We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
At least from the time of the influential analysis of B. Duhm in 1899, a scholarly consensus has developed which judges Psalm 89 to be a composite of poems of widely different date. Often cited is the view of H. Gunkel: to an old hymn (vv 29–52) a lament (vv 39–52) has been appended. The hymn was joined to the lament by interposing vv 20–38 and at the same time vv 4–5 were inserted. Articles in recent years have challenged the prevalent view of original disunity. J. M. Ward in 1961 showed that arguments based on metric considerations are not conclusive and that logic, vocabulary links throughout the whole poem, and poetic structure all argue that the psalm was a single poem from the that logic, vocabulary links throughout the whole poem, and poetic structure all argue that the psalm was a single poem from the beginning. In 1972 J.-B. Dumortier showed convincingly on purely literary grounds that at least two of the sections commonly thought to be diverse, the so-called royal poem of vv 2−5+20−38 and the cosmic hymn of vv 6–19, were in fact originally one.
1 Duhm also dated the psalm to the first century B.C. Die Psalmen (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament 14; Freiburg i. B.: Mohr, 1899) 244.Google Scholar
2 Die Psalmen (4th ed.; HKAT 2/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926) 384–96Google Scholar. Similarly, with less detail, Mowinckel, S., The Psalms in Israel's Worship (New York: Abingdon, 1967) 2Google Scholar. 152. Two detailed recent treatments accept Gunkel's division into two originally separate poems: Sarna, N., “Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,” Biblical and Other Studies (ed., Altman, A.; Cambridge: Harvard, 1963) 33Google Scholar, though with important modifications regarding date; H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen (4th ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), recognizes form-critically three Hauptstücke, a hymn, a divine oracle and a lament. The latter two are closely connected but the hymn remains problematic (p. 89). Lipiński, E., Le poème royal du Psaume LXXXIX 1–5, 20–38 (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 6; Paris: Gabalda, 1967)Google Scholar attempts to support Gunkel's disjunction between vv 6–19 and 20–38 by use of a Qumran fragment of vv 20−28+ 31a (4QPs 89 = 4Q236), first published by Milik, J. T., “Fragment d'une source du Psautier (4Q Ps 89),” RB 73 (1966) 94–106Google Scholar. Rather than being a copy of a pre-exilic archetype as Lipiński claims, the fragment appears to be the work of a careless scribe and contributes nothing to the argument against unity. See the forthcoming study by Msgr. P. W. Skehan, “I. 4Q236 (= 4Q Ps 89): A Practice Page Written from Memory?” in the Cazelles Festschrift scheduled to appear in 1982 in the AOAT series.
3 “The Literary Form and Liturgical Background of Psalm LXXXIX,” VT 11 (1961) 320–29Google Scholar. Ward goes on to suggest that the primary ritual reflected in the poem was “a covenant renewal that took place at the New Year in which the Davidic and ark traditions (2 Sam. vi–vii; Pss lxxxix, cxxxii) were associated” (p. 328). Like Ward, Ahlstrom, G. (Psalm 89 [Lund: Gleerup, 1959])Google Scholar sees Psalm 89 as reflecting a liturgy. His reconstructed “DWD festival” lacks sufficient proof from the biblical side. Weiser, A. (The Psalms [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962])Google Scholar grounds the unity of the psalm in his Covenant Festival “when the accession to the throne both of the heavenly king and the earthly king were celebrated together” (p. 591). Neither Ahlström nor Weiser sufficiently exploit the internal evidence of the poem for original unity.
4 “Un rituel d'intronisation: Le Ps LXXXIX:2–38,” VT 22 (1972) 176–96Google Scholar. Dumortier deals mainly with vv 2–38, considering the lamentation (vv 39–52) to be a later addition, subsequent to the fall of the kingship (176, n. 4). This article proposes that vv 39–52 were written at the same time as the rest of the poem.
5 One gets the impression that the early analyses of Duhm and Gunkel have not been criticized more because scholarly attention has been largely directed toward comparing the expression of the Davidic promise in vv 28–38 with those of 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 132. Cf. Sarna, “Psalm 89,” Dumortier, “Un rituel,” and Cross, F. M., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard, 1973) 257–61.Google Scholar
6 Gunkel, H., Einleitung in den Psalmen (3d ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977) 129–30Google Scholar; S. Mowinckel, The Psalms, 1. 196–97, 205; Westermann, C., The Praise of God in the Psalms (Richmond: Knox, 1965) 55–57Google Scholar. The authors see the psalms' mention of the old saving events as motives to persuade God to act now in like manner. None notices that the old deeds vary in different psalms, nor do they press the question why the psalmist selected particular traditions.
7 Vv 16b-18 are translated by Cross, Canaanite Myth, 131.
8 Psalmen, 53–81, 533.
9 For justification of this translation of baqqōdeš darkekā, see Dahood, M., Psalms (AB 17; Garden City: Doubleday, 1968) 2. 230.Google Scholar
10 Kraus avoids concluding that Israel is created in the cosmogonic victory, stating that vv 17–20 “isoliert betrachtet, aus anderen Vorstellung- und Traditionsbereichen stammen” (Psalmen, 533). The other instances of the exodus being interpreted with mythic coloring compel one to see these verses as situating Israel's foundation in the creation of the world.
11 Maśkîl is not sufficiently attested in the Bible nor are reflections about Ethan the Ezrahite sufficiently solid for the superscription of the psalm to be used in this study.
12 Ḥsdyk with G on the basis of parallelism with v 2b.
13 The several differences in pronouns between MT and G in v 3 stem from differing interpretations of the speaker. MT, ’āmartî, “I said,” interprets v 3 as continuing the singer's hymn of v 2 (a usage of kî ’āmartî otherwise unattested in the psalter), and takes šāmayim, “heavens,” as casus pendens specified by bāhem, “in them” (the latter not attested in G, Syriac, and Symmachus). G and Jerome, reading ’āmartā, “you said,” take the verse as a citation of divine speech continued in vv 4–5. This interpretation requires repointing MT tākin to tikkōn and the omission of bāhem. I follow G and Jerome but point out that šāmayim is not “in the heavens,” G en tois ouranois but “(like) the heavens,” a condensed expression identical in meaning to kîmê šāmāyim “(as long) as the days of heaven,” in v 30, kaššemeš in v 37 and kĕyārēḥ in v 38. Prepositions normally found in prose are several times omitted in this psalm, e.g., ‘ad or lĕ before ‘ôlām in vv 2, 3, ‘ad (MT ‘ēd) in v 38, and kĕ before s̆āmayim in v 3. MT ‘ĕmûātĕkā can stand with all all textual witnesses since change of person within a bicolon is not unexampled, e.g., Ps 115:9–11.
14 G apparently read Hebrew yôdû (contrast MT wĕyôdû) which it interpreted as future. I adopt yôdû, witnessed by G, Vg and Syriac but interpret it as preterite.
15 Reading rab hû’.
16 Reading ḥsnkh with Cross, Canaanite Myth, 160 n. 66.
17 For MT yāmîn as Mount Amanus, see most recently Cross, Canaanite Myth, 161 n. 70, and Dahood, Psalms, 20. 314.
18 MT ’ašrê hā‘ām, “happy the people,” though attested elsewhere (in Ps 144:15) is not parallel to the second colon of 16b, “they walked.” The root *'atr appears in Ugaritic in parallel with *hlk, employed for an army's march: hlk l'alpm h̆dd// wrbbt kmyr//’ atr tn hlk//’ atr tlt klhm, “The [type of soldier] walked by thousands, //and by ten thousands the [type of soldier] //two marched, two walked, //three marched all of them.” In Isa 3:12 and 9:16 *'šr in the D stem means “lead the people, cause them to march.” In Prov 4:14 the D stem is in parallel to tābô’, “come.” In Prov 9:6 the D stem of *'šr is in antithetic parallelism to **‘zb is in parallel to lō’ yēlēkûn. In the same verse we have adopted Moran's, W. L. suggestion (in Bib 42 [1961] 238–39)Google Scholar to remove tĕrû‘â, “shout,” from v 16 and place it after yārîmû (MT yārûmû) in v 17b in accord with the Hebrew idiom lĕhārîm qôl bitĕrû‘â in Ezek 21:27; bitĕrû‘â bĕśimḥâ lĕhārîm qôl in Ezra 3:12; gîlî// hārî’ î in Zech 9:9. One is left with the phrase in v 16 yôdě‘e(y)kā YHWH to which may be compared yôdĕ‘ay of of Ps 87:4; yôdĕ‘e(y)kā in Ps 36:11; ‘am yôdě‘ê ’elōhayw in Dan 11:32; yôdě‘ê šĕmekā in Ps 9:11. Displacement could have come about through supralinear correction in the scroll. The verb yĕgîlûn can mean “raise a jubilant shout,” TDOT 2 (1977) 471.Google Scholar
19 Reading ‘uzzēnû, “our strength.” F. M. Cross suggests that mêm and nûn are regularly confused in the old Hebrew script, especially in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., in Canaanite Myth, 161 n. 71.
20 Kî la appears to be emphatic lamed.
21 The fact that a vision is mentioned need not argue against the public nature of the choice and commission of David. Promises to a king in a vision are conventional, cf. 2 Sam 7:4, 17 and 1 Kings 3:5, 15. The word ’az situates the vision as part of the cosmogonic empowering.
22 The common emendation of MT šiwîtî ‘ēzer, “I have placed a help,” to šiwîtî nězer, “I have placed a crown,” on the basis of v 40 and Pss 21:4 and 132:18, does not preserve the parallelism of the bicolon. Ugaritic ǵzr, which would be reflected in biblical Hebrew as ‘zr, is used as an epithet of Mot, Baal, Danil, and Aqhat and denotes “hero,” “favorite (of a deity).” Ginsberg, H. L. suggested the Ugaritic root for Psalm 89 in “A Ugaritic Parallel to 2 Sam 1:21,” JBL 57 (1938) 210–11Google Scholar. M. Held refined and expanded the suggestion in “The Action-Result (Factitive-Passive) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 84 (1965) 278–79Google Scholar n. 31.
23 Gibbôr is apparently collective as probably also in Amos 2:18 and Ezek 39:20.
24 “Un rituel,” 187.
25 Cf. Psalms 2; 18:7–20 and v 43, “You have rescued me from the strife of the people. You placed me at the head of nations, a people I did not know will serve me.”
26 “Un rituel,” 190–91.
27 In the Sefire inscription III.4 šgrtm lkl ’lhy ‘dy’, “You will have been false to all the gods of the treaty,” (Fitzmyer, J. A., The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967] 96–97Google Scholar, 107) one sees a good parallel to the covenant term ’ăŝaqqēr in v 34b. One should then retain MT ’āpîr, “I will break (covenant)” of v 34a rather than to insert ’āsîr, “I will remove,” from 2 Sam 7:15. The context is covenantal.
28 Despite textual witnesses to the contrary, MT wě‘ēd, “and a witness,” should be emended to “forever.” It appears to be an instance of a break-up of the stereotyped phrase ‘ôlām wā‘ed, “forever and ever,” found e.g., in Pss 10:16; 21:5; 45:7; 48:15; 52:10; 104:5. On the phenomenon see Melamed, E. Z., “Break-up of Stereotype Phrases as an Artistic Device in Biblical Poetry,” in Studies in the Bible (ed. Rabin, C.; Scripta Hierosolymitana 8; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961) 115–53Google Scholar. For the omission of the preposition l, see note 13.
29 “The Literary Form,” 338.
