I was shocked and saddened to read of Dr. Gerald H. Wilson‘s passing in today’s up-date to the SBL Forum (I was also surprised that it took so long to hear the news since he died in November; but perhaps it was a consequence of not attending the SBL Annual Meeting). While I did not know Gerald really well, we did have lunch together on a number of occasions at SBL meetings to talk shop and interacted via email on a number of topics surrounding the study of the book of Psalms. He was an able scholar, a man of integrity, and a great guy — and he will be sorely missed.
Here is an excerpt from the obituary posted in the SBL forum:
Dr. Gerald Wilson, Professor of Biblical Studies at Azusa Pacific University since fall 1999, died on 11 November 2005, immediately after suffering a heart attack. He was deeply respected by his students and colleagues. In 2002 he was awarded the Faculty Outstanding Scholarship Achievement Award.
Professor Wilson was a graduate of Baylor University in Waco, Texas. Afterwards he took an M.Div. and an M.A. from Fuller Theological Seminary. There he was inspired in the study of biblical Hebrew by Prof. William S. LaSor. He continued his studies at Yale University, under the direction of Professors Robert R. Wilson and Brevard S. Childs. There he earned an M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. On the basis of his work at Yale, he established himself as a pioneering scholar in the study of the Psalms as he undertook examination of the canonical shape of the Psalter.
Wilson’s Pioneering Work on the Psalms
Professor Wilson was truly a “pioneering scholar” in the study of the Psalter. Some of the most exciting — and theologically fruitful — work being done on the Psalter in the last quarter-century has been by those employing “canonical” or “synchronic” methods — and Wilson’s ground-breaking study of the editing of the book of Psalms led the way. In fact, his 1981 Yale thesis, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS 76; Scholars Press, 1985; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com) was one of the first comprehensive English-language works on the shape of the book of Psalms. This volume, as well as Wilson’s numerous articles and essays (see bibliography below), have served as the foundation for much of the research done in this area.
Using a number of ancient collections of hymnic material as a comparative “control group,” Wilson sought to demonstrate that the Hebrew Psalter has an overall shape or structure that was brought about by purposeful editorial activity. From his study of the comparative material and the book of Psalms itself, Wilson isolated a number of indicators that helped identify the editorial pattern behind the canonical form of the book of Psalms. Indicators such as author and genre categories from the psalm headings; thematic grouping of psalms; the placement of previous collections; the function of the first psalm as an introduction to the Psalter as a whole; and the Psalter’s fivefold division were understood by Wilson to have editorial significance (Click on the image to the right to see a handout I developed that graphically displays Wilson’s understanding of the editorial structure of the Psalter).
Because of the different methods used in putting together psalms in Books I-III and IV-V, Wilson suggested that the Psalter underwent two (likely distinct) editings, one for Psalms 1-89 and another for Psalms 90-150. The first segment (Psalms 1-89) is organized principally by author and genre distinctions, with royal psalms used as buffers between the collections (e.g., Psalms 2, 72, 89). According to Wilson, these royal psalms give the collection a Davidic framework that traces the events of the Davidic monarchy from its inception (Psalm 2) to its failure and exile (Psalm 89). The second grouping (Psalms 90-150) is dominated by smaller collections organized by common themes or catchwords. In particular, book four (Psalms 90-106) functions as the editorial centre of the book of Psalms and answers the lament over the demise of the monarchy expressed in Psalm 89. Wilson argues that these psalms point back to the Mosaic era (cf. the heading to Psalm 90) when Yahweh alone served as Israel’s king and refuge, and promise that Yahweh will continue to be such in the future. Book five (Psalms 107-150), like book four, answers the lament of the first three books by encouraging Israel to trust in Yahweh alone through obedience to the Torah (cf. the overwhelming effect of the placement of Psalm 119). Finally, Wilson argues the placement of Psalm 1 at the beginning of the Psalter indicates that “the Psalter is a book to be read rather than be performed; to be meditated over rather than to be recited from.” For Wilson, the message that the shape of the book of Psalms declares implicitly is that kingship and the Davidic monarchy are false hopes. Yahweh is the only true king and refuge for Israel, and in him alone should they trust.
In the years following the publication of his thesis, Wilson produced a whole series of articles that refined his views (see below). His most significant publication since his thesis, however, is clearly his Psalms Volume 1 (The NIV Application Commentary; Zondervan, 2002; Buy from Amazon.ca or Buy from Amazon.com. This commentary on Psalms 1-72 is written for a more popular audience in mind, yet is based on a careful analysis of the Hebrew text. What is more, Wilson does not just deal with the psalms individually, but explores the connections between the psalms in a way that is both academically sound and theologically relevant. I highly recommend it for all students of the Bible.
When all is said and done, Gerald Wilson’s research on editing of the book of Psalms has been an inspiration — whether directly or indirectly — to countless scholars. And with his passing, biblical scholarship has lost an able scholar. I extend my condolences to his family, friends, and students.
A Bibliography of Gerald Wilson’s Work on the Psalter
Wilson, Gerald H. “The Qumran Psalms Manuscripts and Consecutive Arrangement of Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter.” CBQ 45 (1983): 377-88.
Wilson, Gerald H. “Editiorial Divisions in the Hebrew Psalter.” VT 34 (1984): 337-52.
Wilson, Gerald H. The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBLDS 76. Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1985.
Wilson, Gerald H. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate.” CBQ 47 (1985): 624-42.
Wilson, Gerald H. “The Use of â€˜Untitledâ€™ Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter.” ZAW 97 (1985): 404-13.
Wilson, Gerald H. “The Use of Royal Psalms at the â€˜Seamsâ€™ of the Hebrew Psalter.” JSOT 35 (1986): 85-94.
Wilson, Gerald H. “A First Century C.E. Date for the Closing of the Hebrew Psalter?” In Haim M. I. Gevarjahu Memorial Volume. English-French-German Section, edited by J. J. Adler, 136-43. Jerusalem: World Jewish Bible Center, 1990.
Wilson, Gerald H. “The Shape of the Book of Psalms.” Interpretation 46 (1992): 129-42.
Wilson, Gerald H. “Shaping the Psalter: A Consideration of Editorial Linkage in the Book of Psalms.” In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, edited by J. Clinton McCann, 72-82. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
Wilson, Gerald H. “Understanding the Purposeful Arrangement of Psalms in the Psalter: Pitfalls and Promise.” In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, edited by J. Clinton McCann, 42-51. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
Wilson, Gerald H. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa) and the Canonical Psalter: Comparison of Editorial Shaping.” CBQ 59 (1997): 448-64.
Wilson, Gerald H. “A First Century C.E. Date for the Closing of the Hebrew Psalter?” Jewish Biblical Quarterly 28 (2000): 102-10.
Wilson, Gerald H. Psalms Volume 1, NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.
Wilson, Gerald H. “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, edited by Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller, 391-406. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
One of the toughest jobs for textual critics is knowing the tendenz or proclivities of the manuscripts or versions they are using for textual reconstruction. This step requires an enormous amount of work that entails an intensive study of a manuscript. Often, I fear, this work is not done and variants are studies in isolation without a sufficient knowledge of the manuscripts themselves. One of the reasons it is not done is that it is a daunting task that few can accomplish. So when someone does this work, it is a great service to the scholarly community (We should thank God for the Kittels, Wevers, Alands, Metzgers of the world!).
This sort of painstaking text critical work has now been done on the Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa). As I mentioned in a previous post, I am working through Ulrich Dahmen’s Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im Fruehjudentum: Rekonstrucktion, Textbestand, Sturktur und Pragmatik der Psalmen Rolle 11QPsa aus Qumran (Brill, 2003; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com).
In this third chapter, Dahmen works through all of the variants between 11QPsa and the Masoretic Book of Psalms. From this analysis he draws a number of conclusions. First, he concludes that 11QPsa is clearly dependent on and secondary to the proto-Masoretic Psalter (Something which I have been arguing for many years). That is, almost all of the places where 11QPsa has an alternative reading compared to the MT Psalter, the reading in 11QPsa is later. What is more, Dahmen argues that when all of the variants are considered together (and this is the crucial step of gaining the big picture) some patterns begin to appear. While I will not bore you with the details (and Dahmen notes many details), the most important characteristic are the number of features which connect the scroll with the other texts and themes common to the Qumran community. This is one of the things that is meant when taking about a manuscript’s tendenz.
Knowing the tendenz of 11QPsa provides some critical purchase when making text-criticical decisions. What Dahmen’s research means in practical terms is that 11QPsa is of limited use for textual criticism of the MT book of Psalms. That doesn’t mean it is of no value. Dahmen highlights a couple places where 11QPsa preserves a better reading than the MT. The best example is with the missing nun verse in the acrostic Psalm 145 (an acrostic is a poem that is organized according to the alphabet). In the MT tradition the psalm is clearly missing a verse because its acrostic skips from mem to samech (between vv. 13-14). Well, before 11QPsa was discovered scholars knew something was up and often used the LXX to reconstruct the missing verse. When the Psalms Scroll was discovered, lo and behold, the nun verse was recovered. As it turns out, the two texts (LXX and 11QPsa) preserved similar readings:
πιστὸς κύριος ἐν τοῖς λόγοις αὐτοῦ καὶ ὅσιος ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ
The Lord is faithful in all his words, and devout in all his deeds
You’ll notice a slight difference between the LXX use of “Lord” while 11QPsa employs “God.” A number of factors suggest that the LXX preserves the better reading. First, when looking at the rest of Psalm, it almost exclusively employs Yahweh. Second, one of the things that Dahmen uncovered in his analysis is that 11QPsa tends to substitute other terms for Yahweh. What evidently happened is that some time in the transmission of the Masoretic text of the book of Psalms, this verse dropped out. The LXX and 11QPsa both preserved the original line, though the LXX preserved the better text in regards to the name used for God.
The moral of this story is that before you can evaluate a textual variant, you need to know the tendenz of the text. Otherwise you’ll miss the forest for the trees.
I am currently working through Ulrich Dahmen’s excellent monograph on the so-called Qumran Psalms scroll (11QPsa), Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im Fruehjudentum: Rekonstrucktion, Textbestand, Sturktur und Pragmatik der Psalmen Rolle 11QPsa aus Qumran (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 49; Leiden: Brill, 2003; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com).
Dahmen proposes a new reconstruction of the beginning of the Psalms scroll based on the techniques developed by H. Stegemann and others. What I find the most fascinating is the help that worm traces and decomposition patterns — as well as computers — play in the reconstruction. His reconstruction is similar to that of Peter Flint’s in The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll & the Book of Psalms (Leiden: Brill, 1997; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com), though Dahmen omits Psalm 110 from column 4 since its inclusion would make the line and column lengths too large. That seems quite plausible to me.
Who would have thought that worms, decomposition, and computers would all work together to help us reconstruct and interpret ancient biblical scrolls? I find it all quite fascinating.
[Note: I have removed the diacritical marks in the Greek text since it wasn't displaying properly in some browsers.]
Situational Ascriptions in the Superscriptions
The final category that I want to discuss in this series are the additions and expansions of the situational ascriptions in the LXX Psalter. In the Hebrew Bible the situational notices relate individual psalms to some event in Davidâ€™s life:
Davidâ€™s flight from Absalom
2 Sam 15-18
Concerning Cush, a Benjaminite (= Hushai the Archite? 2 Sam 17)
Deliverance from all his enemies and from Saul
2 Sam 22
Feigned madness before Abimelech
1 Sam 21:1-15
Nathanâ€™s confrontation over Bathsheba
2 Sam 12
The betrayal of Doeg the Edomite
1 Sam 21:2-10; 22:9-10
The Ziphitesâ€™ betrayal of David to Saul
1 Sam 23:14-28
When the Philistines seized him in Gath
1 Sam 21:10-15; 27:1-12
Flight from Saul into the cave
1 Sam 22:1-2, 24:1-7
Saulâ€™s surveillance of Davidâ€™s house
1 Sam 19:11-12
Military victories over Aram-naharaim, Aram-zobah, and when Joab returned and struck Edom
2 Sam 8:13â€“14; 1 Chr 18:12â€“13; cf. 1 Chr 19:6
David in the Judean wilderness
1 Sam 23; 25; or 2 Sam 15
When David was in the cave
1 Sam 22:1-2, 24:1-7
While some of these superscriptions may contain a kernal of historical information, modern Psalms scholars are almost unanimous in understanding the situational superscriptions as much later additions that reflect interpretive or exegetical activity. For example, Mowinckel sees the titles as the end result of learned legends about David that associated certain psalms to specific incidents in Davidâ€™s life (Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992] 2.100), while Bernhardt see these title as evidence of the first exegetical treatment of the psalms (Karl H. Bernhardt, Das Problem der altorientalischen KÃ¶nigsideologieim Alten Testament [Brill, 1961] 11). This midrashic understanding of the titles is also held by B.S. Childs, who argues “the Psalm titles do not appear to reflect independent historical tradition but are the result of an exegetical activity which derived its material from within the text itself” (“Psalms Titles and Midrashic Exegesis” JSS 16  143; see also Martin Kleer, “Der Liebliche SÃ¤nger Der Psalmen Israels”: Untersuchungen Zu David Als Dichter Und Beter Der Psalmen [Bodenheim: Philo, 1996]).
David’s expanding role as the sweet psalmist of Israel continues in the LXX, with five additional psalms like to parts of Davidâ€™s life. It is doubtful that the additional situational ascriptions in the psalm superscriptions are the result of the translator. This is based on what we know of translators generally; that is, that they tend to be conservative and stay pretty close to the text. More importantly, it is also supported by what is known of the translation technique of the LXX Psalter. Moreover, there is no reason to suppose that the same processes that gave rise to the situational titles in the MT Psalter would have ceased with its translation into Greek. Once the book of Psalms was translated into Greek, further midrashic activity would have occured.
The first addition is found in Ps 27(LXX 26):
×œ×“×•×“ Of David
×œ×“×•×“ Of David
Î¤Î¿Ï… Î”Î±Ï…Î¹Î´, Ï€Ï?Î¿ Ï„Î¿Ï… Ï‡Ï?Î¹ÏƒÎ¸Î·Î½Î±Î¹
Pertaining to David. Before he was annointed.
Most read the title as suggesting that this psalm was recited before David was anointed. The question remains, however, which anointing is being talked about? It could be his initial anointing by Samuel in 1 Sam 16:13, or his anointing as king over Judah in 2 Sam 2:4, or even his anointing as king over Israel in 2 Sam 5:1-6, esp. 3 (Rahlfs evidently understood the added phrase as referring to the anointing of the High Priest; most others apply the note to David [Pietersma, "Exegesis and Liturgy," 103; Mozley, 48; Thomson and Brenton in their translation).
The early exegete Theodoret understood superscription to refer to an event prior to David's anointing as king. He points to an association unique to the Greek translation of both ×¡×š "den, lairâ€? and ×?×”×œ "tent" with of ÏƒÎºÎ·Î½Î· -- a term reserved for "tabernacle" elsewhere (Theodoret, In psalmos; cited in Rainer Stichel, "Zur Herkunft Der PsalmenÃ¼berschriften in Der Septuaginta," in Der Septuaginta-Psalter [Herder, 2001] 149-161, p. 152). Theodoret also saw the “unjust witness” in verse 12 as an allusion to the deception of Doeg the Edomite.
Thus, while it is possible that the association could have happened on the Hebrew side of things, that it would have happened on the Greek side is clear.
ÎµÎ¹Ï‚ Ï„Î·Î½ Î·Î¼ÎµÏ?Î±Î½ Ï„Î¿Ï… Ï€Ï?Î¿ÏƒÎ±Î²Î²Î±Ï„Î¿Ï…
Î¿Ï„Îµ ÎºÎ±Ï„Ï‰ÎºÎ¹ÏƒÏ„Î±Î¹ Î· Î³Î· Î±Î¹Î½Î¿Ï‚ Ï‰Î´Ï‚ Ï„Ï‰ Î”Î±Ï…Î¹Î´
For the day before the Sabbath when the land was first inhabited;
a praise song of David
There is a significant amount of textual variation in this superscription. Rather than understanding this situational ascription as connected to an event in David’s life, it more likely refers to the sixth day of creation.
Î¿Ï„Îµ Î¿ Î¿Î¹ÎºÎ¿Ï‚ Ï‰ÎºÎ¿Î´Î¿Î¼ÎµÎ¹Ï„Î¿ Î¼ÎµÏ„Î± Ï„Î·Î½ Î±Î¹Ï‡Î¼Î±Î»Ï‰ÏƒÎ¹Î±Î½ Ï‰Î´Î· Ï„Ï‰ Î”Î±Ï…Î¹Î´
When the house was built after the captivity; a song of David
Once again there is a lot of textual instability with this superscription. While 1 Chr 16:23-33 associates this psalm with the brining of the ark into Jerusalem by David (which would be after he made himself a house), the reference to the captivity suggests the reference is to the rebuilding of the Temple in the post-exilic period. These connections could suggest the use of the psalm in a temple dedication festival (Kraus). No matter whatprompted the title, the use of Î¿Ï„Îµ in the superscription suggests it is secondary.
Ï„Ï‰ Î”Î±Ï…Î¹Î´ Î¿Ï„Îµ Î· Î³Î· Î±Ï…Ï„Î¿Ï… ÎºÎ±Î¸Î¹ÏƒÏ„Î±Ï„Î±Î¹
Pertaining to David, when his land is established
While not entirely clear, this superscript may allude to the statement in 2 Samuel 7:1 that David “was settled in his palace and Yahweh had given him rest from all his enemies around him.” While there is no strong lexical links between the psalm and 2 Sam 7, the use of ÎºÎ±Î¸Î¹ÏƒÏ„Î·Î¼Î¹ in the superscript strongly connects it with a number of psalms that speak of the establishment of David’s throne (Pss 2:6; 8:7; 18:44; cf. 9:21). Noteworthy is this association is only found in the Greek text as ÎºÎ±Î¸Î¹ÏƒÏ„Î·Î¼Î¹ is used to translate a variety of Hebrew terms. The use of Î¿Ï„Îµ in the superscription suggests it is secondary.
×ž×–×ž×•×¨ ×œ×“×•×“ A Psalm of David
×ž×–×ž×•×¨ ×œ×“×•×“ A Psalm of David
ÏˆÎ±Î»Î¼Î¿Ï‚ Ï„Ï‰ Î”Î±Ï…Î¹Î´ Î¿Ï„Îµ Î±Ï…Ï„Î¿Î½ Î¿ Ï…Î¹Î¿Ï‚ ÎºÎ±Ï„Î±Î´Î¹Ï‰ÎºÎµÎ¹
A psalm, pertaining to David, when [his] son pursued him
There is some variation in the textual witnesses to this superscription; in fact many witnesses name Absalom explicitly. The reference is certainly to Absalom’s rebellion in 2 Sam 15-18 (cf. Ps 3), though what triggered the association is not as clear, though the psalm itself is a lament of an individual who is being pursued by his enemy. The use of ÎºÎ±Ï„Î±Î´Î¹Ï‰ÎºÏ‰ in v. 3 and the superscript identifies Absalom as the enemy. Likely secondary due to the use of Î¿Ï„Îµ.
×œ×“×•×“ Of David
Ï„Ï‰ Î”Î±Ï…Î¹Î´ Ï€Ï?Î¿Ï‚ Ï„Î¿Î½ Î“Î¿Î»Î¹Î±Î´
Pertaining to David, concerning Goliath
This final addition to the situaltion ascription in the LXX Psalms connects this psalm to LXX Psalm 151. This allusion to the Goliath episode in 1 Sam 17 was more than likely triggered by the reference to the “evil sword” in verses 10-11:
ÎµÎº Ï?Î¿Î¼Ï†Î±Î¹Î±Ï‚ Ï€Î¿Î½Î·Ï?Î±Ï‚. 11 Ï?Ï…ÏƒÎ±Î¹ Î¼Îµ ÎºÎ±Î¹ ÎµÎ¾ÎµÎ»Î¿Ï… Î¼Îµ ÎµÎº Ï‡ÎµÎ¹Ï?Î¿Ï‚ Ï…Î¹Ï‰Î½ Î±Î»Î»Î¿Ï„Ï?Î¹Ï‰Î½, Ï‰Î½ Ï„Î¿ ÏƒÏ„Î¿Î¼Î± ÎµÎ»Î±Î»Î·ÏƒÎµÎ½ Î¼Î±Ï„Î±Î¹Î¿Ï„Î·Ï„Î± ÎºÎ±Î¹ Î· Î´ÎµÎ¾Î¹Î± Î±Ï…Ï„Ï‰Î½ Î´ÎµÎ¾Î¹Î± Î±Î´Î¹ÎºÎ¹Î±Ï‚.
From an evil sword Rescue me and deliver me from the hand of aliens, whose mouth spoke vanity, and whose right hand was a right hand of injustice.
The question once again is whether or not this harkens back to a Hebrew Vorlage or whether it is a Greek development. The one piece of evidence which may suggest it derives from the Greek is the transcription of Goliath’s name as Î“Î¿Î»Î¹Î±Î´, and not Î“Î¿Î»Î¹Î±Î¸, which would be expected as the translator typically renders final tavs on names with a theta.
What becomes clear from examining these additional superscriptions that read the psalms in the light of David’s life, is that the exegetical activity that was started in the Hebrew tradition was continued in the Greek. This represents a further “Davidization” of the Psalter in which more psalms were read and/or prayed in association with an exemplary situation in the life of David.
The title of this blog entry reflects some adjectives describing the first volume of Hossfeld and Zenger’s Hermeneia commentary on the book of Psalms. I realize that I have already flogged this volume (see “Noteworthy Commentary on the Psalms Published“), but I just received my review copy and I am very impressed! This volume has set a new standard for critical, historical, and theological commentaries on the Psalms. It includes bibliography, a fresh translation, detailed textual notes, interaction with past scholarly interpretation, verse-by-verse exposition, as well as a section called “Context, Reception, and Significance.” This last section deals with the relationship of the individual psalm to its place in the Psalter, as well as discussions of the reception of the psalm in the LXX, Targum, and New Testament. Very Impressive! You will want to move aside Dahood, Craigie/Allen/Tate, Kraus and put this volume front and centre!
And, no, I’m not getting any kick-back from the authors or the publisher! It’s just that good! (Although if you buy it from Amazon from my site, I will get a percentage that will go towards the cost of maintaining this site!)
There are a variety of different liturgical notices in the psalm superscriptions. These include the phrase ×œ×ž× ×¦×—, “to the leader” (NRSV; “for the director of music,” NIV); and other obscure terms denoting melodies, musical instruments, and/or cultic procedures. Interestingly, there is only one place where the LXX adds Îµá¼°Ï‚ Ï„á½¸ Ï„ÎÎ»Î¿Ï‚ (= ×œ×ž× ×¦×—): Psalm 30(29). This reading is highly contested within the Greek tradition. While it is difficult to determine whether this addition reflects a different Hebrew Vorlage, it is difficult to understand why it would have been the result of transmission history.
Psalms for the Days of the Week
A more significant group of liturgical notes relate to psalms that were read on certain days of the week. The Mishnah (mTamid 7.3-4), among other places, notes that the Levites recited specific psalms in the Temple on each day of the week. In the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT), only the Sabbath song is so marked (Psalm 92); and where a psalm is extant in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it also supports the MT. On the Greek side, however, all of the daily psalms but Tuesday are marked.
Ps 24 (23): Ï„á¿†Ï‚ Î¼Î¹á¾¶Ï‚ ÏƒÎ±Î²Î²á½±Ï„Ï‰Î½
“Of [day] one of the week”
Ps 48 (47): Î´ÎµÏ…Ï„á½³Ï?á¾³ ÏƒÎ±Î²Î²á½±Ï„Î¿Ï…
“[Pertaining to the] second day of the week”
Ps 94 (93): Ï„ÎµÏ„Ï?á½±Î´Î¹ ÏƒÎ±Î²Î²á½±Ï„Ï‰Î½
“[Pertaining to the] fourth day of the week”
Ps 81 (80): Ï€ÎÎ¼Ï€Ï„Î·ï€¯ï€ ÏƒÎ±Î²Î²á½±Ï„Î¿Ï…
“[Pertaining to the] fifth day of the week”
Ps 93 (92): Îµá¼°Ï‚ Ï„á½´Î½ á¼¡Î¼á½³Ï?Î±Î½ Ï„Î¿á¿¦ Ï€Ï?Î¿ÏƒÎ±Î²Î²á½±Ï„Î¿Ï…
“Regarding the day of preparation” [lit. ["the pre-sabbath"]
Ps 92 (91): Îµá¼°Ï‚ Ï„á½´Î½ á¼¡Î¼á½³Ï?Î±Î½ Ï„Î¿á¿¦ ÏƒÎ±Î²Î²á½±Ï„Î¿Ï…
“Regarding the day of the Sabbath”Ps 38 (37): Ï€ÎµÏ?á½¶ ÏƒÎ±Î²Î²á½±Ï„Î¿Ï…
“Concerning the Sabbath [day]“
While I will not rehearse the full textual evidence for these psalms, there is some variation among the different Greek texts. Noteworthy is that the Greek tradition has an additional psalm marked for the Sabbath (Psalm 38(37)). In addition, one fifth-century manuscript (1219) marks Psalm 23(22) for the first day of the week (Sunday). While it is not possible to be certain, it is likely a carry over from Ps 24(23).
The question that remains for the other superscriptions is whether they are based on a Hebrew parent text or are they the product of transmission history. The fact that the MT (and extant DSS) only marks Ps 92(91) for the Sabbath may indicate, as Sarna suggests, that the tradition arose some time after the MT Psalter was finalized, yet before it was translated into Greek in the second century BCE (Nahum Sarna, “The Psalm for the Sabbath Day (Ps 92),” JBL 81 (1962) 155-56). If this is not the case, one would have to explain their omission from the MT Psalter, which is problematic to say the least.
At a purely formal and stylistic level one cannot help but notice a measure of diversity in the Greek of these superscripts. In Ps 24(23) the note begins with an articular genitive. Psalms 48(47), 81(80), and 92(93) have anarthrous datives. In 92(91) and 93(92) we meet Îµá¼°Ï‚ (“regarding”) plus an articular accusative but inarticular (by reason of sense) in 38(37). Furthermore, Ïƒá½±Î²Î²Î±Ï„Î¿Î½ (“Sabbath”) is plural in 38(37) and 94(93) but singular in 48(47) and 81(80), though all refer to the week rather than a specific day (that is found elsewhere, however). Psalms 92(91) and 93(92) render “day” explicit while the rest do not. And finally, the marker of grammatical relationship is a genitive in 24(23), Ï€ÎµÏ?á½¶ plus genitive in 38(37), a dative in 48(47), 81(80) and 94(93), and Îµá¼°Ï‚ plus accusative in 92(91) and 93(92). This variety in linguistic expression is considerable and some of it may be rooted in a differing Hebrew parent text, or (less likely) in the translator’s differing treatment of the same Hebrew. The high degree of predictability and formalism found in the other parts of the Septuagint psalm titles is clearly lacking in the psalms for the days of the week. This strongly suggests their secondary origin.
A related question is why did these particular psalms become associated with these days of the week. Most have assumed the superscripts reflect Jewish liturgical practice and were likely added during the transmission process. This appears to be the view of the editor of the GÃ¶ttingen edition of the Greek Psalter (Rahlfs) as well as others like Sarna. Albert Pietersma, however, has recently argued that the associations may be the result of exegetical rather than liturgical in nature. Starting with Psalm 92(91), Pietersma argues that the translator understood the title to indicate what the psalm “is about, not on what occasion it is used” (“Exegesis and Liturgy in the Superscriptions of the Greek Psalter” in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo 1998 [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001] 134).
While this may be the case, it creates a false dichotomy between exegesis and liturgy. Sarna has demonstrated that MT Psalm 92 was chosen to be the temple Sabbath hymn precisely because it reflects a number of Sabbath-themes. Hence exegesis and liturgy are one and the same. The problem with understanding the other Sabbath-day titles in the LXX as arising from a Greek exegetical tradition (rather than reflecting Jewish practice based on the use of the MT Psalter) is it suggests that the associations with various days was either triggered by the translator of the Greek Psalter (and then reflected in the Mishnah, etc.) or the Greek exegetical tradition concerning the days just happened to highlight the same days as Jewish tradition (which is highly unlikely). The best hypothesis is that certain psalms began to be used in Jewish liturgy after the compilation of the MT Psalter (with the exception of Psalm 92). This Jewish tradition of associating certain psalms with days of the week was later reflected in the LXX Psalter. While the additions may be the translator’s doing, it is more likely that they are later accretions from the Greek transmission history of the Psalms.
What’s interesting is that while these superscripts may reflect a Temple (or Synagogue) liturgy, they eventually were given an eschatological interpretation. Such an interpretation of Psalm 92 is facilitated by its Greek translation of the Hebrew prefix verbs as futures in Ps 92:5 and 11, among other things (though it is not clear that the translator intended this eschatological interpretation). The Targum of Psalms is more explicit, expanding Ps 92:9 to read “You are exalted and the Most High in the world to come,” and attributing the psalm to Adam via a superscription. In later Jewish tradition, as preserved in mTamid 7.4, the Sabbath Psalm (Psalm 92) is also described as “a psalm, a song for the future that is coming, for the day that is altogether a Sabbath of rest for eternal life.”
My next blog on this topic will look at the additions and expansions including situational ascriptions in the Septuagint Psalter.
There are a total of 37 places where the LXX Psalter has either additions (13x) or expansions (24x) to the superscripts in comparison to the MT Psalter. While these may be classified in a number of ways, I will discuss them under four headings: personal names; genre designations, liturgical notices, and situational ascriptions. This blog entry will focus on personal names. (Note: Chapter and verse references are to the MT with the LXX indicated in parentheses).
Personal Names in the LXX Psalm Superscriptions
In the MT many of the psalms have references to personal names in the superscripts (typically with the preposition ×œ l). Seventy three psalms contain David; others have Asaph (12x; Pss 50; 73â€“83); the sons of Korah (11x; Pss 42; 44-49; 84-85; 87-88); Solomon (Pss 72; 127); Ethan (Ps 89), Heman (Ps 88), Moses (Ps 90), and possibly Jeduthun (Pss 39; 62; 77). With rare exceptions, the construction lamed + name is rendered with an articular dative. This includes all of the Asaph psalms and virtually all of the Korahite psalms (there are two contested cases where Ï…Ï€ÎµÏ? + genitive is used: Ps 46(45) and 47(46)). In connection with the David psalms, Pietersma has argued that the six places that Rahlfs uses a genitive in his lemma text should be read as datives. Of the two psalms with Solomon in their titles, one is translated by a dative (Ps 127(126)), while the other is rendered by ÎµÎ¹Ï‚ Î£Î±Î»Ï‰Î¼Ï‰Î½ “for Solomon” (Ps 72(71)).
David in the Septuagint Psalter
In the LXX there are a number of instances where personal names are added, including Jeremiah and Ezekiel in Ps 65(64); Haggai and Zechariah in Ps 146(145); 147:1-11(146); 147:12-20(147); and 148. Most of the changes in personal names, however, relate to David, the “sweet psalmist of Israel.” In 13 cases the LXX adds a reference to David (Pss 33(32); 43(42); 71(70); 91(90); 93(92); 94(93); 95(94); 96(95); 97(96); 98(97); 99(98); 104(103); 137(136). (I should also note that there are two instances where references to David are omitted in the Greek tradition: Pss 122(121) and 124(123)). In all but one instance (Ps 98(97)), the LXX adds this association to psalms that are untitled in the MT. The question that immediately comes to mind are whether these additions reflect a different Hebrew text or are the product of transmission history. Unfortunately, it is difficult to gain any critical purchase on this question since Ï„á¿· Î”Î±Ï…Î¹Î´ is the default rendering of ×œ×“×•×“. In three cases it is more than likely that the additions reflect a different Hebrew text, as there is textual evidence to support the variant reading, whether among a few Masoretic texts (43(42)), or among the DSS (e.g., 11QPsq has ×œ×“×•×“ in Ps 33(32); and 11QPsa and 4QPse also have ×œ×“×•×™×“ in Ps 104(103).
The remaining ten instances are more difficult to access. Al Pietersma, in his study “David in the Greek Psalms” (VT 30 (1980) 213-226), suggests that the Davidic references in Pss 71(70); 91(90); 93(92); 95(94); 96(95); and 97(96); may be called into question because other elements of the LXX superscripts are clearly secondary. While this is essentially a “guilty by association” argument, it’s the best we can do considering the evidence. This leaves four superscripts that add an association with David: Pss 94(93); 98(97); 99(98); and 137(136). It is almost impossible to make any determination with Ps 94(93), as the superscript is uncontested. As a royal psalm, it may be understandable why Ps 98(97) would attract a Davidic superscript, though this does not help explain Ps 99(98) (contra Pietersma). The only superscript where some judgment may be made is Ps 137(136). There is quite a bit of variation among the textual witnesses, with many of them including an ascription to Jeremiah, and some conflating the two and associating the psalm with David and Jeremiah. The textual rivalry between David and Jeremiah could be an indication that the psalm was originally untitled, as it is in the MT tradition and Qumran.
Jeremiah & Ezekiel in the Septuagint Psalter
As noted above, some Greek texts of Ps 137(136) include a reference to Jeremiah in their superscripts. The association with Jeremiah in the Greek tradition is perhaps understandable considering the psalm’s exilic setting, though according to biblical tradition Jeremiah never goes to Babylon. There is a tradition, however, that places Jeremiah in Babylon. In fact, 4Baruch 7:33-36 Ps 137(136):3-4 is actually put into the mouth of Jeremiah. The text reads as follows:
For I [Jeremiah] say to you that the whole time we have been here, they have oppressed us, saying “Sing us a song from the songs of Zion, the song of your God.” And we say to them, “How can we sing to you, being in a foreign land?”
While there is a possibility that the superscript led to 4Baruch making the association, it seems more plausible the other way around because 4Baruch has Jeremiah in Babylon, where singing the psalm makes sense. In addition, in 4Baruch there is no indication that Jeremiah is quoting Scripture.
The reference to Jeremiah in Ps 137(136) is not the only one found in the LXX Psalter. The prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel are mentioned together in Ps 65(64). The full superscript reads as follows:
Îµá¼°Ï‚ Ï„á½¸ Ï„á½³Î»Î¿Ï‚ ÏˆÎ±Î»Î¼á½¸Ï‚ Ï„á¿· Î”Î±Ï…Î¹Î´ á¾ Î´á½µ Î™ÎµÏ?ÎµÎ¼Î¹Î¿Ï… ÎºÎ±á½¶ Î™ÎµÎ¶ÎµÎºÎ¹Î·Î» á¼?Îº Ï„Î¿á¿¦ Î»á½¹Î³Î¿Ï… Ï„á¿†Ï‚ Ï€Î±Ï?Î¿Î¹Îºá½·Î±Ï‚ á½…Ï„Îµ á¼”Î¼ÎµÎ»Î»Î¿Î½ á¼?ÎºÏ€Î¿Ï?Îµá½»ÎµÏƒÎ¸Î±Î¹
To the end. A psalm for David. A song. Of Jeremiah and Ezekiel from the account of the sojourning community, when they were about to go out.
The superscript is somewhat contested, though Rahlfs considered it OG. What is interesting about this superscript, is that like the previous example, there is a double association: a connection with David and with Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Unlike the previous example, it is not clear what triggered the association with Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Within the psalm itself there are no explicit connections with these prophets or the return from exile in general. The reference to “Zion” and the addition of “Jerusalem” in v. 2 may suggest this is one of the “songs of Zion” mentioned in Ps 137. While these (and others I won’t bore you with) readings of the Greek translation may provide some clues as to why the association was made, it is more certain that the association is due to an inner-Greek development rather than a different Hebrew parent text. This is almost certain due to the fact that the superscript employs the atypical conjunction á½…Ï„Îµ, and that the grammatical construction of the modal Î¼ÎµÎ»Î»Ï‰ (“about to”) plus a complementary infinitive is never found elsewhere in the LXX Psalter, and thus is not congruent with the translator’s technique.
Haggai & Zechariah in the Septuagint Psalter
The final two individuals that we meet unexpectedly in the superscript of the LXX Psalter are the post-exilic prophets Haggai and Zechariah. Ps 146(145); 147:1-11(146); 147:12-20(147); and 148 all include Î‘Î»Î»Î·Î»Î¿Ï…Î¹Î±, Î‘Î³Î³Î±Î¹Î¿Ï… ÎºÎ±á½¶ Î–Î±Ï‡Î±Ï?Î¹Î¿Ï… “Hallelujah. Of Haggai and Zechariah” (or “A Hallelujah of…”). If you look beyond Rahlfs’ text, then Haggai and Zechariah also show up in Ps 149 and 150, as well as 111(110), 112(111), and even 138(137) and 139(138). Of courses, not all attestations are as strong textually, though it is interesting to note how the tradition surrounding Haggai and Zechariah grew.
How the association of Haggai and Zechariah with these psalms arose is a perplexing question. F. W. Mozley (The Psalter of the Church, Cambridge University Press, 1905, p. 188), conjectures that Haggai and Zechariah were compilers of a small collection of psalms from which these psalms were taken. While that may be the case, a more plausible solution may be to look in these psalms for connections to the post-exilic community. Both Martin RÃ¶sel (“Die PsalmÃ¼berschriften Des Septuaginta-Psalters,” in Der Septuaginta-Psalter, Herder, 2001, pp. 125-148) and Al Pietersma (“Exegesis and Liturgy in the Superscriptions of the Greek Psalter,” in X Congress of the IOSCS, Oslo 1998, Society of Biblical Literature, 2001, pp. 99-138) appeal to Psalm 147(146) as the text that triggered the initial association. Verse 2 in the LXX has an explicit reference to the return from exile. The texts read as follows:
Î¿á¼°ÎºÎ¿Î´Î¿Î¼á¿¶Î½ Î™ÎµÏ?Î¿Ï…ÏƒÎ±Î»Î·Î¼ á½? ÎºÏ?Ï?Î¹Î¿Ï‚ ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ï„á½°Ï‚ Î´Î¹Î±ÏƒÏ€Î¿Ï?á½°Ï‚ Ï„Î¿á¿¦ Î™ÏƒÏ?Î±Î·Î» á¼?Ï€Î¹ÏƒÏ…Î½Î¬Î¾ÎµÎ¹
The Lord is the one who (re)builds Jerusalem; and he will gather the dispersed [diaspora] of Israel
The translation of the Nif’al participle from × ×“×— “drive away” by Î´Î¹Î±ÏƒÏ€Î¿Ï?Î± is atypical. Elsewhere the translator renders × ×“×— by ÎµÎ¾Ï‰Î¸ÎµÏ‰â€œto expelâ€? (5:11) or Î±Ï€Ï‰Î¸ÎµÎ¿Î¼Î±Î¹ “expel, banish” (62:5). Rather than these more general terms, in the passage under question he employs a technical term for the exilic dispersion, Î´Î¹Î±ÏƒÏ€Î¿Ï?Î±. Perhaps significant, is the fact that this term also shows up in some witnesses in connection with Zechariah in the superscript to Ps 139(138). This reference to the exilic dispersion in Ps 147 may have spawned the initial association with two prominent figures of the return, Haggai and Zechariah, which then expanded to include other psalms. The fact that the names are in the genitive may suggest these superscripts are products of transmission history, as it is unclear what the Hebrew text could have read to produce such a translation (If the Hebrew was lamed + name, then you would expect an article in the Greek, and there is no precedent for a construction “the hallelujah of Haggai and Zechariah”).
Personal Names and Authorship
One question that comes up in examining the LXX superscripts is how the translator understood the notion of authorship. Interestingly, it appears to be the case that the Greek translator (one of the earliest biblical interpreters) did not see the personal names in the superscripts as an indication of authorship, as a genitive construction would be expected. For example, Didymus the Blind (a 4th century Alexandrian theologian) makes the distinction in the Tura Psalms commentary in connection with Psalm 24:
(Î¨Î±Î»Î¼Î¿Ï‚ Ï„Ï‰ Î´Î±Ï…Î¹Î´): ÎµÎ¹Ï‚ Ï„Î¿Î½ Î´Î±Ï…Î¹Î´ Î¿ ÏˆÎ±Î»Î¼Î¿Ï‚ Î»ÎµÎ³ÎµÏ„Î±Î¹ Î±Î»Î»Î¿ Î³Î±Ï? ÎµÏƒÏ„Î¹Î½ “Ï„Î¿Ï… Î´Î±Ï…Î¹Î´” ÎµÎ¹Î½Î±Î¹ ÎºÎ±Î¹ Î±Î»Î»Î¿ “Ï„Ï‰ Î´Î±Ï…Î¹Î´” Î»ÎµÎ³ÎµÏ„Î±Î¹, Î¿Ï„Î±Î½ Î· Î±Ï…Ï„Î¿Ï‚ Î±Ï…Ï„Î¿Î½ Ï€ÎµÏ€Î¿Î¹Î·ÎºÏ‰Ï‚ Î· ÏˆÎ±Î»Î»Ï‰Î½. “Î±Ï…Ï„Ï‰” Î´Îµ Î»ÎµÎ³ÎµÏ„Î±Î¹, Î¿Ï„Î±Î½ ÎµÎ¹Ï‚ Î±Ï…Ï„Î¿Î½ Ï†ÎµÏ?Î·Ï„Î±Î¹.
The psalm says “to David,” for others are “of David” and others “to David.” It says “of David,” when he made/wrote it or sang [it]. But it says “to him” when it was brought to him.
So while the Old Greek translation does not seem to indicate authorship, the growing trend in later witnesses is to spell out authorship explicitly by using the genitive. This suggests that the emphasis on individual authorship grew with time.
The evidence from the Greek Psalter fits nicely with a theory of Burton Mack’s I came across a number of years ago in an article entitled, “Under the Shadow of Moses: Authorship and Authority in Hellenistic Judaism” (SBL Seminar Papers 21 (1982) 299-318). In this article Mack argues that the interest in individual authorship only developed as Israel interacted with Hellenism. In the same way that the Greeks had their famous individuals, so too Judaism began to emphasize their own: Moses and the Pentateuch, Solomon and wisdom literature, and — as is clear from the Greek Psalms — David and the Psalter. The growing Davidic connection in the LXX Psalter is also paralleled in 11QPsa, where the prose piece notes that David composed over 4000 psalms “by the spirit of prophecy.”
I have been meaning to blog on some of my research on the Psalm superscriptions since I presented a paper at the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies annual meeting earlier this spring (see my summaries of the conference here, here, and here).
This will be the first of five posts on the Septuagint Psalm superscriptions that I will do over the next little while.
Superscripts in the Hebrew Masoretic Tradition
In the Hebrew Masoretic (MT) Psalter, 117 out of 150 psalms are preceded by a superscription, containing four possible types of information:
Personal names (most often with the preposition לְ ). Seventy three psalms contain David; other have Asaph (Pss 50; 73; 83); the sons of Korah (Pss 42; 44-49; 84-85; 87-88); Solomon (Pss 72; 127); Ethan (Ps 89), Heman (Ps 88), Moses (Ps 90), and possibly Jeduthun (Pss 39; 62; 77).
“Genre” classifications (not form-critical genres), including non-technical (e.g., מִזְמוֹר “psalm” and שִׁ֥יר “song”; etc.) and technical terms (e.g., מִכְתָּ֥ם miktam, מַשְׂכִּ֥יל maskil).
Liturgical directions, including the phrase לַמְנַצֵּ֥חַ “to the leader” (NRSV; “for the director of music,” NIV); and other obscure terms denoting melodies, musical instruments, and/or cultic procedures.
The superscriptions are most likely not original to the psalms, but were added piecemeal before the compilation of the book. Some suggest the liturgical instructions may have been originally subscripts (cf. Hab 3:1, 19). The personal names in the superscripts reflect an old tradition and some of them may even denote actual authorship or perhaps more likely patronage (however, as we will see in my next installment, their first interpreters, i.e., the Greek translators of the Hebrew Psalter, did not understand the personal names as indicating authorship). David’s multiple associations with the origin of psalmody in Israel is very likely ancient (2 Sam 22:1-51; 1 Chron 16:7-43); though it also grew with time (the cross-references to David’s life in some superscripts are likely midrashic comments based upon this growing tradition). The primary significance for the superscripts is the light they shed on the composition and use of the book of Psalms in ancient Israel.
Superscripts in the Greek Septuagint
When one compares the superscripts of the MT and the Septuagint (LXX) one soon discovers a bewildering variety of differences, both qualitative and quantitative. By quantitative I mean actual differences in the superscripts — whether expansions, additions, or deletions — and by qualitative I mean differences in meaning in the translation. What I want to concentrate on are the quantitative differences. That is, the deletions, expansions, and additions found in the LXX superscripts. And the primary question that I want to pursue is what is the nature of the differences. That is, do they reflect a different Hebrew Vorlage [original] or are they inner-Greek developments? But before we move on to this discussion, I want to make two general observations on the character of the superscripts in the LXX.
Second, once you dig a bit deeper into the superscripts, you notice that there is significantly more textual instability surrounding them compared with the rest of the translation. From a text-critical point of view, most of the quantitative differences in the superscripts are contested. More precisely, of the 24 expansions found in the LXX, 19 are contested and only 5 are uncontested; while the additions fair better with 10 uncontested and only three contested. Of course, just because an addition is not contested textually does not mean that it should be considered OG. The LXX is replete with examples of clearly secondary readings that have full textual support (The most famous is Psalm 14(13):3, which includes the text of Romans 3:13-18. This clearly was triggered by the fact that Paul quotes a chain of OT texts beginning with Ps 14(13):3 and them moving without comment to Ps 5.10, 139.4, 9,28; Isa 59:7, 8; Ps 35.2). What this does suggest is that the superscripts were treated with a bit more flexibility. This is likely because they were not considered as having the same authority as the text of the psalms themselves, but instead reflected an ongoing exegetical and liturgical (re)readings of the psalms. This conclusion is borne out by my analysis of the quantitative differences in the titles (that we’ll get to shortly), but also by later scribal practices that made a distinction between the superscripts and the body of the psalm.
My next blog on this topic will look at the additions and expansions including personal names in the Septuagint Psalter — at which point we’ll take a look particularly at the notion of authorship.
This massive tome on Psalms scholarship has recently come into my possession:
Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller, eds., with the assistance of A. Brunell and R. Roberts, The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (Vetus Testamentum Supplements 99; Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature 4; Leiden/Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2005). Pp. xx + 680. Cloth, 179.00, US$241.00. ISBN: 90 04 13642 8. Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com
While I will be writing a review of this work for the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, I thought I would preview it here first to whet your appetites (and give you time to save your money so you can afford to purchase it!).
This volume, edited by Peter Flint and Patrick Miller, is the most recent in the “Formation and Interpretation of Old Testament Literature” series produced by Brill. This series examines the prehistory, contents, themes, reception and interpretation of select books of the Hebrew Bible. Much in this volume does just that, though perhaps the most glaring omission that I noticed as soon as I perused the table of contents is the complete lack of any chapter on the Dead Sea Scrolls (there are, however, two chapters on the Psalms in the Syriac tradition!). I personally do not understand how a volume on the composition and reception of the Psalter can not have a chapter devoted to the significance of the so-called Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPs-a). This lacuna is all the more obvious considering that one of the editors of the volume is Peter Flint!
This volume contains a number of excellent essays on various aspects of Psalms scholarship, many by seasoned Psalms scholars like Broyles, Brueggemann, Gerstenberger, Koch, McCann, Seybold, Wilson, and Zenger.
The volume is divided into five major sections. Here is a listing of the esays:
Part One: General Topics
Klaus Koch, “Königspsalmen und ihr ritueller. Hintergrund: Erwägungen zu Ps 89, 20–38 and Ps 20 und ihrer Vorstufen” (9-52); Rolf Rendtorff, “The Psalms of David: David in the Psalms” (53-64).
Part Two: Commentary on or Interpretation of Specific Psalms
Adele Berlin, “Psalms and the Literature of Exile: Psalms 137, 44, 69, and 78″ (65-86); David Noel Freedman and David Miano, “Non-Acrostic Alphabetic Psalms” (87-96); J. J. M. Roberts, “Mowinckel’s Enthronement Festival: A Review” (97-115); Beat Weber, “Zum sogennanten “Stimmungsumschwung” in Psalm 13″ (116-138); Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford, “An Intertextual Reading of Psalms 22, 23, and 24″ (139-152); Dennis Pardee, “On Psalm 29: Structure and Meaning” (153-183); John S. Kselman, “Double Entendre in Psalm 59″ (184-189); Richard J. Clifford, S.J., “Psalm 90: Wisdom Meditation or Communal Lament?” (190-205); Michael L. Barré, “The Shifting Focus of Psalm 101″ (206-223); Sung-Hun Lee, “Lament and the Joy of Salvation in the Lament Psalms” (224-247); Craig C. Broyles, “Psalms Concerning the Liturgies of Temple Entry” (248-287); James W. Watts, “Biblical Psalms Outside the Psalter” (288-309).
Part Three: The Psalter as Book, Including Smaller Collections
Harry P. Nasuti, “The Interpretive Significance of Sequence and Selection in the Book of Psalms” (311-339); J. Clinton McCann, Jr., “The Shape of Book I of the Psalter and the Shape of Human Happiness” (340-348); Michael Goulder, “The Social Setting of Book II of the Psalter” (349-367); Klaus D. Seybold, “Zur Geschichte des vierten Davidpsalters (Pss 138-145)” (368-390); Gerald H. Wilson, “King, Messiah, and the Reign of God: Revisiting the Royal Psalms and the Shape of the Psalter” (391-406); Erich Zenger, “Theophanien des Königsgottes JHWH: Transformationen von Psalm 29 in den Teilkompositionen Ps 28-30 und Ps 93-100″ (407-442).
Part Four: Textual History and Reception in Judaism and Christianity
Albert Pietersma, “Septuagintal Exegesis and the Superscriptions of the Greek Psalter” (443-475); Moshe Bernstein, “A Jewish Reading of Psalms: Some Observations on the Method of the Aramaic Targum” (476-504); Robert J. V. Hiebert, “The Place of the Syriac Versions in the Textual History of the Psalter” (505-536); Harry F. Van Rooy, “The Psalms in Early Syriac Tradition” (537-550); Craig A. Evans, “Praise and Prophecy in the Psalter and in the New Testament” (551-579).
Part Five: Theology of the Psalter
Walter Brueggemann, “The Psalms in Theological Use: On Incommensurability and Mutuality” (581-602); Erhard S. Gerstenberger, “Theologies in the Book of Psalms” (603-625).
The volume includes five helpful indices: Scripture, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Other Ancient Writings, and Modern Authors.