dizzle
September 14th 2003, 10:16 AM
by GRAYPILGRIM (copyright 2003)
One problem in the study and interpretation of the Psalter has long been—context. Interpreters have long gone between two extremes. First is that they view each Psalm in isolation, as is usually done in a process reminiscent of the Moravian or 18th Century German Pietists. One reads the text subjectively and ignore any context that the Psalm may have. The other extreme, which critical Scholars such as Gunkel and Mowinkel took, attempts to find a cultic i or historical setting for each Psalm, this will be explained more in-depth below.
A recent development in Psalms research has provided a control for the interpretation of individual Psalms, i.e. reading the Psalms as a book. ii Under this new approach, the interpreter has the aid of the macro and microstructure of the Psalms to guide his interpretation. Put simply, this new perspective argues that one should read the Psalms not as isolated poems and prayers haphazardly collected, but rather one should read the Psalms as one reads Isaiah or Jeremiah, i.e. with attention to the surrounding Psalms.
Prior to this development Gunkel’s Form Critical approach held sway. Under his approach, one investigated each Psalm in an attempt to find its genre and Sitz im Leben. iii This placed no controls on an interpreter’s imagination. Hence, each scholar found a different genre for each Psalm. Moreover, scholars also disputed over the actual identity of these genres.
Another element of the Form Critical approach is the use of meter in the study of the Psalter, iv while other scholars denied the existence of meter in Hebrew. v Unfortunately, no one ever convincingly demonstrated a consistent system that one could use to study the psalms. vi Each scholar incorporated his own understanding of Hebrew meter. Some slavishly borrowed from the Hellenistic meter. While the use of meter is legitimate in Hellenistic studies, as ancient manuals of meter have survived, since no primmer exists of Hebraic poetry the superimposition of foreign metrical systems is problematic. Scholars have haphazardly chosen what they see as the appropriate metrical system. vii This has led to large-scale doctoring of the text because the extent text did not fit the theorized system. viii This is a problematic model on many levels, but two different issues stand out. First, it fails to take into account literary shaping where the author intentionally strikes discordant notes for the purpose of effect. Second, one must ask, based on which system are we to judge which texts to emend? If we use syllables then many texts would be emended that might not be emended if one were to use syntactical unitsix
I will use Psalm 139 to show how the use of this new perspective can aid one in reading the psalms. One could almost say that Psalm 139 has as many interpretations as there are interpreters. Commentators universally divide the psalm between verses 18 and 19, but beyond this, their interpretations vary greatly. The first difference is between those who argue for the psalm’s integrity and those who see it as two separate poems conjoined by later editors. x Unfortunately, some scholars have attempted to reduce this psalm to a raw philosophical treatment of omnipresence. xi However, this fails to see the deeply personal qualities in the relationship the psalmist has with Yahweh. This psalm reflects a reality hemmed in by the divine presence. “It teaches and confesses in the fullest way that ‘my times are in you hand’ (31:25).” xii
The number of textual variants causes many of the difficulties in interpreting this text. xiii The Masorah xiv helps in a few situations, most notably in verse 20, where it gives the meaning of the word עריך, which helps to militate against the argument that the text needs to be emended. This particular example also illustrates a second difficulty in interpretation, the issue of lexical semantics. Many of the words have multiple meanings and nuances. It is imprudent to base an interpretation solely on a word’s meaning as placed against an alternative meaning for that word. xv This does not negate the importance of semantics; however, it highlights the dangers fraught in the endeavor and the care that is necessary when making interpretative decisions based solely on possible semantic nuances. Therefore, the interpretation of this psalm requires careful attention to the interplay between text and context.
I propose that Psalm 139 is the plea of a Davidide, xvi based upon the hope for the consummation of the eschatological promises of Psalms 1 and 2, for Yahweh to return to their previously intimate relationship. These eschatological promises help one discover the discourse intent of Psalm 139. In the Ancient Near East the destruction of a king was not merely a geopolitical disaster, it marked a cosmic crisis, centered on the nation’s lost access to its deity. xvii In Israel, this crisis was no less acute. However, its manifestation was markedly different from other nations who simply adopted the gods of their conquerors and incorporated them into their pantheon. For example, the people of Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hammath and Sepharvaim, whom the Assyrians resettled in Samaria, incorporated Yahweh into their pantheon, yet they continued to worship their own deities (2 Kings 17:24-41). However, this was not the case in Judah. Instead of incorporating the Babylonian god Marduk into their worship, they asked why Yahweh had brought this calamity upon his people. They recorded their soul searching in the Psalter, the final form of which is divided into five books. xviii These five books present Israel’s questions to God, and their arrangement gives God’s answer: Israel was unfaithful, yet I, Yahweh, am and always will be faithful. xix It is from this milieu that Psalm 139 helps to heighten the tension before Yahweh gives his final pronouncement of faithfulness to Israel, in the Psalter. Therefore, I propose the following methodology to examine and analyze this psalm. First, we must look at the argument developed in the Psalter as a whole. Second, we must determine the meaning of the fifth collection and investigate how Psalm 139 both develops that meaning and is influenced by it. Then we will look to the immediate context, i.e. the final collection of Davidic Psalms, in which the editors have placed Psalm 139. Finally, we will exegete Psalm 139.
Before turning to the argument of the whole book, as a preliminary issue we must describe the Wisdom tradition in the Bible since it influences and governs the Psalter and Psalm 139 in particular. xx Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are the books traditionally categorized as wisdom literature. The wisdom tradition is closely linked to the royal court, cf. Pro 1:1. xxi Now that we have defined where we can find wisdom literature and its Sitz im Leben, the question remains, what is wisdom literature? Proverbs 9:10xxii is the most commonly used verse concerning wisdom, yet it fails to define it. A verse that defines wisdom is Psalm 34:15xxiii It prescribes four maxims that characterize wisdom: shun evil; do good; seek peace; and pursue peace. The person who does these things discovers that to seek peace he must take refuge in Yahweh; hence, this is another consistent theme of wisdom literature. Whereas the prophets addressed all, in order that a remnant might repent, the sages addressed only the wise and the naïve person who was still capable of repenting. xxiv
As we transition to the argument of the Psalter as a whole, we must develop the arguments of Psalms 1 and 2. These two psalms stand at the head of the Psalter and serve as a lens through which the Psalter should be read. xxv They define a bipolar humanity in which people are numbered either among the wicked or among the righteous. xxvi Psalm 1 leaves these categories ambiguous while the remaining psalms detail the characteristics of the wicked and the righteous. Besides dividing humanity into two disparate groups, Psalm 1 also indicates the eschatological destiny of each. It reminds the righteous person that Yahweh cares for him and thus will tend to him. It uses the language of a tree giving its fruit in season harkening to the longevity of the righteous person. xxvii Simultaneously it uses chaff to indicate the transitory nature of the wicked whose destiny is destruction. xxviii This language is the future hope of the righteous that God will someday destroy the wicked, as opposed to a description of the psalmist’s current experience. xxix
Psalm 2 further clarifies God’s purposes by telling us that the Messiah will inaugurate God’s rule, in which he will destroy the wicked. The placement of Psalm 2, a Royal Psalm, after Psalm 1, a Wisdom Psalm, establishes a certain reading of the Psalter. It indicates the ascendancy of the wisdom tradition over the royal tradition in the Psalter. In Psalm 2, the wicked are described as the nations that surround God’s people. They desire to throw off the yoke of God’s rule as embodied in the Messiah. xxx Key elements in Psalm 139 find their antecedent sources in this Psalm, e.g. Yahweh as the sole refuge for the righteous “blessed are all who find refuge in him”.
After reading these two psalms one might be inclined to understand life for the righteous as being free from trial. However, the rest of Books One through Three are filled with lament and characterized by cycles of disorientation and reorientation. The righteous suffer while the wicked seem to prosper. This reality perplexes the psalmist and leads him to despair. Book Three ends with a psalm of despair, Psalm 89. In this psalm, the author charges God with infidelity. At the end of book three the Temple lies in ruins and the Davidic Throne is vacant. Because of a faulty Zion theology, i.e. Zion as inviolate despite Israel and Judah’s infidelity, has led to dissonance on the part of the Psalmist.
Psalm 89 creates the need for reorientation in the Psalter, and the final two collections function to reorient the reader so that he sees the fidelity of God. xxxi Book Four expounds on Yahweh’s fidelity as evidenced towards Moses. Two of the three approximations of the covenant formula in the Psalms occur in Book Four, again demonstrating that Yahweh has not cast off Israel forever. xxxii Moreover, Yahweh is Israel’s Great King who protected and delivered Israel from her adversaries. xxxii
Book Five charges the reader to place his hope in Yahweh while not opposing the establishment of the future order in which a Davidide would again sit on the throne. xxxiv Psalm 110 in Book Five, the most often quoted Psalm in the NT, depicts Yahweh swearing to David that he himself will accomplish his purposes first addressed in Psalm 2, thus revitalizing the eschatological hope within the Psalter. It ascribes actions attributed to the Messiah in Psalm 2 to Yahweh himself. Therefore, far from denigrating a hoped for Messiah, the Psalter instructs the wise person in whom to place his hope, Yahweh, as opposed to Yahweh’s agent. However, Psalm 107 not 110 is the most determinative psalm in Book Five. Psalm 107, the head of the fifth collection, begins identically to Psalm 106. xxxv However, it develops in a different manner. Whereas Psalm 106 works through Yahweh’s mighty deeds in the past demonstrating his fidelity despite Israel’s infidelity, Psalm 107 expounds Yahweh’s faithfulness towards the righteous and wrath upon the wicked, thus restating the bipolar reality structure developed in Psalm 1. As in the case of Psalm 1, this is a psalm of orientation. Immediately after this psalm of orientation, the pattern of disorientation and lament resumes. In 108-9, again the psalmist poses the questions: is God faithful? did he not reject us? is God aloof? Then God reorients the righteous with the reminder that he has sworn to David that he has not forsaken them, and he has seated the Davidide at his right hand so that God may accomplish all of his purposes. This mixed pattern continues throughout this collection culminating with Psalm 145, which is a resounding psalm of orientation extolling Yahweh’s fidelity.
Within Book Five, the final Davidic collection responds to the despair of Psalm 137.[xxxvi[/sup] In 137, Yahweh is aloof. Israel’s glory is gone. This song about Zion is not a Song of Zion, which were joyful songs. xxxvii The imprecation is perhaps the most repugnant to modern sensibilities. Yet it places in focus the despair of these people who have been uprooted by Yahweh’s wrath. This collection not only concludes the response to Psalm 89’s charge against Yahweh, but it concludes the fifth collection. xxxviii In this, we find God’s proclamation of his complete fidelity to David and thus his fidelity to all.
Now as we move to Psalm 139, we have placed it in its larger context. We have shown how the structure of the Psalter directs us to understand the individual psalm within the final Davidic collection. The attribution of this psalm to David is, as with all the Davidic psalms, loaded with debate, because of the lexical ambiguity of לדוד (“of David”. While traditionally readers have understood this to imply authorship, recent studies have lead to an ambiguity due to the range of meaning for the particle ל. xxxix While this ambiguity does not exclude Davidic authorship; it does not require it. xl Other possible meanings could be “belonging to David” or “for David (‘implying use of the Davidic Kings’)”. xl As it relates to Psalm 139 the most that one can say is that, its superscription links it to the Davidic collection. This superscription indicates that this is the nation’s desire, for when a Davidic king calls out he represents the nation before Yahweh. The king is the link between Yahweh and the people. As they cried for Moses to represent them on Mt. Sinai, so in later times they wanted a king to represent them before God. Therefore, the absence of a Davidic King came to symbolize Yahweh’s rejection of Israel and Judah. xlii The king was seen as the channel through whom Yahweh would bestow blessing and righteousness and so his absence was covenantally problematic. xlii Consequently, a crisis for the Davidic Monarchy was a disaster for the nation as a whole. It is under this rubric that we now turn to the psalm proper.
The psalmist longs for the previous intimate relationship he had with Yahweh. In the first segment, vv. 1-18, the psalmist describes the previous relationship he had with Yahweh. In the second segment, vv. 19-24, the psalmist pleads for Yahweh to return for the Davidide is innocent of any offense. He makes his plea with the eschatological hope that Yahweh will vindicate the righteous and carry out his promised judgment on the wicked, who have subverted his people. One can see the unity of the psalm based on the inclusio of חקר xliv and ידעxlv in verses 1 and 23. Now we will examine the two segments of the psalm to develop this argument.
As we look at vv. 1-18, we see that one can divide the psalm further between verses 12 and 13. A series of six merisms frame verses 1-12. xlvi These six merisms form a framework in which we can view the psalmist’s relationship with Yahweh. They denote a spatial relationship with regard to Yahweh. They indicate that wherever the psalmist had gone Yahweh was with him. They also indicate the impossibility of escape from Yahweh’s presence by the psalmist. xlvii
However, within this paean we already note strain between Yahweh and the psalmist. In verse 2, the psalmist claims that Yahweh understands his thoughts from afar. xlviii Dahood links this with the vision of eagles in Job 39:29. xlix Whereas Kraus posits, “מרחוק (from afar) in v. 2 emphasizes that Yahweh, in incalculable might and freedom as the God enthroned in heaven, sees and knows every attitude of human beings.” l While both of these readings sound plausible they fail to read the psalm within its immediate context. In Psalm 138, the psalmist speaks of the bipolar reality structure in which Yahweh cares for the lowly but knows the prideful person from afar. li This juxtaposition with Psalm 139 indicates that Yahweh has something against the Davidide, which the Davidide denies.
Another possible complaint occurs in verse 5. In this verse, the psalmist states “you have collected me…” One possible reading of this verse is that God has besieged the Davidide. This reading is consistent with the 34 other occurrences of this verb when humans are the object. lii This reading views Yahweh’s action as “…paralyzing [not] liberating.”liii However, a closer reading of the context might indicate a better reading of the text. For instance in 2 Kings 12:11, Jehoash under Jehoiada’s direction had ordered a collection for Temple repairs. Whenever the collection boxes began to fill they would secure (ויצקו) the offerings. This reading taken in conjunction with קנית liv in verse 13 indicates that Yahweh was the guardian of the Davidide. lv Before transitioning to verses 13-18, we need to conclude the argument of 1-12. The Davidide looks back on his previous relationship with Yahweh; Yahweh knew all about him and stood about him as his guardian. Yet now Yahweh regards him from afar.
Now as we look to vv. 13-18, the text has many text critical and lexical intricacies. This break does not shift the pursuit of the Davidide, i.e. he is not turning to praise Yahweh after failing in his attempt to flee from him. lvi This reading fails to see the relational links in verses 1-12, and how the Davidide further developed these relational arguments in verses 13-18.
First, we need to discern the usage of קנית in this passage. As noted below all modern translations and commentators render it as “created/formed” and thus invest this passage with creation language. lvii However, taken in conjunction with verse 5 this seems unconvincing. The semantic range of קנה means to acquire, and when it refers to a person it means to acquire a slave (cf. Gen 39:1). Moreover, when used in a theological context it denotes Yahweh’s redemption of Israel, here particularized in the Davidide. lvii Furthermore, as Schmidt aptly points out, “It is highly disputed, however, whether the meaning “to create” is attested in addition to acquire, possess,” etc.” lix Even though he does later argue for its usage as “to create” in passim, Deut 32:6 and Prov. 8:22, lx it seems that this driven more by preconceived theological ideas than by textual and lexical considerations.
Within this same verse, there is another lexically ambiguous morpheme, תסכני. This could mean either “knit together” or “protect”. lxi Allen uses verse 15 as support for “knit together”. lxii However, Dahood indicates the providential blessing and the possibility of reading the –b to mean “from” so that the verse would then indicate providential protection for the Davidide from his mother’s womb, continuing the theme of Yahweh as guardian from verse 5. lxiii Several factors tend to support Dahood’s interpretation. First, Allen interprets this as creation language, which as argued above is alien to the text. Second, if we read verse 5 as proposed above to indicate Yahweh’s protection of the psalmist this would then introduce the reason that the Davidide praises Yahweh in verse 14. Third, in verses 14-18 the Davidide praises Yahweh for his protection and presence from the earliest times. This also negates the “Mother Earth” conundrum from the realm of probability. lxiv Kraus views the “Mother Earth” theme as a chthonic hold over from Canaanite myths adopted by early Israelites. lxv However, this fails to view the broader co-text of the OT. Namely, “This compares to a variety of creation texts in which Yahweh is seen as the father, mother, and midwife who shapes the fetus in the womb, aids in the birthing process, and then shapes the destiny of the newborn (see Job 10 and Psalm 139)”. lxvi Rather than seeing this as a reference to a consort of Yahweh or a personified earth, it seems better to understand this as a part of a larger worldview in which God’s providential direction and protection looks over the Davidide in conception as in the rest of life. lxvii
If Psalm 139 had concluded at verse 18 then we would only have found hints as to the Davidide’s purpose for writing this psalm. Up to verse 18, we find allusions to God’s protective actions on the Davidide’s behalf. However, as we move into verse 19 and the second major division of the psalm, we discover a major switch in tone. The tone transitions from praise to imprecation (vv. 19-22) and petition (vv. 23-24).
The imprecation violates modern sensitivities and embarrasses many who read it. lxviii However, as we read the Psalter we grow to understand this as the proper response to the wicked. As stated above wisdom literature is aimed at a limited group. The wicked are not addressed directly by it, because they are seen as enemies of God who are beyond the possibility of repentance, (cf. Ecc 2:26; Mat 7:6). Therefore, this call for God to slay the wicked is not just an outburst of the downtrodden, but it is also a proper understanding of Yahweh’s sentiment towards the wicked. lxix
“It must be remembered that for the Psalmist and his contemporaries evil was no abstract idea but was embodied in evil men.” lxx Now we are going to turn to the nature of the offense of the wicked person in this psalm. A casual reading would indicate that they are murderers, “men of blood”lxxi Yet, the wisdom tradition and the Psalter in particular links evil speech to murder (cf. James 1:25, 3:5-8). lxxii As a counterweight to their sins of the tongue, the Davidide, in verse 4, acknowledges Yahweh’s complete foreknowledge of his words, which again illustrates the intimate relationship between the Davidide and Yahweh. Now the Davidide explains the type of speech in which the wicked engage. Some wish to emend verse 20 so that it reads that they are rebellious against you, but the MT is the preferred reading. lxxiii With the MT, we now see that the men of blood are God’s enemieslxxiv who speak maliciously against him and lift up their voices vainly. These wicked people hate Yahweh and attack him and his anointed. The Davidide loathes these men for they desire to impugn the glory of Yahweh and his covenant. lxxv
Now let us examine the petition. The plea of the Davidide shows his desire to return to the previous relationship he had with Yahweh. This is communicated by the repetition of חקר and ידע in the imperative. The Davidide realizes that freedom from this bipolar structure will only come when the eschatological consummation occurs and Yahweh destroys the men of blood. He also knows that he must be tested by Yahweh in the here and now so that he may stand in the judgment. For this reason he petitions Yahweh to test him and know his שרפי This morpheme denotes thoughts that cause pain and dwell deep inside of a person. lxxvi Knowledge of these thoughts is not enough; the Davidide knows that these thoughts must not remain if he is going to follow in the way of wisdom. Before solving the issue, he seeks further testing. In verse 24, he asks God to examine him to see if the Davidide has any grievous lxxvii way in him. It is only after this three-fold examination has occurred that the Davidide seeks guidance.
At this point he requests that Yahweh lead him in the דרך עולם[/size] This is an ambiguous request, because עולם has a large semantic domain. It can mean a long time, the future, or the past. lxxviii In fact, when עולם is in construct it frequently refers back in time. lxxix Besides these grammatical considerations, the contextual reading leads one to see this as looking backward in time. As vv. 1-18 looked back to the previous relationship, the Davidide is referring to this earlier period. However, as the immediately preceding imprecation looks forward to the eschatological consummation when the wicked will be destroyed, it appears that the psalmist has intentionally left the timing ambiguous so that both time frames can be involved.
The destruction of the Southern Kingdom in 587 BC caused a crisis for the nation of Israel. It challenged two fundamental assumptions of the people. One, that Yahweh had chosen David and his heirs to be king and thus their representative to Yahweh, and two, that Yahweh was faithful and thus would always maintain the Davidic line in Jerusalem. However, with the destruction of the Temple and the Monarchy, it caused many to question these assumptions. The present shape of the Psalter demonstrates how some within the Post-Exilic community wrestled with this crisis. Psalm 89 asks the question, “is Yahweh faithful?” Books four and five of the Psalter answer this with a resounding yes. Within the fifth book, the final Davidic collection moves from disorientation to orientation. Psalm 139 is the plea of all Israel that Yahweh would restore his relationship with the Davidide and thus bring about the consummation of the eschaton in which the wicked would be destroyed and the godly would finally be vindicated.
Appendix I:
Translation of Psalm 139r
1 To the leader, of David a Psalm
Yahweh, you scrutinized me, and knew me. 2 You knew my lying down and raising uplxxx ; you understand my thoughts from afar.
3 You sifted my path lxxxi and my bed, lxxxii land all my ways you knew intimately.
4 Surly there was not a word is on my tongue, but you, oh Yahweh, knew it completely
5 Behind and before you collected lxxxiiime, you set your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too marvelous for me, it is too lofty, I cannot apprehend it.
7 Where could I go from your spirit; and where could I flee from your presence?
8 If I were to ascend to the heavens, you would be there, and if I were to make my bed in Sheol, behold you would be there.
9 If I had taken to the wings of the dawn, or settled on the far side of the sea
10 Even there your hand would have guided lxxxivme; and you right had would hold me fast
11 If I had said, “Surely, the darkness will cover me, and light be night about be,”
12 Even the darkness is not dark for you, and the night gives light as the day, and as darkness so is light. lxxxv
13 Surely, you possessed lxxxvime in my kidneys, and protected me lxxxviiin my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you for you are awesomely wonderful; wonderful are your works; my soul really knows it.
15 My bones were not hidden from you, when I was made in secret; skillfully woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; every one of them, the days fashioned in your book was written, when not one of them yet were. lxxxviii
17 How precious are your thoughts to me, oh God! How vast the sum of them!
18 If I were to count them, they would outnumber the sand; if I were to come to the end lxxxix—behold you are with me.
19 If only you, oh God, would slay the wicked, and drive xcthe men of blood away from me!
20 who speak against you with malicious intent; your enemies xcilift up their voices xciifalsely.
21 Do I not hate those who hate you, oh Yahweh xciii? And loathe those who attack you xciv?
22 I hate them with a perfect hatred; they are my adversaries.
23 Scrutinize me, O God, and know my heart! Test me and know angst.
24 See if there is any offensive way in me, and guide men in the ancient path.
Appendix II:
The Structure of the Psalter
THE FIVE BOOKS OF THE PSALTERAND THEIR ARGUMENTS
Book I Psalm 1-41 Lament(D)
Book II Psalm 42-72 Mixed(D-->R)
Book III Psalm 73-89 Is God Faithful to Israel?(D)
Book IV Psalm 90-106 Response 1—God’s faithfulness to Moses(R)
Book V Psalm 107-150
RESPONSE 2—YAHWEH IS FAITHFUL(R-->O)
BOOK 5 RESPONSE 2—YAHWEH IS FAITHFUL
107(O) 108 -111(R/D)
113-118 Egyptian Hallel(R/O)
119(D) 120 -136 Great Hallel(R)
137(D) 138 -145 DAVIDIC FINALE(R-->O)
146 -150Final Hallel(O)
DAVIDIC FINALE
138(R)
139 (D)
140(D)
141(D)
142(D)
143(D)
144(R)
145(O)
Symbol Key
O Orientation
R Reorientation
D Disorientation
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Leslie C. Psalms 101-150, WBC, vol 21. Waco: Word, 1983.
Anderson, Arnold Albert. The Book of Psalms, NCB, 2 vols. 1972, reprint; London: Oliphants, 1977.
Anderson, Bernhard W. Contours of Old Testament Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999.
_______. From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives, OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.
Baker, David W. and Bill T. Arnold, eds. The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.
Bellinger, W.H., Jr. Psalms: Reading and Studying the Book of Praises. 1990, reprint; Peabody, Ma: Hendrickson, 2000.
Briggs, Charles Augustus. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, ICC, 2 vols. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906-7.
Bullock, C. Hassell. An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books. Chicago: Moody, 1979.
Clines, David J. A. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 4vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1-50, WBC, vol. 19. Waco: Word, 1983.
Crenshaw, James L. The Psalms: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB, 3 vols. 1979-81, reprint; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965-70.
Frankfort, Henri, H.A. Frankfort, John A. Wilson, Thorkild Jacobsan, and William A. Irwin. The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man: An Essay on Speculative Thought in the Ancient Near East. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.
Gaebelein, Frank E. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.
Gerstenberger, Erhard. Psalms, Part 1 with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry, FOTL, vol. XIV. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
_______. Psalms, Part 2, and Lamentations, FOTL, vol. XV. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
Gibson, J.C.L. Language and Imagery in the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998.
Gillingham, S.E. The Poems and Psalms of the Hebrew Bible. OBS. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Heschel, Abraham J. The Prophets, 2 vols. 1962, reprint; New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1969-1975.
House, Paul R. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove, IVP, 1998.
Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westerman. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. Mark E. Biddle. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.
Kidner, Derek. Psalms: An introduction and Commentary, TOTC, 2 vols. Downers Grove: IVP, 1973-5.
Kelley, Page H., Daniel S. Mynatt and Timothy G. Crawford. The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 4 vols. rev ed. Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jacob Stamm, trans. M.E.J. Richardson.
Leiden, Brill, 1994.
Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms, CC, 2 vols. trans. Hilton C. Oswald. 1961/1978, reprint; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
_______. The Theology of the Psalms, CC. trans. Keith Crim. 1979, reprint; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
Lewis, C.S. Reflections on the Psalms. 1958, reprint; London: Fontana Books, 1961.
Martínez, Florentino García and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition, 2 vols. 1997-8, reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Mays, James L. Psalms, Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994.
McCann, J. Clinton, ed. The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, JSOTS 159. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
Mullen, E. Threodore Jr. “The Divine Witness and the Davidic Royal Grant: Ps 89:37-38” in Journal of Biblcal Literature 102, no. 2 (1983) : 207-218.
O’Connor, M. Hebrew Verse Structure. Winnona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980.
Ollenburger, Ben C. Zion The City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult. JSOTS 41. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987.
Perdue, Leo G. The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.
Rendtorff, Rolf. The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation, OTS, trans. Margaret Kohl. 1995, reprint; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998.
Silva, Moisés. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. 1983, reprint; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51-100, WBC, vol. 20. Waco: Word, 1990.
VanGemeren, Willem A, ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.
von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology, OTL, 2 vols. trans. D.M.G. Stalker. 1957-1960, reprint; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
_______. Wisdom in Israel. trans. James D. Martin. 1970, reprint; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1972.
Weiser, Artur. The Psalms, OTL. trans. Herbert Hartwell. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962.
Whybray, Norman. Reading The Psalms as a Book, JSOTS 222. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996.
i By cultic I mean ritual or pertaining to the worship of Israel, not the occult.
ii See David M. Howard Jr. “Recent Trends in Psalms Study,” in The Face of Old Testament Studies, 1999, for a defense of this methodology. For a critique of this methodology, see Whybray Reading the Psalms. [/i]
iii Mowinkel identified several types: Lamentation, Complaint, Thanksgiving Song, Victory Songs, Royal Psalms, and Wisdom Psalms. Each genre was sub divided these even further and thus became quite a tedious system, Gerstenberger I:10-20.
iv Kraus Psalms 1-59 14.
v See the discussion of metrical system in O’Connor 55ff.
vi Gaebelein 9.
vii Among the different systems include: words, syllables and syntactical units.
viii See Kraus Psalm 1-59, 14, where he advocates this view, “…If in the arrangement of verses a certain meter (e.g., 3 + 3) should turn out to be dominant, then those verse that do not conform to the dominating meter are to be investigated critically and to be made to conform to the dominant pattern, if possible…,” (emphasis added).
ix Just two of the many proposed metrical systems.
x See Allen 254, Briggs 2:491ff., Dahood 3:284-5, Kraus Psalms 2:511-2 and Weiser 801-2.
xi Gerstenberger Psalms: Part 2 405.
xii Mays 425.
xiii See Appendix I for an analysis of the text critical issues.
xiv A system of textual notes placed in the margins of the Masoretic Text by Medieval Scribes.
xv Silva 28-29. See discussion below on עולם for example.
xvi Within this article, this term is understood as a synecdoche where ambiguity remains between whether the psalmist is referring to a Davidic king or using the Davidide as a representative of the People of Yahweh. Any attempt at resolution of this ambiguity would be unhelpful. This does not mean that there are not particular Psalms in which the Davidide referred to is in fact David or a descendant of David, e.g. 2, 51, 110.
xvii Anderson, Contours 204.
xviii See Appendix III.
xix Kraus Theology 45.
xx That Psalm 139 is a Wisdom Psalm is an assumption that will not be defended or argued within this paper. The argument over the existence of Wisdom Psalms and the identity of those Psalms lies outside the provenance of this paper.
xxi von Rad Wisdom 15.
xxii “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom”
xxiii “Turn From evil and do good; seek peace and persue it.”
xxiv Jesus injunction against placing your pearls before swine, falls within in the Wisdom Tradition.
xxv See Patrick Miller “The Beginning of the Psalter,” in McCann 83-88.
xxvi “So the two ways, and there is no third, [separate] for ever (sic),” (Kidner 49, emphasis added).
xxvii “The imagery (in verse 3) of the tree does not speak here of the recompense to which he can look forward—it would be altogether unsuitable for conveying such a meaning—but it speaks of the meaning and value of life which the godly man discovers by living his life in obedience to God,” (Weiser 105). Hence, this is not the vindication of the righteous as such, but rather the result of godly living, contra Kraus, Psalms 1:118-9 who sees the imagery as linking to prosperity. The eschatological vindication is rather in verses 5-6 when God will destroy the wicked and continue his care for the righteous.
xxviii Anderson Psalms 62, who directs the reader to 1QS II:17b. “May he assign his lot with the cursed forever”.
xxix Mays 44.
xxx Mays 48ff; this is the only place in the OT where the Messiah is linked with Yahweh’s son, a significant teaching of Jesus in the NT, (von Rad OTT 2:172).
xxxi McCann, “Books I-III and the Editorial Purpose of the Psalter” in McCann, 95-100.
xxxii See Rendtorff, 14.
xxxiii Gerald H. Wilson, “Shaping the Psalter: A Consideration of Editorial Linkage in the Book of Psalms” in McCann, 75-6.
xxxiv Contra Whybray, “…readers were eventually discouraged from continuing to long for a restoration of the Davidic dynasty…and encouraged to place their hopes in a kingdom not of this world where Yahweh alone is king,” (88-9).
xxxv “Praise Yahweh for he is good, for his covenant fidelity is forever.”
xxvi Interestingly this psalm is the only one that names its setting and date so that one could determine its Sitz im Leben.
xxvii Mays 421.
xxxviii This reading understands 146-150 as a conclusion in similar manner as Psalm 1 and 2 were understood as an introduction to the Psalter.
xxxix See for example BDB 510-8.
xl In some instances, that is the most likely meaning.
xli Craigie 34-5.
xlii Crenshaw 15-18.
xliii Anderson, Contours 201-2.
xliv It means to explore someone’s convictions (HALOT I:347-8). It is found nine times with Yahweh as the subject, i.e. Jer 17:10; Psa 139:1, 23; Job13:9, 28:27; Sir 42:18; 1QM 16:13; 4Q392 1:4 (Clines III:304).
xlv The six occurrences in this psalm help to denote the nature of the relationship between Yahweh and the Davidide.
xlvi vv. 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 11.
xlvii It could be argued that verse 12 contains a merism; however it does not set two opposites in apposition like the other six occurrences.
xlviii “you understand my thoughts from afar.”
xlix 3:286.
l Psalms 2:514.
[sup]li “but the haughty he regards from a far”
lii Exo 23:22, 32:4; Deut. 2:9, 19, 14:25, 20:12, 19; Jdg. 9:31; 1 Sam. 23:8; 2 Sam. 11:1, 20:15; 1 Ki. 7:15, 15:27, 16:17, 20:1; 2 Ki. 5:23, 6:24f, 12:11, 16:5, 17:5, 18:9, 24:11; 1 Chr. 20:1; Est. 8:11; Ps. 139:5; Son. 8:9; Isa. 21:2, 29:3; Jer. 21:4, 9, 32:2, 37:5, 39:1; Ezek. 4:3, 5:3; Dan. 1:1.
liii Weiser 803.
liv HALOT “to acquire or buy” (III:1111-1113).
lv Gerstenberger Psalms, Part 2 407.
lvi Weiser 804-5.
lvii Anderson Psalms 909.
lviii NIDOTTE III:940-1.
lix TLOT, 1147.
lx ibid. 1151-2.
lxi NIDOTTE III:251-4.
lxii 251.
lxiii III: 292-3.
lxiv Contra Anderson, Psalms 910.
lxv Kraus Psalms 60-150 516-7.
lxvi Perdue 147.
lxvii Crenshaw 64-5.
lxviii Heschel II:59ff; Lewis 23ff.
lxix Crenshaw 65.
lxx Anderson Psalms 911.
lxxi “Men of blood“
lxxii Allen, 25.
[sup]lxxiii Kraus Psalms 511.
lxxiv See below for a treatment and justification for
this rendering of עריך.
lxxv Anderson Psalms 912.
lxxvi NIDOTTE III:1261.
lxxvii Contra Dahood III:299, while the homonym, which denotes idolatry, has ancient support dating to 11QPsa and this reading removes ambiguity of reading עצב, it does not fit in the co-text and for that reason can be ruled out (Allen 253). עצב means distress or pain (NIDOTTE 482-3).
lxxviii HALOT II:789-9.
lxxix NIDOTTE III:346.
lxxx One of two times accented in this manner.
lxxxi Lit. “My living place”.
lxxxii Lit. “My lying down place,” completing the merism.
lxxxiii Lit. “Besieged”.
lxxxiv The emendations of BHS, Kraus and Dahood all are based on unsatisfactory conjecture.
lxxxv Kraus and BHS indicate that this final clause should be omitted, but Allen indicates that not only is it original but it serves as the climax to 11-12a. He also quotes Wagner who identified this clause as theologically significant for showing Yahweh’s superiority to the Pagan deities of the surrounding nations.
lxxxvi Allen, Anderson, Dahood, Kraus, all modern English translations have some form of "create". The English King James Versions (1611) and Geneva Bible (1599), and German Unrevidierte Elberfelder (1905) follow the LXX and Vulgate with “acquire”.
lxxxvii Or “knit together”.
lxxxviii This meaning of this verse is uncertain as is visible due to multiple textual problems.
lxxxix Allen demonstrates that Dahood’s resurrection motif does not fit the context.
xc Allen points out that if the Psalmist addressed the men of blood only here would the Psalmist directly address God in this Psalm, so he follows the Syriac and the Targums and sees this as a further wish as begun in the first clause.
xci Contra Kraus who reads as עריך “your cities,” HALOT, though it posits עליך as original), Allen and Mp read it as your enemies. This presupposes the originality of עריך as opposed to the posited עדיך or עליך, following the MP which indicates seven other occurrences of ^yr,[' with the usage of enemy (1 Sa 28:16, 14:21; Jer 15:8; Mic 5:11, 13; Psa 9:7, 139:20; Dan 4:16).
xcii Allen supports this addition with Isa 3:7, 42:2, 11.
vxciii 11QPsa supports the originality of its presence in the text.
lxciv Contra Kraus and in agreement with Allen and 11QPsa.
300
[i]Notice - The featuring of a particular member article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)or be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.
One problem in the study and interpretation of the Psalter has long been—context. Interpreters have long gone between two extremes. First is that they view each Psalm in isolation, as is usually done in a process reminiscent of the Moravian or 18th Century German Pietists. One reads the text subjectively and ignore any context that the Psalm may have. The other extreme, which critical Scholars such as Gunkel and Mowinkel took, attempts to find a cultic i or historical setting for each Psalm, this will be explained more in-depth below.
A recent development in Psalms research has provided a control for the interpretation of individual Psalms, i.e. reading the Psalms as a book. ii Under this new approach, the interpreter has the aid of the macro and microstructure of the Psalms to guide his interpretation. Put simply, this new perspective argues that one should read the Psalms not as isolated poems and prayers haphazardly collected, but rather one should read the Psalms as one reads Isaiah or Jeremiah, i.e. with attention to the surrounding Psalms.
Prior to this development Gunkel’s Form Critical approach held sway. Under his approach, one investigated each Psalm in an attempt to find its genre and Sitz im Leben. iii This placed no controls on an interpreter’s imagination. Hence, each scholar found a different genre for each Psalm. Moreover, scholars also disputed over the actual identity of these genres.
Another element of the Form Critical approach is the use of meter in the study of the Psalter, iv while other scholars denied the existence of meter in Hebrew. v Unfortunately, no one ever convincingly demonstrated a consistent system that one could use to study the psalms. vi Each scholar incorporated his own understanding of Hebrew meter. Some slavishly borrowed from the Hellenistic meter. While the use of meter is legitimate in Hellenistic studies, as ancient manuals of meter have survived, since no primmer exists of Hebraic poetry the superimposition of foreign metrical systems is problematic. Scholars have haphazardly chosen what they see as the appropriate metrical system. vii This has led to large-scale doctoring of the text because the extent text did not fit the theorized system. viii This is a problematic model on many levels, but two different issues stand out. First, it fails to take into account literary shaping where the author intentionally strikes discordant notes for the purpose of effect. Second, one must ask, based on which system are we to judge which texts to emend? If we use syllables then many texts would be emended that might not be emended if one were to use syntactical unitsix
I will use Psalm 139 to show how the use of this new perspective can aid one in reading the psalms. One could almost say that Psalm 139 has as many interpretations as there are interpreters. Commentators universally divide the psalm between verses 18 and 19, but beyond this, their interpretations vary greatly. The first difference is between those who argue for the psalm’s integrity and those who see it as two separate poems conjoined by later editors. x Unfortunately, some scholars have attempted to reduce this psalm to a raw philosophical treatment of omnipresence. xi However, this fails to see the deeply personal qualities in the relationship the psalmist has with Yahweh. This psalm reflects a reality hemmed in by the divine presence. “It teaches and confesses in the fullest way that ‘my times are in you hand’ (31:25).” xii
The number of textual variants causes many of the difficulties in interpreting this text. xiii The Masorah xiv helps in a few situations, most notably in verse 20, where it gives the meaning of the word עריך, which helps to militate against the argument that the text needs to be emended. This particular example also illustrates a second difficulty in interpretation, the issue of lexical semantics. Many of the words have multiple meanings and nuances. It is imprudent to base an interpretation solely on a word’s meaning as placed against an alternative meaning for that word. xv This does not negate the importance of semantics; however, it highlights the dangers fraught in the endeavor and the care that is necessary when making interpretative decisions based solely on possible semantic nuances. Therefore, the interpretation of this psalm requires careful attention to the interplay between text and context.
I propose that Psalm 139 is the plea of a Davidide, xvi based upon the hope for the consummation of the eschatological promises of Psalms 1 and 2, for Yahweh to return to their previously intimate relationship. These eschatological promises help one discover the discourse intent of Psalm 139. In the Ancient Near East the destruction of a king was not merely a geopolitical disaster, it marked a cosmic crisis, centered on the nation’s lost access to its deity. xvii In Israel, this crisis was no less acute. However, its manifestation was markedly different from other nations who simply adopted the gods of their conquerors and incorporated them into their pantheon. For example, the people of Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hammath and Sepharvaim, whom the Assyrians resettled in Samaria, incorporated Yahweh into their pantheon, yet they continued to worship their own deities (2 Kings 17:24-41). However, this was not the case in Judah. Instead of incorporating the Babylonian god Marduk into their worship, they asked why Yahweh had brought this calamity upon his people. They recorded their soul searching in the Psalter, the final form of which is divided into five books. xviii These five books present Israel’s questions to God, and their arrangement gives God’s answer: Israel was unfaithful, yet I, Yahweh, am and always will be faithful. xix It is from this milieu that Psalm 139 helps to heighten the tension before Yahweh gives his final pronouncement of faithfulness to Israel, in the Psalter. Therefore, I propose the following methodology to examine and analyze this psalm. First, we must look at the argument developed in the Psalter as a whole. Second, we must determine the meaning of the fifth collection and investigate how Psalm 139 both develops that meaning and is influenced by it. Then we will look to the immediate context, i.e. the final collection of Davidic Psalms, in which the editors have placed Psalm 139. Finally, we will exegete Psalm 139.
Before turning to the argument of the whole book, as a preliminary issue we must describe the Wisdom tradition in the Bible since it influences and governs the Psalter and Psalm 139 in particular. xx Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are the books traditionally categorized as wisdom literature. The wisdom tradition is closely linked to the royal court, cf. Pro 1:1. xxi Now that we have defined where we can find wisdom literature and its Sitz im Leben, the question remains, what is wisdom literature? Proverbs 9:10xxii is the most commonly used verse concerning wisdom, yet it fails to define it. A verse that defines wisdom is Psalm 34:15xxiii It prescribes four maxims that characterize wisdom: shun evil; do good; seek peace; and pursue peace. The person who does these things discovers that to seek peace he must take refuge in Yahweh; hence, this is another consistent theme of wisdom literature. Whereas the prophets addressed all, in order that a remnant might repent, the sages addressed only the wise and the naïve person who was still capable of repenting. xxiv
As we transition to the argument of the Psalter as a whole, we must develop the arguments of Psalms 1 and 2. These two psalms stand at the head of the Psalter and serve as a lens through which the Psalter should be read. xxv They define a bipolar humanity in which people are numbered either among the wicked or among the righteous. xxvi Psalm 1 leaves these categories ambiguous while the remaining psalms detail the characteristics of the wicked and the righteous. Besides dividing humanity into two disparate groups, Psalm 1 also indicates the eschatological destiny of each. It reminds the righteous person that Yahweh cares for him and thus will tend to him. It uses the language of a tree giving its fruit in season harkening to the longevity of the righteous person. xxvii Simultaneously it uses chaff to indicate the transitory nature of the wicked whose destiny is destruction. xxviii This language is the future hope of the righteous that God will someday destroy the wicked, as opposed to a description of the psalmist’s current experience. xxix
Psalm 2 further clarifies God’s purposes by telling us that the Messiah will inaugurate God’s rule, in which he will destroy the wicked. The placement of Psalm 2, a Royal Psalm, after Psalm 1, a Wisdom Psalm, establishes a certain reading of the Psalter. It indicates the ascendancy of the wisdom tradition over the royal tradition in the Psalter. In Psalm 2, the wicked are described as the nations that surround God’s people. They desire to throw off the yoke of God’s rule as embodied in the Messiah. xxx Key elements in Psalm 139 find their antecedent sources in this Psalm, e.g. Yahweh as the sole refuge for the righteous “blessed are all who find refuge in him”.
After reading these two psalms one might be inclined to understand life for the righteous as being free from trial. However, the rest of Books One through Three are filled with lament and characterized by cycles of disorientation and reorientation. The righteous suffer while the wicked seem to prosper. This reality perplexes the psalmist and leads him to despair. Book Three ends with a psalm of despair, Psalm 89. In this psalm, the author charges God with infidelity. At the end of book three the Temple lies in ruins and the Davidic Throne is vacant. Because of a faulty Zion theology, i.e. Zion as inviolate despite Israel and Judah’s infidelity, has led to dissonance on the part of the Psalmist.
Psalm 89 creates the need for reorientation in the Psalter, and the final two collections function to reorient the reader so that he sees the fidelity of God. xxxi Book Four expounds on Yahweh’s fidelity as evidenced towards Moses. Two of the three approximations of the covenant formula in the Psalms occur in Book Four, again demonstrating that Yahweh has not cast off Israel forever. xxxii Moreover, Yahweh is Israel’s Great King who protected and delivered Israel from her adversaries. xxxii
Book Five charges the reader to place his hope in Yahweh while not opposing the establishment of the future order in which a Davidide would again sit on the throne. xxxiv Psalm 110 in Book Five, the most often quoted Psalm in the NT, depicts Yahweh swearing to David that he himself will accomplish his purposes first addressed in Psalm 2, thus revitalizing the eschatological hope within the Psalter. It ascribes actions attributed to the Messiah in Psalm 2 to Yahweh himself. Therefore, far from denigrating a hoped for Messiah, the Psalter instructs the wise person in whom to place his hope, Yahweh, as opposed to Yahweh’s agent. However, Psalm 107 not 110 is the most determinative psalm in Book Five. Psalm 107, the head of the fifth collection, begins identically to Psalm 106. xxxv However, it develops in a different manner. Whereas Psalm 106 works through Yahweh’s mighty deeds in the past demonstrating his fidelity despite Israel’s infidelity, Psalm 107 expounds Yahweh’s faithfulness towards the righteous and wrath upon the wicked, thus restating the bipolar reality structure developed in Psalm 1. As in the case of Psalm 1, this is a psalm of orientation. Immediately after this psalm of orientation, the pattern of disorientation and lament resumes. In 108-9, again the psalmist poses the questions: is God faithful? did he not reject us? is God aloof? Then God reorients the righteous with the reminder that he has sworn to David that he has not forsaken them, and he has seated the Davidide at his right hand so that God may accomplish all of his purposes. This mixed pattern continues throughout this collection culminating with Psalm 145, which is a resounding psalm of orientation extolling Yahweh’s fidelity.
Within Book Five, the final Davidic collection responds to the despair of Psalm 137.[xxxvi[/sup] In 137, Yahweh is aloof. Israel’s glory is gone. This song about Zion is not a Song of Zion, which were joyful songs. xxxvii The imprecation is perhaps the most repugnant to modern sensibilities. Yet it places in focus the despair of these people who have been uprooted by Yahweh’s wrath. This collection not only concludes the response to Psalm 89’s charge against Yahweh, but it concludes the fifth collection. xxxviii In this, we find God’s proclamation of his complete fidelity to David and thus his fidelity to all.
Now as we move to Psalm 139, we have placed it in its larger context. We have shown how the structure of the Psalter directs us to understand the individual psalm within the final Davidic collection. The attribution of this psalm to David is, as with all the Davidic psalms, loaded with debate, because of the lexical ambiguity of לדוד (“of David”. While traditionally readers have understood this to imply authorship, recent studies have lead to an ambiguity due to the range of meaning for the particle ל. xxxix While this ambiguity does not exclude Davidic authorship; it does not require it. xl Other possible meanings could be “belonging to David” or “for David (‘implying use of the Davidic Kings’)”. xl As it relates to Psalm 139 the most that one can say is that, its superscription links it to the Davidic collection. This superscription indicates that this is the nation’s desire, for when a Davidic king calls out he represents the nation before Yahweh. The king is the link between Yahweh and the people. As they cried for Moses to represent them on Mt. Sinai, so in later times they wanted a king to represent them before God. Therefore, the absence of a Davidic King came to symbolize Yahweh’s rejection of Israel and Judah. xlii The king was seen as the channel through whom Yahweh would bestow blessing and righteousness and so his absence was covenantally problematic. xlii Consequently, a crisis for the Davidic Monarchy was a disaster for the nation as a whole. It is under this rubric that we now turn to the psalm proper.
The psalmist longs for the previous intimate relationship he had with Yahweh. In the first segment, vv. 1-18, the psalmist describes the previous relationship he had with Yahweh. In the second segment, vv. 19-24, the psalmist pleads for Yahweh to return for the Davidide is innocent of any offense. He makes his plea with the eschatological hope that Yahweh will vindicate the righteous and carry out his promised judgment on the wicked, who have subverted his people. One can see the unity of the psalm based on the inclusio of חקר xliv and ידעxlv in verses 1 and 23. Now we will examine the two segments of the psalm to develop this argument.
As we look at vv. 1-18, we see that one can divide the psalm further between verses 12 and 13. A series of six merisms frame verses 1-12. xlvi These six merisms form a framework in which we can view the psalmist’s relationship with Yahweh. They denote a spatial relationship with regard to Yahweh. They indicate that wherever the psalmist had gone Yahweh was with him. They also indicate the impossibility of escape from Yahweh’s presence by the psalmist. xlvii
However, within this paean we already note strain between Yahweh and the psalmist. In verse 2, the psalmist claims that Yahweh understands his thoughts from afar. xlviii Dahood links this with the vision of eagles in Job 39:29. xlix Whereas Kraus posits, “מרחוק (from afar) in v. 2 emphasizes that Yahweh, in incalculable might and freedom as the God enthroned in heaven, sees and knows every attitude of human beings.” l While both of these readings sound plausible they fail to read the psalm within its immediate context. In Psalm 138, the psalmist speaks of the bipolar reality structure in which Yahweh cares for the lowly but knows the prideful person from afar. li This juxtaposition with Psalm 139 indicates that Yahweh has something against the Davidide, which the Davidide denies.
Another possible complaint occurs in verse 5. In this verse, the psalmist states “you have collected me…” One possible reading of this verse is that God has besieged the Davidide. This reading is consistent with the 34 other occurrences of this verb when humans are the object. lii This reading views Yahweh’s action as “…paralyzing [not] liberating.”liii However, a closer reading of the context might indicate a better reading of the text. For instance in 2 Kings 12:11, Jehoash under Jehoiada’s direction had ordered a collection for Temple repairs. Whenever the collection boxes began to fill they would secure (ויצקו) the offerings. This reading taken in conjunction with קנית liv in verse 13 indicates that Yahweh was the guardian of the Davidide. lv Before transitioning to verses 13-18, we need to conclude the argument of 1-12. The Davidide looks back on his previous relationship with Yahweh; Yahweh knew all about him and stood about him as his guardian. Yet now Yahweh regards him from afar.
Now as we look to vv. 13-18, the text has many text critical and lexical intricacies. This break does not shift the pursuit of the Davidide, i.e. he is not turning to praise Yahweh after failing in his attempt to flee from him. lvi This reading fails to see the relational links in verses 1-12, and how the Davidide further developed these relational arguments in verses 13-18.
First, we need to discern the usage of קנית in this passage. As noted below all modern translations and commentators render it as “created/formed” and thus invest this passage with creation language. lvii However, taken in conjunction with verse 5 this seems unconvincing. The semantic range of קנה means to acquire, and when it refers to a person it means to acquire a slave (cf. Gen 39:1). Moreover, when used in a theological context it denotes Yahweh’s redemption of Israel, here particularized in the Davidide. lvii Furthermore, as Schmidt aptly points out, “It is highly disputed, however, whether the meaning “to create” is attested in addition to acquire, possess,” etc.” lix Even though he does later argue for its usage as “to create” in passim, Deut 32:6 and Prov. 8:22, lx it seems that this driven more by preconceived theological ideas than by textual and lexical considerations.
Within this same verse, there is another lexically ambiguous morpheme, תסכני. This could mean either “knit together” or “protect”. lxi Allen uses verse 15 as support for “knit together”. lxii However, Dahood indicates the providential blessing and the possibility of reading the –b to mean “from” so that the verse would then indicate providential protection for the Davidide from his mother’s womb, continuing the theme of Yahweh as guardian from verse 5. lxiii Several factors tend to support Dahood’s interpretation. First, Allen interprets this as creation language, which as argued above is alien to the text. Second, if we read verse 5 as proposed above to indicate Yahweh’s protection of the psalmist this would then introduce the reason that the Davidide praises Yahweh in verse 14. Third, in verses 14-18 the Davidide praises Yahweh for his protection and presence from the earliest times. This also negates the “Mother Earth” conundrum from the realm of probability. lxiv Kraus views the “Mother Earth” theme as a chthonic hold over from Canaanite myths adopted by early Israelites. lxv However, this fails to view the broader co-text of the OT. Namely, “This compares to a variety of creation texts in which Yahweh is seen as the father, mother, and midwife who shapes the fetus in the womb, aids in the birthing process, and then shapes the destiny of the newborn (see Job 10 and Psalm 139)”. lxvi Rather than seeing this as a reference to a consort of Yahweh or a personified earth, it seems better to understand this as a part of a larger worldview in which God’s providential direction and protection looks over the Davidide in conception as in the rest of life. lxvii
If Psalm 139 had concluded at verse 18 then we would only have found hints as to the Davidide’s purpose for writing this psalm. Up to verse 18, we find allusions to God’s protective actions on the Davidide’s behalf. However, as we move into verse 19 and the second major division of the psalm, we discover a major switch in tone. The tone transitions from praise to imprecation (vv. 19-22) and petition (vv. 23-24).
The imprecation violates modern sensitivities and embarrasses many who read it. lxviii However, as we read the Psalter we grow to understand this as the proper response to the wicked. As stated above wisdom literature is aimed at a limited group. The wicked are not addressed directly by it, because they are seen as enemies of God who are beyond the possibility of repentance, (cf. Ecc 2:26; Mat 7:6). Therefore, this call for God to slay the wicked is not just an outburst of the downtrodden, but it is also a proper understanding of Yahweh’s sentiment towards the wicked. lxix
“It must be remembered that for the Psalmist and his contemporaries evil was no abstract idea but was embodied in evil men.” lxx Now we are going to turn to the nature of the offense of the wicked person in this psalm. A casual reading would indicate that they are murderers, “men of blood”lxxi Yet, the wisdom tradition and the Psalter in particular links evil speech to murder (cf. James 1:25, 3:5-8). lxxii As a counterweight to their sins of the tongue, the Davidide, in verse 4, acknowledges Yahweh’s complete foreknowledge of his words, which again illustrates the intimate relationship between the Davidide and Yahweh. Now the Davidide explains the type of speech in which the wicked engage. Some wish to emend verse 20 so that it reads that they are rebellious against you, but the MT is the preferred reading. lxxiii With the MT, we now see that the men of blood are God’s enemieslxxiv who speak maliciously against him and lift up their voices vainly. These wicked people hate Yahweh and attack him and his anointed. The Davidide loathes these men for they desire to impugn the glory of Yahweh and his covenant. lxxv
Now let us examine the petition. The plea of the Davidide shows his desire to return to the previous relationship he had with Yahweh. This is communicated by the repetition of חקר and ידע in the imperative. The Davidide realizes that freedom from this bipolar structure will only come when the eschatological consummation occurs and Yahweh destroys the men of blood. He also knows that he must be tested by Yahweh in the here and now so that he may stand in the judgment. For this reason he petitions Yahweh to test him and know his שרפי This morpheme denotes thoughts that cause pain and dwell deep inside of a person. lxxvi Knowledge of these thoughts is not enough; the Davidide knows that these thoughts must not remain if he is going to follow in the way of wisdom. Before solving the issue, he seeks further testing. In verse 24, he asks God to examine him to see if the Davidide has any grievous lxxvii way in him. It is only after this three-fold examination has occurred that the Davidide seeks guidance.
At this point he requests that Yahweh lead him in the דרך עולם[/size] This is an ambiguous request, because עולם has a large semantic domain. It can mean a long time, the future, or the past. lxxviii In fact, when עולם is in construct it frequently refers back in time. lxxix Besides these grammatical considerations, the contextual reading leads one to see this as looking backward in time. As vv. 1-18 looked back to the previous relationship, the Davidide is referring to this earlier period. However, as the immediately preceding imprecation looks forward to the eschatological consummation when the wicked will be destroyed, it appears that the psalmist has intentionally left the timing ambiguous so that both time frames can be involved.
The destruction of the Southern Kingdom in 587 BC caused a crisis for the nation of Israel. It challenged two fundamental assumptions of the people. One, that Yahweh had chosen David and his heirs to be king and thus their representative to Yahweh, and two, that Yahweh was faithful and thus would always maintain the Davidic line in Jerusalem. However, with the destruction of the Temple and the Monarchy, it caused many to question these assumptions. The present shape of the Psalter demonstrates how some within the Post-Exilic community wrestled with this crisis. Psalm 89 asks the question, “is Yahweh faithful?” Books four and five of the Psalter answer this with a resounding yes. Within the fifth book, the final Davidic collection moves from disorientation to orientation. Psalm 139 is the plea of all Israel that Yahweh would restore his relationship with the Davidide and thus bring about the consummation of the eschaton in which the wicked would be destroyed and the godly would finally be vindicated.
Appendix I:
Translation of Psalm 139r
1 To the leader, of David a Psalm
Yahweh, you scrutinized me, and knew me. 2 You knew my lying down and raising uplxxx ; you understand my thoughts from afar.
3 You sifted my path lxxxi and my bed, lxxxii land all my ways you knew intimately.
4 Surly there was not a word is on my tongue, but you, oh Yahweh, knew it completely
5 Behind and before you collected lxxxiiime, you set your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too marvelous for me, it is too lofty, I cannot apprehend it.
7 Where could I go from your spirit; and where could I flee from your presence?
8 If I were to ascend to the heavens, you would be there, and if I were to make my bed in Sheol, behold you would be there.
9 If I had taken to the wings of the dawn, or settled on the far side of the sea
10 Even there your hand would have guided lxxxivme; and you right had would hold me fast
11 If I had said, “Surely, the darkness will cover me, and light be night about be,”
12 Even the darkness is not dark for you, and the night gives light as the day, and as darkness so is light. lxxxv
13 Surely, you possessed lxxxvime in my kidneys, and protected me lxxxviiin my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you for you are awesomely wonderful; wonderful are your works; my soul really knows it.
15 My bones were not hidden from you, when I was made in secret; skillfully woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; every one of them, the days fashioned in your book was written, when not one of them yet were. lxxxviii
17 How precious are your thoughts to me, oh God! How vast the sum of them!
18 If I were to count them, they would outnumber the sand; if I were to come to the end lxxxix—behold you are with me.
19 If only you, oh God, would slay the wicked, and drive xcthe men of blood away from me!
20 who speak against you with malicious intent; your enemies xcilift up their voices xciifalsely.
21 Do I not hate those who hate you, oh Yahweh xciii? And loathe those who attack you xciv?
22 I hate them with a perfect hatred; they are my adversaries.
23 Scrutinize me, O God, and know my heart! Test me and know angst.
24 See if there is any offensive way in me, and guide men in the ancient path.
Appendix II:
The Structure of the Psalter
THE FIVE BOOKS OF THE PSALTERAND THEIR ARGUMENTS
Book I Psalm 1-41 Lament(D)
Book II Psalm 42-72 Mixed(D-->R)
Book III Psalm 73-89 Is God Faithful to Israel?(D)
Book IV Psalm 90-106 Response 1—God’s faithfulness to Moses(R)
Book V Psalm 107-150
RESPONSE 2—YAHWEH IS FAITHFUL(R-->O)
BOOK 5 RESPONSE 2—YAHWEH IS FAITHFUL
107(O) 108 -111(R/D)
113-118 Egyptian Hallel(R/O)
119(D) 120 -136 Great Hallel(R)
137(D) 138 -145 DAVIDIC FINALE(R-->O)
146 -150Final Hallel(O)
DAVIDIC FINALE
138(R)
139 (D)
140(D)
141(D)
142(D)
143(D)
144(R)
145(O)
Symbol Key
O Orientation
R Reorientation
D Disorientation
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Leslie C. Psalms 101-150, WBC, vol 21. Waco: Word, 1983.
Anderson, Arnold Albert. The Book of Psalms, NCB, 2 vols. 1972, reprint; London: Oliphants, 1977.
Anderson, Bernhard W. Contours of Old Testament Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999.
_______. From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives, OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.
Baker, David W. and Bill T. Arnold, eds. The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.
Bellinger, W.H., Jr. Psalms: Reading and Studying the Book of Praises. 1990, reprint; Peabody, Ma: Hendrickson, 2000.
Briggs, Charles Augustus. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, ICC, 2 vols. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906-7.
Bullock, C. Hassell. An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books. Chicago: Moody, 1979.
Clines, David J. A. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 4vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1-50, WBC, vol. 19. Waco: Word, 1983.
Crenshaw, James L. The Psalms: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB, 3 vols. 1979-81, reprint; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965-70.
Frankfort, Henri, H.A. Frankfort, John A. Wilson, Thorkild Jacobsan, and William A. Irwin. The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man: An Essay on Speculative Thought in the Ancient Near East. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.
Gaebelein, Frank E. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.
Gerstenberger, Erhard. Psalms, Part 1 with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry, FOTL, vol. XIV. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
_______. Psalms, Part 2, and Lamentations, FOTL, vol. XV. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
Gibson, J.C.L. Language and Imagery in the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998.
Gillingham, S.E. The Poems and Psalms of the Hebrew Bible. OBS. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Heschel, Abraham J. The Prophets, 2 vols. 1962, reprint; New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1969-1975.
House, Paul R. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove, IVP, 1998.
Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westerman. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. Mark E. Biddle. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.
Kidner, Derek. Psalms: An introduction and Commentary, TOTC, 2 vols. Downers Grove: IVP, 1973-5.
Kelley, Page H., Daniel S. Mynatt and Timothy G. Crawford. The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 4 vols. rev ed. Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jacob Stamm, trans. M.E.J. Richardson.
Leiden, Brill, 1994.
Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms, CC, 2 vols. trans. Hilton C. Oswald. 1961/1978, reprint; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
_______. The Theology of the Psalms, CC. trans. Keith Crim. 1979, reprint; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
Lewis, C.S. Reflections on the Psalms. 1958, reprint; London: Fontana Books, 1961.
Martínez, Florentino García and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition, 2 vols. 1997-8, reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Mays, James L. Psalms, Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994.
McCann, J. Clinton, ed. The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, JSOTS 159. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
Mullen, E. Threodore Jr. “The Divine Witness and the Davidic Royal Grant: Ps 89:37-38” in Journal of Biblcal Literature 102, no. 2 (1983) : 207-218.
O’Connor, M. Hebrew Verse Structure. Winnona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980.
Ollenburger, Ben C. Zion The City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult. JSOTS 41. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987.
Perdue, Leo G. The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.
Rendtorff, Rolf. The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation, OTS, trans. Margaret Kohl. 1995, reprint; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998.
Silva, Moisés. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. 1983, reprint; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51-100, WBC, vol. 20. Waco: Word, 1990.
VanGemeren, Willem A, ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.
von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology, OTL, 2 vols. trans. D.M.G. Stalker. 1957-1960, reprint; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
_______. Wisdom in Israel. trans. James D. Martin. 1970, reprint; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1972.
Weiser, Artur. The Psalms, OTL. trans. Herbert Hartwell. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962.
Whybray, Norman. Reading The Psalms as a Book, JSOTS 222. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996.
i By cultic I mean ritual or pertaining to the worship of Israel, not the occult.
ii See David M. Howard Jr. “Recent Trends in Psalms Study,” in The Face of Old Testament Studies, 1999, for a defense of this methodology. For a critique of this methodology, see Whybray Reading the Psalms. [/i]
iii Mowinkel identified several types: Lamentation, Complaint, Thanksgiving Song, Victory Songs, Royal Psalms, and Wisdom Psalms. Each genre was sub divided these even further and thus became quite a tedious system, Gerstenberger I:10-20.
iv Kraus Psalms 1-59 14.
v See the discussion of metrical system in O’Connor 55ff.
vi Gaebelein 9.
vii Among the different systems include: words, syllables and syntactical units.
viii See Kraus Psalm 1-59, 14, where he advocates this view, “…If in the arrangement of verses a certain meter (e.g., 3 + 3) should turn out to be dominant, then those verse that do not conform to the dominating meter are to be investigated critically and to be made to conform to the dominant pattern, if possible…,” (emphasis added).
ix Just two of the many proposed metrical systems.
x See Allen 254, Briggs 2:491ff., Dahood 3:284-5, Kraus Psalms 2:511-2 and Weiser 801-2.
xi Gerstenberger Psalms: Part 2 405.
xii Mays 425.
xiii See Appendix I for an analysis of the text critical issues.
xiv A system of textual notes placed in the margins of the Masoretic Text by Medieval Scribes.
xv Silva 28-29. See discussion below on עולם for example.
xvi Within this article, this term is understood as a synecdoche where ambiguity remains between whether the psalmist is referring to a Davidic king or using the Davidide as a representative of the People of Yahweh. Any attempt at resolution of this ambiguity would be unhelpful. This does not mean that there are not particular Psalms in which the Davidide referred to is in fact David or a descendant of David, e.g. 2, 51, 110.
xvii Anderson, Contours 204.
xviii See Appendix III.
xix Kraus Theology 45.
xx That Psalm 139 is a Wisdom Psalm is an assumption that will not be defended or argued within this paper. The argument over the existence of Wisdom Psalms and the identity of those Psalms lies outside the provenance of this paper.
xxi von Rad Wisdom 15.
xxii “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom”
xxiii “Turn From evil and do good; seek peace and persue it.”
xxiv Jesus injunction against placing your pearls before swine, falls within in the Wisdom Tradition.
xxv See Patrick Miller “The Beginning of the Psalter,” in McCann 83-88.
xxvi “So the two ways, and there is no third, [separate] for ever (sic),” (Kidner 49, emphasis added).
xxvii “The imagery (in verse 3) of the tree does not speak here of the recompense to which he can look forward—it would be altogether unsuitable for conveying such a meaning—but it speaks of the meaning and value of life which the godly man discovers by living his life in obedience to God,” (Weiser 105). Hence, this is not the vindication of the righteous as such, but rather the result of godly living, contra Kraus, Psalms 1:118-9 who sees the imagery as linking to prosperity. The eschatological vindication is rather in verses 5-6 when God will destroy the wicked and continue his care for the righteous.
xxviii Anderson Psalms 62, who directs the reader to 1QS II:17b. “May he assign his lot with the cursed forever”.
xxix Mays 44.
xxx Mays 48ff; this is the only place in the OT where the Messiah is linked with Yahweh’s son, a significant teaching of Jesus in the NT, (von Rad OTT 2:172).
xxxi McCann, “Books I-III and the Editorial Purpose of the Psalter” in McCann, 95-100.
xxxii See Rendtorff, 14.
xxxiii Gerald H. Wilson, “Shaping the Psalter: A Consideration of Editorial Linkage in the Book of Psalms” in McCann, 75-6.
xxxiv Contra Whybray, “…readers were eventually discouraged from continuing to long for a restoration of the Davidic dynasty…and encouraged to place their hopes in a kingdom not of this world where Yahweh alone is king,” (88-9).
xxxv “Praise Yahweh for he is good, for his covenant fidelity is forever.”
xxvi Interestingly this psalm is the only one that names its setting and date so that one could determine its Sitz im Leben.
xxvii Mays 421.
xxxviii This reading understands 146-150 as a conclusion in similar manner as Psalm 1 and 2 were understood as an introduction to the Psalter.
xxxix See for example BDB 510-8.
xl In some instances, that is the most likely meaning.
xli Craigie 34-5.
xlii Crenshaw 15-18.
xliii Anderson, Contours 201-2.
xliv It means to explore someone’s convictions (HALOT I:347-8). It is found nine times with Yahweh as the subject, i.e. Jer 17:10; Psa 139:1, 23; Job13:9, 28:27; Sir 42:18; 1QM 16:13; 4Q392 1:4 (Clines III:304).
xlv The six occurrences in this psalm help to denote the nature of the relationship between Yahweh and the Davidide.
xlvi vv. 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 11.
xlvii It could be argued that verse 12 contains a merism; however it does not set two opposites in apposition like the other six occurrences.
xlviii “you understand my thoughts from afar.”
xlix 3:286.
l Psalms 2:514.
[sup]li “but the haughty he regards from a far”
lii Exo 23:22, 32:4; Deut. 2:9, 19, 14:25, 20:12, 19; Jdg. 9:31; 1 Sam. 23:8; 2 Sam. 11:1, 20:15; 1 Ki. 7:15, 15:27, 16:17, 20:1; 2 Ki. 5:23, 6:24f, 12:11, 16:5, 17:5, 18:9, 24:11; 1 Chr. 20:1; Est. 8:11; Ps. 139:5; Son. 8:9; Isa. 21:2, 29:3; Jer. 21:4, 9, 32:2, 37:5, 39:1; Ezek. 4:3, 5:3; Dan. 1:1.
liii Weiser 803.
liv HALOT “to acquire or buy” (III:1111-1113).
lv Gerstenberger Psalms, Part 2 407.
lvi Weiser 804-5.
lvii Anderson Psalms 909.
lviii NIDOTTE III:940-1.
lix TLOT, 1147.
lx ibid. 1151-2.
lxi NIDOTTE III:251-4.
lxii 251.
lxiii III: 292-3.
lxiv Contra Anderson, Psalms 910.
lxv Kraus Psalms 60-150 516-7.
lxvi Perdue 147.
lxvii Crenshaw 64-5.
lxviii Heschel II:59ff; Lewis 23ff.
lxix Crenshaw 65.
lxx Anderson Psalms 911.
lxxi “Men of blood“
lxxii Allen, 25.
[sup]lxxiii Kraus Psalms 511.
lxxiv See below for a treatment and justification for
this rendering of עריך.
lxxv Anderson Psalms 912.
lxxvi NIDOTTE III:1261.
lxxvii Contra Dahood III:299, while the homonym, which denotes idolatry, has ancient support dating to 11QPsa and this reading removes ambiguity of reading עצב, it does not fit in the co-text and for that reason can be ruled out (Allen 253). עצב means distress or pain (NIDOTTE 482-3).
lxxviii HALOT II:789-9.
lxxix NIDOTTE III:346.
lxxx One of two times accented in this manner.
lxxxi Lit. “My living place”.
lxxxii Lit. “My lying down place,” completing the merism.
lxxxiii Lit. “Besieged”.
lxxxiv The emendations of BHS, Kraus and Dahood all are based on unsatisfactory conjecture.
lxxxv Kraus and BHS indicate that this final clause should be omitted, but Allen indicates that not only is it original but it serves as the climax to 11-12a. He also quotes Wagner who identified this clause as theologically significant for showing Yahweh’s superiority to the Pagan deities of the surrounding nations.
lxxxvi Allen, Anderson, Dahood, Kraus, all modern English translations have some form of "create". The English King James Versions (1611) and Geneva Bible (1599), and German Unrevidierte Elberfelder (1905) follow the LXX and Vulgate with “acquire”.
lxxxvii Or “knit together”.
lxxxviii This meaning of this verse is uncertain as is visible due to multiple textual problems.
lxxxix Allen demonstrates that Dahood’s resurrection motif does not fit the context.
xc Allen points out that if the Psalmist addressed the men of blood only here would the Psalmist directly address God in this Psalm, so he follows the Syriac and the Targums and sees this as a further wish as begun in the first clause.
xci Contra Kraus who reads as עריך “your cities,” HALOT, though it posits עליך as original), Allen and Mp read it as your enemies. This presupposes the originality of עריך as opposed to the posited עדיך or עליך, following the MP which indicates seven other occurrences of ^yr,[' with the usage of enemy (1 Sa 28:16, 14:21; Jer 15:8; Mic 5:11, 13; Psa 9:7, 139:20; Dan 4:16).
xcii Allen supports this addition with Isa 3:7, 42:2, 11.
vxciii 11QPsa supports the originality of its presence in the text.
lxciv Contra Kraus and in agreement with Allen and 11QPsa.
300
[i]Notice - The featuring of a particular member article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)or be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.