is less significant in Books IV and V than it is in Books I–III. For various reasons, this idea does not seem to give full voice to the royal emphases which are found in Books IV and V. For example, we see the return of the Davidic king in Pss 101–103, the strongly eschatological presentation of the Davidic monarch in Ps 110 (very reminiscent of Ps 2), and the fact that the last voice heard in the Psalter prior to the concluding doxology (Pss 146–150) belongs to the Davidic king (Pss 138–145). All of these features seem to indicate a very active royal thread in Books IV and V.” 21 Klaus Koch, “Der Psalter und seine Redaktionsgeschichte,” in Neue Wege der Psalmen Forschung, ed. Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger, HBS 1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 250: “Die Beobachtungen nötigen zu dem schluß, daß die strukturale Verschiedenheit am Ende des 5. Psalmenbuches einer veränderten Ausrichtung Ausdruck gibt, verglichen mit den gewichtigen vorangehenden Teilungsweisern.” See also Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen, vol. 1, BKAT 15 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1978), 8; Klaus Seybold, Die Psalmen: eine Einführung, Urban-Taschenbücher 382 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1986), 22. 22 This “alleluia” may go with the following psalm. See LXX and Bruce K. Waltke, “Superscripts, Postscripts, or Both.” JBL 110 (1991): 593. 20



The End Mirrors the Beginning

165

There are three words that occur in each of the doxologies in Psalms 41, 72, 89, and 106 (‫ברך‬, ‫אמן‬, and ‫)עולם‬. Significantly, two of these are found in 145.21 (‫ ברך‬and ‫)עולם‬. The divine name appears in Psalms 41, 89, and 106— as well as in 145. And the word that is used to replace the divine name in 72 is also used in 145 (‫)ׁשם‬. The only conspicuous feature that is missing in the doxology of Ps. 145.21 is ‫אמן‬. But Psalms 146–150 may have taken the place of the concluding “amen,” providing the celebratory endnote for the book. The evidence, therefore, seems to indicate that Ps. 145.21 is the doxology to Book V. Patrick D. Miller concurs: “So it is not quite accurate to say that Book V does not have a doxological ending like the other four books. Indeed it has one at the end of Psalm 145 that is very analogous to the endings of the other books and even seems to be a kind of final doxology” (italic in original).23 Jean-Marie Auwers essentially agrees: “According to this hypothesis, Psalm 145 forms the doxology of the fifth book, just before the final Hallel, which concludes the Psalter as a whole.”24 Both Psalms 144 and 145 share some affinities with Psalms 1 and 2. If it is assumed that Ps. 145.21 is the doxology, then the last proper verse of the poem would be verse 20, which is translated, “The Lord protects all those who love him, but he will destroy all of the wicked.” Although there are only two words in common between Pss. 1.6 and 145.20 (‫ יהוה‬and ‫)רׁשע‬, the parallel in theme is conspicuous. Furthermore, the syntax and word order of the verses bear a resemblance: 1.6: ‫—כי‬participle—‫—יהוה‬x—positive group; contrastive—x—‫—רׁשעים‬imperfect 145.20: participle—‫—יהוה‬positive group; contrastive—x—‫—רׁשעים‬imperfect Once again, not identical, but they are close enough to discern a link between the verses.25 Then there is the use of ‫ בעתו‬in both psalms (1.3; 145.15). The noun ‫ עת‬occurs 296 times in the Hebrew Bible, so the noun by itself is not a Patrick D. Miller, “The End of the Psalter: A Response to Erich Zenger,” JSOT 80 (1998): 107. Jean-Marie Auwers, “Le Psautier comme livre biblique: Édition, redaction, function,” in The Composition of the Book of Psalms, ed. Erich Zenger (Louvain: Peeters, 2010), 78: “Dans cette hypothèse, le Ps 145 fournit la doxologie du cinquième livre, juste avant le Hallel final, qui conclut le Psautier tout entier.” See also F.-L. Hossfeld and E. Zenger, Psalmen 101–150, HTKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2008), 24–5, 804–5. For a rebuttal of this position see Ballhorn, Zum Telos, 294–7. 25 See Miller, “End of,” 106: “This conclusion echoes the conclusion of Psalm 1. Thus the ending of Psalm 145 rounds off the book at that point, with Ps 1.6 a kind of inclusio for the whole Psalter” (italic in original). 23 24

166

The Return of the King

key link. But when it is combined with the preposition and a 3ms suffix, its usage dwindles to eleven times in the Bible, and only three in the Psalter (1.3; 104.27; 145.15—and there is some relationship of dependence between Psalms 104 and 145 in these verses).26 Finally, Psalm 145 is an acrostic. Although not an acrostic in the normal sense, Walter Vogels points out that Psalm 1 begins with ‫ )אׁשרי( א‬and ends with ‫)תאבד( ת‬, and that this feature “is very similar to what we find in an alphabetical poem.”27 Psalm 144 recollects Psalm 2, and even Psalms 1 and 2, in significant ways. First, Psalm 2 portrays a contest between the Lord’s anointed one and recalcitrant foreign kings, a contest in which the anointed ultimately triumphs. Psalm 144, written from the king’s perspective, addresses the contest between him and rebellious foreigners (see Ps. 2.1-3 with 144.7, 8, 11), and he anticipates an ultimate triumph (144.10, 12-14). Moreover, martial imagery is used in both psalms (2.1-3, 9; 144.1, 10); the phrase ‫ חסה ב‬is common to both (2.12; 144.2); and there is a double macarism at the conclusion of Psalm 144, which binds it to the conclusion of Psalm 2 and also to the double macarism that forms the inclusio to the introductory unit in the Psalter (1.1; 2.12).28 More pronounced than either of these parallels, however, is the connection between Psalms 107 and 145. Consider these links: Table 10.3: Comparison of Psalms 107 and 145 Hebrew words

Psalm 107

Psalm 145

‫מעׂשה‬ ‫נפלאות‬ ‫עולם‬ ‫( ׂשבע‬hiph) ‫טוב‬ ‫רנן‬, ‫רנה‬ ‫( הלל‬piel) ‫( רום‬polel) ‫כל‬ ‫( ברך‬piel)

22, 24 8, 15, 21, 24, 31 1 9 1, 9 22 32 25, 32 18, 27, 42 38

4, 9, 10, 17 5 1, 2, 13, 21 16 7, 9 7 2 1 (x17) see esp. vv. 13–21 1, 2, 10, 21

See Allen, Psalms, 371–3. Walter Vogels, “A Structural Analysis of Psalm 1,” Biblica 60 (1979): 413. See also Robert Cole, Psalms 1–2: A Gateway to the Psalter, Hebrew Bible Monographs 37 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011), 46–7. 28 See also Auwers, “Le Psautier,” 78, where he writes, “One sees, then, the double macarism of Ps 144:15 functions as an inclusio with those which form the boundary of the two-headed introduction of the Psalter.” “On voit alors le double macarisme du Ps 144,15 faire inclusion avec celui qui encadre l’introduction bicéphale du Psautier.” 26 27



The End Mirrors the Beginning

Hebrew words

Psalm 107

Psalm 145

‫חסד‬ ‫( אכל‬noun) ‫( ספר‬piel) ‫( ידה‬hiph) ‫( יׁשע‬hiph)

1, 8, 15, 21, 31, 43 18 22 1, 8, 15, 21, 31 13, 19

8 15 6 10 19

167

The words ‫( ידה‬hiph), ‫חסד‬, and ‫ נפלאות‬are all significant words in Psalm 107, appearing in the refrain of the poem, and each of these words occurs in Psalm 145. On the other hand, ‫ברך‬, ‫מעׂשה‬, and ‫ כל‬are significant words in Psalm 145, and they are all found in Psalm 107. The adverb ‫ עולם‬is significant because it occurs at key junctures within both psalms—the beginning of Psalm 107, and then the beginning and end of Psalm 145. The root ‫ ׂשבע‬is found only sixteen times in the hiphil, with two of those occurrences in these psalms. The same is true for the polel of ‫רום‬. Nearly one out of every eight times it is used is within these psalms (three out of twenty-five occurrences). The noun ‫ אכל‬appears only five times in the Psalter, and only twice in Book V, both of which are in Psalms 107 and 145. Finally, of the five occurrences of the piel of ‫ ספר‬in Book V, two of them are in these psalms. It is not just at the lexical level that parallels exist, however. There seem to be thematic correspondences as well. Consider how the phrase ‫לבני )ה(אדם‬ is used in both psalms: the “sons of mankind” are shown that God is good and powerful (Pss. 107.8, 15, 21, 31; 145.12).29 Psalm 107 celebrates how God can reverse fortunes—whether in salvation or judgment. Ps. 145.14 (and even v. 15) celebrates this also. Psalm 107 is characterized by two refrains, one of which is identical throughout (vv. 8, 15, 21, 31), whereas the other displays some slight variation (vv. 6, 13, 19, 28). Psalm 145.18-19 encapsulates the essence of the slightly varied refrain, and they even share a common lexeme (‫—יוׁשיעם‬cf. 107.13, 19). It appears, then, that Psalms 144–145 contain elements that resemble a conclusion—but a conclusion to what? These psalms do not stand at the end of the Psalter. It is for this reason, therefore, that Psalms 144–145 should be

See Zenger, “Daß alles Fleisch,” 11 n. 22. Zenger contends that this parallel is even more significant because Ps. 145.12 occurs in the structural and thematic center of the psalm; see p. 10.

29

168

The Return of the King

considered the conclusion of Book V proper, thus leaving room for Psalms 146–150 to function as the conclusion to the Psalter.

Conclusion Psalms 138–145 conclude Book V with an emphasis on David, who is viewed as the earthly vice-regent par excellence in the Psalter. These psalms also recall previous sections of the Psalter—namely, Psalms 1–2 and Books I–III. The significance of these comparisons is that the end of the Psalter mirrors the beginning. Book V closes with features that are common to the opening sections of the Psalter. These features, then, act as elements of cohesion, coherently unifying the end of the Psalter with the beginning. This has implications for how the Psalter is understood. Instead of reading two divergent narrative trajectories in the Psalter, the data demonstrate cohesion in the storyline as a whole. As with the previous three groups in Book V, prominent words and themes within Psalms 138–145 can be traced back to the major seam psalms of the Psalter—Psalms 1–2 and 89. ‫ ידע‬functions as a key-word link in Psalms 138–145. The majority of occurrences in Psalms 138–145 recall the conclusion of Psalm 1: ‫כי־יודע יהוה דרך צדיקים ודרך רׁשעים תאבד‬. In this verse, which acts as a conclusion to the first psalm and a janus to the second, Yahweh is portrayed as a judge whose knowledge provides security for the righteous (man). Nine of the twelve occurrences of ‫ ידע‬in Psalms 138–145 fall under the same rubric (cf. Pss. 138.6; 139.1, 2, 4, 23 (x2), 140.13; 142.4; 144.3). When this is coupled with the observation that the last proper verse of Book V (Ps. 145.20) mirrors Ps. 1.6 syntactically, it suggests that Book V closes the way the Psalter begins. The reader of the Psalter can find solace in Yahweh’s sovereign and well-informed supervision of his creation. The same can be said for the theme of kingship. Although ‫ מלך‬is not a key-word link, the accumulation of evidence indicates that this motif purposely permeates Psalms 138–145. And this motif also permeates Psalms 2 and 89. What is more, the three different aspects of kingship in the Psalms appear in Psalms 2 and 89, as well as in Psalms 138–145. Foreign kings (always plural—‫ )מלכים‬are the foil to the true king—Yahweh—and his vice-regent.



The End Mirrors the Beginning

169

Foreign kings conspire against Yahweh and his anointed in Ps. 2.2; yet, in Ps. 138.4 these kings are enjoined to praise Yahweh, in whom they find salvation according to Ps. 144.10. Psalm 89.19 affirms that Yahweh is the rightful king of Israel—a fact seconded by Ps. 145.1. But this does not diminish the fact that Yahweh has appointed his king (Ps. 2.6), and this king again finds a voice in Psalms 138–145, as witnessed to by the Davidic superscriptions, Ps. 144.10, and the “I” who dominates these psalms. These data support the thesis that there is one cohesive storyline in the Psalter. The Psalter begins with a heavenly king who appoints his anointed servant over his earthly kingdom against the backdrop of unruly and rebellious foreign kings—and Book V concludes with these same three characters acting the same story on the same stage.

11 C O DA : P S A L M S 1 4 6 – 1 5 0 A S T H E C O N C LU SIO N O F T H E P S A LT E R

Patrick Miller begins his essay in The Shape and Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter with this significant observation: “The beginning and end of a book are among the chief indicators of its subject matter.”1 In the last thirty-five years, much work has been done on the introduction to the Psalter, namely, either Psalm 1 by itself or Psalms 1 and 2 together.2 The same, however, cannot be said about the conclusion. Various reasons may account for the dearth of resources on the conclusion, but one of the chief factors is the lack of consensus on what exactly is the conclusion. Furthermore, when studies have been done on the conclusion, and proposals offered as to its scope, the evidence is often based on more impressionistic observations. In this chapter I seek to address both of these issues: 1) I will argue that Psalms 146–150 act as the conclusion to the Psalter as a whole in the MT; 2) this can be demonstrated by paying close attention to the evidence within the Hebrew Psalter itself.

Patrick D. Miller, “The Beginning of the Psalter,” in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann, Jr., JSOT Sup 159 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 83. 2 A brief list of works includes P. Auffret, “Essai sur la structure littéraire du psaume 1,” Biblische Zeitschrift 22 (1978): 26–45; idem, The Literary Structure of Psalm 2, JSOT Sup 3 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1977); G. Barbiero, Das erste Psalmenbuck als Eihneit (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999); Robert Cole, “An Integrated Reading of Psalms 1 and 2,” JSOT 98 (2002): 75–88; idem, Psalms 1–2: A Gateway to the Psalter, Hebrew Bible Monographs 37 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011); Miller, “The Beginning,” 83–92; G. T. Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), 142–3; W. D. Tucker, Jr., “Psalms 1: Book of,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, ed. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 578–93; John T. Willis, “Psalm 1—An Entity,” ZAW 9 (1979): 381–401; G. H. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBLDS 76 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), 204–7. 1

172

The Return of the King

Delineating the Conclusion Competing proposals

Joseph Brennan argues that Psalm 149 is the conclusion to the Psalter. He adduces a number of harmonies between Psalms 2 and 149, leading to the assertion that these two psalms were intended to be the introduction and conclusion to the book.3 He considers Psalms 1 and 150 to be the prologue and epilogue. In his article, “Bounded by Obedience and Praise: The Psalms as Canon,” Walter Brueggemann contends that Psalm 150 is the conclusion to the Psalter. His contention rests on the fact that Psalm 150 is, in fact, the final psalm in the Psalter. In a footnote he acknowledges Gerald Henry Wilson’s position (that Psalms 146–150 are the conclusion), but counters, “While Wilson’s judgment has merit, Psalm 150 clearly closes the ‘final form’ of the text.”4 Leslie Allen suggests the same, drawing on the similarities between Psalm 150 and the first four doxologies. He comments that “At the close Ps 150, which consists of calls to praise, has the same editorial role as the two-part doxologies that conclude the first four books, the first part of which with a different formulation also represents a call to praise, assuming grounds for praise in earlier material.”5 Psalms 144–150 form the conclusion to the Psalter, according to Roberto Vignolo. His theory is based on a thorough comparison between the doxologies and macarisms of the previous four books. In light of his research, he concludes that Psalm 144—with its use of ‫ ברך‬in verse 1 and ‫ אׁשרי‬in verse 15—signals the beginning of the conclusion. Psalm 145, then, is a doxology, and Psalms 146–150 build on Psalm 145 and form a doxological epilogue.6 Joseph P. Brennan, “Psalms 1–8: Some Hidden Harmonies,” BTB 10 (1980): 25–9. Brennan considers Psalm 150 to be the epilogue to the book, presumably providing closure without any real connection to what precedes. As he puts it, “The way to ultimate victory will be a long and arduous one, and the goal will be reached only in Psalm 149, which is the last Psalm in our collection. It is remarkable how Psalm 149 does in fact develop many of the themes first set forth in Psalm 2, thus forming an inclusion which embraces the entire collection (except for the prologue and epilogue, Psalms 1 and 150)” (p. 26). 4 Walter Brueggemann, “Bounded by Obedience and Praise: The Psalms as Canon,” JSOT 50 (1991): 66 n. 2. See also E. Beaucamp, Le Psautier: Ps 1–72, Sources Bibliques (Paris: Gabalda, 1976), 19, where he states, “Psalm 150 constitutes a doxology by itself.” “Le Ps 150, quant à lui, constituerait à lui seul une doxologie.” 5 Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150, rev., Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 21 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 75. 6 R. Vignolo, “Circolarità tra libro e preghiera nella poetica dossologica del Salterio: Contributo alla “terza ricerca” del Salterio come libro,” in La Parola di Dio tra scrittura e rito, Associazione Professori di Liturgia, XXVII Settimana di Studio (Rome: Centro Liturgico Vincenziano, 2002), 127–88. 3

Coda

173

Vignolo was correct in observing concluding elements in Psalms 144–145, as has already been shown in the previous chapter, but those psalms should be kept separate from 146–150. There is good reason to believe that Psalms 144–145 serve a different purpose from Psalms 146–150. Furthermore, the connection between macarism and doxology in the first four books seems to be incidental (cf. Pss. 41.2-3 with 41.13-14; 72.17b with 72.18-19; 89.16 with 89.53; 106.3 with 106.48). Besides, Vignolo even admits that the conclusion of Book V does not fit the pattern of the first four books exactly.7 Finally, A. Wénin posits Psalms 148–150 as the conclusion to Book V. He notices key thematic links among those psalms, as well as an ancient liturgical tradition dating back to St. Benedict in which these three psalms were recited together.8 The evidence to support these proposals is often weak. Wénin’s claim does not take into account the lexical links between Psalms 148–150 and the previous two psalms, and a liturgical tradition, which may be based more on expedience than exegetical rigor, is not weighty. Vignolo’s proposal is based on a comparative study, to its credit, but it crosses a rather definite superscriptional boundary between ‫ לדוד‬and ‫הללו יה‬, and a stronger case can be made that the macarism is found at 146.5 and the doxology is Psalms 146–150. Brueggemann’s notion fails to persuade because of its lack of any evidence other than his fiat-like modifier “clearly.” Finally, Brennan is correct in seeing similarities between Psalms 2 and 149, but he fails to account for those same similarities between Psalm 2 and other psalms in the 146–150 corpus. Psalms 146–150 as the conclusion

The most popular proposal is that Psalms 146–150 are the conclusion to the Psalter. As will be seen, proponents of this position are not agreed as to why this is so. There is, after all, a massive difference between saying that Psalms 146–150 are the final psalms in the Psalter and saying that Psalms 146–150 function as the conclusion of the Psalter. Egbert Ballhorn represents the See p. 166: “The answer comes in Book V, endowed with its own doxological conclusion more sophisticated than the preceding.” “La Risposta viene dal V libro, dotato di una sua conclusione dossologica più sofisticata delle precedenti.” 8 A. Wénin, “Le psaume 1 et l’‘encadrement’ du livre des louanges,” in Ouvrir les Écrtures (Paris: Cerf, 1995), 151–76. 7

174

The Return of the King

counsel of despair: “Thus, it simply remains to be noticed that the final hallel represents the conclusion to the Psalter because there is not another psalm or psalm collection that comes after it.”9 W. D. Tucker, Jr., notes the inclusio of ‫ הללו־יה‬in each of the psalms and the crescendo effect of “everything that has breath, praise the Lord” in 150.6.10 Gerald Henry Wilson sees Psalms 146–150 as a response to Ps. 145.21, thus acting as the conclusion.11 Donatella Scaiola assumes the same boundaries as the previously mentioned scholars, but she offers more evidence for this position. She first shows that the psalms within this corpus are rhetorically related through the repetition and position of key terms. Based on her analysis, Psalms 146–147 function together, followed by 148–149. Psalm 150 stands alone. Second, Scaiola observes the development of God’s kingship within this group. Third, the role of humanity is also developed. Consequently, Scaiola maintains that these psalms should be read as a group, and this group was intended to be the conclusion to the Book of Psalms.12 Certainly the most assiduous defense of this thesis is found in (Silvia) So Kun Ahn’s dissertation on Psalms 146–150 at the Pontifical Biblical Institute.13 She meticulously studies each psalm individually and then traces the common themes and lexemes between them, providing substantial evidence that they are a unit. These data are then related to Book V in particular, the texts from Qumran, and finally to the Psalter as a whole. It is hard to find weaknesses in Ahn’s work. Her study is more than a detailed investigation of a small section of psalms; it is a fresh look at the entire Psalter.14 If there is a shortcoming, though, it is that Ahn does not provide E. Ballhorn, Zum Telos des Psalters: Der Textzusammenhang des Vierten und Fünften Psalmenbuches (Ps 90–150), BBB 138 (Berlin: Philo, 2004), 357: “So bleibt einfach zu konstatieren, daß das Schlußhallel deshalb den Schluß des Psalters darstellt, weil kein weiterer Psalm oder keine Psalmensammlung mehr danach zu stehen kommt.” 10 Tucker, “Psalms 1,” 590. 11 Wilson, Editing, 193–4; idem, “The Shape of the Book of Psalms,” Interpretation 46 (1992): 132–3; He also adduces the crescendo effect in idem, “Shaping the Psalter: A Consideration of Editorial Linkage in the Book of Psalms,” in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann, Jr., JSOT Sup 159 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 74. 12 Donatella Scaiola, “The End of the Psalter,” in The Composition of the Book of Psalms, ed. Erich Zenger, BETL 238 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 701–10. 13 S. So Kun Ahn, “I Salmi 146–150 come conclusione del Salterio” (Ph.D. diss, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2008). 14 One of the intriguing proposals in the dissertation is that the Psalter should be read from the back to the front, that is, with the conclusion supplying the hermeneutical key/s. Her explanation of the king/messiah motif in the Psalter is also noteworthy. 9

Coda

175

reasons as to why these psalms should be considered the conclusion. Her argument is essentially that Psalms 146–150 are a unit and they appear at the end of the Psalter, thus they are the conclusion. Surely more can be said regarding this particular issue. Erich Zenger represents the most persuasive espousal of this position to date. He provides seven reasons for maintaining that Psalms 146–150 are the conclusion to the Psalter in his article “‘Daß alles Fleisch den Namen seiner Heiligung segne’ (Ps 145,21): Die Komposition Ps 145–150 als Anstoß zu einer christlich-jüdischen Psalmenhermeneutik.”15 (1) He observes how Psalms 146–150 seem to originate from and expand Ps. 145.21. (2) He then adduces the hallelujah framework, pointing out that ten hallelujahs constitute the frame of these psalms, which corresponds to the ten imperative forms of ‫ הלל‬in Psalm 150. (3) These psalms also share the same form—that is, they are all hymns. (4) There are repeated words among the psalms. (5) All five psalms are heavily influenced by creation theology. (6) There is a widening of address from Ps. 146.1 to Ps. 150.6. (7) Each psalm builds on the conclusion to the previous psalm. He sees these final five psalms, then, as the conclusion of the entire Psalter. Much like Ahn, though, these seven reasons demonstrate that the psalms are a unit, not how they function as a conclusion. Zenger’s contribution is commendable at many levels, however. Aside from his contention that each psalm builds on the conclusion to the previous psalm, which stretches the data, his evidence is persuasive. Consequently, this chapter will build on his work and provide even more evidence.

Making the Case for Psalms 146–150 as the Conclusion The first step toward making the case that Psalms 146–150 are the conclusion to the Psalter involves the psalms at the opposite end of the book—Psalms 1 and 2.16 As any good literary critic would observe, a book must have an introduction and conclusion. Often the main themes of the book are adumbrated Erich Zenger, “’Daß alles Fleisch den Namen seiner Heiligung segne’ (Ps 145,21): Die Komposition Ps 145–150 als Anstoß zu einer christlich-jüdischen Psalmenhermeneutik,” BZ 41 (1997): 1–27, esp. 14–21. 16 See Chapter 6 for a defense of Psalms 1–2 as the introduction to the Psalter. 15

176

The Return of the King

in the introduction, providing the reader with clues about what to expect. The conclusion typically summarizes those same themes, binding the whole into one cohesive unit. It may prove profitable, then, to see if there are any similarities between the introduction and Psalms 146–150. But first the cohesion of Psalms 146–150 must be established. Psalms 146–150 as a cohesive unit

It appears that Psalms 146–150 form a cohesive unit. The most conspicuous feature of these psalms is the ‫ הללו־יה‬superscript and subscript. It is the primary key-word link of this section.17 Ahn notes, “The use of ‫ הללו־יה‬at the beginning and at the end of each of the psalms is the principal indication of the group’s unity, which traditionally takes the name of the final hallel.”18 The recurring superscript and subscript differentiate these psalms from those that precede (Psalms 138–145)—all of which have the superscript ‫ לדוד‬in common. Furthermore, only four other psalms contain a ‫ הללו־יה‬superscript and subscript: Psalms 106, 113, 135, and with a slight variation, 117.19 It seems significant, then, that five psalms bearing a rather unique stamp have been placed in succession.20 There is other evidence that supports the unity of these five psalms beyond this initial observation. Consider these lexical parallels:21

The root ‫ הלל‬should also be considered a key-word link by itself. The root—both noun and verb— occurs sixty-six times in Book V; 38 of those occurrences are in these five psalms. 18 Ahn, “I Salmi,” 127. “L’uso di ‫ הללו־יה‬all’inizio e alla fine di ciascuno dei salmi è l’indizio principale dell’unità del gruppo, che porta tradizionalmente il nome di hallel finale.” 19 And there is some question regarding the textual validity of the subscript for Psalm 113 since the LXX indicates that it may have been the superscript of the following psalm. The fact that Psalm 114 is the only psalm within 111–117 that does not have a reference to ‫ הללו־יה‬adds more weight to this observation. For more on this issue, see the Appendix. The same is true for Psalm 135: in the LXX, the subscript of 135 is read as the superscript of 136. For more on this issue, see Bruce K. Waltke, “Superscripts, Postscripts, or Both,” JBL 110 (1991): 583–96, esp. 593. For more on the hallelujah psalms, see Yong Kyu Cho, “The Hallelujah Psalms in the Context of the Hebrew Psalter” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1998). 20 The double hallelujah may not be a mark of the conclusion, and so I do not consider it as such here. To do so would force one to posit conclusions at Psalms 113, 117, and 135, and there is strong literary evidence against that. Although scholars like M. Goulder and G. Wilson consider this to be a definitive indicator of a section’s end, which supports their division of Book V into three units (107–117; 118–135; 136–150), the only clear evidence of this is Psalm 106. See also E. Jenni, “Zu den doxologischen Schlussformeln des Psalter,” ThZ 40 (1984): 119, who mildly affirms the possibility that the double hallelujah may serve a concluding function. 21 This is an abbreviated list of all of the lexical parallels within this group. Only those links that were deemed most significant have been shared. For a more complete list, see Ahn, “I Salmi,” 133–5. 17

Coda

177

Table 11.1: Psalms 146–150 Lexeme/Root Psalm 146 ‫( עוד‬verb) ‫הלל‬ ‫תהלה‬ ‫זמר‬ ‫בן‬ ‫רוח‬ ‫ׁשמים‬ ‫ארץ‬ ‫עולם‬ ‫מלך‬ ‫ציון‬ ‫יׂשראל‬ ‫כוכב‬ ‫( ׁשם‬noun) ‫כנור‬ ‫הר‬ ‫בהמה‬ ‫רצה‬ ‫ׁשלג‬ ‫דבר‬ ‫חק‬ ‫גוי‬ ‫לאמים‬ ‫עם‬ ‫חסיד‬ ‫מחול‬ ‫תף‬

Psalm 147

9 6 1 (x2), 2, 10 1, 12, 20

2 3 4 6 6 6, 10 10 10

1 1, 7 9, 13 15 8 6, 8, 15 12 2, 19 4 4 7 8 9 10, 11 16 15, 18, 19 19 20

Psalm 148

Psalm 149

1 (x3), 2 (x2), 1, 3, 9 3 (x2), 4, 5, 7, 13, 14 14 1 3 14 2 8 1, 4 (x3), 13 7, 11 (x2), 13 6 11 2, 8 2 14 2 3 5, 13 (x2) 3 3 9 10 4 8 8 6 7 11 7 14 (x2) 4 14 1, 5, 9 3 3

Psalm 150 1 (x3), 2 (x2), 3 (x2), 4 (x2), 5 (x2), 6 (x2)

3

4 4

The verb ‫ עוד‬occurs in the polel twice in the Hebrew Bible—both of which are in adjacent psalms, 146.9 and 147.6. ‫ תהלה‬seems to be a significant link due to its placement at the beginning of Psalm 147, the end of 148, and the beginning of 149. The root ‫ זמר‬is found four times in Psalms 146–150, but it is only found five other times in all of Book V. Words and roots like ‫בן‬, ‫עולם‬, ‫מלך‬, ‫ציון‬, ‫דבר‬, ‫חק‬, ‫גוי‬, ‫לאמים‬, ‫עם‬, and ‫ חסיד‬are treated as significant links because of the importance they play in the Psalter as a whole, and especially in Book V.22 Even ubiquitous words like ‫ ׁשמים‬and ‫ ארץ‬should be considered significant Roots like ‫ עם‬and ‫ גוי‬figure prominently in 107–118; ‫ דבר‬and ‫ חק‬in 119; ‫ יׂשראל‬and ‫ ציון‬in 120–137; and ‫ מלך‬in 138–145. ‫ חסד‬and ‫ עולם‬appear in the most repeated phrase of Book V, ‫כי לעולם חסדו‬ (107.1; 118.1-4, 29; 136.1-26; cf. 106.1).

22

178

The Return of the King

links in this group because of the dominant role they play in Psalms 147–148 (notice also the link between ‫ כוכב‬within these two psalms).23 There are still other links within these psalms. Erich Zenger argues that Psalms 146–150 are a type of doxological expansion of Ps. 145.21.24 Consider the expansion of address in 145.21 (from ‫ פי‬to ‫ )כל־בׂשר‬and the expansion of address within Psalms 146–150 (‫ נפׁשי‬in 146.1 to ‫ כל הנׁשמה‬in 150.6). The noun ‫ תהלה‬appears in 145.21 and plays a key role in the subsequent five psalms, and even more so when the root ‫ הלל‬is taken into consideration (see Table 11.1). Both Psalms 146 and 147 contain a string of participles (146.6-9a; 147.2-6, 8-9, 15-17).25 The phrasing of 146.7 and 147.9 is quite similar (compare ‫ְרֵעִבים‬ ‫ ֹנֵתן ֶלֶחם ָל‬with ‫)נֹוֵתן ִלְבהָמה ַלְחָמּה‬. Furthermore, Zenger convincingly demonstrates that Psalm 149 is an exposition of Ps. 148.14.26 Evidence includes the close links between ‫( רום‬148.14 and 149.6), ‫( תהלה‬148.14 and 149.1), ‫יׂשראל‬ (148.14 and 149.2), and ‫( עם‬148.14 and 149.4). Most persuasive of all is the prominent structural function of ‫ חסיד‬in Psalm 149, where it occurs at the end of the first line (1b), the middle of the poem (5), and the end of the last line (9b). The relationship between Psalms 1–2 and 146–150

To lend support to the thesis that Psalms 146–150 function as the conclusion to the Psalter, it may be salutary to compare this corpus with the introduction, Psalms 1–2. It seems plausible that the conclusion of the Psalms might, in some way, resemble the introduction; and, conversely, if there is no resemblance, this may raise suspicion about the validity of the thesis. But there are numerous correspondences between the two corpora. The purpose of this For an intriguing study of how these two words influence the structure of Psalm 148, see Delbert R. Hillers, “A Study of Psalm 148,” CBQ 40 (1978): 323–34. Zenger, “Daß alles Fleisch.” 25 It is true that a similar pattern occurs in 145 (vv. 14–16). While there are many similarities between Psalms 145 and 146–150, and especially 146, these should be interpreted as inter-unit links and not intra-unit links. As evidence, consider the parallels between Psalms 137 and 138, or between Psalms 106 and 107. Although units can be differentiated, it should not be assumed that they are totally unrelated. Other striking parallels include the combination of the Qal active participle ‫ זקף‬and the Qal passive participle ‫ כפף‬in 145.14 and 146.8, as well as the use of the relatively rare root ‫ ׂשבר‬in 145.15 and 146.5. There are obvious differences between the psalms too—most notably, the superscriptions. Furthermore, David is not mentioned in Psalms 146–150, while references to Zion—a prominent theme in 146–150—are lacking in 145. For more, see Ahn, “I Salmi,” 131–2. 26 Zenger, “Die Provokation des 149. Psalms. Von der Unverzichtbarkeit der kanonischen Psalmenauslegung,” in “Ihr Völker alle, klatscht in die Hände!” ed. R. Kessler et al. (Münster: LIT, 1997), 181–94. 23

24

Coda

179

section is to demonstrate that Psalms 146–150 function as the conclusion to the Psalter. First of all, neither is ascribed authorship in the MT.27 This is more significant for Psalms 1–2 since it sets them apart within Book I. Nonetheless, the lack of authorial ascription for these two corpora that bookend the Psalter provides one piece of evidence of their similarity. In both corpora, there is a widening of address from the individual to the communal. Psalm 1 begins by declaring beneficence for the individual— “Blessed is the man” (1.1)—while Psalm 2 completes the beatitudinal inclusio by expanding that blessing to include “all who take refuge in him [the son]” (2.12). The same feature is observed in Psalms 146–150. What begins with the individual—“Praise the Lord, O my soul” (146.1)—swells to include “everything that has breath” (150.6). Finally, the verbal and thematic correspondences between the two groups must be taken into consideration. Incidental connections are jettisoned; only those links that are deemed most significant have been included.28 Table 11.2: Comparison of Psalms 146–150 with 1–2 146.3

2.1-3

146.4

‫בבן־אדם ׁשאין לו תׁשועה‬ ‫אל־תבטחו בנדיבים‬ ‫ביום ההוא אבדו עׁשתנתיו‬

146.4

‫ביום ההוא אבדו עׁשתנתיו‬

2.1-3

146.5 146.8

‫אׁשרי‬ ‫יהוה אהב צדיקים‬

1.1; 2.12 1.6

146.9

‫ודרך רׁשעים יעות‬

1.6

1.6; 2.12

The negative portrayal of earthly rulers ‫;ותאבדו דרך ;ודרך רׁשעים תאבד‬ Perishing in judgment The plots and schemes of the earthly rulers will perish ‫אׁשרי‬ ‫ ;כי־יודע יהוה דרך צדיקים‬The Lord, participle, the righteous ‫ ;ודרך רׁשעים תאבד‬Nearly an exact parallel

The LXX portrays Haggai and Zechariah as the authors of Psalms 146–148 (145–148 in the LXX). This is further explored by Rainer Stichel, Beiträge zur frühen Geschichte des Psalters und zur Wirkungsgeschichte der Psalmen, Abhandlungen der Nordrhein-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 116 (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2007), 132. Stichel argues that the Latin and Greek tradition is correct, namely, that Haggai and Zechariah are the authors of the conclusion. This may be an intriguing hypothesis, but it is superfluous to the present study since the goal is to discover the conclusion of the Hebrew Psalter, and the Hebrew manuscript evidence is uniform concerning authorship—or lack thereof. 28 Take, for instance, the similarity between Pss. 1.3 and 148.9. Both speak of trees (‫ )עץ‬that bear fruit (‫—)פרי‬an enticing correspondence, to say the least. Cole even mentions this link in a footnote to his article “An Integrated Reading”: n. 15. It is not included here, however, since it appears to be incidental—Ps. 1.3 is a metaphorical reference to the blessed man, while 148.9 denotes an actual fruit-tree (cf. Gen. 1.11, 29). For an interpretation of the links between these groups, see Ahn, “I Salmi,” 242–51. 27

The Return of the King

180 Table 11.2: (cont.)

2.6

147.6

‫ןויצ ךיהלא םלועל הוהי ךלמי‬ ‫רדו רדל‬ ‫ץרא־ידע םיעׁשר ליפׁשמ‬

147.11

‫רוצה יהוה את־יראיו‬

2.11

147.12

‫הללי אלהיך ציון‬

2.6

147.19

‫ ליעקב חקיו ומׁשפטיו לישׂראל‬1.5; 2.7 ‫מגיד דברו‬

147.20

‫לא עׂשה כן לכל־גוי‬

2.1, 8

148.6

‫חק־נתן ולא יעבור‬

2.7

148.11 149.1

‫ ־לאמימ ׂשרים וכל־ׁשפטי ארץ‬2.1-2, 10 ‫מלכי־ארץ וכל‬ ‫תהלתו בקהל חסידים‬ 1.5

149.2

‫בני־ציון יגילו במלכם‬

2.6

149.2

‫בני־ציון יגילו במלכם‬

2.11

149.7

‫לעׂשות נקמה בגוים‬

2.1, 8

149.7

‫תוכחת בלאמים‬29

2.1

149.8

‫לאסר מלכיהם בזקים‬

2.2-3

149.8

‫ונכבדיהם בכבלי ברזל‬

2.9

149.9

‫לעׂשות בהם מׁשפט כתוב‬

1.5

146.10

1.4-6

‫;ואני נסכתי מלכי על־ציון הר־קדׁשי‬ Both Zion and king ‫ ;על־כן לא יקמו רׁשעים במׁשפט‬The wicked do not arise; they go down ‫ ;עבדו את־יהוה ביראה‬The Lord desires fear ‫ ;על־ציון הר־קדׁשי‬Zion is the locus of the son’s reign ‫ ;אספרה אל חק יהוה ;במׁשפט‬The Lord reveals statutes and judgments ‫;ואתנה גוים נחלתך ;למה רגׁשו גוים‬ Nations are distinct from Israel ‫ ;אספרה אל חק יהוה‬The Lord is faithful to his decrees ‫;ׁשפטי־ארץ ;מלכי־ארץ ;ולאמים‬ Identical phrasing ‫ ;וחטאים בעדת צדיקים‬Similar phrasing, thematic parallel ‫;ואני נסכתי מלכי על־ציון הר־קדׁשי‬ The convergence of Zion and king ‫ ;וגילו ברעדה‬The proper response to the Lord is rejoicing ‫;ואתנה גוים נחלתך ;למה רגשׁו גוים‬ The unruly nations will be judged ‫ ;ולאמים יהגו־ריק‬The unruly peoples will be judged ‫ונׁשליכה ממנו עבתימו … מלכי־ארץ‬ ‫ ;ננתקה את־מוסרותימו‬Kings are bound ‫;תרעם בׁשבט ברזל ככלי יוצר תנפצם‬ Iron as an implement and the similarity between ‫ כבלי‬and ‫ככלי‬ ‫ ;על־כן לא־יקמו רׁשעים במׁשפט‬Is the judgment of 149.9 referring to the judgment of 1.5?

This is a slight textual emendation of the MT—the removal of the maqqeph. For other examples of this same faulty word division, cf. Pss. 44.15; 57.10; 108.4. See also 11QPsa, where there is no division of the word; it is simply ‫( םימואלב‬plene spelling).

29

Coda

181

The close connection between Zion and the king is a common theme between the pair of groups, as is judgment—especially final judgment. Even the mode of judgment is similar: “binding” and “iron” link the groups. References to the same classes of people also permeate them: “kings of the earth,” “the peoples,” and “judges of the earth.” In fact, the phrase “kings of the earth” occurs six times in the Old Testament, three of which are in the Psalter (2.2; 138.4; 148.11). More significantly, the phrase “judges of the earth” appears only three times in the Old Testament, two of which are in Psalms 2 and 148 (Isa. 40.23; Ps. 2.10; 148.11). Lastly, Ps. 149.9 refers to a judgment that has been written. Certainly, this could refer to some secret counsel of God (cf. Exod. 32.32-33; Mal. 3.16; Ps. 56.9; Dan. 12.1), to the testimony of previous battles won (Deut. 7.1; Book of Joshua),30 or as a literary echo of Pss. 96.13 and 98.9 and Isa. 66.16.31 But it may just as easily refer to the judgment referenced in Psalms 1 and 2—which seems even more plausible when all of the judgment links between these psalms are taken into consideration.32 These similarities, therefore, provide reason for positing a close editorial relationship between Psalms 1–2 and 146–150.

Purpose of the Conclusion The purpose of the final hallel is to conclude the Book of Psalms in a climax of praise. This is evidenced most clearly by the ‫ הללו־יה‬superscript and subscript. But what are the grounds for praise? What is this section climactically praising? The storyline of the Psalter—the story of a heavenly king and his earthly representative who form a people in the midst of a hostile world and extend their kingdom over the unruly nations. Some contend, however, that the conclusion to the Psalms witnesses to a different storyline. They believe that these final psalms reveal the democratization, or collectivization, of the royal promises and that they provide further evidence of the eclipse of the Davidic figure.33 That is, these psalms focus on So Artur Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary, trans. Herbert Hartwell, Old Testament Library (London: SCM Press, 1962), 840. So Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150, rev., WBC 21 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 400. 32 See Cole, “An Integrated Reading,” n. 14. 33 See Joachim Becker, “Die kollektive Deutung der Königspsalmen,” Theologie und Philosophie 52 (1977): 561–78; Marko Marttila, Collective Reinterpretation in the Psalms, FAT 2nd series, vol. 13 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); Zenger, “Daß alles Fleisch,” 20 n. 53; idem, “Die Provokation,” 194, 30

31

182

The Return of the King

the entirety of creation and, more specifically, the faithful people of Yahweh. It is the faithful people of Yahweh who now fulfill the Davidic hope because his dynasty was eschewed at Psalm 89. The textual evidence for this perspective rests upon the emphasis Israel (‫)יׁשראל‬ and the faithful followers (‫ )חסידים‬receive in these psalms. A close comparison between Psalms 2 and 149 reveals that, in Psalm 149, the ‫ חסידים‬are fulfilling the duties given to Yahweh’s anointed in Psalm 2. In Psalm 2, the unruly kings are warned that the anointed receives the nations as his inheritance, breaking them with a rod of iron and smashing them like a clay pot (cf. vv. 2–3, 8–12). In Psalm 149, however, it is the ‫ חסידים‬who fulfill this role, exacting vengeance among the nations and binding the unruly kings with iron chains (cf. vv. 5–9). Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger are representative of the view that the royal promises are democratized at the end of the Psalter: “YHWH is now first and primarily the king present in Zion/Jerusalem, who chooses and saves the poor of Israel as his people. But above all he makes use of this Israel to accomplish his rule over the world … It is now no longer ‘David,’ but ‘poor’ Israel who is to be the soloist and song leader of the cosmic praise.”34 J. Clinton McCann, Jr., is even more explicit: As Psalm 89 makes clear, a major aspect of this crisis [that is, the exile] was the disappearance of the Davidic monarchy. Besides proclaiming God’s kingship, the response of Book IV moves in the direction of transferring the Davidic theology from the monarchy to the whole people. Thus the royal psalms became appropriated messianically—that is, as affirmation of God’s sovereignty that is and will be made manifest through the whole people rather than through the Davidic monarchy. This kind of appropriation is especially clear in the final royal psalm in the psalter, Psalm 144, to which Psalm 149 is linked by the repetition of “new song” (144:9; 149:1). In a real sense, then, Psalm 149 completes the movement of transferring the Davidic theology to the whole people, since after asserting God’s sovereignty (vv. 1–3), it assigns to the “faithful” the task of concretely implementing God’s sovereignty in the world, a task Psalm 2 assigns to the monarchy. Not surprisingly, the faithful will be addressed several times in Psalm 149 in royal terms.35 esp. n. 24; idem, “The Composition and Theology of the Fifth Book of Psalms Psalms 107–145,” JSOT 80 (1998): 98–9; Allen, Psalms 101–150, 362; Ballhorn, Zum Telos, 369. 34 Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150, trans. Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2011), 605–6. 35 McCann, Psalms, 4:1274.

Coda

183

Yahweh’s purposes are accomplished by the people, not the king. While the king may be an example of some sort in this reckoning, he is a past example not a future hope. The first problem with this perspective is that Yahweh, his anointed, and the people are portrayed as competitors, sometimes working together but sometimes overshadowing each other. Instead of positing a competitive relationship among the three, their relationship should be seen as harmonious: Yahweh appoints an earthly king whose followers identify so closely with him that the two become indistinct.36 The king represents the people; the people reflect the king. The notion of corporate headship is not foreign in the ancient Near East.37 Moreover, the introduction to the Psalter evidences how these three characters exist in harmony. Psalm 1 describes the ideal man (‫)איׁש‬ in verses 1–3, yet it concludes by referencing a collective group—the righteous (‫)צדיקים‬. In this case, the group reflects the character of the individual and the individual stands as a representative of the group. In Psalm 2, Yahweh and his anointed work harmoniously together to accomplish a shared vision, and it is assumed that there will be a people who associate themselves with the king (cf. v. 12). There does not appear to be any competition among these characters in the introduction to the Psalter. Why must there be competition among them at the end? The second problem with this perspective is that it does not do justice to the data of Book V. It has been shown that Book V witnesses to the importance of the earthly vice-regent in Yahweh’s kingdom schemes. It is highly improbable that a divergent understanding—that is, an understanding that sees the responsibility of the vice-regent being transferred to the people— would conclude the book. It is true that the faithful are performing the duties of the king in Psalm 149, but could it be that the faithful are acting under the See David C. Mitchell, “Lord, Remember David: G. H. Wilson and the Message of the Psalter,” VT 56 (2006): 538–40, where he argues that the “kingships of YHWH and David are not mutually exclusive” (p. 538). 37 The king’s corporate headship is derived from societal structures related to the household. There were ever-widening households within a nation, starting with the family and then extending to clan, tribe, and nation. The nation was considered the “household” of the king, with the king serving as head of the household. Thus, Judah could be referred to as “the house of David” and the northern kingdom could be referred to as “the house of Omri.” For more on the relation between the king and the people in Israel and other ancient Near Eastern cultures, see Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, Library of Ancient Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 4–5; Jeffrey J. Niehaus, Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2008), 138–65. 36

184

The Return of the King

authority of their king? Could it be that the king has commissioned them to the task? There seems to be no reason, then, to pit the king and the faithful against one another. Thus, I reject the democratization of the royal promises as an editorial strategy in the Psalter.38

Summary Psalms 146–150 function as the conclusion to the Psalter as a whole. After a brief historical review, I defended the cohesion of the group and then demonstrated parallels between Psalms 1–2 and 146–150. Moreover, when one considers that Psalms 144–145 function as the conclusion to Book V, it then sets apart Psalms 146–150 as the conclusion to the Psalter. Finally, I highlighted the purpose of this section, with special attention given to the democratization (or lack thereof) of the royal promises.

See also James M. Todd III, “A Poetic and Contextual Analysis of Psalms 135–137” (Ph.D. diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2010), 222.

38

PART IV CONCLUSION

12 M E S SIA N IC H O P E I N C OM PA R A B L E J EW I SH L I T E R AT U R E 1

I have argued that there is a purposeful arrangement of psalm groups in Book V and that this arrangement should be interpreted as signaling a renewed hope in the royal/Davidic promises. Each psalm group of Book V is organized around a theme or key word that is related to the royal/Davidic hope in the earlier sections of the Psalter: Psalms 107–118 (‫ חסד‬and ‫ ;)עולם‬Psalm 119 (‫ ;)תורה‬Psalms 120–137 (‫ ;)ציון‬Psalms 138–145 (‫)מלך‬. These words and themes figure prominently at the major seam psalms of the Psalter—Psalms 1–2 and 89. Thus, the content and subject matter at the end of the Psalter is integrally related to the content and subject matter at the beginning. The trajectory of the storyline is consistent throughout: Yahweh is king; he has appointed an earthly vice-regent who represents his heavenly rule on earth; the earthly viceregent and his people travail against the rebellious of the earth. The method used to arrive at these conclusions presupposes that parallelism extends beyond the literary level of the poem to include larger sections of text. Consequently, parallel features are seen as elements of cohesion, binding individual psalms into larger units. The parallel feature that is given most emphasis is the key-word link, which has been defined as a word or phrase for which at least half of all occurrences in Book V are in one group and/or at least 20 percent of all occurrences in the Psalter are in one group. Key-word links, then, serve a double function. First, they isolate parallel features that bind a group together. Second, they demonstrate that the parallel features do not occur with the same frequency outside of the group. The material in this chapter also appears in Michael Snearly, “The Return of the King: Book V as a Witness to Messianic Hope in the Psalter,” in The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul, ed. Andrew J. Schmutzer and David M. Howard, Jr. (Chicago: Moody Press, 2013), 209–18. It is used by permission from Moody Press.

1

188

The Return of the King

To aid in the search for parallel features in such a large corpus as Psalms 107–150, I created a concordance for Book V with the assistance of a computer program. This step allowed me to discern more quickly where parallel features are occurring in the book and to formulate hypotheses that could be tested under a closer, more scrutinized reading. I then compared the results of exegetically rigorous study with the data from the concordance, thus leading to the delineation of psalm groups. Benefits of the method include: MM

MM

MM

It allowed for in-depth study of larger portions of text. Up to this time, meticulous comparison of every lexeme in a corpus has required the use of small portions of text (typically three to seven psalms). It drew from the latest research on Psalms, poetics, and text-linguistics. It differentiated between significant and insignificant parallels, which can help editorial criticism move beyond the charge of subjective, impressionistic readings.

It will, however, need to be applied to other sections of text—especially poetic texts—to determine its true worth for editorial criticism. One possible avenue for further study is to apply the method to another large section of the Psalms, such as Book II. Or the method could be applied to another poetic book, such as Proverbs. It may help advance the nascent, yet emerging, field of editorial criticism in that book. This is not to say that the method is perfectly refined, though. The definition of a key-word link, because of its statistical component, is rigid and therefore does not always perfectly account for the data. For example, ‫ חסד‬and ‫ עולם‬could not be considered key-word links because the refrain in one psalm—Psalm 136—inflated the overall number of occurrences of those words. This illustrates one of the drawbacks of using statistics of word occurrence—namely, one or two psalms can have a disproportionate influence on the word count. It should be remembered, however, that statistics of word occurrence were chosen because they ground the method in objective data, not the subjective impressions of the reader. Consequently, as the method advances, attention should be given to refining the definition of a key-word link to better account for the data without loosening itself from all objective controls and thus descending back into a subjective impressionism.



Messianic Hope in Comparable Jewish Literature

189

Another area of research that could be advanced from this work is editorial criticism’s incorporation of outliers in the storyline. I argue that the Psalter displays elements of narrativity and thus can be said to have a storyline— albeit not a storyline that would emerge from a novel or a biblical book such as Samuel or Kings, but a storyline nonetheless. Because the storyline of the Psalter develops from the arrangement and framing of pre-existing psalms, and sometimes whole collections, certain psalms do not appear to fit as well as others within the proposed narrative trajectory. For example, it has been argued that the dominant theme of Psalms 120–137—as evidenced by the observation of a key-word link—is Zion. Psalms 123 and 127, however, do not mention Zion. Their connection to this main theme must be implied from the superscription “A Song of Ascents,” which is most likely referring to an ascent to Zion, and their juxtaposition to other psalms that more explicitly evince this theme. But can editorial criticism account more fully for their contribution to the storyline of this section and, more broadly, the book as a whole? Or can the storyline of the Psalter only be sketched in the broadest of brush strokes? What compounds the issue is that these psalms appear to have been a part of a pre-existing collection that was subsequently included into a larger collection. At this point, editorial criticism has been content to portray the storyline of the Psalter with reference to broad, sweeping themes, thereby mitigating (and possibly ignoring) the witness of those psalms that do not fit in. But as more work is done on the storyline of the Psalter, it would be beneficial to give attention to those psalms that are least related to the proposed theme, with an account given for their inclusion and contribution. My method has yielded profitable results for understanding how Book  V relates to the overall storyline of the Psalter. Most significantly, the royal/Davidic figure returns to prominence in Book V. Using Gerald Henry Wilson as a foil, David Mitchell emphasizes how Book V reveals a strong, victorious David: Wilson suggests that Books IV and V represent the message that God will be Israel’s king now that the “Davidic covenant introduced in Ps 2 has come to nothing”2 … Yhwh does indeed appear to be king in Book IV, as Wilson

Gerald Henry Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBLDS 76 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), 213.

2

190

The Return of the King

suggests, but it seems that, by Book V, David is unmistakably back on the throne. Psalms 110, 132, and 144 depict a Davidic king. Moreover, if the house of David has come to nothing at the end of Book III, why do these later Davidic psalms represent him not conquered, but conquering? Is it all simply paradigmatic for Israel’s trust in Yhwh? If the ‫ לדוד‬ascription has the same significance in Books IV–V as Wilson reckons it has in Books I–III—and he does not state otherwise—then David is forgiven, healed, redeemed and rejuvenated (103:3-5). He wakens the dawn with praise, and receives a divine oracle promising success in battle (108). He curses his enemy (109). He will rule from Zion, crushing the head of the wide earth and filling it with corpses (110) … The old Davidic and Zion theology is reasserted in the strongest terms (122; 125; 128:5-6; 132:1118). David is rescued from the sword and sings a new song to God (144:9-10). The David of Books IV and V may not be doing as badly as Wilson suggests.3

Book V bears witness to the return of the king in the Psalter’s storyline. But in what way can the Davidic king return if the historical Davidic lineage is in eclipse, as evidenced in Psalm 89? Assuming a post-exilic redaction sometime during the second temple period, what is the significance of the royal emphasis in Book V when there is no Davidic king on the throne? The answer lies in a future expectation that Yahweh would display an eternal (‫ )עולם‬covenant loyalty (‫ )חסד‬to David by sending a king like David to consummately fulfill all of Yahweh’s purposes.4 Consider how this perspective is consonant with the message of Ezekiel and Hosea. In two key texts David becomes more than a deceased historical personage; he is transformed into a symbol of royalist hope: Afterward the children of Israel will return and they will seek Yahweh their God and David their king, and they will come in fear to Yahweh and his goodness in the last days. (Hos 3.5)   And I will raise over them one shepherd—my servant David—and he will shepherd them. He will shepherd them; he will become their shepherd. And

David C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms, JSOT Sup 252 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 78–9. See also idem, “Lord, Remember David: G. H. Wilson and the Message of the Psalter,” VT 56 (2006): 526–48, where Mitchell interacts with Wilson’s later work, noting that Wilson mitigated his position somewhat concerning the role of the Davidic figure in Books IV–V of the Psalter. See G. H. Wilson, “King, Messiah, and the Reign of God: Revisiting the Royal Psalms and the Shape of the Psalter,” in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, eds. P. W. Flint and P. D. Miller, VTS 99 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 391–406. 4 See Mitchell, The Message, 86–7; Mitchell also references J. Forbes, Studies on the Book of Psalms (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1888), 4, and J. Olshausen, Die Psalmen (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1853), 31. 3



Messianic Hope in Comparable Jewish Literature

191

I—Yahweh—will become their God, and my servant David [will become] leader among them. I, Yahweh, have spoken. (Ezek 34.23-24)

These texts reveal that David symbolized more than a heroic example from the past; he became synonymous with the hopes of God’s people in the future. And the final redaction of the Psalter appears to be appropriating David in the same way in Book V. The robustly royal/Davidic reading of Book V proposed in this work is also consistent with the hope in the Davidic dynasty that is present in other biblical books. Even as the Davidic line entered into a state of decline, and then eventually into full eclipse, the prophets testify to the enduring hope that remained in that line: In that day I will raise up David’s booth, which is falling, and I will repair what is torn apart; I will raise up its ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old. (Amos 9.11)   “Look! In the coming days,” says the Lord, “I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he will rule as a king, and he will act wisely, and he will execute justice and righteousness in the land.” (Jer. 23.5; cf. 33.15)

In a more muted tone, the hope placed in Zerubbabel, a descendant of David according to 1 Chron. 3.19, bears witness to this understanding that the line of David would not be finally abandoned (see Hag. 2.20-23; cf. also Zech. 4.6-10 with 6.12-14). Moreover, in the book of 1 Esdras, Zerubbabel’s prominence during the Persian period is elevated. David deSilva speculates that the purpose for this is “to give a sense that the Davidic dynasty had not ended, that in Zerubbabel’s success there was, in some sense, a restoration of ‘the booth of David that is fallen’ (Amos 9:11).”5 It is Chronicles, however, that bears the closest affinity to the proposed reading of the Psalter. Assuming a post-exilic redaction of the Psalter some time during the second temple period, the final editing of the Psalter and the composition of Chronicles would then be roughly contemporary.6 Interestingly, they also share the same perspective on David. Both Chronicles and the Psalter acknowledge the bitter reality of the exile and the absence of a David A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 287. 6 The genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3 lists five generations after Zerubbabel (see vv. 19–24). Thus the final composition of Chronicles would have been some time during the second temple period. 5

192

The Return of the King

Davidic king on the throne of the nation (see Psalm 89 and 2 Chron. 36.9-21), yet neither abandon hope in the Davidic line. Consider these passages from Chronicles, which resemble the overall perspective in Book V:7 He [David’s son, Solomon] will build a house for my name, and he will be my son and I will be his father. I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever. (1 Chron. 22.10; cf. 1 Chron. 28.7)   O Yahweh God, do not turn away the face of your anointed one. Remember [your] covenant loyalty to David, your servant. (2 Chron. 6.42)   Do you not know that Yahweh, God of Israel, gave a kingdom to David over Israel forever, to him and to his sons, a covenant of salt? … And now you all are saying that you will take a stand against the kingdom of Yahweh in the hand of the sons of David. (2 Chron. 13.5, 8)   But Yahweh did not consent to destroy the house of David because of the covenant that he made with David, just as he promised to give a lamp to him and to his sons forever. (2 Chron. 21.7)

Each of these texts reveals that, even from a post-exilic perspective, hope in the Davidic promises was still alive.8 David Howard states the point well: We should remember that there is another biblical work that is indisputably postexilic (as is the Psalter in its final form), 1–2 Chronicles, a work that is overwhelmingly positive about the Davidic kingship. Thus, just because Judah had experienced exile does not mean that it had abandoned all hope in the promises and benefits of the Davidic Covenant.9

Consequently, the reading of the Psalter proposed here is congruous with the perspective of Chronicles. Furthermore, my conclusions are consistent with the expectation of a future Davidic ruler found in the literature of the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, and the New Testament. 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) 12.31-34, 4QWarScroll (4Q285 Frag 5), Isaiah Pesher (4Q161 Frag 8), 4QFlorilegium (4Q174, 11–13), and Genesis Pesher (4Q252 5.1-4) all explicitly connect David, and the In addition to these, see 1 Chron. 17.12-27; 28.5; 29.23; 2 Chron. 7.12-22; 9.8; 23.3. It is worthy of note that thirty-seven of the forty occurrences of the phrase ‫ כי לעולם חסדו‬are in Book V of the Psalter and Chronicles. It should be remembered that, in Book V, this phrase seems to function as the answer to the question raised in Psalm 89, “Is Yahweh’s covenant loyalty (‫)חסד‬ eternal (‫ ”?)עולם‬Book V resoundingly responds in the affirmative. Could Chronicles (1 Chron. 16.34, 41; 2 Chron. 5.13; 7.3, 6; 20.21) be echoing that affirmation? 9 David M. Howard, Jr., The Structure of Psalms 93–100, UCSD Biblical and Judaic Studies 5 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 205. 7 8



Messianic Hope in Comparable Jewish Literature

193

promises made to him, with the future hope of the people.10 Moreover, in the New Testament, Jesus, who is given the title “Messiah,” is linked to David and is viewed as the fulfillment of the promises made to David.11 Finally, one text from this period, Psalms of Solomon 17, warrants further consideration. George W. E. Nickelsburg outlines the psalm this way:12 A. God is King B. The sons of David were to be the human agents of this kingship C. Israel sinned D. Their punishments was the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty E. God is punishing their arrogance F. Prayer: restore the Davidic dynasty G. Description of the Messiah and messianic times H. Final petition I. God is King

vv. 1–313 v. 4 v. 5a vv. 5b–6 vv. 7–20 v. 21 vv. 22–44 v. 45 v. 46

The psalm begins by affirming that God is the uncontested king of his people: “O Lord, you (yourself) are our king [βασιλεὺς] forever and ever” (v. 1). It then uses the same word (βασιλεὺς) in a different case to refer to David in verse 4: “You, O Lord, chose David to be king over Israel.” After a lengthy section that describes the conceit of Jewish interlopers—“they laid waste the throne of David in arrogance” (v. 6)—and the concomitant judgment that

The subject of the Messiah in the intertestamental period is a rich one with an expansive bibliography. The discussion is technical and nuanced, and is only briefly touched upon here. For more, see John J. Collins and George W. E. Nickelsburg, eds, Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, Septuagint and Cognate Studies 12 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980); James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 54 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985); Michael O. Wise and James D. Tabor, “The Messiah at Qumran,” Biblical Archaeology Review 18 (1992): 60–5; James H. Charlesworth and Craig A. Evans, eds, The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 14 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993); James H. Charlesworth, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema, eds, Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998); deSilva, Introducing; George W. E. Nickelsburg, Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity, Continuity, and Transformation (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003); idem, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction, 2nd edn (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005). 11 See Mt. 1.1; 9.27; 12.23; 21.9, 15; 22.42-45; Mk 11.10; 12.35-37; Lk. 1.32; 20.42-44; Jn 7.42; Acts 2.29-30; 13.22-36; Rom. 1.3; Rev. 3.7; 5.5; 22.16. 12 Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 241. See also Gene L. Davenport, “The ‘Anointed of the Lord’ in Psalms of Solomon 17,” in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, eds. John J. Collins and George W. E. Nickelsburg, Septuagint and Cognate Studies 12 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), 67–92. 13 The verse numbers used here are based on the LXX’s numbering. 10

194

The Return of the King

comes upon them and the people, a prayer is offered for the rightful king to assume the throne: “O Lord, raise up for them their king, the son of David, at the time that you have chosen, O God, to rule over Israel, your servant” (v.  21). Another lengthy section follows in which the reign of this son of David is described. Drawing from texts such as Deut. 17.14-20, Isa. 11.2-5, and Psalm 2, the king is portrayed as one who “shatters the arrogance of the sinner as a potter’s vessel” (v. 23) and who “breaks to pieces their whole being with an iron rod” (v. 24). He will not trust in horses or wealth (v. 33). He will rule with “the wisdom of righteousness” (v. 23). Even more interestingly, this psalm presents the king in ways consistent with the main themes of Book V. He is obviously referred to as a king (cf. Psalms 138–145) in verses 4, 21, and 32. Verses 30–31 state that this king will purify Jerusalem (Zion?) and that the nations will bring tribute to Jerusalem (an ascent to Zion?; cf. Psalms 120–137) to see the glory of this king. Verse 32 describes the king as “taught by God,” which is reminiscent of the emphasis on ‫ תורה‬in Psalm 119. Finally, the psalm concludes with a prayer that God would “hastily show his mercy to Israel” (v. 45). The word for mercy (ἔλεος) is the Greek word most often used to translate the Hebrew ‫ חסד‬in the LXX.14 Psalms of Solomon 17 reveals that, even in the post-exilic period with no Davidic scion on the throne, there was a persistent hope in David’s line. And it also demonstrates that, during this period, the co-regency of Yahweh and David was not seen to be incompatible. Psalms of Solomon 17 begins with Yahweh’s rule and his appointment of a Davidic co-regent (vv. 1–4). The throne of David then descends to a humiliating nadir (vv. 5–20). The psalm concludes, however, with a reaffirmation of Yahweh’s reign (v. 46) and a renewed hope in the Davidic line (vv. 22–45). The turning point from humiliation to renewed hope is a prayer (v. 21). This resembles quite closely the storyline of the Psalter proposed here: Yahweh is king; he appoints an earthly co-regent whose line is eventually humiliated (see Psalm 89); Yahweh’s

See Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint: And the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books), 2nd edn (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1998), s.v. ἔλεος; see also Takamitsu Muraoka’s contribution “Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint” in the same volume, s.v. ‫דסח‬. It is also interesting that the next psalm, Psalms of Solomon 18, which bears a superscription that reads “Also about the Lord’s Messiah/Christ/ Anointed,” begins (v. 1) with a reference to the Lord’s eternal (εις τον αιωνα) mercy/covenant loyalty (ελεος).

14



Messianic Hope in Comparable Jewish Literature

195

reign is reaffirmed (see Psalms 93–100); hope in the earthly co-regent is not abandoned (Book V); the turning point is the supplication of Ps. 89.47-53. With these similarities in mind, could the key to understanding the storyline of the Psalter as a whole be Psalms of Solomon 17? Might this psalm be a précis of its larger, canonical cousin? Brevard Childs provides the most fitting conclusion: “In sum, although the royal psalms arose originally in a peculiar historical setting of ancient Israel which had received its form from a common mythopoetic milieu, they were treasured in the Psalter for a different reason, namely as a witness to the messianic hope which looked for the consummation of God’s kingship through his Anointed One.”15

Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1979), 517.

15

APPENDIX: PSALMS 114–115 AS ONE PSALM

External Evidence 1) Manuscripts or textual traditions that treat Psalms 114–115 as one psalm:

Hebrew 4QPso (possibly)1 Codex Leningradensis (L) Aleppo Codex (A) Vatican Ms. Urbanati 22 Ms. Heb. D. 33, 3v–6r3 Kennicott: 18 mss De Rossi: 52 mss Greek LXX Latin Vulgate4 Syriac Peshit. ta

Psalm 115.1 directly follows 114.7. Gerald Henry Wilson evaluates: “No blank space separates these pss in the extant portion. There is no evidence of a s/s for Ps 115 (which agrees with MT). Tentative reconstruction indicates these pss may have been written together as one.” See idem, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBLDS 76 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), 106–7. 2 This is according to G. T. M. Prinsloo in “Unit Delimitation in the Egyptian Hallel (Psalms 113–118), in Unit Delimitation in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Literature, eds. Marjo C. A. Korpel and Josef M. Oesch, Pericope 4 (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003), 239–40. 3 See Israel Yeivin, “The Division into Sections in the Book of Psalms,” Textus 7 (1969): 76–102. Yeivin attests that this manuscript, which lists the open and closed sections in Psalms, does not treat Psalm 115 as a separate psalm. See p. 78. 4 This certainly includes the Gallican Psalter. It is more difficult to discern the witness of Jerome’s iuxta Hebraeos. Most editions of that text simply follow the Hebrew numbering, e.g. see Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos Hieronymi, ed. J. M. Harden (London: SPCK, 1922), xxv–xxvi. Paul de Lagarde’s Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos Hieronymi (1874) contains the Hebrew numbering, yet Psalm 115 begins with v. 9, that is, it acts as a continuation of Psalm 114. 1

198 Appendix

Commentators Midrash Tehillim5 Origen6 2) Manuscripts or textual traditions that treat Psalms 114–115 as two psalms, starting Psalm 115 at what would be verse 9 of Psalm 114:

Hebrew Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Biblia Rabbinica: a reprint of Jacob ben H. ayim’s text Ms. JTS 508; Ms. Heb. 8˚ 5241, I  Both of the texts are from the Cairo Geniza Latin Lat 11947 Commentators mPes 10, 6a7 3) Manuscripts or textual traditions that treat Psalms 114–115 as two psalms, starting Psalm 115 at what would be verse 12 of Psalm 114:8

The only psalm that does not receive comment in the entire Psalter is Psalm 115. This may be because it was not considered a separate psalm from Psalm 114, which receives comment. 6 Dominique Barthélemy quotes Origen (the passage is actually anonymous, yet Barthélemy has argued that it is most likely from Origen in “Le papyrus Bodmer 24 jugé par Origène,” in Wort, Lied und Gottespruch: Beiträge zu Psalmen und Propheten, ed. J. Schreiner (Würzburg: Echter, 1972), 12–14) as saying that certain manuscripts divide Psalms 114–115 into two, but he is of the opinion that they should be considered one: “Dans certains manuscrits, ce qui précède est séparé du cent-treizième Psaume. Étant donné que, m’étant penché sur la Bible des hébreux écrite en leurs caractères, j’ai trouvé les passages lies l’un à l’autre, j’ai conclu qu’il serait bien de suivre la Bible hébraïque et de lier ce passage à ce qui le précède si bien que ce serait une partie du cent-treizième hymne.” See idem, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, vol. 4, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50 (Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), xxxi. 7 This is not a direct witness to the psalm division. It is, rather, a description of how the schools of Shammai and Hillel used the Egyptian Hallel within the Passover celebration. The school of Shammai paused at the end of Psalm 113. The school of Hillel paused at the end of Psalm 114, thus creating a break at that juncture. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the school of Hillel paused at the end of a psalm. It could be that they paused in the middle of a psalm. But it is included here because it witnesses to a break at this juncture. 8 These witnesses are based on the comments of Alfred Rahlfs in the Prolegomena to the critical edition of the LXX he edited entitled Psalmi cum Odis. These witnesses suggest that there was a third tradition for dividing the psalm. As he put it, “Es muß also in den ersten Jahrunderten außer der hebr. Und der üblichen griech. Einteilung dieser Psalmen noch eine dritte Einteilung gegeben haben, die uns bei Augustin und im Sahid. Erhalten ist.” See Psalmi cum Odis, ed. Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum: Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 10 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 51. 5

Appendix

199

Sahidic Sahidic version Commentators Augustine

Internal Evidence It is difficult to apply the standard text-critical canons to this issue, such as lectio dificilior preferendum est or lectio brevior preferendum est. Two observations, however, warrant comment. First, by dividing this psalm into two, it creates a Psalter of 150 psalms, a round number that is more pleasing than 149 (or 147).9 Second, the division into two psalms can be more easily explained than their combination. It is not clear why these psalms, if they were understood to be separate, would be combined into one in so many manuscripts and textual traditions.10 The tradition that the school of Hillel paused their reading of the Egyptian Hallel at “the flint into a spring of water,” on the other hand, can account for the division of the psalm at this point. Moreover, the fact that there are two traditions for dividing this psalm (at v. 8 or at v. 11) further vitiates the persuasiveness of the outlay contained in BHS. Barthélemy concurs: “This difference in the manner of dividing the psalm constitutes a serious argument in favor of its primitive unity.”11

Conclusion I conclude that Psalms 114–115 were originally a single psalm, but they were subsequently divided because of the influence of the Passover tradition L contains 149 psalms in the Psalter. The psalms in A are not numbered. Erich Zenger defends the separation of these psalms on compositional and semantic grounds, although he does not elaborate further on exactly what compositional or semantic grounds. He labels their unity as “highly unlikely,” and he sees the LXX tradition of combining the psalms as evidence of their close editorial relationship: “Beide Psalmen sind sowohl kompositionell als auch semantisch so unterschiedlich gestaltet, daß sie als in sich selbst ruhende Psalmen zu lesen sind. Das schließt freilich nicht die Möglichkeit aus, die beiden Psalmen als Textzusammenhang zu lesen, wie dies LXX tut—und deshalb eine ganze Reihe von Differenzen gegenüber MT einführt.” See Erich Zenger, “Götter- und Götterbildpolemik in Ps 112–113 LXX = Ps 113–115 MT,” in Der Septuaginta-Psalter: Sprachliche und theologische Aspekte, ed. Erich Zenger, HBS 32 (Freiburg: Herder, 2001), 245 n. 39. 11 Barthélemy, Critique, xxxiii: “Cette divergence dans les manières de diviser le psaume contitue un argument sérieux en faveur de son unite primitive.” 9

10

200 Appendix

of the school of Hillel. This division also had the salutary effect of creating a round number of psalms within the Psalter. Because this division found its way into the Rabbinic Bible, published originally under the auspices of Daniel Bomberg, it enjoyed wide dissemination and came to be accepted as the “standard” division. It was then perpetuated by the editors of Biblia Hebraica so that it is widely misunderstood to be the “Hebrew” or “Masoretic” division.12 The textual evidence, however, witnesses against this. Therefore, Psalms 114–115 will be considered one psalm in this work even though the numbering of BHS will be retained, for reasons of familiarity.

On the differences between BHS and L, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd rev. edn (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2001), 374–6.

12

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, H. Porter. “Narrativity.” In Handbook of Narratology, ed. Peter Hühn, John Pier, and Wolf Schmid, 309–28. Narratologia 19. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Ackerman, James S. “The Rabbinic Interpretation of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John.” Harvard Theological Review 59 (1966): 186–91. Ackroyd, Peter R. and Michael A. Knibb. “Translating the Psalms.” Evangelische Theologie 17 (1966): 1–11. Adkin, Neil. “Julian of Eclanum on Psalm 103:2.” Journal of Theological Studies 51 (2000): 161–3. Ahlstrom, Gösta W. Psalm 89: Eine Liturgie aus dem Ritual des leidenden Königs. Lund: Gleerup, 1959. Ahn, So Kun. “I Salmi 146–150 come conclusione del Salterio.” Ph.D. diss., Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2008. Alden, Robert L. “Chiastic Psalms: A Study in the Mechanics of Semitic Poetry in Psalms 1–50.” JETS 17 (1974): 11–28. Alden, Robert L. “Chiastic Psalms (II): A Study in the Mechanics of Semitic Poetry in Psalms 51–100.” JETS 19 (1976): 191–200. Alden, Robert L. “Chiastic Psalms (III): A Study in the Mechanics of Semitic Poetry in Psalms 101–150.” JETS 21 (1978): 199–210. Aleppo Codex Online. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute. http://www.aleppocodex.org/ newsite/index.html (accessed March 17, 2015). Alexander, J. A. The Psalms. 3 vols. New York: Charles Scribner, 1865. Allen, Leslie C. Psalms 101–50, revised. WBC 21. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2002. Alonso-Schökel, L. “Psalmus 136 (135).” Verbum Domine 45 (1967): 129–38. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Poetry. New York: Basic, 1985. Alter, Robert. “Psalms.” In The Literary Guide to the Bible, eds. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, 244–62. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987. Altman, Rick. A Theory of Narrative. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008. Anderson. A. A. “Psalm Study Between 1955 and 1969.” Baptist Quarterly 23 (1969): 155–64. Anderson. A. A. Psalms (73–150). New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972.

202 Bibliography Anderson, Bernhard W., with Steven Bishop. Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for us Today. 3rd edn, rev. and exp. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2000. Anderson, F. I., and A. D. Forbes. “‘Prose-Particle’ Counts of the Hebrew Bible.” In The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds. Carol Myers and Michael O’Connor, 165–83. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Anderson, George W. “‘Sicut Cervus’ Evidence in the Psalter of Private Devotion in Ancient Israel.” VT 30 (1980): 388–97. Ap-Thomas, Dafydd R. “Appreciation of Sigmund Mowinckel’s Contribution to Biblical Studies.” JBL 85 (1966): 315–25. Arens, Anton. Die Psalmen in Gottesdienst des Alten Bundes: eine Untersuchung zur Vorgeschichte des christlichen Psalmengesanges. Trierer theologische Studien 11. Trier: Paulinus, 1961. Aristotle. Poetics. Ed. and trans. Stephen Halliwell. Loeb Classical Library 199. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995. Ashworth, Henry. “The Psalter Collects of Pseudo-Jerome and Cassiodorus.” Bulletin John Rylands Library 45 (1962–3): 287–304. Audet, René. “Narrativity: Away from Story, Close to Eventness.” In Narrativity: How Visual Arts, Cinema and Literature are Telling the World Today, eds. René Audet, Claude Romano, Laurence Dreyfus, Carl Therrien, and Hugues Marchal, 7–35. Paris: Dis Voir, 2007. Auffret, Pierre. The Literary Structure of Psalm 2. JSOT Sup 3. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1977. Auffret, Pierre. “Note sur la Structure Littéraire du Psaume CXXXVI.” VT 27 (1977): 1–12. Auffret, Pierre. “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 1,” Biblische Zeitschrift 22 (1978): 26–45. Auffret, Pierre. “Essai sur la structure littéraire des Psaumes CXI et CXII.” VT 30 (1980): 257–79. Auffret, Pierre. “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 145.” In Mélanges bibliques et orientaux, ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor, 15–31. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 212. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. Auffret, Pierre. La sagesse a bâti sa maison: Études de structures littéraires dans l’Ancien Testament et spécialment dans les Psaumes. OBO 49. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Auffret, Pierre. “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 116.” Biblische Notizen 23 (1984): 32–47.

Bibliography

203

Auffret, Pierre. Voyez de vos yeux: Étude structurelle de vingt Psaumes, dont le Psaume 119. VTS 48. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Auffret, Pierre. “En mémoire éternelle sera le juste: Étude structurelle du Psaume cxii.” VT 48 (1998): 2–14. Auffret, Pierre. Mais tu élargiras mon couer: Nouvelle étude structurelle du psaume 119. BZAW 359. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006. Auwers, Jean-Marie. “Le psautier hébraïque et ses éditeurs. Recherches sur une forme canonique du Livre des psaumes.” Diss. Theol. Université Catholique de Louvain, 1994. Auwers, Jean-Marie. Review of The Structure of Psalms 93–100 by David M. Howard, Jr. Biblica 80 (1999): 127–31. Auwers, Jean-Marie. La composition littéraire du Psautier: un état de la question. CRB 46. Paris: Gabalda, 2000. Auwers, Jean-Marie. “Le Psautier comme livre biblique: Édition, redaction, function.” In The Composition of the Book of Psalms, ed. Erich Zenger, 67–89. BETL 238. Louvain: Peeters, 2010. Bailey, Richard N. “Bede’s Text of Cassiodorus’ Commentary on the Psalms.” Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1983): 189–93. Baker, Joshua, and Ernest W. Nicholson, eds and trans. The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimhi on Psalms CXX–CL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Ballhorn, Egbert. Zum Telos des Psalters: Der Textzusammenhang des Vierten und Fünften Psalmenbuches (Ps 90–150). BBB 138. Berlin: Philo, 2004. Ballhorn, Egbert. “Der Torapsalter: Vom Gebetbuch zum Buch der Weisung.” Bibel und Kirche 65 (2010): 24–7. Barbiero, G. Das erste Psalmenbuck als Eihneit: Eine synchrone Analyse von Psalm 1–41. Österreichische Biblische Studien 16. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999. Barbiero, G. “Alcune osservazioni sulla conclusione del Salmo 89 (vv. 47–53).” Biblica 88 (2007): 536–45. Baron, Salo W., and Joseph L. Blau, eds. Judaism: Postbiblical and Talmudic Period. New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1954. Barré, Lloyd M. “Halělû Yāh: A Broken Inclusion.” CBQ 45 (1983): 195–200. Barré, Michael L.“Psalm 116: Its Structure and its Enigmas.” JBL 109 (1990): 61–78. Barth, Christoph. “Concatenatio im ersten Buch des Psalters.” In Wort and Wirklichkeit: Studien zur Afrikanistik und Orientalistik, eds. B. Benzing, O. Böcher, and G. Mayer, 30–40. Meisenheim am Glan: Hain, 1976. Barthélemy, D. “Le papyrus Bodmer 24 jugé par Origène.” In Wort, Lied und Gottespruch: Beiträge zu Psalmen und Propheten, ed. J. Schreiner, 11–19. Würzburg: Echter, 1972.

204 Bibliography Barthélemy, D. Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. Vol. 3, Poetical Books. New York: UBS, 1979. Barthélemy, D. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Vol. 4. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Bazak, Jacob. “The Geometric-Figurative Structure of Psalm CXXXVI.” VT 35 (1985): 129–38. Bazak, Jacob. “Hineh! mah tov u-mah na’im! (Tehillim 133).” Bet Mikra 52 (2007): 80–90. Beaucamp, E. Le Psautier: Ps 1–72. Sources Bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1976. Beaucamp, E. “L’unité du recueil des montées: Psaumes 120–134.” Liber Annuus Studii Biblici Franciscani 29 (1979): 73–90. de Beaugrande, Robert-Alain and Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman, 1981. Becker, Joachim. “Die kollektive Deutung der Königspsalmen.” Theologie und Philosophie 52 (1977): 561–78. Beintker, Horst. “Christologische Gedanken Luthers zum Sterben Jesu: bei Auslegung von Psalm 8 und Psalm 22 im Kommentar von 1519 bis 1521.” Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 77 (1986): 5–30. Bellinger, W. H. “Let the Words of My Mouth: Proclaiming the Psalms.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 27 (1984): 17–24. Berges, Ulrich. “Die Knechte im Psalter: Ein Beitrag zu seiner Kompositionsgeschichte.” Biblica 81 (2000): 153–78. Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Bible and Literature Series 9. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983. Berlin, Adele. “The Rhetoric of Psalm 145.” In Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry, eds. A. Kort and S. Morschauser, 17–22. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985. Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Rev. edn. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Boadt, Lawrence. “The Use of ‘Panels’ in the Structure of Psalms 73–78.” CBQ 66 (2004): 533–50. Bodendorfer, Gerhard. “Die Spannung von Gerechtigkeit und Barmherzigkeit in der rabbinischen Auslegung mit Schwerpunkt auf der Psalmeninterpretation.” In Drama der Barmherzigkeit Gottes, ed. Ruth Scoralick, 157–92. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000. Bourguet, Daniel. “La Structure des Titres des Psaumes.” Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuse 61 (1981): 109–24.

Bibliography

205

Bratcher, Robert G. “Dividing the Psalms into Strophes.” Bible Translator 29 (1978): 425–7. Braude, William G., trans. The Midrash on Psalms. 2 vols. Yale Judaica Series 13. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1959. Breck, John. “Biblical Chiasmus: Exploring Structure for Meaning.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 17 (1987): 70–4. Brennan, Joseph P. “Some Hidden Harmonies in the Fifth Book of Psalms.” In Essays in Honor of Joseph P. Brennan, ed. Robert F. McNamara, 126–58. Rochester, NY: Saint Bernard’s Seminary, 1976. Brennan, Joseph P. “Psalms 1–8: Some Hidden Harmonies.” BTB 10 (1980): 25–9. Briggs, C. A., and E. G. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary 38. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906. Brownlee, William H. “Psalms 1–2 as a Coronation Liturgy.” Biblica 52 (1971): 321–36. Brueggemann, Walter. The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary. Augsburg Old Testament Studies. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1984. Brueggemann, Walter. “Psalm 109: Three Times ‘Steadfast Love.’” Word & World 5 (1985): 144–54. Brueggemann, Walter. Israel’s Praise: Doxology against Idolatry and Ideology. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1988. Brueggemann, Walter. Abiding Astonishment: Psalms, Modernity, and the Making of History. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1991. Brueggemann, Walter. “Bounded by Obedience and Praise: The Psalms as Canon.” JSOT 50 (1991): 63–92. Brueggemann, Walter. The Psalms & the Life of Faith, ed. Patrick D. Miller. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995. Buysch, Christoph. Der letzte Davidpsalter: Interpretation, Komposition und Funktion der Psalmengruppe Ps 138–145. Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge 63. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH, 2009. Cassuto, Philippe. “Le Textes rabbiniques sur le Psaume 21 (22 TM).” In Recherches sur le Psaume 21 (22 TM), 165–224. Paris: Peeters, 2002. Cassutto, U. “The Sequence and Arrangement of the Biblical Sections.” In idem, Biblical and Oriental Studies. I. Bible. Trans. I. Abrahams, 1–6. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973. Charlesworth, James H. The Old Testament Psuedepigrapha and the New Testament. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

206 Bibliography Charlesworth, James H. and Craig A. Evans, eds. The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 14. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Charlesworth, James H., Hermann Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema, eds. Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Childs, B. S. “Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis.” Journal of Semitic Studies 16 (1971): 137–50. Childs, B. S. “Reflections on the Modern Study of Psalms.” In Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God, eds. F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, and P. D. Miller, 377–88. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. Childs, B. S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1979. Chinitz, J. “Psalm 145: Its Two Faces.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 24 (1996): 229–32. Cho, Yong Kyu. “The Hallelujah Psalms in the Context of the Hebrew Psalter.” Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1998. Clark, G. R. The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible. JSOT Sup 157. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Clifford, Richard J. “Psalm 89: A Lament over the Davidic Ruler’s Continued Failure.” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 35–47. Clifford, Richard J. Psalms 73–150. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2003. Clines, D. J. A. “Psalm Research Since 1955: Part I. The Psalms and the Cult.” Tyndale Bulletin 18 (1967): 103–26. Clines, D. J. A. “Psalm Research Since 1955. Part II. The Literary Genres. Tyndale Bulletin 20 (1969): 105–25. Cole, R. L. “Rhetorics and Canonical Structure in the Hebrew Psalter Book III (Psalms 73–89).” Ph.D. diss., UCLA, 1996. Cole, R. L. The Shape and Message of Book III (Psalms 73–89). JSOT Sup 307. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. Cole, R. L. “An Integrated Reading of Psalms 1 and 2.” JSOT 98 (2002): 75–88. Cole, R. L. Psalms 1–2: A Gateway to the Psalter. Hebrew Bible Monographs 37. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011. Collins, John J. and George W. E. Nickelsburg, eds. Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 12. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980. Collins, Terence. “Decoding the Psalms: A Structural Approach to the Psalter.” JSOT 37 (1987): 41–60.

Bibliography

207

Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College. http:// cal1.cn.huc.edu (accessed March 17, 2015). Cooper, Alan. “On the Typology of Jewish Psalms Interpretation.” In Biblical Interpretation in Judaism and Christianity, eds. Isaac Kalimi and Peter J. Haas, 79–90. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner. Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989. Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1–50. WBC 19. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983. Creach, Jerome F. D. Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. JSOT Sup 217. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Creach, Jerome F. D. “Like a Tree Planted by the Temple Stream: The Portrait of the Righteous in Psalm 1:3.” CBQ 61 (1999): 34–46. Crim, Keith R. The Royal Psalms. Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1962. Croft, S. J. L. The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms. JSOT Sup 44. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Crow, Loren D. The Songs of Ascents (Psalms 120–134): Their Place in Israelite History and Religion. SBLDS 148. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996. Custer, Stewart, el al. “Focus on Psalms: Part II.” Biblical Viewpoint 6 (1972): 80–119. Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms I. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965–6. Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms III: 101–150. Anchor Bible 17a. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970. Dahood, Mitchell. “Ugaritic ‘Song,’ in Psalms 28, 7 and 137, 3.” Biblica 58 (1977): 216–17. Dahood, Mitchell. “‘A Sea of Troubles’: Notes on Psalms 55:3-4 and 140:10-11.” CBQ 41 (1979): 604–7. Dahood, Mitchell. “The Composite Divine Name in Psalm 89, 16–17 and 140, 9.” Biblica 61 (1980): 277–8. Davenport, Gene L. “The ‘Anointed of the Lord’ in Psalms of Solomon 17.” In Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, eds. John J. Collins and George W. E. Nickelsburg, 67–92. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980. Davis, Barry Craig. “A Contextual Analysis of Psalms 107–118.” Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1996. deClaissé-Walford, N. L. Reading from the Beginning: The Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997. Deißler, Alfons. Psalm 119 (118) und seine Theologie: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der anthologischen Stilgattung im Alten Testament. München: Karl Zink, 1955. Delenat, Lienhard. “Probleme der Psalmenüberschriften.” ZAW 76 (1964): 280–97.

208 Bibliography Delitzsch, F. Commentary on the Old Testament. V. Psalms. Trans. F. Bolton. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982. deSilva, David A. Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002. Duba, Arlo D. “Psalms, the Scripture and the Church.” Liturgy 3 (1983): 35–43. Duhm, Bernhard. Die Psalmen. 2nd edn. Kurzer Hand-Kommentar zum Alten Testament 14. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1922. Durham, John I. “The King as ‘Messiah’ in the Psalms.” Review and Expositor 81 (1984): 425–35. Eaton, J. H. “The Psalms and Israelite Worship.” In Tradition and Interpretation, ed. G. W. Anderson, 238–73. Oxford: Clarendon, 1979. Eaton, J. H. Kingship and the Psalms. 2nd edn. Biblical Seminar 3. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986. Eaton, J. H. Psalms of the Way and the Kingdom: A Conference with the Commentators. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Eckman, David J. “A Rhetorical and Theological Study of Psalm 119 with Special Reference to the Parenetic Expressions of Deuteronomy.” Ph.D. diss., Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1994. Edwards, Timothy M. “The Targum of Psalms.” In Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches, ed. David Firth and Philip S. Johnston, 703–5. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2005. Feininger, Bernd. “A Decade of German Psalm Criticism.” JSOT 20 (1981): 91–103. Fischer, James A. “Everyone a King: A Study of the Psalms.” Bible Today 97 (1978): 1683–9. Fohrer, Georg. Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie und Geschichte (1949–1966). BZAW 115. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969. Fokkelman, J. P. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. Vol. 2. Dover, NJ: Van Gorcum, 1986. Fokkelman, J. P. Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible: At the Interface of Prosody and Structural Analysis. Vols 1–4. Studia Semitica Neerlandica. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1998–2004. Fokkelman, J. P. Reading Biblical Poetry: An Introductory Guide. Trans. Ineke Smit. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Forbes, J. Studies on the Book of Psalms. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1888. Freedman, David Noel. “Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: An Essay on Biblical Poetry.” JBL 96 (1977): 5–26. Freedman, David Noel. “Acrostic Poems in the Hebrew Bible: Alphabetic and Otherwise.” CBQ 48 (1986): 408–31.

Bibliography

209

Freedman, David Noel, with Jeffrey C. Geoghegan and Andrew Welch. Psalm 119: The Exaltation of Torah. UCSD Biblical and Judaic Studies 6. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Fries-Horeb, Jehudah. “Thoughts and Commentaries on the Interpretation of RaDaK on Psalms.” Hebrew Union College Annual 12–13 (1937–8): 499–503. Füglister, Notker. “Die Verwendung und das Verständnis der Psalmen und des Psalters um die Zeitenwende.” In Beiträge zur Psalmenforschung: Psalm 2 und 22, ed. Josef Schreiner, 319–84. Würzburg: Echter, 1988. Futato, Mark D. “The Preposition ‘Beth’ in the Hebrew Psalter.” Westminster Theological Journal 41 (1978): 68–81. Futato, Mark D. Interpreting the Psalms: An Exegetical Handbook. Handbooks for Old Testament Exegesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2007. Gerleman, Gillis. “Der ‘Einzelne’ der Klage- und Dankpsalmen.” VT 32 (1982): 33–49. Gerstenberger, E. S. “Der Psalter als Buch und als Sammlung.” In Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung, ed. Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger, 3–13. HBS 1. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. Gerstenberger, E. S. Psalms, Part 2, and Lamentations. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature 15. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Gerstenberger, E. S. “Psalmen und Ritualpraxis.” In Ritual und Poesie. Formen und Orte religiöser Dichtung im alten Orient, im Judentum und in Christentum, ed. E. Zenger. HBS 36. Freiburg: Herder, 2003. Gese, Hartmut. “Die Entstehung der Büchereinteilung des Psalters.” In Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch: Beiträge zu Psalmen und Propheten, ed. Josef Schreiner, 57–64. Würzburg: Echter, 1972. Gil, Y. “Rabbi Joseph Qimhi’s Interpretation of Ps 42:5.” Beit Mikra 24 (1979): 188–9. Gillingham, Susan. “The Poor in the Psalms.” Expository Times 100 (1988): 15–19. Gillingham, Susan. Psalms Through the Centuries, Volume One. Blackwell Bible Commentaries. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. Glueck, Nelson. Hesed in the Bible, ed. Elias L. Epstein, trans. Alfred Gottschalk. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1967. Goldingay, John. “Repetition and Variation in the Psalms.” Jewish Quarterly Review 68 (1978): 146–51. Goldingay, John. “The Dynamic Cycle of Praise and Prayer in the Psalms.” JSOT 20 (1981): 85–90. Goldingay, John. Psalms. 3 vols. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament: Wisdom and Psalms. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006–9. Goldstein, David. “The Commentary of Judah ben Solomon Hakohen ibn Matqah to Genesis, Psalms, and Proverbs.” Hebrew Union College Annual 52 (1981): 203–52.

210 Bibliography Gonzalez, A. El libro de los Salmos: Introduccion, version, y comentario. Barcelona: Editorial Herder, 1966. Goodwin, Deborah Lois. “A Study of Herbert of Bosham’s Psalms Commentary.” Ph.D. diss., Notre Dame Universtiy, 2001. Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. “The Psalm Scroll (11QPsa): A Problem of Canon and Text.” Textus 5 (1966): 22–33. Goulder, M. D. “The Fourth Book of the Psalter.” Journal of Theological Studies 26 (1975): 269–89. Goulder, M. D. The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107–150): Studies in the Psalter, IV. JSOT Sup 258. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Grant, J. A. The King as Exemplar: The Function of Deuteronomy’s Kingship Law in the Shaping of the Book of Psalms. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Grant, J. A. “The Psalms and the King.” In Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches, ed. David Firth and Philip S. Johnston, 101–18. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2005. Grant, J. A. “Editorial Criticism.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, ed. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008. Grohmann, Marianne. “The Imagery of the ‘Weaned Child” in Psalm 131.” In The Composition of the Book of Psalms, ed. Erich Zenger, 513–22. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Groom, Susan Anne. Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2008. Grossberg, Daniel. “The Disparate Elements of the Inclusio in Psalms,” Hebrew Annual Review 6 (1982): 97–104. Grossberg, Daniel. Centripetal and Centrifugal Structures in Biblical Poetry. SBLMS 39. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989. Gruber, Mayer I. Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms 1–89 (Books I-III): with English Translation, Introduction, and Notes. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 161. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1998. Gryson, Roger, et al. Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. 4th edn. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Gunkel, Hermann. Ausgewähltete Psalmen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1904. Gunkel, Hermann. The Psalms: A Form-critical Introduction. Trans. Thomas M. Horner. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1967. Gunkel, Hermann, with Joachim Begrich. Einleitung in die Psalmen: Die Gattungen der religiösen Lyrik Israels. Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1933.

Bibliography

211

Gunkel, Hermann, with Joachim Begrich. Einleitung in die Psalmen: Die Gattungen der relgiösen Lyrik Israels. 4th edn. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1985. Hakham, A. Sefer tehillim: Sefarim gimel-heh. Jerusalem: Harav Kook, 1979. Halliday, M. A. K., and R. Hasan. Cohesion in English. English Language Series 9. Harlow: Longman, 1976. Hanson, K. C. “Alphabetic Acrostics: A Form Critical Study.” Ph.D. diss, Claremont Graduate School, 1984. Harden, J. M., ed. Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos Hieronymi. London: SPCK, 1922. Harmon, Allan M. “Aspects of Paul’s Use of the Psalms.” Westminster Theological Journal 32 (1969): 1–23. Hatch, Edwin, and Henry A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament. 2nd edn. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998. Hayes, Elizabeth.“The Unity of the Egyptian Hallel: Psalms 113–18.” BBR 9 (1999): 145–56. Heim, Knut M. “The (God-)forsaken King of Psalm 89: A Historical and Intertextual Enquiry.” In King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day, 296–322. JSOT Sup 270. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Herbert, A. S. “Our Present Understanding of the Psalms.” London Quarterly and Holborn Review 34 (1965): 25–9. Heschel, Abraham Joshua. Maimonides: A Biography, trans. Joachim Neugroschel. New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 1982. Hillers, Delbert. “A Study of Psalm 148.” CBQ 40 (1978): 323–34. Hobbs, R. Gerald. “How Firm a Foundation: Martin Bucer’s Historical Exegesis of the Psalms.” Church History 53 (1984): 477–91. Holladay, W. L. The Psalms through Three Thousand Years: Prayerbook of a Cloud of Witnesses. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993. Holman, Jan. “An Analysis of the Text of Ps 139.” Biblische Zeitschrift 14 (1970): 198–227. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar. “Ps 82 und das vierte Psalmenbuch (Ps 90–106).” In “Mein Sohn bist du” (Ps 2,7): Studien zu den Königspsalmen, eds. Eckart Otto and Erich Zenger, 173–83. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 192. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH, 2002. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and L. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, eds. Das Manna fällt auch heute noch: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments: Festschrift für Erich Zenger. HBS 44. Freiburg: Herder, 2004. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Die Psalmen I: Psalm 1–50. Die Neue Echter Bibel 29. Würzburg: Echter, 1993.

212 Bibliography Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalmen 51–100. 3rd edn. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 2007. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalmen 101–150. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 2008. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150. Trans. Linda M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2011. Houk, Cornelius B. “Syllables and Psalms: A Statistical Linguistic Analysis.” JSOT 14 (1979): 55–62. Howard, David M., Jr. “The Case for Kingship in the Old Testament Narrative Books and the Psalms.” Trinity Journal 9 (1988): 19–35. Howard, David M., Jr. “Editorial Activity in the Psalter: A State-of-the-Field Survey.” Word & World 9 (1989): 274–85. Howard, David M., Jr. “Editorial Activity in the Psalter: A State-of-the-Field Survey.” In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann, Jr., 52–70. JSOTS 159. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Howard, David M., Jr. The Structure of Psalms 93–100. UCSD Biblical and Judaic Studies 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Howard, David M., Jr. Review of Reading the Psalms as a Book, by Norman Whybray. Review of Biblical Literature 1 (1998): 168–70. Howard, David M., Jr. “Recent Trends in Psalms Study.” In The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches, eds. David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold, 329–68. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1999. Howard, David M., Jr. “The Proto-MT Psalter, the King, and Psalms 1 and 2: A Response to Klaus Seybold.” In Jewish and Christian Approaches to the Psalter: Conflict and Convergence, ed. S. Gillingham, 182–9. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Human, Dirk J. “Psalm 136: A Liturgy with Reference to Creation and History.” In Psalm and Liturgy, ed. Dirk J. Human and Cas J. A. Vos, 73–88. JSOT Sup 410. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Hunt, Ignatius. “Recent Psalm Study.” Worship 41 (1967): 85–98. Hunt, Ignatius. “Recent Psalm Study.” Worship 47 (1973): 80–93. Hunt, Ignatius. “Recent Psalm Study.” Worship 49 (1975): 202–14, 283–94. Hunt, Ignatius. “Recent Psalm Study.” Worship 51 (1977): 127–44. Hunter, J. H. “The Literary Composition of Theophany Passages in the Hebrew Psalms.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 15 (1989): 97–107. Hurvitz, Avi. “The History of a Legal Formula: Kol ‘aser-hapes ‘asah (Psalms cxv 3, cxxxv 6).” VT 32 (1982): 257–67.

Bibliography

213

Hurvitz, Avi. “Wisdom Vocabulary in the Hebrew Psalter: A Contribution to the Study of ‘Wisdom Psalms.’” VT 38 (1988): 41–51. Jacobson, Delmar L. “The Royal Psalms and Jesus the Messiah.” Word & World 5 (1985): 192–8. Jakobson, Roman. “Linguistics and Poetics.” In Style in Language, ed. T. Sebeok, 350–77. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1960. Jakobson, Roman. “Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry.” Lingua 21 (1968): 597–609. Jakobson, Roman. “On Poetic Intentions and Linguistic Devices in Poetry. A Discussion with Professors and Students at the University of Cologne.” Poetics Today 2 (1980): 87–96. Jannidis, Fotis. “Narratology and the Narrative.” In What Is Narratology? Questions and Answers Regarding the Status of a Theory, eds. T. Kindt and H.-H. Müller, 35–54. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Jenni, E. “Zu den doxologischen Schlussformeln des Psalter.” ThZ 40 (1984): 114–20. Johnson, A. R. “The Psalms.” In The Old Testament and Modern Study: A Generation of Discovery and Research, ed. H. H. Rowley, 162–209. Oxford: Clarendon, 1951. Joüon, P. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols. Subsidia Biblica 14/1–2. Trans. and rev. T. Muraoka. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 2003. Kalimi, Isaac. “Midrash Psalms Shocher Tov: Some Theological and Methodological Features and a Case Study—The View of God.” In God’s Word for Our World, vol. 1. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Kalimi, Isaac. “Medieval Sephardic-Oriented Bible Exegesis: The Contributions of Saadia Gaon and Abraham Ibn Ezra.” In Sephardic and Mizrahi Jewry: From the Golden Age of Spain to Modern Times, ed. Zion Zohar, 101–19. New York: New York University Press, 2005. Kapelrud, Arvid S. “Sigmund Mowinckel, 1884–1965.” Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 49 (1984): 66–73. Katz, Steven T., ed. The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. IV, The Late RomanRabbinic Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Kautzsch, E. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Rev. by A. E. Cowley. 2nd English edn. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910. Keel, Othmar. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. Trans. Timothy J. Hallett. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Keet, Cuthbert C. A Study of the Psalms of Ascents: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary upon Psalms CXX to CXXXIV. London: Mitre Press, 1969.

214 Bibliography Kermode, Frank, and Robert Alter, eds. The Literary Guide to the Bible. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987. Kidner, Derek. Psalms 73–150: An Introduction & Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, vol. 14b. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity, 1975. Kim, Jinkyu. “The Strategic Arrangement of Royal Psalms in Books IV–V.” WTJ 70 (2008): 143–57. Kimmitt, Francis X. “The Shape of Psalms 42–49.” Ph.D. diss., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2000. King, Philip J., and Lawrence E. Stager. Life in Biblical Israel. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Kirkpatrick, A. F. The Book of Psalms: With Introduction and Notes: Books IV–V. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1901. Klouda, S. L. “Zion.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, ed. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns, 936–41. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008. Knauf, E. A. “Psalm lx und Psalm cviii.” VT 50 (2000): 55–65. Knierim, Rolf P. Text and Concept in Leviticus 1:1-9: A Case in Exegetical Method. FAT 2. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992. Koch, Klaus. “Der Psalter und seine Redaktionsgeschichte.” In Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung, ed. Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger, 243–77. HBS 1. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. Koehler, L. and W. Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Trans. and ed. M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Koenen, Klaus. Jahwe wird kommen, zu herrschen über die Erde: Ps 90–110 als Komposition. BBB 101. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995. Korpel, Marjo C. A. “Introduction to the Series Pericope.” In Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship, eds. Marjo C. A. Korpel and Josef M. Oesch, 1–50. Pericope 1. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2000. Körting, Corinna. Zion in den Psalmen. FAT 48. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Kratz, Reinhard Gregor. “Die Gnade des täglichen Brots: Späte Psalmen auf dem Weg zum Vaterunser.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 89 (1992): 1–40. Kratz, Reinhard Gregor. “Die Tora Davids: Psalm 1 und die doxologische Fünfteilung des Psalters.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 93 (1996): 1–34. Kraus, H.-J. Psalmen. Vol. 1. BKAT 15. Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1978. Kraus, H.-J. Psalms 60–150: A Commentary, trans. H. C. Oswald. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1989. Kselman, John S. “Psalm 146 in Its Context.” CBQ 50 (1988): 587–99.

Bibliography

215

Kugel, James. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1981. Kuntz, J. Kenneth. “Reclaiming Biblical Wisdom Psalms: A Response to Crenshaw.” Currents in Biblical Research 1 (2003): 145–54. Kunz, Lucas. “Der 2. Psalm in Neuer Sicht.” Biblische Zeitschrift 20 (1976): 238–42. Laney, J. Carl. “A Fresh Look at the Imprecatory Psalms.” Bibliotheca Sacra 138 (1981): 35–45. Leuenberger, Martin. Konzeptionen des Königtums Gottes im Psalter: Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Redaktion der theokratischen Bücher IV–V im Psalter. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 83. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004. Leveen, J. “Textual Problems in the Psalms.” VT 21 (1971): 48–58. Levenson, Jon D. “The Sources of Torah: Psalm 119 and the Modes of Revelation in Second Temple Judaism.” In Ancient Israelite Religion, eds. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride, 559–74. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1987. Levenson, Jon D. The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993. Levin, Christoph. “Psalm 136 als Zeitweilige Schlussdoxologie des Psalters.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 14 (2000): 17–27. Limburg, James. “Psalm 121: A Psalm for Sojourners.” Word & World 5 (1985): 180–7. Lindars, B. “The Structure of Psalm cxlv.” VT 39 (1989): 23–30. Lipiński, Edward. Le poème royal du psaume LXXXIX, 1–5.20–38. CRB 6. Paris: Gabalda, 1967. Lisowsky, G. Konkordanz zum Hebräischen Alten Testament. 3rd edn, ed. H. P. Rüger. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Lochar, Clemens. “Der Psalter der ‘Einheitübersetzung’ und die Textkritik—I.” Biblica 58 (1977): 313–41. Lochar, Clemens. “Der Psalter der ‘Einheitübersetzung’ und die Textkritik—II.” Biblica 59 (1978): 49–79. Lohfink, Norbert. Lobgesänge der Armen: Studien zum Magnifikat, den Hodajot von Qumran und einigen späten Psalmen. SBS 143. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH, 1990. Longacre, Robert E. “Tagmemics.” Word 36 (1985): 137–77. Longacre, Robert E. Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39–48. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989.

216 Bibliography Longman, Tremper, III. “The Messiah: Explorations in the Law and the Writings.” In The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, ed. Stanley E. Porter. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007. Lorenzin, Tiziano. I Salmi: nuova versione, introduzione e commento. Primo Testamento 14. Milan: Figlie di San Paolo, 2001. Lovsky, F. “Quand nos Poetes aimaient les Psaumes.” Foi et Vie 88 (1989): 77–81. Lowth, Robert. Isaiah: A New Translation; with a Preliminary Dissertation, and Notes, Critical, Philological, and Explanatory. 13th edn. London: Balne Brothers, 1839. Lowth, Robert. Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, trans. G. Gregory. London: S. Chadwick, 1847. Luke, K. “Canaanite Psalms.” Indian Journal of Theology 26 (1977): 44–54. Lunn, Nicholas P. Word-Order Variation in Biblical Hebrew Poetry: Differentiating Progmatics (sic) and Poetics. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006. Lyons, John. Language and Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Macholz, Christian. “Psalm 136: Exegetische Beobachtungen mit methodologischen Seitenblicken.” In Mincha: Festgabe für Rolf Rendtorff zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. Erhard Blum, 177–86. Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 2000. Magonet, Jonathan. A Rabbi Reads the Psalms. London: SCM, 1994. Mannati, Marina. “Les psaumes graduels constituent-ils un genre littéraire distinct à l’interieur du psautier biblique?” Semeia 29 (1979): 85–100. Margot, Jean-Claude. “And His Love is Eternal (Psalm 136).” Bible Translator 25 (1974): 212–17. Marrs, Rick R. “The Šyry-Hm‘lwt (Psalms 120–134): A Philological and Stylistic Analysis.” Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1982. Martilla, Marko. Collective Reinterpretation in the Psalms. FAT 2nd series. Vol. 13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Mays, J. L. “The David of the Psalms.” Interpretation 40 (1986): 143–55. Mays, J. L. “The Place of the Torah-Psalms in the Psalter.” JBL 106 (1987): 3–12. Mays, J. L. “The Question of Context in Psalm Interpretation.” In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann, Jr., 14–20. JSOT Sup 159. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Mays, J. L. The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psalms. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Mays, J. L. Psalms. Interpretation. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1994. McCann, J. Clinton, Jr. “Psalm 73: An Interpretation Emphasizing Rhetorical and Canonical Criticism.” Ph.D. diss, Duke University, 1985.

Bibliography

217

McCann, J. Clinton, Jr. “Books I–III and the Editorial Purpose of the Hebrew Psalter.” In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann, Jr., 93–107. JSOT Sup 159. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. McCann, J. Clinton, Jr. A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1993. McCann, J. Clinton, Jr. Psalms. In 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, vol. 4, New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996. McCann, J. Clinton, Jr. ed. The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. JSOT Sup 159. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Mejía, Jorge. “Some Observations on Psalm 107.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 5 (1975): 56–66. Mendelssohn, Moses. Die Psalmen. Berlin: Friedrich Maurer, 1783. Menn, Esther M. “Praying King and Sanctuary of Prayer I: David and Temple Origins in Rabbinic Psalms Commentary (Midrash Tehillim).” Journal of Jewish Studies 52 (2001): 1–26. Menn, Esther M. “Praying King and Sanctuary of Prayer II: David’s Deferment and Temple Dedication in Rabbinic Psalms Commentary (Midrash Tehillim).” Journal of Jewish Studies 53 (2002): 298–323. Millard, Matthias. Die Komposition des Psalters: Ein formgeschichtlicher Ansatz. FAT 9. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1994. Miller, Patrick D. “Synonymous-Sequential Parallelism in the Psalms.” Biblica 61 (1980): 256–60. Miller, Patrick D. “Trouble and Woe: Interpreting Biblical Laments.” Interpretation 37 (1983): 32–45. Miller, Patrick D. “Current Issues in Psalms Studies.” Word & World 5 (1985): 132–43. Miller, Patrick D. “The Psalms as Praise and Poetry.” The Hymn 40 (1989): 12–16. Miller, Patrick D. “The Beginning of the Psalter.” In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann, Jr., 83–92. JSOT Sup 159. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Miller, Patrick D. “Kingship, Torah Obedience and Prayer,” in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung, ed. K. Seybold and E. Zenger, 127–42. HBS 1. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. Miller, Patrick D. “Between Text and Sermon: Psalm 136: 1-9, 23-26.” Interpretation 49 (1995): 390–3. Miller, Patrick D. “The End of the Psalter: A Response to Erich Zenger.” JSOT 80 (1998): 103–10. ‫מקראות גדולות‬: ‫תהלים‬. Jerusalem: Brockman, n. d.

218 Bibliography Mitchell, D. C. The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms. JSOT Sup 252. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1997. Mitchell, D. C. “Les Psaumes dans le judaïsme rabbinique.” Revue théologique de Louvain 36 (2005): 166–91. Mitchell, D. C. “Lord, Remember David: G. H. Wilson and the Message of the Psalter.” VT 56 (2006): 526–48. Morawe, Gunter. “Vergleich des Aufbaus der Danklieder und Bekenntnislieder (1QH) von Qumran mit dem Aufbau der Psalmen in Alten Testament un im Spatjudentum.” Revue de Qumran 4 (1963): 323–56. Mowinckel, Sigmund. Psalmenstudien I–V. Kristiania: SNVAO, 1921–4. Mowinckel, Sigmund. Offersang og sangoffer: salmediktningen i Bibelen. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co., 1951. Mowinckel, Sigmund. Religion und Kultus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1953. Mowinckel, Sigmund. He That Cometh. Trans. G. W. Anderson. New York: Abingdon Press, 1954. Mowinckel, Sigmund. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. 2 vols. Trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1962–3. Muilenburg, James. “Form Criticism and Beyond.” JBL 88 (1969): 1–18. Müller, A. R. “Der Psalter—eine Anthologie. Überlegungen zur sogenannten Psalter exegese.” Biblische Notizen 119/120 (2003): 118–31. Munnich, Olivier. “Indices d’une Septante originelle dans le Psautier Grec.” Biblica 63 (1982): 406–16. Munnich, Olivier. “La Septante des Psaumes et le groupe kaigé.” VT 33 (1983): 75–89. Murphy, Roland E. “Reflections on Contextual Interpretation of the Psalms.” In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann, Jr. JSOT Sup 159. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Nasuti, Harry P. Defining the Sacred Songs: Genre, Tradition and the Post-Critical Interpretation of the Psalms. JSOT Sup 218. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Nasuti, Harry P. “The Interpretive Significance of Sequence and Selection in the Book of Psalms.” In The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, ed. Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller, 311–39. VTS 99. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Nemoy, Leon. “Salmon ben Jeroham’s Commentary on Psalms 42–72.” Jewish Quarterly Review 48 (1957): 58–66. Neusner, Jacob. Judaism and Scripture: The Evidence of Leviticus Rabbah. Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Neusner, Jacob. Invitation to Midrash: The Workings of Rabbinic Bible Interpretation. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989.

Bibliography

219

Neusner, Jacob. Judaism in the Matrix of Christianity. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 8. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991. Neusner, Jacob. Rabbinic Literature: An Essential Guide. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2005. Newman, Louis I. “Parallelism in Amos.” In Studies in Biblical Parallelism, eds. Louis I. Newman and William Popper. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1917. Nickelsburg, George W. E. Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity, Continuity, and Transformation. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003. Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction. 2nd edn. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2005. Niehaus, Jeffrey J. Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2008. Nielsen, Kirsten. “Why Not Plough with an Ox and an Ass Together? Or: Why Not Read Ps 119 together with Pss 120–134?” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 14 (2000): 56–66. Nodder, Marcus. “What is the Relationship between the Different Stanzas of Psalm 119?” Churchman 119 (2005): 323–42. Ochs, Peter. Understanding the Rabbinic Mind: Essays on the Hermeneutic of Max Kadushin. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 14. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990. O’Connor, M. Hebrew Verse Structure. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980. Oesterley, W. O. E. The Psalms: Translated with Text-critical and Exegetical Notes. London: SPCK, 1953. Ogden, Graham S. “Prophetic Oracles against Foreign Nations and Psalms of Communal Lament: The Relationship of Psalm 137 to Jeremiah 49:7-22 and Obadiah.” JSOT 24 (1982): 89–97. Ollenburger, Ben C. Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult. JSOT Sup 41. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987. Olshausen, J. Die Psalmen. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1853. Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Rev. and exp. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006. Otto, Eckard, and Erich Zenger, eds. “Mein Sohn bist du” (Ps 2,7): Studien zu den Königspsalmen. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 192. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH, 2002. Pardee, Dennis. Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetic Parallelism: A Trial Cut (‘nt I and Proverbs 2). VTS 39. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988.

220 Bibliography Park, Sejin. Pentecost and Sinai: The Festival of Weeks as a Celebration of the Sinai Event. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 342. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Parkander, Dorothy J. “‘Exalted Manna:’ The Psalms as Literature.” Word & World 5 (1985): 122–31. Parsons, Greg W. “Guidelines for Understanding and Proclaiming the Psalms.” Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (1990): 169–87. Peifer, Claude J. “Sing for Us the Songs of Zion! The Jerusalem Psalms.” Bible Today 97 (1978): 1690–6. Pietersma, Albert. “David in the Greek Psalms.” VT 30 (1980): 213–26. Pike, K. L. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior. 3 vols. The Hague: Mouton, 1954–7. Pike, K. L. “Beyond the Sentence.” College Composition and Communication 15 (1964): 129–35. Potter, George R. “Zwingli and the Book of Psalms.” Sixteenth Century Journal 10 (1979): 42–50. Prichard, Augustus Bedlow. Christ in Psalm CXIX: An Attempt to Analyze Psalm CXIX and Identify its Contents with the Lord Jesus Christ. Los Angeles: Bible House of Los Angeles, 1938. Prinsloo, G. T. M. “Unit Delimitation in the Egyptian Hallel (Psalms 113–118).” In Unit Delimitation in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Literature, eds. Marjo C. A. Korpel and Josef M. Oesch, 232–63. Pericope 4. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003. Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd edn with supplement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969. Pröbstl, Volker. Nehemia 9, Psalm 106, und Psalm 136 und die Rezeption des Pentateuchs. Göttingen: Cuvillier, 1997. Prothero, R. E. The Psalms in Human Life. London: J. Murray, 1904. Puckett, David L. John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Qimron, Elisha. “On the Language of the Second Commonwealth in the Book of Psalms.” Beth Mikra 23 (1978): 139–50. Quellette, Jean. “Variantes Qumraniennes du Livre des Psaumes.” Revue de Qumran 7 (1969): 105–23. Rabinowitz, Louis Isaac, and Leah Bornstein-Makovetsky, et al. “Rabbi, Rabbinate.” In Encyclopedia Judaica. 2nd edn, ed. Fred Skolnik. Vol. 17. Detroit: Thomas Gale, 2007. Rahlfs, Alfred. Psalmi Cum Odis. Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931.

Bibliography

221

Ramaroson, Lonard. “Immortality and Resurrection in the Psalms.” Theology Digest 32 (1985): 235–8. de Regt, L. J., J. de Waard, and J. P. Fokkelman, eds. Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996. Reif, Stefan C. “Ibn Ezra on Psalm 1:1-2.” VT 34 (1984): 232–6. Reindl, J. “Weisheitliche Bearbeitung Von Psalmen: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Sammlung des Psalters.” In Congress Volume: Vienna 1980, ed. J. A. Emerton. SVT 32. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980. Revel, Hirschel. “Rabbi and Rabbinate.” In The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, ed. Isaac Landman. Vol. 9. New York: Universal Jewish Encyclopedia Co., 1948. Reynolds, Kent Aaron. Torah as Teacher: The Exemplary Torah Student in Psalm 119. VTS 137. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Richter, Wolfgang. Grundlagen einer althebräischen Grammatik. St. Ottilien: EOS, 1978. Ridderbos N. H. “De Huidige Stand van het Onderzoek der Psalmen.” Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift 60 (1960): 8–14. Rösel, Christoph. Die messianische Redaktion des Psalters: Studien zu Entstehung und Theologie der Sammlung Psalm 2–89. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1999. Rosenthal, Erwin I. J., ed. Saadya Studies: In Commemoration of the One Thousandth Anniversary of the Death of R. Saadya Gaon. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1943. Russell, S. H. “Calvin and the Messianic Interpretation of the Psalms.” Scottish Journal of Theology 21 (1968): 37–47. Ryan, Marie-Laure. “On the Theoretical Foundations of Transmedial Narratology.” In Narratology beyond Literary Criticism: Mediality, Disciplinarity, ed. J. Ch. Meister, 1–23. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Ryan, Marie-Laure. Avatars of Story: Narrative Modes in Old and New Media. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2006. Ryan, Marie-Laure. “Semantics, Pragmatics, and Narrativity: A Response to David Rudrum.” Narrative 14 (2006): 188–96. Ryan, Marie-Laure. “Toward a Definition of Narrative.” In The Cambridge Companion to Narrative, ed. D. Herman, 22–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Sabourin, Léopold. Le livre des Psaumes: Traduit et interprété. Recherches: Nouvelle série 18. Montreal: Bellarmin, 1988. Sakenfeld, Katharine Doob. The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978. Sarna, Nahum M. “Psalm 89.” In Biblical and Other Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann, 29–46. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963.

222 Bibliography Satterthwaite, Philip. “Zion in the Songs of Ascents.” In Zion, City of our God, ed. Richard Hess and Gordon Wenham, 105–28. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. Saur, Markus. Die Königspsalmen: Studien zur Entstehung und Theologie. BZAW 340. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. Scaiola, Donatella. “The End of the Psalter.” In The Composition of the Book of Psalms, ed. Erich Zenger, 701–10. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Scammon, John H. “Changes in Interpretation of the Psalms in One Man’s Lifetime.” Andover Newton Quarterly 12 (1971): 91–8. Scanlin, H. The Dead Sea Scrolls & Modern Translations of the Old Testament. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993. Schedl, Claus. “Die Alphabetisch-Arithmetische Struktur von Psalm CXXXVI.” VT 36 (1986): 489–94. Schmidt, Siegfried J. Texttheorie. Munich: Fink, 1973. Schröten, Jutta. Entstehung, Komposition und Wirkungsgeschichte des 118. Psalms. BBB 95. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995. Seybold, Klaus. Die Wallfahrtspsalmen: Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte von Psalm 120–134. Biblisch-theologische Studien 3. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. Seybold, Klaus. Die Psalmen: eine Einführung. Urban-Taschenbücher 382. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1986. Seybold, Klaus. Introducing the Psalms. Trans. R. Graeme Dunphy. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990. Seybold, Klaus. Die Psalmen. Handbuch zum Alten Testament I. Vol. 15. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996. Seybold, Klaus. “Zur Geschichte des vierten Davidpsalters: (Pss 138–145).” In The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, ed. Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller, 368–90. VTS 99. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Shepherd, Michael B. The Verbal System of Biblical Aramaic: A Distributional Approach. Studies in Biblical Literature 116. New York: Peter Lang, 2008. Sheppard, G. T. Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980. Shunary, Jonathan. “Salmon Ben Yeruham’s Commentary on the Book of Psalms.” Jewish Quarterly Review 73 (1982): 155–75. Signer, Michael A. “King/Messiah: Rashi’s Exegesis of Psalm 2.” Prooftexts 3 (1983): 273–8. Simon, Uriel. Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms: From Saadiah Gaon to Abraham Ibn Ezra. Trans. Lenn J. Schramm. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1991. Smith, Ralph L. “The Use and Influence of the Psalms.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 27 (1984): 5–16.

Bibliography

223

Soll, Will. Psalm 119: Matrix, Form, and Setting. CBQ Monograph Series 23. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1991. Soulen, Richard N., and R. Kendall Soulen. Handbook of Biblical Criticism. 3rd edn. Rev. and exp. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Stead, G. C. “St. Athanasius on the Psalms.” Vigiliae Christianae 39 (1985): 65–78. Stec, David M. The Targum of Psalms: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus and Notes. The Aramaic Bible, vol. 16, ed. Kevin Cathcart, Michael Maher, and Martin McNamara. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004. Sternberg, Meir. “Telling in Time (II): Chronology, Teleology, Narrativity.” Poetics Today 13 (1992): 463–541. Sternberg, Meir. “How Narrativity Makes a Difference.” Narrative 9 (2001): 115–22. Stewart, Roy A. Rabbinic Theology: An Introductory Study. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1961. Steymans, Hans Ulrich. Psalm 89 und der Davidbund: Eine strukturale und redaktionsgeschichtiliche Untersuchung. Österreichische Biblische Studien 27. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2005. Stichel, Rainer. Beiträge zur frühen Geschichte des Psalters und zur Wirkungsgeschichte der Psalmen. Abhandlungen der Nordrhein-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 116. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2007. Stoddard, Sara E. Text and Texture: Patterns of Cohesion. Advances in Discourse Processes. Vol. XL. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1991. Sturgess, Philip J. M. Narrativity: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Talstra, Eep, ed. Computer Assisted Analysis of Biblical Texts. Amsterdam: Free University Press, 1989. Tate, Marvin E. “The Interpretation of the Psalms.” Review and Expositor 81 (1984): 363–75. Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51–100. WBC 20. Dallas, TX: Word, 1990. Tate, Marvin E. “Psalms.” In Mercer Commentary on the Bible, eds. Watson E. Mills and Richard F. Wilson. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1995. Thomas, Marlin E. “Psalms 1 and 112 as a Paradigm for the Comparison of Wisdom Motifs in the Psalms.” JETS 29 (1986): 15–24. Todd, James M., III. “A Poetic and Contextual Analysis of Psalms 135–137.” Ph.D. diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2010. Tournay, R. J. “Psaume CXLI: Nouvelle Interpretation.” Revue Biblique 90 (1983): 321–33. Tournay, R. J. “Psaumes 57, 60 et 108: Analyse et Interpretation.” Revue Biblique 96 (1989): 5–26.

224 Bibliography Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd rev. edn. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2001. Trublet, Jacques. “Approche canonique des Psaumes du Hallel.” In The Composition of the Book of Psalms, ed. Erich Zenger, 339–76. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Tucker, W. D., Jr. “Psalms 1: Book of.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, ed. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns, 578–93. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008. Tur-Sinai, N. H. “The Literary Character of the Book of Psalms.” Oudtestamentische Studien 8 (1950): 264–5. van der Kooij, Arie. “On the Place of Origin of the Old Greek of Psalms.” VT 33 (1983): 67–74. van der Lugt, Pieter. Rhetorical Criticism and the Poetry of the Book of Job. Leiden: Brill, 1995. van Dijk, Teun A. Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. Longman Linguistics Library 21. London: Longman, 1977. VanGemeren, Willem. Psalms. In Psalms, vol. 5, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Rev. edn, eds. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008. Van Grol, H. W. M. “Paired Tricola in the Psalms, Isaiah and Jeremiah.” JSOT 25 (1983): 55–73. Veijola, Timo. “Davidverheißung und Staatsvertrag: Beobachtungen zum Einfluß altorientalischer Staatsverträge auf die biblische Sprache am Beispiel von Ps 89.” In David: Gesammelte Studien zu den Davidüberlieferungen des Alten Testaments, 128–53. Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 52. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Vignolo, Roberto. “Circolarità tra libro e preghiera nella poetica dossologica del Salterio: Contributo alla ‘terza ricerca’ del Salterio come Libro.” In La Parola di Dio tra scrittura e rito. Associazione Professori di Liturgia XXVIII Settimana di Studio, 127–88. Rome: Centro Liturgico Vincenziano, 2002. Viviers, Hendrik. “The Coherence of the ma‘ alôt Psalms (Psalms 120–134).” ZAW 106 (1994): 275–89. Vogels, Walter. “A Structural Analysis of Psalm 1.” Biblica 60 (1979): 410–16. Volgger, David. Notizen zur Textanalyse von Ps 89. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 45. St. Ottilien: EOS-Verlage, 1994. Vosberg, Lothar. Studien zum Reden vom Schöpfer in den Psalmen. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1975. Wagner, Siegfried. “Das Reich des Messias: Zur Theologie der Alttestamentliche Königspsalmen.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 109 (1984): 865–74.

Bibliography

225

Walter, D. M. The Book of Psalms. Part II, fascicle 3. The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshit. ta Version. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Waltke, Bruce K. “On How to Study the Psalms Devotionally.” Crux 16 (1980): 2–6. Waltke, Bruce K. “A Canonical Process Approach to the Psalms.” In Tradition and Testament, ed. John Feinberg, 3–18. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982. Waltke, Bruce K. “The New International Version and Its Textual Principles in the Book of Psalms.” JETS 32 (1989): 17–26. Waltke, Bruce K. “Superscripts, Postscripts, or Both.” JBL 110 (1991): 583–96. Waltke, Bruce K. “Theology of the Psalms,” NIDOTTE, 4 (1997): 1101–2. Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Waltke, Bruce K., with Charles Yu. An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007. Walton, John H. “Psalms: A Cantata about the Davidic Covenant.” JETS 34 (1991): 21–31. Ward, Martin J. “Psalm 109: David’s Poem of Vengeance.” Andrews University Semitic Studies 18 (1980): 163–8. Watson, Wilfred G. E. “Reversed Rootplay in Ps 145.” Biblica 62 (1981): 101–2. Watson, Wilfred G. E. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques. London: T&T Clark, 2001. Weiser, Artur. The Psalms. Trans. Herbert Hartwell. Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press, 1962. Wenham, Gordon. Psalms as Torah: Reading Biblical Song Ethically. Studies in Theological Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012. Wénin, A. “Le psaume 1 et l’ ‘encadrement’ du livre des louanges.” In Ouvrir les Écritures, eds. P. Bovati and R. Meynet, 151–76. Paris: Cerf, 1995. Westermann, Claus. “The Role of the Lament in the Theology of the Old Testament.” Interpretation 28 (1974): 20–38. Westermann, Claus. Praise and Lament in the Psalms. Trans. Keith R. Crim and Richard N. Soulen. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1981. Whybray, R. N. Reading the Psalms as a Book. JSOT Sup 222. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Whybray, R. N. “Psalm 119—Profile of a Psalmist.” In Wisdom, You are my Sister, ed. Michael L. Barré, 31–43. CBQ Monograph Series 29. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1997. Wiedermann, Gotthelf. “Alexander Alesius’ Lectures on the Psalms at Cambridge, 1536.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 37 (1986): 15–41.

226 Bibliography Willi, Thomas. “Das ‫שׁיר המעלות‬: Zion und der Sitz im Leben der ‘Aufstiegslieder’ Psalm 120–134.” In Prophetie und Psalmen, eds. B. Huwyler, H.-P. Mathys, and B. Weber, 153–62. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 280. Münster: Ugarit, 2001. Willis, J. T. “The Song of Hannah and Psalm 113.” CBQ 35 (1973): 139–54. Willis, J. T. “Psalm 1—An Entity.” ZAW 9 (1979): 381–401. Wilson, Gerald. “The Qumran Psalms Manuscripts and the Consecutive Arrangement of Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter.” CBQ 45 (1983): 377–88. Wilson, Gerald. “Evidence of Editorial Divisions in the Hebrew Psalter.” VT 34 (1984): 337–52. Wilson, Gerald. The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. SBLDS 76. Chico, CA: Scholar’s Press, 1985. Wilson, Gerald. “Qumran and the Hebrew Psalter.” Theological Students’ Fellowship Bulletin 8 (1985): 10–12. Wilson, Gerald. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered: Analysis Of The Debate.” CBQ 47 (1985): 624–42. Wilson, Gerald. “The Use of ‘Untitled’ Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter.” ZAW 97 (1985): 404–13. Wilson, Gerald. “The Use of Royal Psalms at the ‘Seams’ of the Hebrew Psalter.” JSOT 35 (1986): 85–94. Wilson, Gerald. “The Shape of the Book of Psalms,” Interpretation 46 (1992): 129–42. Wilson, Gerald. “Shaping the Psalter: A Consideration of Editorial Linkage in the Book of Psalms.” In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann, Jr., 72–82. JSOT Sup 159. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Wilson, Gerald. “Understanding the Purposeful Arrangement of Psalms in the Psalter: Pitfalls and Promise.” In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann, Jr., 42–51. JSOT Sup 159. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Wilson, Gerald. Psalms, Volume 1. NIVAC. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002. Wilson, Gerald. “King, Messiah, and the Reign of God: Revisiting the Royal Psalms and the Shape of the Psalter.” In The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, eds. P. W. Flint and P. D. Miller, Jr., 391–406. VTS 99. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Wilson, Gerald. “The Structure of the Psalter.” In Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches, eds. P. Johnston and D. Firth, 229–46. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005. Wise, Michael O. and James D. Tabor. “The Messiah at Qumran.” Biblical Archaeology Review 18 (1992): 60–5. Wright, Alexandra. “From the Tradition an Analysis of the Relationship Between mSanhedrin 4:5, Four Traditions about Adam Attributed to Rav in bSanhedrin 38a–b and Psalm 139 (sic).” European Judaism 40 (2007): 100–14.

Bibliography

227

Yeivin, Israel. “The Division into Sections in the Book of Psalms.” Textus 7 (1969): 76–102. Zakovitch, Yair. “The Interpretive Significance of the Sequence of Psalms 111–112.113–118.119.” In The Composition of the Book of Psalms, ed. Erich Zenger, 215–27. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Zenger, E. “New Approaches to the Study of the Psalter.” Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 17 (1994): 37–54. Zenger, E. “Das Buch der Psalmen.” In Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 7th edn, ed. Erich Zenger. Studienbücher Theologie 1.1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995. Zenger, E. “Zur Redaktiongeschichtlichen Bedeutung der Korachpsalmen.” In Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung, eds. K. Seybold and E. Zenger, 175–98. HBS 1. Freiburg: Herder, 1995. Zenger, E. “Komposition und Theologie des 5. Psalmenbuchs 107–145.” Biblische Notizen 82 (1996): 97–116. Zenger, E. “Daß alles Fleisch den Namen seiner Heiligung segne (Ps 145,21). Die Komposition Ps 145–150 als Anstoß zu einer christlich-jüdischen Psalmenhermeneutik.” BZ 41 (1997): 1–27. Zenger, E. “Die Provokation des 149. Psalms. Von der Unverzichtbarkeit der kanonischen Psalmenauslegung.” In “Ihr Völker alle, klatscht in die Hände!” ed. R. Kessler et al., 181–94. Münster: LIT, 1997. Zenger, E. “The Composition and Theology of the Fifth Book of Psalms, Psalms 107–145.” JSOT 80 (1998): 77–102. Zenger, E. “Der Psalter als Buch. Beobachtungen zu seiner Entstehung, Komposition und Funktion,” in Der Psalter in Judentum und Christentum, ed. E. Zenger, 1–57. HBS 18. Freiburg: Herder, 1998. Zenger, E. “Psalmenforschung nach Hermann Gunkel und Sigmund Mowinckel.” In Congress Volume Oslo, ed. A. Lemaire and M. Sæbø, 399–435. VTS 80. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Zenger, E. “Götter- und Götterbildpolemik in Ps 112–113 LXX = Ps 113–115 MT.” In Der Septuaginta-Psalter: Sprachliche und theologische Aspekte, ed. Erich Zenger, 229–55. HBS 32. Freiburg: Herder, 2001. Zenger, E. “Der Zion als Ort der Gottesnähe: Beobachtungen zum Weltbild des Wallfahrtspsalters Ps 120–134.” In Gottes Nähe im Alten Testament, ed. G. Eberhardt and K. Liess. SBS 202. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH, 2004. Zenger, E. “Lieder der Gotteserinnerung: Psalm 137 im Kontext seiner Nachbarpsalmen.” In“Für alle Zeiten zur Erinnerung:” Beiträge zu einer biblischen Gedächtniskultur. SBS 209. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH, 2006.

228 Bibliography Zenger, E. “Psalmenexegese und Psalterexegese: Eine Forschungsskizze.” In The Composition of the Book of Psalms, ed. Erich Zenger, 17–65. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Zenger, E., ed. Der Psalter in Judentum und Christentum. HBS 18. Freiburg: Herder, 1998. Zimmerli, Walther. “Zwillingspsalmen,” in Wort, Lied, und Gottesspruch: Beiträge zu Psalmen und Propheten, ed. J. Schreiner, 105–13. Würzburg: Echter, 1972. Zorell, F. “Textkritisches zum 119. (118.) Psalm.” Biblica 4 (1923): 375–80. Zucker, M. “Notes on Sa’adya’s Introduction to the Psalms.” Leshonenu 33 (1969): 223–30.

INDEX

This index covers all chapters of the book. An “n.” after a page number indicates a footnote; a “t.” indicates a table. Abbott, H. Porter 81–2 acrostic 132 Ahn, Silvia, see “Salmi 146–50” Allen, Leslie C. 60–1, 172 Altman, Rick 82–5 Amos 9 191 “Approche canonique des Psaumes du Hallel” (Trublet) 112 Aristotle 80–1 Auffret, Pierre 123 Auwers, Jean-Marie 106 n.6 Babylon 148, 150 Ballhorn, Egbert, see Zum Telos Barbiero, Gianni 29–31 Barré, Michael L. 124–5, 125 n.77 Beginning of the Psalter,” “The (Miller) 92 Berlin, Adele 46, 47–8 bird trapping 156–7 “book” of psalms 16, 23–4, 31 anthology and 41 authorship 106 beginning and ending 31, 171–2 boundaries 105–6 coherence 45–6 cohesion 45–6 longevity and 13 unity and 40–1, 45–6, 49–50 see also individual psalms; narrative Book of the Covenant 25 “Bounded by Obedience and Praise” (Brueggemann) 99 n.63, 172 Brennan, Joseph P. 66–8, 172 n.3 Brueggemann, Walter 99 n.63, 121, 172 Buysch, Christoph 157, 158 n.5, 158–9t. chaff 88 Childs, Brevard S. 9, 195

Chronicles 107, 191–2, 192 n.8 “Circolarità tra libro e preghiera nella poetica dossologica del Salterio” (Vignolo) 172–3 coherence 43–4, 45–6, 46 n.23 Coherence of the ma ‘alôt Psalms,” “The (Viviers) 143 cohesion 116–18 coherence and 43–4, 45–6 re-entry 42–3 scope 42, 42 n.10, 43 see also individual names and psalms Cole, Robert L. “An Integrated Reading of Psalms 1 and 2” 92–3 Psalms 1–2 72, 92–4 The Shape and Message of Book III 29, 49 community 31 n.21, 61 composition littéraire du Psautier, La (Auwers) 106 n.6 Composition of the Fifth Book of Psalms,” “The (Zenger) 72–4, 73t., 75 concatenatio 30, 33, 35 Contextual Analysis of Psalms 107–18,” “A (Davis) 28–9 n.13, 106–7 inclusios 110 praise and 115 Cotterell, Peter 44 covenant 66, 68–9, 71, 96, 120–1, 153, 192–3 accusation and 96 community 61 enemies and 121 eternal 105, 119–20, 122–3, 125t., 125–6, 153, 192 n.8 failure and 97–8, 100

230 Index faithful followers and 181–2 hope and 98, 154, 187, 190–2 judgment 121 praise 95, 123–4 remembrance 97 salvation 121 thanksgiving and 120 Creach, Jerome F. D. 33–4, 93 cults 10 n.3 “Daß alles Fleisch den Namen seiner Heiligung segne” (Zenger) 174–5 David 68–9, 163–4, 190, 193 enemies and 121, 121 n.64 failure and 181–2, 189–90, 191, 194 muted figure 75 throne 153 see also covenant; kingship Davidic psalms 58, 60–1, 68, 126–7 laments 69 scope 72–3 see also Psalms 138–45 Davis, Barry C., see “Contextual Analysis of Psalms 107–18” death 125 n.77 de Beaugrande, Robert-Alain 41–2, 43–4 deClaissé-Walford, Nancy L. 31, 31 n.21 Defining the Sacred Songs (Nasuti) 24 Deuteronomistic History 20 Deuteronomy 17 91–2, 138–9 dignity 15–16 discourse 44, 46 n.23 dis legomena 29 doxologies 36, 76–7, 164t., 164–5 ending and 106, 106 n.6, 107, 164, 165, 172 macarisms and 172–3 Dressler, Wolfgang U. 41–2, 43–4 Dynamics of Hebrew Parallelism, The (Berlin) 47–8 Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, The (Wilson) 9, 18, 26–7, 58 covenant 97–8 juxtaposition and 58 kingship 100 narrative and 79 n.2 editorial criticism 2, 10, 12–13 n.17, 14–15, 19–21, 25

chronology and 72 earlier psalms and 50 eclecticism 34 limitations 17–18 longevity and 20 placement of key words 33–4, 50–1 scope and 18, 21–2, 37t., 37–8, 51 weight and 18–19 see also individual names and topics Egyptian Hallel 46 n.23, 77, 110–11, 112 End of the Psalter,” “The (Scaiola) 174 enemies 121 n.64, 121–2, 160 “En mémoire éternelle sera le juste” (Auffret) 123 erste Psalmenbuch als Einheit, Das (Barbiero) 29–30 “Evidence of Editorial Divisions in the Hebrew Psalter” (Wilson) 105–6 exile 59 hope and 191–2 laments and 147–8, 150 praise and 67 return and 59–60, 67 Exodus 19–24 25 Ezekiel 34 190–1 faith 13–14 faithful followers 181–4 first-person perspectives 162, 162 n.14 Fokkelman, J. P. 39–40, 40 n.5 form criticism 24–5, 130 cults and 10 n.3 eclecticism 34 scope and 37t. see also individual names and topics “Form Criticism and Beyond” (Muilenburg) 48 fruit trees 179 n.28 Gerstenberger, Erhard S. 20, 21–2 “Der Psalter als Buch und als Sammlung” 13–14, 15–17 Goldingay, John 11, 97 Goulder, Michael D. 142–3 Grant, Jamie A. 23, 24 The King as Exemplar 69–70, 91–2 “The Psalms and the King” 164 n.20 Griffith, D. W. 83–4 Gunkel, Hermann 10 n.3

Index Haggai 178–9 n.27 hallelujah psalms 63, 77, 109, 144, 144 n.15, 144t., see also Psalms 146–50 Hayes, Elizabeth 46 n.23 hôdâ formula 76 hope 154, 187, 190–2, 193–4 eternal 98, 191, 192 Hosea 3 190 Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, see Psalms 3 household 183 n.37 Howard, David M., Jr. 27 n.8, 27–8, 28–9 n.13, 92, 192 hymns and songs 24, 26, see also doxologies inclusios 110, 110 n.20, 119 Integrated Reading of Psalms 1 and 2,” “An (Cole) 92–3 Interpretative Significance of the Sequence of Psalms 111–12,” “The (Zakovitch) 113–14 Introduction to Text Linguistics (de Beaugrande and Dressler) 41–2, 43–4 Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Childs) 9, 195 “I” perspectives 162, 162 n.14 Isaiah (Lowth) 46–7 iuxtapositio 35 Jeremiah 23 191 Jerusalem 135, see also Zion Jewish Literature (Nickelsburg) 193 Job 40 Joseph (Longacre) 45 Joshua 1 93 judgment 121, 168, 180–1 Kang, Dae-i 122–3 n.68 Kimmitt, Francis X. 28–9 n.13 King as Exemplar, The (Grant) 69–70, 91–2 kingship 69, 91, 100–1, 137–9, 180–1 authority and 82, 90–1 competitors and 183 contest 166 eternal 163 faithful followers and 182–4 first-person perspectives 162

231

hope 193–4 household and 183 n.37 ideal 91–3, 94 muted 152 persecuted 160 priesthood and 93–4 scope 152–4, 162 n.15, 162–3, 164 n.20, 168–9, 194 student and 139 see also covenant; David; Davidic psalms Koch, Klaus 63t., 63–4, 164 Komposition des Psalters, Die (Millard) 34, 64, 64t. Konzeptionen des Königtums Gottes im Psalter (Leuenberger) 31–2, 61–2 Kratz, Reinhard G. 59–60 laments 147, 150, 160, 161–2 praise and 64, 69 provocation and 148 letzte Davidpsalter, Der (Buysch) 157, 158 n.5 Leuenberger, Martin 31–2, 61–2 “Like a Tree Planted by the Temple Stream” (Creach) 93 Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation (Cotterell and Turner) 44 Lobgesänge der Armen (Lohfink) 150 Lohfink, Norbert 150 Lonedale Operator, The (thriller short) 83–4 Longacre, Robert E. 44–5 Longman, Tremper, III 13 Lowth, Robert 46–7 loyalty to covenant, see covenant macarisms 172–3 McCann, J. Clinton, Jr. 99 n.62, 126, 182 Mejía, Jorge 120 n.61 Mesopotamian Hymnic incipits 26 Message of the Psalter, The (Mitchell) 13, 189–90 Messiah,” “The (Longman) 13 Millard, Matthias 34, 64, 64t. Miller, Patrick D. 92 Mitchell, David C. 13, 189–90 Moses 108 Mowinckel, Sigmund 10 n.3

232 Index Muilenburg, James 48 Murphy, Roland E. 11 music 24, 26, 42–3, 85 n.18, see also doxologies narrative 80, 168–9 action and character 83 beginning, middle, and end 80–1, 83 drive and 83–4 dual-focus 84–5 elusivity of 81, 81 n.6 ending and 79, 79 n.2 juxtaposition 84–5 limitations 188–9 multiple-focus 84–5 narrativity 81–2, 85 progression and framing 83 scope 80, 82–3, 85, 85–6 n.19, 98–9, 194–5 single-focus 84–5 tragedy 80 see also individual names and psalms Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel (Fokkelman) 39–40 narrativity 81–2, 85 “Narrativity” (Abbott) 81–2 Nasuti, Harry P. 24 Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung (Seybold and Zenger) 21 Newman, Louis I. 47 n.29 Nickelsburg, George W. E. 193 Nielsen, Kirsten 135–6 Noth, Martin 20 1 Chronicles 107, 192 1 Chronicles 16 107 parallelism 1–2, 20 distant 37 by key word 1, 2, 37, 116–18, 187 scope and 37t., 46–8, 47 n.29, 49, 50, 187 by theme 1 unity and 48–9, 50 see also individual names and topics “Parallelism in Amos” (Newman) 47 n.29 pilgrimage 73, 74, 135–6 pity 108, 108 n.12

Poetic and Contextual Analysis of Psalms 135–7,” “A (Todd) 144, 150 Poetics (Aristotle) 80–1 Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Berlin) 46 poetry and poetics 21 n.33, 24 discourse and 46 n.23 narrative and 80, 85–6 n.19 scope 46–8, 47 n.29, 49 unity and 39–41, 40 n.5, 48–9 see also individual psalms praise 61, 64, 69, 95, 115, 181 eternal 123–4 juxtaposition and 123 thanksgiving and 67, 159–60 see also doxologies prayers of supplication 160 priesthood 93–4 promises, see covenant Psalm 1 88–9, 98–9 beginning and 87 chaff 88 discreteness 87, 87 n.25 kingship 137–8 Psalm 119 and 137–8 Psalm 145 and 165–6 Psalm 148 and 179 n.28 Psalms 138–45 and 168 trees 88, 93, 179 n.28 wisdom 89 “Psalm 1—An Entity” (Willis) 87, 87 n.25 Psalm 2 90–1, 98–9 discreteness 87, 87 n.25 kingship 90–1, 166, 168–9, 182 Psalm 144 and 166 Psalm 149 and 182 Psalms 138–45 and 168–9 Psalm 25 34 n.32 Psalm 34 34 n.32 Psalm 41 164–5 Psalm 72 99 n.62, 164–5 Psalm 73 99 n.63 Psalm 89 94–7, 98–9 covenant 95, 96, 97–8 doxologies 164–5 kingship 154 Psalm 132 and 154 turning point and 4 n.3, 99, 99 n.65, 181–2

Index Psalm 89 und der Davidbund (Steymans) 95 Psalm 106 106 n.6, 107, 164–5 Psalm 107 120 n.61 beginning and 108–9 covenant 120–1 inclusios 110 juxtaposition and 57–8 Psalm 118 and 110, 111 n.28, 111–12 Psalm 145 and 166–7, 166–7t. Psalm 108 121 Psalm 109 121 “Psalm 109” (Brueggemann) 121 Psalm 110 61, 119 n.55, 121–2 Psalm 111 122–3, 122–3 n.68 Psalm 112 123 Psalm 113 119 n.55, 123–4 Psalm 114 124 Psalm 115 124 Psalm 116 124–5, 125 n.77 “Psalm 116” (Barré) 124–5, 125 n.77 Psalm 117 125 Psalm 118 125 ending and 110, 116 inclusios 110 juxtaposition and 58 Psalm 107 and 110, 111 n.28, 111–12 Psalm 119 75, 77–8, 115t., 115–16, 133 acrostic 132 artistry and 129–30 centerpoint and 73 Deuteronomy 17 and 138–9 discreteness and 133–5, 136 eight-/ten-word basis 130–2, 131–2 nn.12–14, 133–4, 133–4t. kingship 137–9 mixed form and 130 pilgrimage 135–6 Psalm 1 and 137–8 Psalms 111–12 and 113–14 size 134–5 Psalm 119 (Soll) 131 n.12 Psalm 120 147–8 Psalm 132 61, 153–4 Psalm 136 58 Psalm 137 78, 133, 143, 149 exile 147–8 Psalm 120 and 147–8 Psalm 138 157, 159–60 Psalm 144 61, 166

233

Psalm 145 doxologies 164–5 praise 159–60 Psalm 1 and 165–6 Psalm 107 and 166–7, 166–7t. Psalm 138 and 159–60 Psalm 148 179 n.28 Psalm 149 182 Psalm 150 172, 172 n.3 “Psalmenexegese und Psalterexegese” (Zenger) 35–7 Psalms (Goldingay) 11, 97 Psalms (McCann) 99 n.62, 126, 182 “Psalms” (Walton) 70–2, 71t., 85 n.18 Psalms, The (Weiser) 129 Psalms 1–2 91, 93 beginning and 4 n.3, 86–8 beginning and ending 175, 178 Deuteronomy 17 and 91–2 faithful followers and 183 individual and communal 179 Joshua 1 and 93 judgment 180–1 kingship 91–4, 180–1 place names 154 Psalms 120–37 and 154 Psalms 146–50 and 175, 178–81, 179–80t. Psalms 1–2 (Cole) 72, 92–4 “Psalms 1–8” (Brennan) 172 n.3 Psalms 3 (Hossfeld and Zenger) 74–5, 99 n.65 covenant 182 diachronic and synchronic analysis 75–6, 76 n.51 exile 148 praise 159 Psalms 73–89 29 Psalms 90–106 108 Psalms 101–150 (Allen) 60–1, 172 Psalms 105–7 65, 76–7, 108–9 Psalms 106–7 106–8, 109 Psalms 107–18 116–18, 127 covenant 119–20, 125t., 126 inclusios 119 Psalms 107–19 67 Psalms 107–36 74–5, 76 Psalms 108–10 (Davidic psalms) 58, 60–1, 126–7

234 Index Psalms 111–12 113–14, 118, 127 n.85 Psalms 111–19 113 Psalms 113–18 (Egyptian Hallel) 46 n.23, 77, 110–11, 112 Psalms 117–18 109–10 Psalms 118–19 69–70, 113, 114–15 Psalms 118–35 58 Psalms 119–37 135–6, 136t. Psalms 120–34 (Songs of Ascents) 35–6, 142t., 142–3 kingship 154 shortness 142 superscripts 65–6, 141–2 Psalms 120–36 67 Psalms 120–37 141, 145, 146t., 146–7, 147t., 149, 150 kingship 154 narrative and 189 people and places 150–1 place names 151–2 Psalms 1–2 and 154 Psalms 120–45 145–6, 146t. Psalms 133–5 148 Psalms 134–5 148–9 Psalms 135–6 (hallelujah psalms) 77, 109, 144, 144 n.15, 144t. Psalms 135–7 144–5 Psalms 135–8 150 Psalms 137–45 150 Psalms 137–50 67 Psalms 138–45 (Davidic psalms) 58, 60–1, 75, 155–6, 157, 158–9t., 161 beginning and ending 168 bird trapping 156–7 enemies 160 first-person perspectives 162 kingship 160, 162–3, 168–9 laments 160, 161–2 prayers of supplication 160 Psalm 1 and 168 Psalm 2 and 168–9 superscripts 156, 156 n.3 Psalms 144–5 167–8 Psalms 144–50 172–3 Psalms 145–50 177–8, 178 n.25 Psalms 146–8 178–9 n.27 Psalms 146–50 (hallelujah psalms) 30–1, 75, 176–7, 176–7t., 178 beginning and ending 175, 178

covenant 181–2 ending and 173–5, 176 n.20, 184 individual and communal 179 judgment 180–1 kingship 180–1, 183–4 praise 181 Psalms 1–2 and 175, 178–81, 179–80t. superscripts and 176 Psalms 148–50 173 Psalms and the King,” “The (Grant) 164 n.20 Psalms of Solomon 17 193–5 Psalms of the Return, The (Goulder) 142–3 Psalter als Buch,” “Der (Zenger) 34 n.32 Psalter als Buch und als Sammlung,” “Der (Gerstenberger) 13–14, 15–17 Psalter und seine Redaktionsgeschichte,” “Der (Koch) 63t., 63–4, 164 psaume 1 et l’‘encadrement’ du livre des louanges,” “Le (Wénin) 173 Qumran 26–7 Reading from the Beginning (deClaisséWalford) 31, 31 n.21 Reading the Psalms as a Book (Whybray) 11–13 “Reflections on Contextual Interpretation of the Psalms” (Murphy) 11 refuge 33 remembrance 97 righteousness 123 royalty, see kingship Ryan, Marie-Laure 81–2 Salmi 146–150 come conclusione del Salterio,” “I (Ahn) 30–1, 68, 68t., 77, 108, 174 covenant 68–9 laments 69 salvation 62, 121 Scaiola, Donatella 174 semantics 45 Seybold, Klaus 21, 151–2 Shape and Message of Book III, The (Cole) 29, 49 Shape of Psalms 42–49,” “The (Kimmitt) 28–9 n.13 “Shaping the Psalter” (Wilson) 59, 59t.

Index soap operas 83 Soll, Will 131 n.12 “Some Hidden Harmonies in the Fifth Book of Psalms” (Brennan) 66–8 “Some Observations on Psalm 107” (Mejía) 120 n.61 songs and hymns 24, 26, see also doxologies Songs of Ascents, see Psalms 120–34 Steymans, Hans U. 95 Stoddard, Sara E. 42–3, 44 storyline, see narrative Structure of Psalms 93–100, The (Howard) 27 n.8, 27–8, 92, 192 subscripts 176, 176 n.19 Sumerian Temple Hymns 26 superscripts 63, 118, 141–2 personal names 156, 156 n.3 renamed 65–6 subscripts and 176, 176 n.19 syntagmemes 44–5 tagmemes 44–5 tagmemics 44–5 Temple 93 Temple singers 76 Text and Texture (Stoddard) 42–3, 44 text-linguistics 41 coherence 43–4, 45–6 cohesion 42 n.10, 42–4, 45–6 discourse and 44, 46 n.23 scope 41–2, 43–4 tagmemics 44–5 see also individual psalms thanksgiving 66, 67, 120, 159–60 Theory of Narrative, A (Altman) 82–5 throne 153 Todd, James M., III 144, 150 Tora Davids,” “Die (Kratz) 59–60 Torah 73, 129 eight-/ten-word basis 130–2, 131–2 nn.12–14, 133–4, 133–4t. pilgrimage 135 scope 132, 137, 138 student and 139 see also individual names and topics “Toward a Definition of Narrative” (Ryan) 82 tragedy 80

235

trees 88, 93, 179 n.28 Trublet, Jacques 112 Turner, Max 44 2 Chronicles 192 Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Noth) 20 Unity of the Egyptian Hallel,” “The (Hayes) 46 n.23 Vignolo, Roberto 172–3 Viviers, Hendrik 143 Wallfahrtspsalmen, Die (Seybold) 151–2 Walton, John H. 70–2, 71t., 85 n.18 Weiser, Artur 129 Wénin, A. 173 Whybray, Norman 11–13 “Why Not Plough with an Ox and an Ass Together?” (Nielsen) 135–6 Willis, John T. 87, 87 n.25 Wilson, Gerald H. 9–10, 60, 87–8, 113, 189–90 “Evidence of Editorial Divisions” 105–6 hymns 26 “Shaping the Psalter” 59, 59t. see also Editing of the Hebrew Psalter wisdom 64, 89 Yahweh 95–6, 114, 163 death and 125 n.77 enemies and 121–2 judgment 168 pilgrimage 135 pity 108 righteousness 123 salvation 62 see also covenant; kingship Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (Creach) 33–4 Zakovitch, Yair 113–14 Zechariah 178–9 n.27 Zenger, Erich 34–5, 177–8 covenant 121 “Daß alles Fleisch” 174–5 “Der Psalter als Buch” 34 n.32 Neue Wege 21 “Psalmenexegese” 35–7

236 Index “The Composition of the Fifth Book” 72–4, 73t., 75 see also Psalms 3 Zerubbabel 191 Zion 74, 151–2 exile and 148 kingship and 152–4 narrative and 189

pilgrimage and 73, 74 Zum Telos des Psalters (Ballhorn) 32–3, 65, 66, 161 concatenatio 33 covenant 66 doxologies 76–7 superscripts 65–6, 156 n.3 thanksgiving 66