PSALM 89
AND THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST
by
D. Wayne Knife
Submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Theology in
Grace
Theological Seminary
May 1973
Digitized by Ted Hildebrandt,
Accepted
by the Faculty of the Grace Theological Seminary
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree
Doctor of Theology
Grade A
Examining Committee
John J. Davis
S. Herbert Bess
James
L. Boyer
PREFACE
For many years the study of the
Psalms has been a
fascinating and profitable
discipline to the author of this
work. Psalm 89 is of
captivating interest to the writer, not
only because it is a portion of
the biblical corpus, but for
the reason that a large section
of it is devoted to the
Davidic
Covenant. It is a covenant which has tremendous
significance for the
consideration of the movements of God
in the providential control of
history. How the covenant and
the content of the Psalm blend
together is an enriching study
and leads to a greater
appreciation of all the Scripture.
Another discipline has come to the
attention of the
author in recent years, namely,
a study of a portion of the
vast amount of literature from
the ancient Near East. A pe-
rusal of this literature
reveals that all poetry of the Near
East,
including Psalm 89, had much in common. And much com-
parative study has been made.
However, some scholars have
seriously neglected the
distinct religious thought of the
Psalm
and accordingly have given unsatisfactory treatment
the application. With the
inconsistencies in some of these
comparative studies, the writer
felt that the relationship of
the ancient Near East to Psalm
89 should be clarified.
To achieve this goal the author
gratefully acknowl-
edges the help of many, not all
of whom are listed in the
i
ii
Bibliography,
in the writing of this dissertation. An ex-
pression of gratitude goes to
the writer's graduate committee,
Dr. John J. Davis, chairman,
Dr. S. Herbert Bess, and Dr.
James
L. Boyer, for their study of the manuscript and their
valuable suggestions for its
final form. Also, thankfulness
is extended to friends and
fellow students, Donald L. Fowler
and David R. Plaster, for
various forms of stimulation that
are too manifold to recount
here. And a great deal of in-
debtedness is owed to the
author's three daughters, Connie,
Vicki,
and Ginger, for encouragement and help in countless
ways.
Special gratitude must be expressed
to the writer's
wife, Janet, for her patience,
love, and understandingud.uring
the many months spent in the
preparation of this manuscript.
Her
devotion was amplified in a most practical way--the typ-
ing of this dissertation. To
her is this work affectionately
dedicated.
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS v
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1
The Problem
The Raison d'Etre
The Purpose of This Study
The Contribution of Archaeology
The Presuppositions of This Study
The Method of This Study
II. ANTECEDENTS TO THE EXEGESIS
19
Form Criticism
Author
Date and Unity
Sitz im Leben
Type of Psalm
The Question of Structure and Meter
III. EXEGESIS OF PSALM 89 73
89:1
Meditation with Insight
89:2-5 :Introduction: Possession of
Reality
89:6-19
God's Characteristics: Basis for
Praise
89:20-38
God's Covenant: Basis for Confidence
89:39-46 God's Chastisement: Basis
for
Petition
89:47-52 Conclusion: Prayer for
Restoration
89:53 Benediction of Book III
IV. SOME COMPARISONS FROM THE
ANCIENT NEAR EAST 157
Philological Similarities
Modes of Expression
Concepts and Institutions
Evaluation
iii
iv
V. SOME PARALLELS FROM THE
ANCIENT NEAR EAST 179
The Application of Parallels in the
Hermeneutical
Method
In Terms of Vocabulary
Allusions to Ideas
Direct Application to Concepts and
Institutions
The Question of Borrowing
Evaluation
Summary
VI. NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES 217
VII.
CONCLUSION 221
BIBLIOGRAPHY
225
ABBREVIATIONS
AB Analecta Biblica
AJSL The
American Journal of Semitic Languages
ANET Ancient
Near Eastern Texts, third edition, ed.
Pritchard.
BDB A
Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament,
ed. Brown, Driver, and Briggs.
BJRL Bulletin
of John Rylands Library
BS Bibliotheca
Sacra
CBQ Catholic
Biblical Quarterly
CJT Canadian
Journal of Theology
EJ Encyclopaedia
Judaica
ET Expository
Times
ETL Ephemerides
Theological Lovanienses
GJ Grace
Journal
GKC Gesenius'
Hebrew Grammar, Gesenius,
Kautzsch and
Cowley.
HTR Harvard
Theological Review
HUCA
JAOS Journal
of Ancient Oriental Studies
JASTROW
A Dictionary of the Targumim, the
Talmud Babli and
Yerushalmi,
and the Midrashic Literature, Jastrow.
JBC The
Jerome Bible Commentary
JBL Journal
of Biblical Literature
vi
JBR
Journal of Bible and
Religion
JETS
Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society
JFB A
Commentary: Critical Experimental and
Practical on the old and New
Testaments,
Jamieson,
Fausset and Brown.
JNES Journal
of Near Eastern Studies
JNSL Journal
of Northwest Semitic Languages
JPOS The
Journal of the
JQR Jewish
Quarterly Review
JSS Journal
of Semitic Studies
KB Lexicon
in Veteris Testimenti Libros, ed. Koehler
and Baumgartner.
LXX The
Septuagint
MT The
Massoretic Text.
NASB New
American Standard Bible
NBCR The
New Bible Commentary Revised
RB Revue Biblique
RHR Revue de L'Histoire des Religions
TARGUM tvlvdg tvxrqm, “ylwm Mylht," “Fp”
TS Theological
Studies
TZ Theologische
Zeitschrift
UT Ugaritic
Textbook, Gordon.
VT Vetus
Testamentum
WLQ
WTJ
ZAW Zeitschrift
fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Problem
At the present time, the battle
still rages over the
relationship of Psalm 89 to the
finds of the ancient Near
East.
While many facets of the problem may be seen, four
areas will be considered here:
treatment, textual criticism,
parallelism, theology.
In
terms of treatment
By treatment, it is meant how Psalm 89 as a portion
of the biblical corpus has been
viewed. American scholars,
either through fear or
oversight, have written very little
that offers anything exegetical
in nature on Psalm 89. This
neglect may be due partly to
the fact that some phrases and
doctrine in the psalm occur in
Psalms one through eighty-
eight and, thus, are not
treated fully. Other American
scholars just make a passing
reference to Psalm 89 in their
treatment of different
subjects. Few will even attempt to
show the significance of any
ancient Near East connections.
But this is not so with European
scholars. The fol-
lowing statement can be made by
DuMortier only from his side
of
the Atlantic Ocean. "Les nombreuses études dont a fait
l'objet
le Ps. lxxxix témoigent amplement de la complexité
1
2
de ce psaume."1
These numerous studies are from the pens of
European
writers. Besides exegetical treatment, their arti-
cles and books are replete with
ancient Near Eastern compar-
isons. Although this writer
could not obtain all of the
European
sources, this study will bear out the European con-
tribution, one which is not by
any means conservative.
In terms of textual criticism
Ap-Thomas has said:
Study
of the Old Testament in general and of its Hebrew
in particular has come into greater
prominence in recent
years. There are a number of reasons
for this--a gener-
ation of able teachers, some
exciting archeological dis-
coveries, the growth of interest in
Near Eastern studies
and in biblical theology. . . .2
Dahood goes at length to defend his
position that
Ugaritic has its bearing on the
Bible on this subject.3 Con-
cerning Ugaritic and textual
criticism, Dahood states else-
where:
.
. . Ugaritic literature remains one of the most effi-
cient instruments at the disposal of
the biblical re-
searcher.
1Jean-Bernard
DuMortier, "Un Ritual d' Intronisation:
Le Ps. LXXXIX 2-38," VT, XXII:2 (April, 1972), 176.
2D. R. Ap-Thomas, A Primer of Old Testament Text
Criticism, Facet Books--Biblical
Series 14, edited by John
Reumann
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), p. iii.
3Mitchell
Dahood, The Anchor Bible--Psalms II,
51-100
(Garden
City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1968),
pp.
XVII-XXVII. For the criticism Dahood is answering, see
John L. McKenzie, a review of Psalms 1:1-50 by Mitchell
Dahood,
CBQ, XXIX:l (January, 1967), 138-40 and David A.
Robertson, a review of Anchor Bible: Psalms 1, 1-50 by
Mitchell
Dahood, JBL, LXXXV:IV (December,
1966), 484-86.
3
In
some instances Ugaritic brings a peremptory
solution to a biblical verse; in
others the evidence
is less direct, but does inject new
elements and con-
siderations which an exegete may not overlook.1
While the statement may be true, the
method by which
it is put into practice is not
always valid, especially if
the text is emended in an
excessive manner. This aspect of
the problem will manifest
itself throughout the study.
The Targums, Old Latin Version,
Septuagint, and
Peshito are employed by Kennedy
for the "removal of blemishes"
in the Massoretic text.2
Many of these "corrections" in
Psalm
89 are not only unacceptable, but unnecessary. Other
works3 could be
cited, but the above point out the problem
lMitchell Dahood,
"The Value of Ugaritic for Textual
Criticism," AB, 10 (Roma, 1959), 26-27. The same article may
be
found in Biblica, 40 (1959), 160-70.
A favorable evalua-
tion
of Dahood's method is given by Stanislaw Segert, "The
Ugaritic Texts and the Textual Criticism of the
Hebrew Bible,"
Near Eastern Studies in
Honor of William Foxwell Albright,
edited
by Hans Goedicke (
1971),
pp. 413-20. But a critical evaluation is noted by K.
L.
Barker, a review of New Perspectives on
the Old Testament,
edited
by J. Barton Payne, BS, 129:514
(April-June, 1972),
154. For further study see H. L. Ginsberg,
"The Ugaritic
Texts
and Textual Criticism," JBL,
LXII (1943), 109-15.
2James
Kennedy, An Aid to the Textual Amendment
of the
Old Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1928), pp. 1-255.
3Christian
D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Mas-
soretico-Critical
Edition of the Hebrew Bible (
Publishing House,
altogether
favorable report, see Bruce K. Waltke, a review of
Introduction
to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew
Bible by Christian D.
Ginsburg, BS, 123:492
(October-December,
1966), 364-65. For further study see Nahum M.
Sarna, et al,
"Psalms,
Book of," Encyclopaedia Judaica,
16 Volumes (Jeru-
and
Ernst Wurthwein, The Text of the Old
Testament, translated
by
Peter R. Ackroyd (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957), pp. 1-173.
4
that affects this study.
Textual criticism will not be treated
as a separate topic because it is
an inherent part of practi-
cally all that follows.
In terms of parallelism
Parallels from the ancient Near East are seen every-
where in Psalm 89. Verbal
parallels would be expected, but
not to the extent that McKenzie
saw them. "The verbal paral-
lels between the Ugaritic
tablets and several Old Testament
passages make it impossible to
suppose anything but direct
dependence."1
As some have advocated, there are
parallels in thought
patterns.2 Scholars
see parallels in the ancient Near East
to Psalm 89 in the realms of
kingship, throne, covenant,
Rahab,
and even God. Concepts of ruling, praise, and enthrone-
ment are also included.
It is recognized that there have to
be some relation-
ships because various forms of
ancient Near Eastern poetry
are stereotyped. But does this
constitute a direct paral-
lelism? Since a whole chapter
will be devoted to this portion
of the problem, there is no
need of further discussion here.
1John
L. McKenzie, Myths and Realities: Studies
in
Biblical Theology (
1963),
p. 97.
2John
Hasting Patton, Canaanite Parallels in
the Book
of Psalms (Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins Press, 1944), pp. 15-
28. Theodor Gaster, "Canaanite Parallels to
the Psalms," JQR,
35:3 (January, 1945), 355-56.
5
In terms of theologv
Actually, the three facets of the problem above are
involved in the theological,
phase of the problem. Several
scholars are named by
Baumgartel as viewing the Psalms "sep-
arated from the individual and
. . . understood as cultic in
character."l
This concept seems definitely to imply that the
individual psalmist had no
relationship to God.
Adherents of Religionsgeschichte provide another area
of the theological problem.
Quite
apart from the formal parallels, it has come to
appear likely that the Canaanite
religion at least ex-
erted some influence upon the content
of the Old Testa-
ment psalms, although Yahwism and
of God and existence carried the day.2
Similarly, the eminent scholar W. F.
Albright holds
that Psalm 89 swarms "with
Canaanitisms."3 And Kapeirud
avers:
It
is instructive to examine individual psalms from
the standpoint of their relationship
to Ugaritic motifs,
expressions, and details of cultic
practice. The psalms
are firmly rooted in the Yahwistic faith and the Jeru-
lFriedrich Bäumgartel,
"The Hermeneutical Problem of
the
Old Testament," translated by Murray Newman, Essays on
Old Testament
Hermeneutics,
edited by Claus Westermann,
English
translation edited by James Luther Mays (
2Ernst
Sellin and Georg Fohrer, Introduction to
the
Old Testament, translated by David E.
Green (
Abingdon
Press, 1968), p. 259.
3William
Foxwell Albright, Archaeology and the
Religion of Israel, Anchor Books edition
(Garden City, New
6
tain many elements derived from
Canaanite religion.1
What the above scholars have not considered
is that
God and all His works are
supernatural. This includes His
authorship of Scripture. The
problem here is one of presup-
position which will be covered
later.
While there are many other problems
that confront
Psalm 89, these areas deal with
the main corpus of this study.
On the
whole the problem is much more serious than stated
above, but another problem
involved in a work of this size
is the avoidance of tautology.
The Raison
d'Etre
The reason for writing may be observed first of all
by cause and effect.
Archaeology has brought much to light
in the area of Old Testamentt
background and studies. The
findings of the ancient Near
East have enriched our knowledge
of the cultural background and
linguistics within the biblical
corpus. As already indicated,
due to theological bias or lack
of concern for the Author of
Holy Writ, some scholars have
misapplied the material from
the ancient Near East to Psalm
89. As
a result, passages of the psalm are misconstrued,
parallels are seen everywhere,
and knowingly or unknowingly,
1Arvid
the Old Testament, translated by G. W.
Anderson (
7
theology itself is greatly
affected.
Also, the present writer has found
but few works that
offer anything exegetical in
nature on Psalm 89. Since all
details in the biblical record
are worthy of diligent atten-
tion, there is a need to
examine this portion closely.
Special
study is also warranted because of God's covenant
with David, an all important
aspect in the light of God's
revelation.
The Purpose of This
Study
The purpose may be seen as many goals, all of which
are inherently involved and
intermeshed. Psalm 89 is a rich
portion of eternal truth,
therefore the first goal will be to
highlight this from the
original language. Of necessity,
textual criticism will be
important.
Some writers have seen parallels to
Psalm 89. There-
fore it is significant that an
investigation be made in the
light of biblical exegesis. The second goal is to demon-
strate whether there are valid
parallels from the ancient Near
East.
If there are bona fide parallels, these should be dem-
onstrated, examined, and
evaluated as to their contribution
to the interpretation of the
psalm. Likewise, if there are
no valid parallels, then the
goal is to demonstrate such. In
essence, since archaeologists
have uncovered material that
relates to biblical studies,
the present author believes it
is a worthy goal to see if
there is any exact relevance, as
8
some say there is, to Psalm 89.
The Contribution of Archaeology
The relationship of the Holy Scriptures and archae-
ology has reached paramount
interest. Archer says:
For
students of the Bible the last fifty years of
archaeological discovery have been
more momentous than
in any previous period of comparable
length in the
history of the Christian church.1
Significant discoveries too numerous
to mention have
greatly aided both scholar and
student in understanding the
background of many biblical
passages. Briefly, the contribu-
tion will be considered in
terms of sources and biblical
studies.
In terms of sources
In order to avoid needless repetition, individual
sources will not be named
specifically here. Let it suffice
to say that ample material
comes from the following: Akka-
dian, Babylonian, Egyptian,
Hittite, Ugaritic,
Scrolls
and other inscriptions. It will be apparent that
archaeology has contributed a
very large portion of this
study.
In terms of biblical studies
On the one hand there is the contribution to the
study of biblical languages.
Freedman writes:
1Gleason
L. Archer, Jr., "Old Testament History and
Recent Archaeology From Abraham to Moses," BS, 127:505 (Jan-
uary-March, 1970), 3.
9
The
non-biblical materials help to give a clearer
picture of the dimensions and
character of the languages
which are only partially represented
in the Bible.
Since
the inscriptions also come from a variety of
places and periods, they provide a
basis for analyzing
the biblical languages according to
a historical per-
spective, and thereby yield clues as
to date and author-
ship.1
On the other hand there is the
contribution for the
theologian in his task of
exegesis.
.
. . archaeology should not be used either to prove or
to confirm the "truth" of
divine revelation. The true
function of archaeology is to enable
us to understand
the Bible better, insofar as it was
produced by men in
given times and places. Because it
pleased God to give
us the sacred record in many
different forms of liter-
ature, with a great diversity of
backgrounds in the
ancient Near East, it is part of the
theologian's task
to use all the possible light that
can be thrown on the
biblical documents from outside sources.2
Thus it is that archaeology
contributes by helping to
supplement one's biblical
knowledge. But it should be ac-
knowledged that this
contribution is not without its problems.
While
the following comment is directed mainly toward archae-
ology, it applies here quite
well. According to Weddle:
Even
the most objectively-minded interpreter cannot fully
escape from his cultural, religious, and philosophical
1David
Noel Freedman, "Archaeology and the Future of
Biblical Studies," The Bible in Modern Scholarship, edited by
J.
Philip Hyatt (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1965), pp. 310-
11.
2Alfred
von Rohr Saur, "The Meaning of Archaeology
for
the Exegetical Task," A Symposium on
Archaeology and
Theology (Saint Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1970),
p. 7.
10
biases. The annals of archaeology
are replete with ex-
amples where bias affected interpretation.1
To which Smith would reply, ".
. . it is not surpris-
ing that a long series of
archaeological 'confirmations of
the Bible' have turned out to
be howlers."2 Some will not
agree with Sanders. He raises
the question on the canon of
the Old Testament, particularly
the Psalms, because of the
influence of archaeological
finds.3
Wiseman refers to the issue in this
study in a two-
fold manner. He concludes that
archaeological discoveries
.
. . do not affect our understanding of any major doc-
trine or detract from an obvious and
vital interpreta-
tion of the narrative. . . . At the
same time these
studies highlight the problems caused
by divergent
interpretation of the text. . . .4
The contribution of archaeology is very significant,
but the application to God's
Word is the basic issue. The
matter of interpretation will
be highlighted in the following
1Forest Weddle, "The
Limitations of Archaeology Im-
posed
by Interpretation and Lack of Data," GJ,
11:3 (Fall,
1970), 6. For further study see Merrill F.
Unger, "The Use
and
Abuse of Biblical Archaeology," BS,
105:419 (July-Septem-
ber,
1948), 297-306 and John C. Jeske, "The Role of Archae-
ology
in Bible Study," WLQ, LXVIII:4
(October, 1971), 228-36.
2Morton
Smith, "The
Studies,"
JBL, LXXXVIII:l (March, 1969), 31.
3James
A. Sanders, "Cave 11. Surprises and the Ques-
tion
of Canon," New Directions in
Biblical Archaeology,
edited
by David Noel Freedman and Jonas C. Greenfield,
Anchor Books edition (
and
Company, Inc., 1971), pp. 122-27.
4Donald J. Wiseman,
"Archaeology and Scripture," WTJ,
XXXIII:2 (May, 1971), 152.
11
section.
The Presuppositions of This
Study
In biblical studies today great freedom is exercised
with such terms as
"cult" and "myth." It is only fair to the
reader that he know the
position of the present author, es-
pecially in a study of this
type. All that has been said
before and all that follows
will be clarified at this point.
The
purpose of this study does not include all the schools of
thought and their differences.
For example, Widengren refers
to the Pan-Babylonian school,
the so-called Scandinavian
school, and the British
"Myth and
on the differing viewpoints.l
In
terms of cult
The term itself seems to have various meanings, but
the chief concern is that which
speaks of ritualistic acts
or ceremonies. For example,
Johnson holds that there is
ritual drama in Psalm 89.2
Mowinckel holds a very similar
1George Widengren,
"Early Hebrew Myths and Their In-
terpretation,"
Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, edited by
S. H.
Hooke
(Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1958) pp. 149-203. Cf.
also
S. H. Hooke, "Myth and Ritual: Past and Present,"
Myth, Ritual, and
Kingship,
edited by S. H. Hooke (
The
Clarendon Press, 1958), pp. 1-21 and Amos N. Wilder,
"Scholars, Theologians, and Ancient
Rhetoric," JBL, LXXXI:I
(March,
1956), 1-11.
2A.
R. Johnson, "The Psalms," The
Old Testament and
Modern Study, edited by H. H. Rowley
(
University Press, 1961), p.
196.
12
view.1 Woudstra
mentions several definitions and then he
concludes:
One
of the major deficiencies in the current defini-
tions lies in the fact that cultus
is defined in almost
exclusively phenomenological terms.
The element of
revelation does not significantly
enter into the defi-
nition.2
Looking at Mowinckel's view in
particular, Woudstra
goes on to say:
.
. . it should not be overlooked that
Mowinckel's
assertion that revelation precedes
cultus is itself a
purely comparative statement. For
Mowinckel makes it
clear that not only
Himself
as to where He may be found, but that this idea
is "a fundamental idea in all
religion." In other words,
we are not face to face with
revelation. All that we do
confront is the claim to having
received revelation, and
this claim is fundamental to all
religions. Hence we
are not yet beyond the
phenomenological and the compar-
ative. In this respect the term
"cultus" has undergone
a radical transformation when it is
compared with ear-
lier usages in medieval and early Reformation theology.3
Even if the concept is based upon direct revelation,
it does not guarantee that the
term is interpreted correctly.
Therefore, in this study the
present writer will refrain from
1Sigmund Mowinckel., The Psalms in
translated
by D. R. Ap-Thomas (
1962), p. 176. For further reference see Sellin
and Fohrer,
Introduction to the Old
Testament,
pp. 260-62. Although
Sarna does not employ the term as a ritual act,
see his dis-
cussion
in Sarna, et al. "Psalms, Book
of," pp. 1316-17.
2Marten H. Woudstra,
"The Tabernacle in Biblical-
Theological Perspective," New Perspectives on the Old Testa-
ment, edited by J. Barton Payne
(
Publisher,
1970), p. 93.
3Ibid.
13
any use of the word lest he be
misunderstood.
In
terms of myth
A perusal of the abundance of literature reveals
there is no consensus of
opinion as to the meaning of myth.
Kirk postulates:
There is no one definition of myth,
no Platonic form of
a myth against which all actual
instances can be mea-
sured. Myths, as we shall see,
differ enormously in
their morphology and their social function.1
And Knox says, "The term has a
variety of uses in a
variety of connections and, as
we have several times had oc-
casion to observe, is
notoriously difficult to define.2
Still,
these and others attempt definitions.3
But, with or without definition, some see mythology
in Holy Writ. Kapelrud avers:
We
have already noted the tendency in
mythological material. It is primarily in the Psalms,
1G.
S. Kirk, Myth: Its Meaning and Functions
in A
cient and Other Cultures (
1970),
p. 7.
2John
Knox, Myth and Truth: An Essay on the
Language
of Faith (
1964),
p. 34.
3James
Barr, "The Meaning of 'Mythology' in Relation
to
the Old Testament," VT, IX:l
(January, 1959), 1-10. John
L.
McKenzie, "Myth and the Old Testament," CBQ, XXI:3 (July,
1959),
265-74. Sigmund Mowinckel, The Old
Testament as Word
of God, translated by Reidar B.
Bjornard (
don
Press, 1959), pp. 99-106. As one studies Mowinckel's
views
on myth, he should also note his views on revelation
and
inspiration, pp. 23-24, 46, 75.
14
which could not easily be altered,
that such material is
preserved.1
Goldziher definitely sees mythology
in Psalm 89.2
Full discussion is not given
here in order to avoid repetition
later. Dulles states:
.
. . it is not surprising that the Israelites produced
no mythology of their own. They did,
however, borrow
from the mythologies of the
surrounding peoples, and in
some cases subjected these to a
process of demythologiz-
ing which is at best relatively
complete. For example,
in various references to the creation,
we find allusions
to mighty struggles between Yahweh
and mysterious mon-
sters such, as Leviathan and Rahab
(e.g., Ps 73/74, Ps
88/89, Is 27, Job 9, Job 20).3
However, the position of the present author is quite
clear. He dogmatically holds that
the Israelites did not
borrow any mythology nor is
there any hint of belief in any
mythology in the biblical
corpus. Anything to the contrary
immediately affects biblical
revelation and inspiration, and
thus, the very character of
God. The employment of the word
bhr in
89:11 (Heb.) will be discussed later.
But immediately, the liberal critic accuses the
1Kapelrud,
The Ras Shamra Discoveries and the Old
Testament, p. 72.
2Ignaz
Goldziher, Mythology Among the Hebrews
and Its
Historical Development (
Inc.,
1967), p. 424.
3Avery
Dulles, "Symbol, Myth, and the Biblical Reve-
lation,"
TS, 27:1 (March, 1966), 16. Also see
B. K. Waltke,
a
review of
Themes by Harvey H. Guthrie,
Jr., BS, 123:492 (October-Decem-
ber,
1966), 363.
History," The Bible in Modern Scholarship, edited by J. Philip
Hyatt
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1965), pp. 100-05.
15
present writer of coming to his
study with basic presupposi-
tions. The thoughts and
conclusions of McCown are pertinent
here:
The problem of
objectivity, of avoiding unjustifiable
assumptions and presuppositions, is
a difficult one.
. . .
The
line between the interpretation of ancient thought
and its evaluation and application
for modern use is no
barb-wired iron curtain. It may be
as easily and in-
sensibly crossed as the equator; but
the navigator must
keep his bearings and know where he
is. . . .
But if biblical scholarship is to
retain a place of re-
spectability among modern fields of
research, it must
maintain full freedom of
investigation, thought, and
expression, with no claim to a
preferred status or
special immunities, and with no
theological presupposi-
tions.1
Without going into a detailed
discussion, it can be
said that McCown's conclusion
is not realistic. The liberal
critic ought to be honest
enough to admit that everyone comes
to a study with some
presuppositions. Erlandsson has devoted
an article to this very matter.
To quote him in part:
Can
a scholar who believes in the Bible's reliability
do research without presuppositions?
. . . We have seen
that the historical-critical
scholars who claimed that
they worked without presuppositions
at the same time
take as their starting point
absolutely fixed presup-
positions.2
Continuing on the same subject, Brown comments:
1C. C.. McCown, "The
Current Plight of Biblical Schol-
arship,"
JBL, LXXXV:I (March, 1956), 17-18.
2Seth
Erlandsson,, "Is There Ever Biblical Research
Without Presuppositions?" Themelios, 7:2-3 (1970), 28.
16
It may well be wondered
what a scholar has to do to
get a hearing for
"conservative" results. Under such
circumstances, one is tempted to
conclude that much of
the current consensus against the
authenticity and re-
liability of most biblical material
is a presupposition
of "scientific Bible scholarship," not a result.l
And this is the crucial issue in this entire study.
Because
of one's assumptions, his interpretation is greatly
affected. As a result, the
viewpoints on Psalm 89 are like
the demons of
Legion,
for we are many." The words of Mendenhall are all
too true:
Today,
little can be said concerning Biblical history
and religion (beyond specific
historical "facts") which
will receive general assent among
the specialists in the
field. If the ability to command
general assent among
those who are competent be the
criterion of the scien-
tific, it must now be admitted that
a science of Bibli-
cal studies does not exist.
Certainly, each scholar
feels that the views he now holds
represent a steady
progress beyond those of a past
generation, but that
is not the point. A survey of the
entire field shows
rather such divergence of opinion
and such disagreement
on nearly every important issue that
a consensus of
opinion cannot be said to exist.2
It should not be surprising, then,
that controversy
will be evident in this work.
If anything, this highlights
the importance of such a study.
lHarold 0. J. Brown,
"Editor's Page," Themelios,
7:2-3
(1970), 30.
2George
tion,"
The Bible and the Ancient Near East,
essays in honor
of
William Foxwell Albright, edited by G. Ernest Wright
(Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company,
Inc., 1961),
p. 32.
17
The Method of This
Study
In
terms of scope
The aim is to exegete the entire
psalm and to treat
its related problems. But it
will be virtually impossible
to deal with every word in the
psalm and every theological
implication. Only those matters
relevant and pertinent to
the purpose of this study will
be considered. Therefore,
this dissertation will accordingly
be limited to the study
of hermeneutics in this area.
As for the ancient Near East, the
scope includes only
what scholars deem as
parallels, extending from the life and
literature of
This
does not encompass an interpretation of all ancient
Near Eastern literature cited.
The concepts and beliefs of
the ancient Near East that
apply to the psalm will be dis-
cussed and examined very
briefly. Again, the purpose is not
to compare Psalm 89 to the
ancient Near East, but to compare
aspects of the ancient Near
East to Psalm 89. In other words
the principal study concerns
Psalm 89; the ancient Near East
is confined entirely to its
contribution or so-called par-
allelism.
In
terms of procedure
The first task will be to treat the antecedents of
exegesis: author, date, etc.
Also, no study of this type
would be complete without an
investigation of form-criticism.
In the following chapter of exegesis, the procedure
18
will be to follow the
guidelines of normal or literal inter-
pretation. It does not exclude
figurative language. The
method will be to determine the
ordinary meaning and intention
of what the author sought to communicate.
Only fantasy and
speculation are excluded.
Valid comparisons from the ancient
viewed in the fourth chapter.
This does not necessarily
imply nor comprise parallelism
because of the stereotyped
patterns of poetry.
The next chapter involves what some
scholars call
parallelisms to Psalm 89. If
there are valid parallels,
they will be examined as to
their contribution. Of necessity,
this chapter will be somewhat
extended due to the explanation
of some ancient concepts.
A brief chapter preceding the
conclusion will contain
New Testament references. It is
hoped that this procedure
will aid the reader's
comprehension.
CHAPTER II
ANTECEDENTS TO THE EXEGESIS
Form Criticism
It seems evident that form criticism should precede
any study on the Psalms. In one
way or another it affects
most of the remaining topics in
this chapter: author, date
Sitz im Leben, and
types. The significance of form criticism
is stated by Alexander:
Though
some have misused the results of this study, the
results themselves have opened new
vistas in the under-
standing of the Old Testament. An
outstanding example
of a portion of the Old Testament
unlocked by this study
of literary genre is the book of
Psalms and hymnic liter-
ature.1
Since this subject is another large
enough to be a
dissertation in itself,
especially with voluminous sources
at hand, the present work will
only touch it in summary
fashion.2 Briefly,
consideration will be given to approach
and method, weaknesses, and
contribution.
1Ralph
ment
Apocalyptic Literature," (unpublished Doctor's disserta-
tion,
Dallas Theological Seminary, 1968), p. 4.
2The
reader is referred to a rather exhaustive treat-
ment
by Klaus Koch, The Growth of the Biblical
Tradition:
The
Form-Critical Method,
translated from the 2nd German
edition
by S. M. Cupitt (
1969). Especially note pp.
68-91.
20
In terms of approach and method
Johnson observes:
In
so far as the study of the Psalter has made any
progress during the generation which
has passed .
it is largely due to the influence
of one man--Hermann
Gunkel.1
Gunkel is generally regarded as the scholar who first
applied the principles of form
criticism to the Psalms. His-
torically speaking, he seems to
be the pivotal point.
The
author of it was first and foremost H. Gunkel, who
applied form-critical methods to the
study of the Psalms,
classifying them into various types
and studying the
Sitz im Leben from which these sprang.
Gunkel's work
marked such a turning point that one
may divide all
study of the Psalms into pre- and post-Gunkel phases.2
The basic approach and method of
Gunkel began with
the conviction that all poetry
in
posed first to be sung as an
accompaniment of a ritual act.
He
viewed the Psalms as having their origin in various occa-
sions of
specific situation in life for
each Psalm. The next step was
to take the Psalms having a
common Sitz im Leben and classify
them according to types or
literary forms (Gattung). Besides
having a common occasion, the
Psalms must have the following
Modern
Study,
edited by H. H. Rowley (
sity
Press, 1961), p. 162.
2John
Bright, "Modern Study of Old Testament Litera-
ture,"
The Bible and the Ancient Near East,
essays in honor
of
William Foxwell Albright, edited by G. Ernest Wright (Gar-
den
City,
26.
21
characteristics to distinguish
the types: common motifs,
forms of expression, and ideas.1
Another eminent scholar in this
field,
winckel, declares:
Form criticism,
"die Form-und Gattungsforshung", is
the absolutely indispensable basis
of any understanding
of the Psalms. It has taught us to
distinguish between
a certain number of types
("Gattungen"), easily defin-
able with regard to form and
content, in which each
individual example has been composed
according to the
very fixed, established rules of
form and content, and
has shown that each of these types
has sprung up out of
a definite "Sitz im
Leben", out of its traditionally
fixed function in religious life, a
situation and a
function, which have created the
very elements of form
and content, which are peculiar to the type in question.2
Mowinckel does build upon the form-critical approach,
but he differs with Gunkel's
view. The difference is ex-
pressed by Hohenstein in a very
concise manner:
The
majority of Biblical psalms are to be associated
with the Hebrew cult. They were
composed for, and used
in, actual temple services. In this
emphasis Mowinckel
is at odds with Gunkel. While the
latter admitted that
many of the psalms were originally
old cultic songs, he
hastened to point out that in the
form in which we have
them they were no longer connected
to the cult but were
more personal and spiritual in
outlook. Mowinckel, on
the contrary, insists that there is
no private poetry in
1This
summary of Gunkel's basic approach and method
was
extracted from Hermann Gunkel, The
Psalms: A Form-
Critical
Introduction,
translated by Thomas M. Horner, Facet
Book--Biblical
Series XIX, edited by John Reumann (Phila-
delphia:
Fortress Press, 1967). For another viewpoint see
James
Muilenburg, "Form Criticism and Beyond, JBL, LXXXVIII:I
(March,
1969), 1-18.
2Sigmund Mowinckel,
"Psalm Criticism Between 1900 and
1935," VT, V:1 (January, 1955), 15.
22
the Psalter, but that all of it has
group-cultic associa-
tions.1
Details cannot be given here, the
reader is asked to
read the works cited in the
footnotes. It may be simply said
that Mowinckel viewed ancient
a great New Year festival in
many of the Psalms.2 Hahn says,
"But
Mowinckel seems to have overshot the mark by assigning
each category of psalm to one
ritual occasion exclusively."3
Although the Norwegian employs
the form-critical approach,
his premise might be better
entitled "the cultic approach."
There is another variation of the
form-critical ap-
proach. A leading advocate is
the Swedish scholar, Ivan
Engnell. "Engnell calls
his approach traditio-historical."4
lHerbert E. Hohenstein,
"Psalms 2 and 110: A Compar-
ison
of Exegetical Methods," (unpublished Doctor's disserta-
tion,
Concordia Seminary,
direct
study of Mowinckel's method see Sigmund Mowinckel, The
Psalms in
Israel's Worship,
2 Vols., translated by D. R. Ap-
Thomas
(New York: Abingdon Press, 1962). Especially note
Vol. I, pp.. 23-41. The disagreement between
Gunkel and
winckel
is also expressed by A. R. Johnson, "Divine Kingship
and
the Old Testament," ET, LXII:2
(November, 1950), 36-42.
2Mowinckel, The Psalms in
pp.
106-92. A brief treatment of his position is given in
Harvey H. Guthrie, Jr.,
Dominant Themes (New York: The Seaburg
Press, 1966), pp.
14-17.
3Herbert
F. Hahn, The Old Testament in Modern Re-
search (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1966), p. 139.
4Ivan
Engnell, A Rigid Scrutiny: Critical
Essays on
the Old Testament, translated and edited
by John T. Willis
(Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1969),
p. 3. See
also
J. T. Willis, "Engnell's Contributions to Old Testament
Scholarship," TZ, 26:6 (November-Dezember, 1970),
385-94.
23
The
apparent aim of this approach is to seek to reconstruct
the occasion at which the psalm
was first used. In reality,
it seems to differ very little
from what the present writer
calls "the cultic
approach."
In
terms of weaknesses
To this present author, the first and foremost major
weakness is not of the system
itself, but the hermeneutic of
those who employ the
form-critical method. Coppes has writ-
ten an excellent article on the
"Hermeneutic of Hermann
Gunkel."l
The author shows how in Gunkel's method of re-
search "Fact and fantasy
flow freely together."2 In his
biased presuppositions Gunkel's
conception of God's guidance
"was
thoroughly humanistic."3 "Gunkel is trapped between his
presupposed anti-supernatural
humanism and his osbervation of
historical phenomena leading
him to supernaturalism."4 As to
his methodology, Coppes plainly
states, "It is evident that
Gunkel's hermeneutical methods
are colored by his theological
Engnell's views are also elucidated in G. W.
Anderson, "Some
Aspects
of the
XLII:4
(October, 1950), 239-56.
1Leonard
J. Coppes, "'An Introduction to the Hermen-
eutic
of Hermann Gunkel," WTJ, XXXII:2
(May, 1970), 148-78.
2Ibid., 159.
3Ibid., 167.
4Ibid.,
170.
24
presuppositions."1
A major weakness in the system
itself is found in the
approaches just reviewed. The
Spirit of God through Scripture
has not given the slightest
hint that one should reconstruct
historical incidents based upon
imagination. The Bible makes
no statement of
as Mowinckel, Engnell, et al advocate. If such a festival is
a key to understanding the
psalms, God would have had it re-
corded.2
A third weakness is seen when one
aspect of Gunkel's
Gattung is
applied to the origin and composition of Scripture.
Mihelic outlines Gunkel's view:
.
. . the study of these types will reveal that all of
these various categories were
originally spoken and not
written. This accounts for the
brevity of the ancient
compositions. Thus, wisdom
literature existed originally
as single proverbs and sayings, and
the same was true for
most ancient legal judgments,
prophetic utterances and
thorah statues.3
Then he relates the weakness:
lIbid., 172. A contrast
may be observed in R. Lansing
Hicks, "Form and Content: A Hermeneutical
Application,"
Translating and
Understanding the Old Testament: Essays in
Honor of Herbert Gordon
May,
edited by Harry Thomas Frank and
William L. Reed (Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1970), pp. 304-
24.
2An
answer to Mowinckel and his followers is given by
K.
A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old
Testament (
Inter-Varsity
Press, 1966), pp. 102-06.
3Joseph
L. Mihelic, "The Influence of Form Criticism
on
the Study of the Old Testament, JBR,
XIX:3 (July, 1951),
122.
25
Now,
even though Gunkel s sketch of literary forms has
been of great value for the smallest
units, it has not
taught us anything new about the
composition and origin
of our biblical books. This is
especially true in re-
spect to books and collections of
books which are more
than loose compilations of small
units. This is due to
the fact that form criticism is
inclined to look at the
typical and ignores or pushes into
the background that
which is personal and individual.1
Even though there may be more, a
fourth and final
weakness is set forth here.
Just because it has been placed
fourth by the present writer,
its importance is not diminished.
In
consideration of any biblical truth, the understanding and
usage of terminology are
exceedingly significant. Hals avers,
"The
field of OT form-critical terminology is one in which
there exists great diversity
and greater confusion."2 And
later he remarks:
It
seems to me that the confusion in usage of form-
critical labels has progressed to
such an extent that
it must be asked whether in some
cases any standardly
acceptable technical terminology is salvable.3
Actually, all of this is just the
result of divorcing
interpretation from the
grammatical, historical method of
interpretation. A perfect
example of this is a work on Psalm
lIbid., 127. For a refutation of Gunkel's smaller
units
in the Pentateuch see Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey
of Old Testament
Introduction
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1964),
Pp.
87-88.
2Ronald
M. Hals, "Legend: A Case Study in OT Form-
Critical
Terminology," CBQ, XXXIV:2
(April, 1972), 166.
3Ibid.,
172.
26
89 by
G. W. Ahlström.1 He followed Engnell in his approach
that was explained earlier in
this study.2 Also, his pre-
suppositions are similar to
those of his Swedish colleague
and the
Rather than go to Ahlstrom's
work and a lengthy discussion,
a quote from Moran will be
sufficient for an explanation. In
a review of Ahlström's effort
on Psalm 89, Moran notes:
Following the commentary
there are some brief studies:
1.
Dwd--David (pp. 163-173, Dwd is a vegetation deity,
and Yahweh's son); 2. Anschliessende Bemerkungen (pp.
174-185,
meter, relation of TM and the versions, cult-
prophets, Ps 89 and 2 Sam 7); 3. Spezialanmerkungen (pp.
186-192, Tabor as cult-center of
Tammuz, Hermon = "holy
place", date of Canaanite
influence on Israelite liter-
ature, tenses in Hebrew).3
Obviously, Ahlström's work offers
little or no help
in this dissertation.
Weaknesses in the form-critical ap-
proach are evident everywhere.
One of the latest attempts on
the subject is by Gene M.
Tucker.4 In his review, Waltke
reveals the basic problem:
1G.
W. Ahlström, Psalm 89: Eine Liturgie aus
dem
Ritual des
Leidenden Königs,
translated by Hans-Karl Hacker
and
Rudolf Zeitler (Lund: Hakan Ohlssons Boktryckeri, 1959).
2Joseph
J. DeVault, a review of Psalm 89: Eine
Litur
ie aus dem Ritual des
Leidenden Königs
by G. TW. Ahlstrbm, TS,
21
1960), 280.
3W.
L. Moran, a review of Psalm 89, Eine
Liturgie aus
dem Ritual des Leidenden
Königs
by G. W. Ahlström, Biblica,
42:2 (1961), 237. Moran concludes by saying,
"One can only
wish
that more respect had been shown for basic tenets of
Israelite
faith." 239.
4Gene
M. Tucker, Form Criticism of the Old
Testament
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1971).
27
In
his attempt to popularize the form critical ap-
proach as developed by H. Gunkel in
the narrative
literature, by C. Westermann in the
prophetic liter-
ature, by S. Mowinckel in the hymnic
literature and by
Alt
in the legal literature, the author has produced a
work that combines the strength and
weakness of popular
literature; viz. clarity and
dogmatism. But by combin-
ing this virtue with this vice he
unwittingly makes it
painfully clear, to the reader that
most of the practi-
tioners of this approach are
humanists who regard the
Bible
as only a human document and presume that the
direct intervention of God in the
affairs of man exists
only in man's creative imagination
and not in historical
fact.1
In terms of contribution
One contribution is in the area of hermeneutics, es-
pecially literary genres.
Alexander says:
It
is recognized, however, that liberal scholars have
often misused this profitable
hermeneutical tool in
biblical studies. But, on the contrary,
conservative
scholars have often failed to take
advantage of this im-
portant means of studying
Scriptures, simply because
liberal scholars employ it.
Recently, however, conser-
vative scholars have begun to
acknowledge the usefulness
of studying the forms of literature
in Scripture, and
the results have been richly rewarding.2
The Gattung of each psalm does help the scholar to see
where natural divisions fall
within the psalm. Ideas or con-
cepts expressed by the author
often help one to discern how
the song was organized. In
another way the approach enables
the student to see the emphasis
of the author within a
lBruce K. Waltke, a
review of Form Criticism of the
Old Testament by Gene M. Tucker, BS, 129:514 (April-June,
1972),
175.
2Alexander,
"Hermeneutics of Old Testament Apocalyptic
Literature," p. 108.
28
Gunkel-type.
Probably the greatest aid has come in word
studies. To observe how a word
is used in a similar literary
form in one psalm greatly
assists one in his study of another
psalm.
Then, too, Gunkel's approach has
validity that has
been employed rightly by many.
He states:
To
understand the literary types we must in each case
have the whole situation clearly
before us and ask our-
selves, Who is speaking? Who are the
listeners? What
is the mise en scene at the time? What effect is aimed
at?1
What might be seen as another
contribution is
Gunkel's use of archaeology and
form-criticism to prove
wrong Wellhausen's theory on
the evolution of
ligion. It is much too lengthy
to discuss here.2
Though it will not be stated as
such, the reader will
detect the employment of the
form-critical method in this
present study, but it will be
based on the grammatical, his-
torical method of
interpretation and the presuppositions
already mentioned. The above
discussion not only acquaints
one with what is to follow, but
it also will eliminate
verbosity.
lCoppes, "An Introduction
to the Hermeneutic of Her-
mann
Gunkel," p. 161. The citation was taken from Hermann
Gunkel, "Fundamental Problems of Hebrew
Literary History,"
What Remains of the Old
Testament?,
translated by A. K.
2Ibid.,
150-54.
29
Author
There is absolutely no consensus of opinion on the
authorship of Psalm 89. The
issue is confusing and quite in-
volved. Date and background
cannot be divorced from the dis-
cussion, although they will be
dealt with under separate
headings.
The superscription in English reads,
"A Maskil of
Ethan the Ezrahite."1
In the Hebrew and Greek, the super-
scription is incorporated as
verse one. The MT has lyKiW;ma
yHirAz;x,hA
NtAyxel;2 and the LXX has Sune<sewj Aiqan t&? Israhli<t^.3
The
authenticity of the superscription has raised many ques-
tions. Kirkpatrick writes:
It
is now generally acknowledged that the titles re-
lating to the authorship and occasion of the Psalms
cannot be regarded as prefixed by
the authors themselves,
or as representing trustworthy
traditions, and according-
ly giving reliable information.4
Partially, Perowne would disagree.
"That in some
cases the authors themselves
may have prefixed their names to
1All
English passages quoted in this work are from
the
NASB, unless otherwise rioted.
2Rudolf Kittel, ed., Biblia Hebraica (
Privileg. Württ. Bibelenstalt, 1937), p. 1053.
All refer-
ences
to MT in this study are taken from
this source.
3Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta, 2 Vols. (
Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935), Vol. II,
p. 95. Psalm
89
in the MT is Psalm 88 in the LXX. All references to LXX
in
this study are taken from this source.
4A.
F. Kirkpatrick, ed., The Book of Psalms
(
bridge: The University Press,
1910), p. xxxi. For a few
30
their poems may be
granted."l Inherent in the problem is the
date of the headings,
especially in relation to the LXX.
Rather than cite several different
views, a few
quotes from Archer will set
forth and clarify the problem.
The
critics generally regard the Hebrew psalm titles
as very late and unreliable, usually
being derived by
inference from the internal evidence
of the psalms them-
selves. This conclusion is often
based upon two lines
of evidence: the occasional
discrepancies between the
psalm titles in the MT and those in
the LXX, and the
lack of correspondence between
statements of historical
background and the situation
presupposed in the psalms
themselves. . . .
Mature
reflection, however, should lead the investi-
gator to quite an opposite conclusion. . . .
The LXX furnishes
conclusive evidence that the titles
were added to the Hebrew Psalter at
a date long before
Hellenistic
times. That is to say there are several
technical terms appearing in the
Hebrew titles the mean-
ings of which had been completely
forgotten by the time
the Alexandrian translation was made (c. 150-100 B.C.).2
That some of the headings of the Psalms are not
rash
statements that have yet to be proved see Artur Weiser,
The Psalms: A Commentary, translated by Herbert
Hartwell,
The Old Testament Library (
Press,
1962), pp. 95, 98-99.
1J. J. Stewart Perowne, The Book of Psalms, 2 Vols.,
revised
edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1966)
Vol. I, p. 95. See several arguments for and
against the
authority
of the superscriptions in John McClintock and James
Strong, "Psalms, Book of," Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theologi-
cal, and Ecclesiastical
Literature,
12 Vols., first published
in
1879, reprint (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969),
Vol.
VIII, pp. 748-49.
2Gleason
L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament
Introduction
(Chicago: Moody Press,. 1964), p. 428.
31
rendered in the LXX would indicate
that the songs, in-
struments, times of circumstances to
which they refer
had passed out of the memory and
tradition of the Jews.
If
the headings had been inserted after the Greek ver-
sion was made, it is hard to see how
the later Jews who
made the Targums and Talmud, should
not have understood
their sense.1
And later he claims:
As
to the text of the headings of the Psalms, the
evidence of the manuscripts and
versions goes to show
that they are not merely
substantially the same as they
were in the third century B.C., but
that most of them
must even then have been hoary with age.2
The age of the title is important
for this Psalm be-
cause the author is actively
involved in the context. The
following material and the
chapter on exegesis will seek to
demonstrate the relationship of
the title to the content of
the Psalm.
The next problem relating to the
above is the under-
standing of l in the MT. As Smith declares, "We have no
clear objective guide as to the
meaning of the preposition
in such contexts."3
It has been translated in the titles as
"by," “of,” “about,”
or "for." At least a few seem to follow
1Robert
Dick Wilson, A Scientific Investigation
of
the Old Testament, revisions by E. J.
Young (
Press,
1959), p. 414.
2Ibid., p. 154.
3J.
M. Powis Smith, The Psalms (
sity of Chicago Press, 1926),
p. 241.
32
the LXX rendering and translate the lamed
as "for."1 If so,
then this deprives Ethan of
authorship. However, Murphy
signifies that this and the
other translations above are
"The
most common designations of 'authorship'. . . ."2 But
then another source says,
"While it can imply authorship,
. . .
more literally it means 'belonging to.'"3 And Sarna
purports, "Usually the
preposition le must indicate either
authorship or a collection
identified with a guild."4
A most prominent Hebrew grammarian
views the lamed
as indicating authorship
without any question.5 Gesenius
concludes by noting,
"Moreover, the introduction of the
author, poet, etc., by this Lamed auctoris is the customary
idiom also in the other Semitic
dialects, especially in
1See
André Robert and André Feuillet,
Introduction
to the Old Testament, 2 Vol., translated by
Patrick W.
Skeham,
et al, Image Books edition (
Doubleday
and Company, Inc., 1970), Vol. II, p. 35 and A. R.
Fausset,
"Psalm LXXXIX," JFB, 6
Vols. (
Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1961), Vol. III, p. 292.
2Roland
E. Murphy, "Psalms," JBC,
edited by Raymond
E.
Brown, et al (Englewood Cliffs,
Hall,
Inc., 1968), p. 570.
3Leslie
S. M'Caw and J. A. Motyer, "The Psalms,"
NBCR,
edited by D. Guthrie, et al (
Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1970),, p. 446.
4Nahum
M. Sarna, et al, "Psalms, Book
of," EJ, 16
Vols.
(Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, Ltd., 1971), Vol.
13,
p. 1318.
5William
Gesenius, GKC, reprint (
Clarendon Press, 1910), p. 419.
33
Arabic."1 In
his discussion on the subject, Engnell writes,
".
. . lehêmān in Psalm
88 and le'êthān in
Psalm 89 are in-
tended to provide information
concerning authorship."2
One may think the last remarks sound
convincing, but
they are not to some. There are
a few theories that can be
dismissed rather quickly. The
Talmud says of Ethan,
the name is a pseudonym for the
patriarch Abraham."3 Briggs
claims
Three
pseudonyms are together in the midst of the
Psalter, doubtless of editorial
design: 88 ascribed
to Heman, 89 to Ethan, 90 to Moses;
all alike with
the same purpose, to compose Pss. in
the name and from
the point of view of these ancient worthies.4
Plainly, he declares of the Psalm,
"It came from one
of the companions of Jehoiachin
in his exile."5 Another
views Psalm 89 as ". . .
the work of the general-in-chief of
Zedekiah. . . ." with the
facts relating to 587 B.C.6 The
lIbid., p. 420.
2Engnell, A Rigid Scrutiny, p. 80.
3Cecil Roth, ed.,
"Ethan the Ezrahite," The
Standard
Jewish
Encyclopedia (
Company,
Inc., 1966), p. 642.
4Charles
A. Briggs, and Emilie G. Briggs, The Book
of Psalms, 2 Vols., International Critical Commentary,
edited
by Samuel R. Driver and Alfred Plummer, 47 Vols.,
reprint,
1969 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906), Vol. I, p.
lxvii.
5Ibid., p. lxviii. See also.Vol. II, p. 250.
6G.
Castellino, a review of Die Psalmen nach
dem
Hebräischen Grundtext by Bernard Bonkamp, VT, 111:2 (April,
1953), 205.
34
latter view will be handled in
the next section of this
chapter.
.
. . it is absurd to suppose that the writers of them
would have attributed so many of the
Psalms to precap-
tivity authors, when their
contemporaries must have
known that the whole body of Psalms
had arisen after
the fall of the first temple, had
such been actually
the case.1
Besides late authorship, Albright
postulates that
Ethan was a Canaanite.2
He does so on the basis of his in-
terpretation of Ezrahite.3
Harrison agrees with the interpre-
tation, but sees Ethan in the
time of the monarchy.4 Gray
also holds the same view and
adds Egyptian color to the
Canaanite
influence.5 Ahlström's stand has been cited by
Italian scholars as a position
of Ethan-a-Canaanite.6
1Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testa-
ment, p. 154.
2William
Foxwell Albright, Archaeology and the Re-
ligion of Israel, Anchor Books edition
(Garden City, New
3Ibid., p. 210, fn. 95. Also see p. 204, fn. 44.
4R.
K.
(Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969),
pp.
979, 1166. Another who seems to agree is Mitchell
Dahood,
The Anchor Bible--Psalms II (
Doubleday
and Company, Inc., 1968), pp. 308, 311.
5John
Gray, The Legacy of
Texts and their
Relevance to the Old Testament, revised
edition, Supplements to
Vetus Testamentus
(
Brill,
1965), p. 207.
6The
reviewer seems to agree completely with the
statement, "Etan 1'Ezrahita a cui it salmo è
attribuito è
un
sapiente ei un clan cananeo." P. Giovanni Rinaldi, ed.,
35
According to Rowley, the meaning of
Ezrahite is ob-
scure.l The LXX has
it meaning Israelite (Israhli<th) .
Granted
that the term may mean native-born,
the present
writer holds that Ethan was an
Israelite. The linguistic
study of Albright, Gray, and
Ahlström may be valid to a cer-
tain extent, but they have gone
too far. Just because 'ezrah
means aboriginal, it does not have to indicate Canaanite
origin. From the following
comments it will be seen that
Ethan
was either of the tribe of
these sons of Jacob were born
in the
Jacob
had received the land from God as a permanent estab-
lishment (Gen. 28:1-4, 13). A
reading of the passages re-
veals that Jacob's seed was
included. Therefore, that Ethan
was native-born means that he was a member of the original
settlers to whom the land had
been given for an everlasting
possession. The humanistic
approach has left out God again.
But the problem still remains as, to Ethan's identity.
Peters
concludes that he was a Galilaean of the temple of
Dan, which is not convincing at
all.2 Burney has brought the
"I1 Salmo 89," a review of Psalm 89 by G. W. Ahlström, Bibbia
e Oriente, Anno 4 (Milano, 1962),
197.
1H.
H. Rowley, Worship in Ancient
and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1967), p. 174.
2J.
P. Peters, "A
(October, 1920), 36. His
argument is based on. 89:13 (Heb.).
36
remaining issues to the
forefront:.
Ps.
88 is ascribed in the title to yHrzxh Nmyh, Ps. 89
to yHrzxh Ntyx, Pss. 39, 62, 77 to Nvtvdy. Hence the
chronicler distinguishes Ethan and
Heman, the sages of
the tribe of
who were Levites; and further, his
statement that they
were sons of Zerah need not conflict
with that of Kings,
'sons
of Mahol,' since Zerah, as is suggested by the
title yHrzxh may have been the
remoter ancestor, Mahol
the immediate father. On the other
hand, the author of
Psalm
titles, in naming his men Ezrahites, seems to be
introducing a confusion between
Levites and the Ju-
daeans.1
Considering Jeduthun (II Chron.
5:12) first, May de-
clares that “. . . Jeduthan has
been substituted for Ethan
because it appeared in the
Psalms."2 Driver says, “. . . it
is generally allowed that
Jeduthan . . . is another name of
Ethan."3 With
an added feature another agrees, “. . . it
is
not necessary to assume that
the Ethan here (I Kings v. 11;
1C.
F. Burney, "Notes on the Books of Kings, The
Book of
Judges and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of
Kings, revised, The Library
of Biblical Studies, edited by
H.
M. Orlinsky (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1970), p.
51. Arthur G. Clarke says, "Ezrahite =
Zerahite," Analytical
Studies in the Psalms (
lishers,
1949), p. 218.
2Herbert
Gordon May, "'
of
the Psalms, AJSL, LVIII:l (January,
1941), 83.
3S.
R. Driver, An Introduction to the
Literature of
the Old Testament (
1956), p. 370. For a full discussion of this and
related
problems
see Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary
on the
Psalms, 3 Vols., translated by
Francis Bolton, reprint (Grand
Rapids;
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [n.d.], Vol. I,
pp.
9-10; Vol. III, pp. 32-33 and John M'Clintock and James
Strong,
"Ethan," (and) “Ezrahite,” Cvclopaedia
of Biblical,
Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, 12
Vol., reprint
37
I
Chron. xi. 6) is the same as the Ethan or Jeduthan (I
Chron. xv. 17), who was of the
tribe of Levi and a Merarite."1
Assuming Burney is correct, the
problem now revolves
around Ethan of
2:6)
and Ethan of Levi (I Chron. 6:29 [
19). Perowne holds that Ethan
was of the tribe of
because of his musical skill he
enrolled in the tribe of
Levi.2
One argument could be that I Kings 5:11 has Ntyx
yHrzxh which
is the same as the title of Psalm 89:1.
But I Chronicles 6:29; 15:17-19 has
Ethan belonging
to the tribe of Levi. In the
latter passage Ethan is known
as a singer, but not called an
Ezrahite. Of course, the
silence does not mean that he
could not have been native-born
and still be the Ezrahite of
Psalm 89. There are still too
many problems to be dogmatic
one way or another.
The last part of total discussion
involves the period
of his existence. Was he
David's contemporary, Solomon's,
both or neither? Someone
writing with Sarna views Ethan of
(Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969), Vol. III, pp. 317-
18;
439-40 and "Psalms, Book of," Vol. VIII, pp. 749-50.
1Carl
Bernard Moll, "The Psalms," translated with
additions
by C. A. Briggs, et al, Lunge's
Commentary on the
Holy Scriptures, 12 Vol., revised
edition (
Zondervan
Publishing House, 1960), Vol. 5, p. 482.
2J. J. Stewart Perowne, The Book of Psalms, 2 Vols.,
revised
edition (
1966), Vol. I, p. 95.
38
Psalm
89 as a
self believes that the real
author lived after 735-34 B.C.2
Bewer
says that he was David's musician.3 This cannot be de-
nied in the light of the
biblical statements. Dickson claims
that Ethan survived Solomon's
kingdom.4 Spurgeon avers,
“. . .
Ethan . . . was a musician in David's reign; was noted
for his wisdom in Solomon's
days and probably survived till
the troubles of Rehoboam's
period.”5 Actually, this view
ties all the passages together
well, if the Ethan of I Kings
5:11 were of the tribe of Levi.
As for Barnes, he is not sure who the author was.6
lNahum M. Sarna, et al, "Psalms, Book of," EJ, 16
Vols.
(Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, Ltd., 1971), Vol.
13,
p. 1318.
2Nahum
M. Sarna, "Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Bibli-
cal
Exegesis," Biblical and Other Studies,
edited by
Alexander Altmann, Philip W. Lown Institute of
Advanced
Judaic
Studies,
Volume I (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1963), p. 45.
3Julius
A. Bewer, The Literature of the Old
Testa-
ment, revised edition (
1940),
p. 343.
4David
Dickson, The Psalms, 2 Vols., first
published
in
1653, reprint (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1959),
Vol.
II, p. 107.
5C.
H. Spurgeon, "Psalm LXXXIX," The
Treasury of
David, 6 Vols. (
1950),
Vol. IV, p. 23.
6Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament: Psalms,
3
Vols., reprint (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1964),
Vol. II, p. 369.
39
The
present author would conclude that Ethan the Ezrahite is
the author. It would be
helpful, but Smith's remarks cannot
be easily applied to Psalm 89:
The
general conclusion as to the value of the super-
scriptions that is forced upon us by
the foregoing facts
is that the testimony of a
superscription regarding the
origin of a biblical book or a psalm
may not be accepted
as authoritative in and of itself.
Only if the psalm or
writing by its spirit and content
supports the claim of
the superscription may it be
accepted as stating the
actual fact.1
As much as possible, this study will
seek to demon-
strate that the spirit and
content support the claim of the
superscription. Even though
Ethan is the author as concluded
above, he may not have placed
the superscription above the
psalm. If so, the present
writer totally agrees with
when he avers, "It is
hardly to be supposed that the writer
of these headings would make
his work absurd by making state-
ments that his contemporaries
would have known to be untrue."2
The authorship cannot be studied
thoroughly without
consideration of date and
historical background. The treat-
ment of these facts will not be
as extensive since much of it
has been covered here.
Date and Unity
For beneficial study of the background which is to
lSmith, The Psalms, p. 243.
2Wilson,
A Scientific Investigation of the Old
Testa-
ment, p.
154.
40
follow, an approximate date or
time period must be estab-
lished. From the above
considerations it is held that Ethan
is the author, but when did he
compose the song?
Usually, date and unity could be viewed separately,
but the complexity of
viewpoints does not allow a total sepa-
ration here. It is impossible
in this dissertation to spell
out all the reasons why
scholars hold the dates they do. The
reader is asked to complete the
study by perusing the sources
in the footnotes.
In the discussion, expressions of early date and
late
date
will be employed. An early date is the David-
Solomon
period or shortly thereafter. The time from Josiah
to the Exile or after is
considered a late date.
The date of Psalm 89 is tossed in
contrary directions
with the unity or disunity of
the composition not held con-
sistently with either.
Buttenweiser holds a late date and
no unity.1 Others
such as Crim,2 Kissane,3 McCullough,4
lMoses Buttenweiser, The Psalms: Chronologically
Treated
with a New Translation (
2Keith R. Crim, The Royal Psalms (
John
Knox Press, 1962), pp. 104-09.
3Edward J. Kissane, The Book of Psalms, 2 Vols.
(Dublin:
Browne and Nolan Limited, 1954), Vol. II, p. 90.
4W.
Stewart McCullough, Exegesis of Psalm "89," The
Interpreter's Bible, 12 Vols. (
1955), Vol. IV, pp. 478-79.
41
and Roddl view the
psalm as late but having unity. Both
Leslie2 and Sarna3
see it composed in the eighth century,
but the former says with
disunity and the latter claims
unity. DeQueker4
agrees with Gunkel5 on the disunity, and
both discern that one portion
of Psalm 89 is pre-exilic and
another is exilic.
On the disunity, Buttenweiser writes
dogmatically
that it is two Psalms and
"The two pieces differ so radically
in tone and content that they
cannot possibly be considered
an organic whole."6
As for Cheyne, he goes a step farther by
suggesting, . . . if we admit
the vv. 4 and 5 were inserted
later as a link between the two
psalms, it is surely most
natural to assume that
originally they had no connexion
lCyril S. Rodd, Psalms 73-150, Epworth Preacher's
Commentaries, edited by Greville P. Lewis (
Epworth
Press, 1964), p. 34.
2Elmer
A. Leslie, The Psalms (
Press,
1949), pp. 273-79.
3Sarna,
"Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exe-
gesis," p. 45.
4DeQueker, "Les Qedôsîm
du Ps. lxxxix à la Lumiére
des
Croyances Semitiques," ETL, 39
(1963), 474-75, 482.
5Gunkel, The Psalms: A Form-Critical Introduction,
pp.
24-25. A similar view is held by J. T. Milik in E. M.
Laperrousaz, "Chronique," RHR, 171 (Nouvelle Serie, 1966),
108.
6Buttenweiser,
The Psalms: Chronologically Treated
with a New Translation, p. 239. On the basis
of "Selah,"
Snaith sees three psalms but does not admit
unity nor dis-
unity:
Norman H. Snaith, "Selah," VT,
II:1 (January, 1952),
47-48.
42
whatever."1 In
reference to the same two verses, Crim
replies that they ". . .
form an excellent introduction to
the whole, and any
rearrangement of verse order would mar
the literary perfection of the
Psalm."2
Elsewhere, Crim affirms:
Psalm
89 contains material characteristic of several
different Psalm categories, but they
are united in a
harmonious whole in which each part
contributes to the
petition to God to fulfill his promises to King David.3
Ward says, "Turning to the
pattern of ideas in the
poem, we find, I believe, a
beautifully articulated unity.”4
Another source states:
The
unity of this psalm is seen by the recurrence of the
words faithfulness, mercy, and lovingkindness (vs. 1, 2,
5,
8, 14, 24, 28, 33, 49), and the word covenant
(vs. 3,
28, 34, 39).5
According to Hillers:
Hebrew
poems are ordinarily not notable for logical
organization, but this is exceptional, for it follows
1T. K. Cheyne, The Book of Psalms, 2 Vols. (
Kegan
Paul, Trench, Trubner and Company, Ltd., 1904), Vol.
II,
p. 63.
2Crim, The Royal Psalms, p. 105.
3Keith
R. Crim, "Translating the Poetry of the Bible,"
The Bible Translator, 23:1 (January, 1972),
104.
4J.
M. Ward, "The Literary Form and Liturgical Back-
ground
of Psalm LXXXIX," VT, XI (1961),
322. A little later
in
his work Ward is correct in asserting ". . . that Ps.
lxxxix
is in its present form an 'original' composition." p.
324.
5Francis
D. Nichol, ed., "Psalm 89," The
Seventh-day
Adventist Bible
Commentary,
7 Vols. (Washington, D. C.: Re-
view and Herald Publishing
Association, 1954), Vol. 3, p. 837.
43
a
carefully conceived plan and the fundamental unity of.
theme and imagery becomes even
more apparent with study.1
To sum it up, the present writer
thoroughly concurs
with Ridderbos:
The
assumption is often made that this psalm does not
present an original unity. It seems
to me, however,
that such a thought is
insufficiently motivated, and
that this psalm, as it stands before
us, is an example
of complete unity.2
Tables by Sarna emphasize the unity
by words and
phrases.3 Should
anyone carefully study these tables, he
would be convinced of the
unity.
Besides those already mentioned,
several other
scholars take the late date.
Usually, the reason given is
that 89:39-52 are looked upon
as the end of David's dynasty
when the
a brief discussion writes,
"The question of this psalm's
date invariably sparks lively
debate, but the language and
conception comport well with a
dating in the post-Davidic
monarchic period."4
Some scholars who hold this position
lDelbert R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Bib-
lical Idea (Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins Press, 1969), p.
116.
2N.
H. Ridderbos, "The Psalms: Style-Figures and
Structure,"
Studies on Psalms, Deel XIII, Oudtestamentische
Studiën, edited by P. A. H.
DeBoer (
1963),
p. 58..
3Sarna,
"Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exe-
gesis,"
TABLE I, p. 31; TABLE II, p. 32. Explanation of
headings
are on pp. 30-31.
4Dahood,
The Anchor Bible--Psalms II, p. 311.
44
with no firm conviction and
those who unquestionably advocate
an exilic date or after are
Perowne,l Driver,2 Tournay,3
Kirkpatrick,4 Russell,5
Westermann,6 Eissfeldt,7 Zimmerli,8
lPerowne, The Book of Psalms, Vol. II, p. 146.
2Driver,
An Introduction to the Literature of the
Old
Testament, pp. 381, 385.
3R. Tournay, "En
Marge D'une Traduction des Psaumes,"
RB, 63:2 (Avril, 1956), 176-77.
4Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms, p. 531.
5D.
S. Russell, The Jews From Alexander to
Herod
(London:
Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 289. On the
same
page Russell assigns a number of the psalms to the
late
date. This is somewhat significant since he is a
recent
author.
6Claus Westermann, The Old Testament and Jesus Christ,
translated
by Omar Kaste (
House,
1968), p. 50.
70tto
Eissfeldt, "Die Psalmen als Geschichtsquelle,"
Near Eastern Studies in
Honor of William Foxwell Albright,
edited
by Hans Goedicke (
1971),
p. 103.
8Walthe:r
Zimmerli, "Promise and Fulfillment," trans-
lated
by James Wharton, Essays on Old Testament
Hermeneutics,
edited
by Claus Westermann, English translation edited by
James
Luther Mays (
1963), p. 111. Zimmerli is a good example of one
using the
latter
part of the psalm to determine a date. He writes,
" . . . at a time when the Davidic monarchy has
disappeared,
one
can hear the passionate questioning of Yahweh about the
fulfillment
of the promise which still tarries."
45
G. B.
Gray,l Toy,2 Clarke,3
A slightly different position
is advocated by Box who regards
“ . . .
the psalm as based upon a pre-exilic one."7
McKenzie dates it near the fall of the Kingdom of
it in the days of Josiah or
Zedekiah. Crenshaw writes,
1G.
Buchanan Gray, "The References to the 'King' in
the
Psalter, in Their Bearing on Questions of Date and Messi-
anic
Belief," JQR, 7 (July, 1895), 665. See also by the same
author
A Critical Introduction to the Old
Testament (
Gerald
Duckworth and Company, Limited, 1913), pp. 135, 141.
2C.
H. Toy, "Rise of Hebrew Psalm Writing," Journal
of the Society of
Biblical Literature and Exegesis, VII
(June,
1887), 53.
3Clarke, Analytical Studies in the Psalms, p.
189;
yet,
there seems to be a contradictory suggestion on p. 221.
4Marco
(October,
1960), 433. See also by the same author "The Reign
of
God in the 0. T.," VT, XIX:2
(April, 1969), 233.
5Robert
H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old
Testament
(New
York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1948), pp. 373, 630.
R. North, "The Religious Aspects of Hebrew
King-
ship,"
ZAW, Neunter Band:l (1932), 26.
7G.
H. Box, Judaism in the Greek Period,
Old Testament
Volume
V, The Clarendon Bible, edited by
Thomas Strong, et al
(Oxford:
The Clarendon Press, 1932), p. 182.
8John
L. McKenzie, "Royal Messianism," CBQ,
XIX:l
(January,
1957), 29.
9Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament: Psalms,
3
Vols. (Grand.Rapids: Baker Book House, 1950), Vol. II, p.
369.
10H.
C. Leupold, Exposition of the Psalms
(Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House,
1959), p. 632.
46
“. . .
psalm 89 may be
Josiah."1 And
Mowinckel also agrees by noting that the psalm
is ". . . in all
probability from the later part of the period
of the monarchy."2
Several other scholars do not commit
themselves other
than saying it is pre-exilic:
Archer,3 John Gray,4 Engnell,5
and Wright.6 Basing
his argument by comparisons to Ugaritic
poetry, Hummel avers,
In
general, the upshot is that there is no longer any
reason to question the pre-exilic
date of many of the
psalms--or, for that matter, of the
Davidic or even pre-
Davidic substance of many of them.7
1J.
L. Crenshaw, "Popular Questioning of the Justice
of
God in Ancient
2Mowinckel,
"Psalm Criticism Between 1900 and 1935,"
p.
32. See also John Paterson, review of Psalmen by Hans-
Joachim
Kraus, JSS, V:3 (July, 1960), 291.
3Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction,
p.
425.
4John
Gray, "The Hebrew Conception of the Kingship of
God:
Its Origin and Development," VT,
VI:3 (July, 1956), 277.
5Ivan
Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in
the
Ancient Near East, revised edition (
1967),
p. 176.
6G.
Ernest Wright, The Old Testament Against
Its
Environment, Studies in
Biblical Theology,
No. 2 (
Press, Ltd., 1950), pp. 33-34. Other views on
psalm dating
can
be found in Matitiahu Tsevat, A Study of
the Language of
the Biblical Psalms, Journal of Biblical
Literature Monograph
Series, Vol. IX (
ture,
1955), pp: 61-72.
7Horace
D. Hummel, "The Influence of Archaeological
Evidence
on the Reconstruction of Religion in Monarchical
47
Sarna declares that the psalm
". . . was inspired by
the Aramean-Israelite invasion
of
Eerdmans2
and Moll3 claim that it was composed in the days of
Rehoboam. And Delitzsch adheres
to the time of Rehoboam with
explanation.4 While
not mentioning Psalm 89,
cludes,
Finally,
a striking and almost convincing testimony
for the early date of most of the
psalms lies in the
fact that, except in a very few
cases, we find no defi-
nite allusions in them to events or
persons later than
the time of Solomon.5
Although a few of the late-date
scholars are of re-
cent time, Bright comments,
The
fashion of regarding the Psalms as largely post-
exilic has all but vanished; to date
any of them in the
Maccabean
period seems little short of impossible. The
bulk of them are of pre-exilic
origin, and some of them
are very archaic indeed.6
Concordia
Publishing House, 1970), p. 43.
1Sarna,
"Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exe-
gesis,"
p. 45. For arguments against post-exilic dating see
Sarna,
et al, "Psalms, Book of,"
p. 1312.
2B.
D. Eerdmans, "The Hebrew Book of Psalms,"
Oudtestamentische Studiën, Deel IV, edited by P.
A. H. DeBoer
(Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1947), p. 22.
3Moll, "The
Psalms," pp. 481-82.
4Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, Vol.
III,
pp. 33-340.
5Wilson,
A Scientific Investigation of the Old
Testa-
ment, p. 156.
6Bright,
"Modern Study of Old Testament Literature,"
p. 27.
48
There are at least three reasons why
the present
author must hold to an early
date. One is rather obvious from
the discussion on authorship.
The psalm was composed by Ethan
the Ezrahite. Since he was
contemporary with the United Mon-
archy, it is best to view the
origin of the psalm in the days
of David or Solomon or
Rehoboam.
Secondly, the discoveries at Ras
Shamra have greatly
influenced the dating of
Psalms. The people of
on clay tablets before 1200
B.C. The writing was done by
“ . . .
using a stylus on soft clay which was subsequently
baked and thus rendered hard as
stone."1 These clay tablets
“. . .
have survived unchanged till our own day."2 What has
been learned is that the Hebrew
psalms have much of the same
style, poetic imagery, and
vocabulary as Ugaritic. This
would not likely have occurred
if the psalms were of late
origin. In Psalm 89, in
particular, the features of Ugaritic
poetry are very noticeable. As
it will be demonstrated in
the coming chapters, there is
really nothing that compares to
Psalm
89 in demonstrably late sources, but there is much from
very early sources.
Finally, there is no valid reason to commit this
lArvid S. Kapelrud, The Ras Shamra Discoveries and
the Old Testament, translated by G. W.
Anderson (
2Ibid.
49
psalm to a late date.
Previously it was shown that the major-
ity of those who hold to the
late date do so on the grounds
that the psalm is a result of
Exile,
or as some see it, the Davidic reign has ceased and
the psalm is a product of the
Exile. This seems to be a good
case of eisegesis. There is nothing in Psalm 89 that indi-
cates a reigning monarch has
died or that
be.1 An event such
as the destruction of
temple was definitely a
momentous occasion in the history of
seem to this writer that a
vital matter, as this is, would
surely be mentioned
specifically by the author, or at least
alluded to in such a way as to
leave no doubt. Upon further
consideration, to hold the fall
of
one would almost have to agree
with Albright that Ethan was a
Canaanite,
because it is certain that no Jew would pass over
it lightly.
The date is an all-important issue
because Psalm 89
refers to some historical situation,
which is to be covered
in the next section. An
exegesis of the psalm will help to
support the conclusions above.
Sitz im Leben
The historical situation of Psalm 89 is not easily
1For a similar view see
Weiser, The Psalms: A Com-
mentary, p.
591.
50
discerned, as the previous
discussion indicated. A setting
in the tenth century B.C. seems
to fit best.
But before a choice is considered,
another problem
must be handled. A number of
scholars usually take it for
granted that II Samuel 7:8-16
is the source for Psalm 89:20-
38, but
others do not. And the issue should be dealt with,
if this work is to be free from
the accusation implied in
McKenzie's
remark, "Some writers have quoted it without any
discussion."1
Priority
of II Samuel 7
The priority and date of II Samuel 7 is important to
the setting of Psalm 89. If the
origin of the Davidic Cove-
nant is not established, then
the historical situation of
Psalm
89 is open to complete conjecture. A few illustrations
will convey this.
Another passage involved in the
problem is I Chron-
icles 17:7-14. After a couple
of lengthy paragraphs,
Pfeiffer concludes:
These
facts do not exhaust the evidence, but they
suffice to prove that II Sam. 7
cannot antedate Ps. 89.
Since
the Psalm is explicitly dated after the Exile of
586, and II Sam. 7 comes earlier
than about 250, when
the Chronicler copied it in his book, II Sam. 7 was
1John
L. McKenzie , Myths and Realities:
Studies in
Biblical Theology (
1963), p. 205. See his view of the problem in
this work just
cited, pp. 205-08.
51
undoubtedly
written somewhere between those dates. The
character
of the language places it closer to the later
than
to the earlier period, probably in the late fourth
century.1
North argues the situation from the Deuteronomists'
standpoint.2 With
his position on the disunity of the psalm,
Buttenweiser contends:
The prevailing view to
the contrary, II Samuel,
chapter 7, cannot be considered as
the source of God's
promise to David in Ps. 89B:3a, 4-5,
20-38, for, first
of all, in these verses God is
described as speaking to
David
directly in a vision and not through the medium
of a prophet as in Samuel.3
A different interpretation is given by
McKenzie:
The question has not been properly
proposed by critics.
It
is not, which came first, Samuel or the Psalm? I
submit that an examination of the
passages will show
that neither came first; that the
original oracle was
first; that the divergences of the
three recensions can
only be some kind of reconstruction
of the original
oracle. . . .4
1Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament, p.
373.
Later,
Pfeiffer calls II Samuel 7 a late midrash, p. 630.
2Christopher
R. North, The Old Testament Interpreta-
tion of History (London: The Epworth
Press, 1946), p. 99.
For other views given on II Samuel 7 or Psalm 89
see Gerhard
von
Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2 Vols.,
translated by D.
M.
G. Stakler (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1962),
Vol.
I, p. 310, Mowinckel, The Psalms in
Vol. I, p. 63 and Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods
(Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 341.
3Buttenweiser,
The Psalms: Chronologically Treated
with a New Translation, p. 250.
4John
L. McKenzie, "The Dynastic Oracle: II Samuel
7,"
TS, VIII:2 (June, 1947), 195. Also
see his discussion
in
"Royal Messianism," pp. 27-31.
52
According to Cooke, "Indeed,
both might be seen as
drawing upon a source which
originated in the united monarchy
period."1 And
Weiser's claim is ". . . a common cultic tra-
dition."2
Since these scholars deny the
objective historicity
of the covenant promise to
David (II Sam. 7), they enter
into all manner of speculation
on the date of origin of II
Samuel 7. But the present
writer fully agrees with Clements:
The
origin of the idea of such a covenant between
Yahweh and the house of David is
found in the prophecy
of Nathan recorded in II Samuel ch.
7. This oracle
gives an account of how this
covenant originated, and
what is promised.3
All the judgments prior to this lack
evidence to sup-
port their assertions; only
Clements' view has validity. As
Glueck
says, "In Ps. 89 the contents of II Sam. 7:14-16 are
repeated almost verbatim in
poetic form."4 It is the word
almost that some scholars take
as a loophole to see no con-
nection. However, it must be
realized that Psalm 89 is a
poetic version of II Samuel 7.
Therefore, some of the
1Gerald
Cooke, "The Israelite King as Son of God,"
ZAW, 73 (1961), 203.
2Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary, p. 591.
3R.
Biblical
Theology, No. 43 (London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1965),
p.
56.
4Nelson
Glueck, Hesed in the Bible,
translated by
Alfred
Gottschalk (
Press,
1967), p. 76. See also Crim, The Royal
Psalms, p.
107.
53
variations are due to style and
". . . many of the differ-
ences reflect the distinct
viewpoint of the writer."1
There are other opinions that might
be considered,2
but those who hold to a late
date of the original covenant
promise must be answered. The
date of II Samuel 7 can be
fairly well established. Thiele
has done a remarkable work
on the chronological problem of
the Hebrew kings. After
nearly fifty pages of dealing
with the problems and facts,
he concludes, ". . . we
thus secure the date of 931 B.C. as
the year of Jeroboam's accession
and the schism between
would then place the beginning
of Solomon's reign at 971 B.C.;
according to II Samuel 5:4-5
and I Kings 2:11, the start of
David's
reign would be near 1011 B.C. There is clear indica-
tion that the oracle of Nathan
was given after David ruled
over all
shortly after 1004 B.C. or very
early in the tenth century.
1Norman Habel, Literary Criticism of the Old Testa-
ment (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1971), p. 9.
2George
Widengren, "King and Covenant," JSS,
II:l
(January,
1957), 21-26. Joseph A. Alexander, The
Psalms:
Translated
and Explained,
reprint of 1864 edition (Grand
Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, [n.d.], p. 369. Jean-
Bernard DuMortier, "Un Rituel d'Intronisation:' Le
Ps.
LXXXIX
2-38,", VT, XXII:2 (April,
1972), 193-96.
3Edwin
R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the
Hebrew Kings, revised edition (
Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1965), p. 52.
54
And Psalm 89 would be
subsequent to this date.
Proposed
setting
Mowinckel accepts Psalm 89 as one of the Royal Psalms,
but then says:
They
contain therefore no realistic description of the
individual historical king and his
particular situation.
They
present the royal ideal, the typical king as he
exists in religious theory and in
the people's mind and
imagination, and as he should be
when he appears before
God
in the cult. The psalms presuppose and describe
typical, constantly recurring
situations, e.g. the sit-
uation at the death of the old king
who is represented
as a universal king. Before the
enthronement of his
successor, the vassals might be
preparing insurrection
(Ps. 2) or the enemies have overrun
the country (Ps.
89), but the deity arises to save
his royal son (Ps.
18), etc.1
Neither does Johnson hold to a historical situation.2
These
are certainly unwarranted assumptions. Kapelrud ob-
serves:
Aubrey
R. Johnson's interpretation of the "nations" in
Psalms 2, 18, 89, and 118 as
mythological beings is a
natural consequence of MOWINCKEL's
view. MOWINCKEL's
criticism of JOHNSON's opinion is in
reality also a
criticism of his own interpretation
of the mythical
combat in the Psalms of Enthronement.3
1Mowinckel, The Psalms in
p.
75. Faw is not certain of his position. See Charles
Ernest Faw, "Royal Motifs in the Hebrew
Psalter," (unpub-
lished
Doctor's dissertation,
sity
of
2Aubrey
R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient
103ff.
3Arvid
Kapelrud, "Scandinavian Research in the
Psalms
After Mowinckel,"
Kosmala (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1965), p. 78.
55
Including II Samuel 7 in his
discussion, Sarna's con-
viction is completely contrary
to these assumptions:
Psalm
89, verses 4-5, 20-38, accordingly, do not repre-
sent a different, independent
recension of Nathan's
oracle to David, and there is no
question of deciding
upon the relationship of the prose
to a supposed poetic
version. These verses constitute,
rather, an exegetical
adaption of the oracle by the
psalmist to fit a specific
historic situation.l
The very nature of Psalm 89 points
to some particular
historical circumstance. The
exegesis will help bear this
out. But the task remains to
determine, if possible, that
specific event. It appears that
89:31-46 is referring to a
descendant of David. As a
result of the previous discussion
in this dissertation, the late
date is out of the question.
Therefore,
the following material is narrowed down to those
who adhere to the early date,
that is, to a descendant not
too far removed from the united
monarchy.
A closer look at verses 39-46 bring
out several more
requirements that must match
the situation. To name a few,
there is mention of strongholds
being brought to ruin,
enemies are involved, the clear
indication of an invasion,
etc. In much the same vein,
Sarna commences the exposition
of his view:
Bearing
in mind all the foregoing, it is possible to
reconstruct the nature of the events
which produced the
lament. This latter must reflect an invasion of
1Sarna, "Psalm 89: A
Study in Inner Biblical Exe-
gesis," p. 39.
56
but it must have been one that did
not have as its pri-
mary goal the conquest of
real target was the reigning
monarch, whom the invaders
wished to depose and replace by an
outsider, not of
Davidic descent.l
Then Sarna goes on to discuss and argue for the days
of Ahaz and the anti-Assyrian
coalition which desired to dis-
pose of Ahaz in favor of a
non-Davidic king (Isa. 7).2 Sev-
eral of his arguments are
rather convincing, but there are
one or two matters that can be
seriously questioned. For
instance, there is not a hint
in the psalm of an attempt to
replace the king; it seems that
Sarna read a little too much
into it. Also, he makes mention
of verse one in the MT (i.e.
the psalm title) but has to
settle for some type of editor-
psalmist. Thus the 735-34 B.C.
date is no problem to him.
Clarke takes a much earlier date. He
says that Ethan
. . . must have known the divine
declaration recorded I
Kings
xi.9-13. This would come as a shock to all who
had rejoiced in the covenant which
God had made with
David,
2 Sam. vii. With that covenant in mind Ethan
here utters his impassioned
acknowledgment and appeal
to Jehovah. It is possible that
Ethan outlived Solomon
and saw the break-up of the kingdom.3
This view does not have enough
sufficient evidence to
satisfy the psalm passages. In
an interesting allusion to
89:11 (Heb.) Moll suggests a
different event:
lIbid., p. 43.
2Ibid.; pp. 44-45.
3Clarke, Analytical Studies in the Psalms, pp.
220-
21.
57
The
occasion of the composition was most probably the
defeat of Rehoboam I Kings xiv.25ff.
2 Chron. xii.lff.
by Shishak, that is, Sheshonk I. From
this is perhaps
to be explained the preminence [sic] given here to
under the name Rahab . . . in
allusion to the former
overthrow of this presumptuous and
defiant enemy by the
judgment of God. At that time the
Ezrahite Ethan could
have been still living.1
Holding the same occasion, Delitzsch
has additional
remarks of interest:
During this very period
Ps. lxxxix. took its rise.
The young Davidic king, whom loss
and disgrace make pre-
maturely old, is Rehoboam, that man
of Jewish appearance
whom Pharoah Sheshonk is bringing
among other captives
before God Anun in the monumental
picture of
who bears before him in his
embattled ring the words
Judhmelek (King of Judah)--one of the
finest and most
reliable discoveries of Champollion,
and one of the
greatest triumphs of his system of hieroglyphics.2
The latter view expressed by Moll
and Delitzsch seems
best to fit the language of
Psalm 89. This is not to say the
view has no problems. In light
of the exegesis in the next
chapter, the thoughts here will
be brief to prevent needless
repetition.
The proposed setting, then, for the
composition of
Psalm 89 is found in I Kings
14:21-28 and II Chronicles 12:1-
12.
Comparing these passages with Psalm 89:31-46 (Heb.) and
II Samuel 7:12-16 offers the
most plausible explanation.
The covenant is unconditional; it rests solely on the
1Moll, "The
Psalms," p. 482.
2Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, Vol.
III, p. 34.
58
promises of Yahweh. But, if
David and his descendants were
to enjoy the promises, they had
to be obedient (II Sam. 7:4;
Ps. 89:31-33). That Rehoboam
sinned is not open to question.
"It
took place when the
and strong that he and all
the Lord" (II Chron.
12:1).
The content of 89:41-43 (Heb.) can
be understood from
the facts in I Kings 14:25-28
and II Chronicles 12:9-11. In
his quote above, Delitzsch has
given a valid explanation for
89:46
(Heb.). The remaining verses of 89:39-46 are not too
difficult to meet the
description in the historical passages.
Also, this opinion allows for the
direct authorship
of Ethan. And he, who was close
to the Davidic line and the
freshness of the covenant,
would be most likely for the peti-
tion at the close of the psalm.
The date, then, of the com-
position would be shortly after
or in Tishri, 926, to Tishri,
925
B.C. Someone may argue that this would make Ethan too
old. The present writer can see
no reason why Ethan could
not have been eighty to ninety
years old. It may be why he
considers King Rehoboam as in
the days of his youth.
Type of Psalm
Reference to the matter of type has already been men-
tioned in the first section of
this chapter. The task here
is to see where Psalm 89 fits
best in the classifications. As
stated before, Gunkel is
responsible for the pioneer work in
59
this area. Guthrie explains the
four basic principles upon
which Gunkel erected his work,l
but they will not be delin-
eated here.
By combining the works of Gunkel2
and Guthrie,3 the
present writer has attempted to
present the classification of
types in chart form. The works
themselves should be read for
a full explanation.
"Proceeding from his four principles,
Gunkel
identified . . . six major types of poetry, six minor
types, and two special
types."4
A. MAJOR
TYPES
1. The Hymn
2. Songs of Yahweh's Enthronement
3. The Community
Lament
4. The Royal
Psalm
5. The Individual
Lament
6. The Individual
Thanksgiving
B. MINOR TYPES
1. Pronouncements of Blessing or Curse
2. Pilgrimage Songs
3. Victory Songs
4. Community Thanksgivings
5. Sacred Legends
6. Torah
Songs
1Guthrie,
Themes, pp. 8-9.
2Gunkel, The Psalm A
Form-Critical Introduction,
pp.
30-39.
3Guthrie,
Themes, pp. 10-14.
4Ibid.,
p. 9.
60
C. SPECIAL TYPES
1. Prophetic Psalms
2. Wisdom Poetry
Of course, no man's work goes without criticism. For
example, there are no legends
in the psalms. Also, many
would point out that Gunkel
omitted Messianic Psalms and
Imprecatory
Psalms.
Enthronement" and entitles
them "Yahweh Malak Psalms." He
then establishes his own
characteristics or categories and
says that Psalm 89 has all five
of them.1 Murphy evaluates
Westermann's
challenge to Gunkel and expresses his own views.2
The psalm is considered a national lamentation by
Eissfeldt3
and Leslie,4 the former on the basis of a late
date and the latter on the
basis of the closing verses in the
psalm. A reading of these
sources reveals that there are
obvious reasons for rejecting
these views.
1John
D. W.
(Juli-August, 1965), 343-48. Faw says, "Few
melek psalms
have
received a wider variety of treatment at the hands of
commentators
than this one." Faw, "Royal Motifs in the
Hebrew
Psalter," p. 40.
2Roland
E. Murphy, "A New Classification of Literary
Forms
in the Psalms," CBQ, XXI:l
(January, 1959), 83-87.
3Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction,
translated
by Peter R. Ackroyd (
1966), pp. 111-12. His view of a late date had
been referred
to
earlier in this work.
4Leslie, The
Psalms, pp. 259, 273.
61
Gunkell and Anderson2
advocate that the first part of
the psalm is a hymn and the
second part is a lament, but
Gunkel
does so on the basis of date and disunity. And Murphy
sees it as a mixed composition.3
Probably the most widely held
position is that Psalm
89 is a royal psalm. But even
within this realm, there is no
consensus of opinion.
Commencing with definitions, differ-
ences are revealed. Mowinckel
asks and answers:
Now, what do we mean by the expression 'royal psalms'?
These
psalms are not a special 'kind' or 'type'
(Gattung)
from the point of view of the history of
style or literature or liturgy. They
comprise nearly
all kinds of psalms, both hymns of
praise and lamenta-
tions, thanksgivings and prophetic
sayings, and several
other types. Common to them is the
circumstance that
the king is in the foreground. He is
the one who prays
or the one who is spoken of, or who
is prayed for.
They include Pss. 2; 18; 20; 21; 45;
72; 101; 110; 132;
28; 61; 63; 89; and quite a number
of others.4
Much of what Mowinckel has said is true of Psalm 89.
Yet
elsewhere in his work, Mowinckel calls the psalm a na-
tional lamentation.5
Robert and Feuillet have a similar
1Gunkel, The Psalms: A Form-Critical Introduction,
pp.
24-25.
2Bernhard
W.
ment, second edition
(Englewood Cliffs,
Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1966), p. 480.
3Murphy,
"Psalms," pp. 571, 592.
4Mowinckel, The Psalms in
p.
47.
5Ibid.,
pp. 219, 236.
62
definition with this emphasis,
"But the important place occu-
pied in these psalms by the
king gives them a special char-
acter which should be
noted."1 Dahood gives a number of
“. .
. verbal clues that help to identify
these psalms as
royal. . . ."2
But prior to this, his statements manifest an
added feature to the type:
Scholars generally
classify eleven psalms as royal,
that is, psalms sung on festive
occasions for or in
honor of the king and the royal
house. These are ii,
xviii, xx, xxi, xlv, lxxii, lxxxix,
ci, cx, cxxxii,
cxliv.3
The festival concept has some serious ramifications.
Rowley
refers to Psalm 89 in connection with "ritual combat."4
Weiser relates the psalm to
festive occasion,5 Weaver to cere-
monies,6 and Ward to
a national rite and ". . . a ritual set-
ting that bears the marks of a
pilgrimage festival."7 To all
of which Leupold would reply:
1Robert and Feuillet, Introduction to the Old Testa-
ment, Vol. II, p. 56.
2Dahood, The Anchor Bible--Psalms III, p.
XXXVIII.
3Ibid. For further study of the type,
scholars, and
views
see Leopold Sabourin, The Psalms: Their
Origin and
Meaning, 2 Vols. (Staten
Island, New York: Alba House, 1969),
Vol.
2, pp. 209-12.
4Rowley,
Worship in Ancient
Meaning, p. 198.
5Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary, p. 63.
6Horace
R. Weaver, The Everlasting Covenant
(Nash-
ville;
Graded Press, 1965), p. 186.
7Ward,
"The Literary Form and Liturgical Background
of
Psalm LXXXIX," p. 328.
63
But
why the "rituals" should be made so prominent is far
from obvious, except for the fact
that one strong trend
of the present is to include
everything in the psalms
under the category of the liturgical.1
After expressing practically the
same thought, Robert
and Feuillet rightly comment:
With
few exceptions (Ps 24 is one) the data of internal
criticism, such as allusions to
sacrifices and liturgical
actions, references to processions
and dialogue recita-
tions, are usually vague. These
items call for close
attention, but they simply do not
tell us very much. We
have already pointed out that there
is no solid reason
for imagining the existence of
liturgical feasts when
tradition tells us nothing about them.2
Another problem relative to this is
the speaker in
the psalm. In connection with
his cultic-ritual view,
Mowinckel
devotes much to an "I" and "We" concept in the
royal psalms. By this method he
determines the speaker.
Thus,
he writes, “In Ps. 89 the king laments about the defeat
he has suffered in the fight
against his enemies . . . .”3
Dahood
also purports that the king is the speaker.4 In answer-
ing Mowinckel's Conviction,
Sabourin argues:
It
can be recalled here that unless the king is men-
tioned explicitly or implicitly it
is usually difficult
to prove that the "I"-speaker is a royal
figure, when
1Leupold, Exposition of the Psalms, p. 228.
2Robert
and Feuillet, Introduction to the Old
Testa-
ment, Vol. II, p. 61.
3Mowinckel, The Psalms in
48.
Another discussion of the problem is found in George W.
Anderson,
"Enemies and Evildoers in the Book of Psalms, BJRL,
48:1
(Autumn, 1965) 18-29.
4Dahood, The
Anchor Bible--Psalms II, p. 311.
64
the context points to the interests
of a private
individual.1
Bewer just simply states that Psalm
89 is a prayer
for the king.2 There
are too many others to quote who plain-
ly see the psalmist as the
speaker. Having discussed the
related problems, the type can
once again be brought to the
fore.
The predominant conclusion, even
with those who
differ in related matters, is
that Psalm 89 is a royal psalm.
The constant references to king
and covenant support this.
But
there is the lament which cannot be neglected. As Driver
says, it is a royal psalm with
". . . a supplication on ac-
count of the humbled dynasty of
David. . . “3 Guthrie con-
curs.4 But Dentan
puts it specifically that ". . . Ps. 89,
a royal lament . . . has more
to say about God's faithfulness
than any other psalm."5
If the present writer has a choice,
he would combine
a couple terms of Gunkel and
type Psalm 89 as a Royal Lament.
1Sabourin, The Psalms: Their Origin and Meaning,
Vol.
2,
p. 210.
2Bewer, The Literature of the Old Testament, p.
371.
3Driver,
An Introduction to the Literature of the
Old
Testament, p. 369.
4Guthrie,
nant Themes, p. 140.
5Robert
C. Dentan, The Knowledge of God in
Ancient
65
The
speaker is Ethan, who with no ritualistic aspect, extolls
God through it all. This does
not say the psalm may not have
been used in temple singing
later, but it does mean that it
was not originated in a cultic
setting, nor was it designed
primarily for liturgical
worship. The exegesis will support
as well as highlight this.
The Question of Structure
and Meter
Thus far, every division of this chapter has been
highly controversial, and the
structure and meter of the
psalm are no exception. Since
the problem is so detailed
and involved, the present
discussion will be characterized
by brevity because of limited
space. Therefore, the reader
is asked to read all sources
cited for details.
The
question of structure
According to some scholars the structure of poetry is
made up of strophes. Briggs
explains:
The
simple strophes are of few lines of one kind of
parallelism. The complex strophes
have more lines and
two or more kinds of parallelism. In
this case the
connection of thought is usually
clear. The strophical
divisions may be determined by a more
decided separation
in the thought of the poem.1
In applying his method to Psalm 89,
the outcome as
given in his work is verses
47-52, a pair of strophes (3
lines each); verses 4-5; 18-46,
sixteen strophes (2 lines
1Briggs, The Book of Psalms, Vol. I, p. xlv.
66
each); and verses 16-17 are
omitted.1 The conclusion is far
too choppy. It seems that
Briggs could have applied the
separation of thought to a much
better advantage.
With no explanation, Kissane
declares, "The poem con-
sists of five strophes of eight
verses each, with an intro-
duction and a conclusion of six
verses each."2 This is a
simple arrangement, but it is
forced. The value is lost be-
cause it disrupts thought
patterns, and, like Briggs, he has
employed no grammatical
features.
On the basis of an elaborate
approach, and the English
numbering system, Forbes first
divides the psalm into three
parts: verses 1-18; verses
19-37; verses 38-51; each having
four strophes. Several of his
strophes are combined and are
viewed as strophe and
antistrophe.3 Some aspects of this
arrangement are commendable,
but the analysis is so burden-
some; and it surely adds
nothing to the content. Moreover,
there is the danger of causing
some students to dwell on the
structure and miss the meaning
and flow of thought.
The comments of Ward are by far the most realistic:
Is
it possible to divide the psalm into strophes? If
we define a strophe in terms of
the poetic canons of
1Ibid. p. xlvi.
2Kissahe, The Book of Psalms, Vol. II, p. 89.
3John
Forbes, Studies on the Book of Psalms
(Edin-
burgh: T. and T. Clark, 1888),
pp. 87-91.
67
some other literature than that of
surely no. Attempts have been made
to analyze the psalm
on the basis of such definitions.
They are arbitrary,
artificial, and unconvincing. There
is no precise,
fixed pattern of strophic
arrangement in the psalm.
There
are discernable groups of lines, however, which
can be called strophes in a broad sense.1
He forms the psalm into quatrains:
the introduction
(vss. 2-5); the praise portion
(vss. 6-19) consisting of
three quatrains with verses
18-19 as a climax; the oracle
(vss. 20-38) consisting of five
quatrains; the judgment (vss.
39-46) made up of two
quatrains; and the prayer (vss. 47-52)
cast into an eight-stress
rhythm of six lines.2 (Italics
mine.)
This approach certainly seems valid.
If the term may
be used, there are four-line
strophes composed of paired
couplets. The grammatical
features, the thought patterns,
the parallelism, and the
continuity concur with this type of
structure. Although some will
disagree, the present writer
will follow an indentical
structure because of internal evi-
dence, whereas, the other
arrangements have little or no
internal evidence or are
overdone.
The
question of meter
The words of Byington are most appropriate for a look
at the problem:
1Ward,
"The Literary Form and Liturgical Background
of
Psalm LXXXIX," p. 324.
2Ibid.,
pp. 324-26.
68
It
would be hard to discover a possible theory of
meter that has not been applied to
Hebrew poetry. . . .
Those
who profess the same principles will disagree as
to the number of feet per line in a given psalm.1
But he offers a very tedious
mathematical approach
which is not convincing.2
In an answer to Byington, only a
small part of Gottwald's total
argument is cited here:
It
is a matter of debate whether longer words require or
permit a second stress. It is also
problematic whether
on occasion two short terms may receive
a single stress,
while terms joined by the
"binder" may be permitted
separate stresses.3
New problems have arisen with the
discoveries of Ras
Shamra. Young concludes his
article on "Ugaritic Prosody" by
saying, "That regular
meter can be found in such poetry is an
illusion."4 But
Albright interprets the facts differently,
naming Gordon and Young as his
opponents.5 However, to ob-
tain his regular meter Albright
admittedly has to do some
reconstruction.6
While Gordon does not name Albright, he
seems to be replying to him
directly:
1Steven
T. Byington, "A Mathematical Approach to
Hebrew
Meters," JBL, LXVI (1947), 63.
2Ibid., pp. 64-77.
3N.
K. Gottwald, "Poetry, Hebrew," The
Interpreters
Dictionary of the Bible, 4 Vols. (
Vol.
K-Q, p. 834.
4G.
Douglas Young, "Ugaritic Prosody, JNES,
9:3
(July,
1950), 133.
5W.
F. Albright, "A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric
Poems
(Psalm LXVIII)," HUCA, XXIII:
Part I (1950-1951), 6.
6Ibid., pp. 5ff., 9ff.
69
Structually
different verses and strophes occur con-
stantly within the same poem in
Ugaritic. It is there-
fore unsound to attribute similar
variety in the Bible
to the blending of different poems.
Perhaps the most
important fact to bear in mind is
that the poets of the
ancient Near East (e.g., Acc., Ug.,
Heb., Eg.) did not
know of exact meter. Therefore
emendations metri causa
are pure whimsy. The evidence can be
found in G. D.
Young's treatment of the subject in
JNES 9 1950 124-133.
All
that is asked of those who maintain metric hypotheses
is to state their metric formulae
and to demonstrate that
the formulae fit the texts. Instead
they emend the texts
to fit their hypotheses. A sure sign
of error is the
constant need to prop up a
hypothesis with more hypoth-
eses.1
Gottwald also states it very plainly:
These
Canaanite discoveries in particular, dating from
the fourteenth century B.C. and in a
tongue dialectically
related to biblical Hebrew, argue
strongly the futility
of seeking metrical exactness in the
poetry of the OT.
Emendation
of the text for metrical reasons and without
syntactic or versional support, is a dubious practice.2
It is usually agreed that Ugaritic
has a 3+3 pattern,3
“. . . but there are
innumerable variations."4 According to
some, the same holds true for
Hebrew poetry basically.5 When
1Cyrus
H.
Biblicum,
1965), p. 131, fn. 2.
2Gottwald,
"Poetry, Hebrew," p. 834. For further
study
on the futility of metrical exactness in Hebrew and
Ugaritic poetry see
of
1963), pp. 12-13 and
the Old Testament, pp. 175-76.
3John
Hasting Patton, Canaanite Parallels in
the Book
of Psalms (Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins Press, 1944), p. 6.
4Gottwald, "Poetry,
Hebrew," p. 834.
5Ibid. Also see Robert G. Boling, "'Synonymous'
Parallelism in the
Psalms," JSS, V:3 (July, 1960),
222.
70
it comes to Psalm 89, McKenzie
points out that Hanel has ob-
tained a 3:3 meter for the
psalm on the basis of reconstruc-
tion.1
With some variations, the following
scholars see Psalm
89 in a 4:4 and 3:3 meter:
Ward,2 Cheyne,3 Podechard,4
Briggs,5
McCullough,6 and Faw.7 Their arrangements and dis-
cussion are much too lengthy to
quote here. Other studies on
meter are available, but also
too large for consideration.8
Another
controversy related to this concerns formulaic
technique. Gevirtz writes:
.
. . the Hebrew poet structured his verses not with
whole formulaic phrases (though on
occasion as we shall
indicate, this technique also was
employed) but with
fixed pairs of parallel terms. If
these pairs were,
fitted into the lines in accordance
with some principle
of meter, it has yet to be discovered.9
1McKenzie, "The
Dynastic Oracle: II Samuel 7," p. 196.
2Ward,
"The Literary Form and Liturgical Background of
Psalm
LXXXIX," pp. 322-23.
3Cheyne, The Book of Psalms, Vol. II, pp. 63, 68.
4E. Podechard, Le Psautier, 2 Vols. (
Catholiques,
1949), pp. 108-11.
5Briggs, The Book of Psalms, Vol. I, pp. xli,
xlii;
Vol.
II, p. 250.
6McCullough, Exegesis
of'Psalm "89," p. 479.
7Faw, "Royal Motifs
in the Hebrew Psalter," pp. 41-42.
8Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, Vol.
1,
pp.
28-30. Koch, The Growth of the Biblical
Tradition: The
Form-Critical Method, pp. 91-100.
9Gevirtz, Patterns in the Early Poetry of
12.
71
His arguments immediately following
this quote are
rather convincing and should be
consulted. But, as always,
there must be opposition.
Culley has written an entire work
on formulaic language. He
recognizes that Gevirtz sees meter
involved, however, he does not
accept Gevirtz's proposal
cited above.1 After
some discussion, Culley surmises:
Then
again, while parallelism is dominant in Hebrew
poetry, it is not necessary that
every line show this
characteristic. In other words,
there is something
more fundamental to Hebrew poetry
than parallelism,
and this probably has to do with
metre, which although
we cannot as yet say precisely how,
restricts the cola
within certain limits.2
In the light of evidence, internal and external,
Culley
is certainly in error in assuming meter to be more
fundamental than parallelism.
There is just no question
about parallelism being the
chief characteristic of Hebrew
poetry. In conclusion, the
present writer solely agrees with
the balanced and sound
statements of Gevirtz:
.
. . while the existence of meter in biblical Hebrew
poetry is highly probable and
certainly cannot as yet
be categorically denied, it has yet
to be convincingly
demonstrated. Metrical analysis,
still dubious in the
extreme, can add little to our
understanding of a poem's
content.3
This controversial chapter has dealt with what the
lRobert C. Culley, Oral Formulaic Language in the
Biblical Psalms (
1967),
pp. 117-19.
2Ibid., p. 119.
3Gevirtz, Pattern
in the Early Poetry of
72
writer feels are necessary
antecedents to the following exe-
gesis. It must be said that the
exegesis will not be forced
to meet the conclusions in this
chapter, but rather, it will
be a privilege to allow the
Scripture to speak for itself.
CHAPTER III
EXEGESIS OF PSALM 89
In consideration of the psalm's form
and content, the
complexity is quite significant
when understood properly. As
an integral portion of God's
Word, Psalm 89 manifests its own
contribution. The opening words
of Ward are very appropriate:
Ps.
lxxxix is in many ways the most interesting and
important of the royal psalms. Taken
as a whole it is
a lamentation (vss. 39-52) over the
frustration of God's
promises to the Davidic dynasty
(vss. 20-38), which were
made possible by his cosmic
sovereignty (6-15). The
first part of the psalm recalls the
hymns of Yahweh's
enthronement (xlvii, xciii, xcv-c),
the second, the
oracle of Nathan (2 Sam. vii; Ps.
cxxxii), and the third,
the individual lamentations of the Psalter.l
Thus, there is the need to exegete
this enriching
revelation. Also, the need can
be exaggerated, for the aim
later is to judge the ancient
Near Eastern parallels. The
exegesis will not be as broad
and deep as the present author
would like. Though there be
limitations, the exegesis will
still be sufficient to see the
revealed truth.
The form will be to follow the
Hebrew text. Verse
one in the MT is verse two in the NASB.
Since commentators
are not unified, confusion
could result and space wasted if
1J. M. Ward, "The
Literary Form and Liturgical Back-
ground of LXXXIX, "' VT, XI (1961), 321.
73
74
no definite scheme is employed.
Therefore, the present writer
must establish a system. Since
the Hebrew text is followed
here, all verse citations from
other sources also following
the Hebrew text: will remain as
they are. But the liberty
will be taken in all other
quotes to put the Hebrew verse
reference in brackets [].
The pattern for verses 1-19 will be to place the
Hebrew
verse or verses at the beginning of each main section
or subsection. This easy access
prevents the flipping of
pages to reach an entire
presentation.
89:1 Meditation with
Insight
yHirAz;x,hA NtAyxel; lyKiW;ma
The chief concern here is the word lyKiW;ma. It
is
almost unbelievable that some
should tie this word with a
ritualistic connotation. Ahlström
practically interprets the
entire psalm in the light of
this one word. He claims that
it is a psalm employed in
renewal rites.1 His concept is
summarized well by DeVault:
What,
then, is A.'s view of Ps 89? As a maskil,
the
Psalm belongs to those rites in
which joy over the re-
newal of life is expressed, but to
which are to be added
also rites which represent suffering and death, drama-
1G. W. Ahlström, Psalm
89: Eine Liturgie aus dem
Ritual des
Leidenden Königs,
translated by Hans-Karl Hacker
and
Rudolf Zeitler (Lund: Hakan Ohlssons Boktryckeri, 1959),
pp. 21-26.
75
tizing the (temporary) victory of
the forces of chaos
and the humiliation of the king.1
In his review, Mowinckel says,
". . . . on the negative
side, Ahlström's treatment of maskil is good . . . .”2 How-
ever, Mowinckel does not agree
totally. A portion of his
view is cited by DuMortier, who
then expresses his own inter-
pretation:
Le mot maskîl est d'interprétation difficile; on re-
tiendra
l'explication de S. MOWINCKEL qui volt dans la
racine skl "la capacité de comprehension
et d'énergie
qui
permet de réussir quelque chose, d'obtenir un
resultat
positif". Dans la mesure ou cette racine
est bien
en rapport avec la notion d'efficacité, de
sagesse
efficiente, on pourra voir dans le culte le
"Sitz im Leben" probable
de ces maskîlîm (au sens de
rites efficaces).3
As Engnell construes the word,
he states:
Maskîl . . . is undoubtedly the
technical term for a
particular kind of
"Enthronement Psalm" belonging to
the central part of the ritual of
the annual festival
which describes the act of atonement
of the king
[catchwords
ransom and covenant] both in its negative
and especially in its positive
aspects, and refers to
the result of the atonement and the
hymnic motif asso-
ciated with it.4
1Joseph
J. DeVault, a review of Psalm 89: Eine
Liturgie
aus dem Ritual des Leidenden Königs by G. W. Ahl-
ström,
TS, XXI (1960), 281.
2Sigmund
Mowinckel, a review of Psalm 89. Eine
Liturgie aus den Ritual
des Leidenden Königs
by G. W.
Ahlström,
JSS, V:3 (July, 1960), 295-96.
3Jean-Bernard DuMortier, "Un Rituel d'Intronisation:
Le
Ps. LXXXIX 2-38," VT, XXII:2
(April, 1972), 177. A
full
understanding
of Sigmund Mowinckel's view can be observed in
The Psalms in Israel's
Worship,
2 Vols., translated by D. R.
Ap-Thomas
(New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), Vol. II, p. 209.
4Ivan
Engnell, A Rigid Scrutiny: Critical
Essays
on
the Old Testament, translated and edited by John T. Willis,
76
There is absolutely no evidence that
the word can be
designated as referring to any
kind of rites. Data and opin-
ion are offered by another:
Featured
in the headings to 13 psalms, maskil
never ap-
pears without a proper name with a
prepositional lamed
(Ps.
32, 42, 44, 45, 52-55, 74, 78, 88, 89, 142). The
LXX understood it to mean
"instruction" (cf. Ps. 32:8).
It
must be assumed to refer to some special skill re-
quired in the manner of musical
performance (cf. Ps.
47:8).
From the context of Amos 5:13 and the contrast
between the maskil and the mourning rites (5:16-17),
the term might well indicate some type of song.1
It may be some type of song, but
nothing indicates a
ritual setting. Another view
says:
Maskîl (13 times), on the basis of the
vb. skl, has been
taken to mean a didactic poem, but
it is found also with
those that are not didactic. Another
possibility is
"artistic poem," i.e., one
executed with art.2
But most scholars, too many to mention, agree with a
standard lexicon definition,
"contemplative poem."3 To this
the present writer concurs and
would like to add an addi-
tional explanation. Another
lexicon places lyKiW;ma as a
derivative of lkW which in the hiphil can mean "cause to
with
the collaboration of Helmer Ringgren (
derbilt
University Press, 1969), p. 89.
1Nahum
M. Sarna, et al, “Psalms, Book of,” EJ,
16
Vols.
(Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, Ltd., 1971), Vol.
13,
p. 1320.
2Roland
E. Murphy, “Psalms,” JBC, edited by
Raymond
E.
Brown, et al (Englewood Cliffs,
Hall,
Lnc., 1968), p. 570. Several views are noted in A. F.
Kirkpatrick, ed., The Book of Psalms (
versity
Press, 1910), pp. xix-xx.
3BDB, p. 968.
77
have insight Gn 3, 6 Ps 32, 8
Pr 16, 23 Da 9, 22."1 Carroll
states:
The
word maskil reflects the notion of
wisdom or the
skilful handling of some matter.
When used as a title
for a psalm it indicates a poem
displaying insight or
wisdom about life in general or
certain events in par-
ticular.2
In his composition Ethan seems to
have had a great
deal of insight concerning
God's person, power, and program.
There is no doubt that the poem
is artistic and instructive,
but there is something that
seems to have preceded those two.
Therefore,
the suggestion, at least for Psalm 89, is that
maskil here
means meditation with insight.
89:2-5 Introduction: Possession
of Reality
ypiB;
j`t;nAUmx< faydiOx rdovA rdol; hrAywixA MlAOf hvAhy; ydes;Ha
Mh,bA j~t;nAUmx< NkiTA MyimawA hn,BAyi
ds,H, MlAOf yTir;maxA-yKi
yDib;fa dvidAl; yTif;Baw;ni
yriyHib;li tyrib; yTirakA
hlAs,
j~xEs;Ki rOdvA-rdol; ytiynibAU j~f,r;za NykixA MlAOf-dfa
This quatrain is a unity within
itself and it is a
most ingenious introduction to
the entire psalm. The declar-
ative phrases of verses 2-3 are
a response to the realization
of the everlasting covenant in
verses 4-5. God has worked;
His sovereignty has been made
manifest in the behalf of David.
1KB, p. 922.
2R.
P. Carroll, "Psalm LXXVIII: Vestiges of a Tribal
Polemic," VT, XXI:2 (April, 1971), 133.
78
Thus it
is that verses 2-3 seem to be an introduction to
verses 6-19 because that
sovereignty is a reality. And
verses 4-5 introduce verses
20-38 because the Sovereign One
had established a covenant. The
author is in possession of
these truths because he is
singing even though a recent judg-
ment has taken place (vss.
39-46) and he offers the prayer of
faith (vss. 47-52).
If there is any emphasis indicated by word order,
then this psalm is a
perfect-example. The words given a
prominent place are hvhy ydsH. Though not given as the first
word in the next clause, jtnvmx is a word that parallels ydsH
in importance. These three
Hebrew words not only help to
show the unity of the Psalm,
they are foremost in the think-
ing of the author. The covenant
name hvhy, is found in verses
2, 6,
7, 16, 19, 47, 52, 53. The reason it is not employed
in verses 20-38 is that Yahweh
is the speaker. The root dsH
is noted in verses 2, 3, 15, 20,
25, 29, 34, 50. There
would be little need to employ
the word more because the
psalm is replete with Yahweh's dsH. The word hnvmx is ob-
served in verses 2, 3, 6, 9,
25, 34, 50.1
The latter word presents no problem.
Nearly all
Hebrew scholars translate it
faithfulness. But dsH poses
an entirely different problem.
The LXX has e]le<h which
is
1The basic root Nmx
appears in verses 29, 38.
79
usually translated mercies.1 A favorite
rendering is loving-
kindness, while
Dahood and Mowinckel employ love.2
The
lexicons do not offer a great
deal more.3 One would almost
agree with Rowley, “The word hesed is always untranslatable.
. . . ”4
But of the many works devoted to a study of the word,
Glueck,
for one, makes a significant comment: "Wherever
hesed
appears together with 'emeth or 'emunah the quality of
loyalty inherent in the concept
hesed is emphasized.”5 From
the sources which have given
much study to the word and its
uses in Scripture, the present
writer acknowledges the differ-
ent meanings dsH can have. However, Psalm 89 deals primarily
1A full discussion can be
found in Rudolf Bultmann.
"e@leoj, e]lee<w," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
edited
by Gerhard Kittel, translated and edited by Geoffrey
W. Bromiley (
pany,
1964), Vol. II, pp. 477-85.
2Mitchell
Dahood, The Anchor Bible--Psalms II (Garden
City,
Mowinckel,
The Psalms in
3BDB, pp. 338-39; KB, pp.
318-19.
4Harold
H. Rowley, "The Unity of the Old Testament,"
BJRL, 29:2 (February, 1946),
344, fn. 2.
5Nelson
Glueck, Hesed in the Bible, translated
by
Alfred
Gottschalk (
Press, 1967), p. 72. One should read his entire
work for
all
usages. A few other sources to be studied are
H. Snaith, The
Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament (New
Hesed and
Hasid in the Psalms
(
Press,
1953), also note listing on p. 58. Hans Joachim
Stoebe, "Die Bedeutung des Wortes Häsäd im
Alten Testament,"
VT, II:3 (July, 1952),
244-54.
80
with the Davidic Covenant.
Therefore, it seems, in recogni-
tion of different usages
elsewhere and with the exception of
89:20,
that dsH in the seven other verses
would have the mean-
ing of covenant loyalty. Eaton translates hesed, ". . . his
active fidelity which
especially fulfills his promises to the
dynasty. . . ."1
The word bears significant relationships to
other words.2
Ethan had the utmost confidence in
the covenant loyal-
ties of Yahweh. The biblical
believer sees no problem in
Ethan
aspiring to sing forever. The Targum
has a lamed pre-
fixed to Mlf,3 but it is not unusual to omit it.
Besides
some biblical texts, the famous
Moabite Stone (c. 850 B.C.)
also does not have it.4
As for the word rdo, Patton5 and
1J. H. Eaton, "The
King as God's Witness,
VII,
edited by Hans Kosmala (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970),
p.
30.
2Cf.
Robert G. Boling, "'Synonymous' Parallelism in
the
Psalms," JSS, V:3 (July, 1960),
231. This article should
be
consulted for many words in Psalm 89 and their parallels.
Also, one should see Daniel Goldberg, "The
Moral Attributes
of
God in the Psalms," (unpublished Doctor's dissertation,
Grace Theological Seminary, 1971), not only note
his total
discussion,
pp. 108-43, but especially his chart, p. 122.
3Targum, p. zn.
4John
C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic
In-
scriptions. Volume I: Hebrew and
Moabite Inscriptions
(Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1971), pp. 74, verse 7; 78, fn. 7.
5John
Hasting Patton, Canaanite Parallels in
the
Book of Psalms (Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins Press, 1944),
p.
36.
81
and Tournayl are quick
to point out its Ugaritic equivalent.
It is
the faithfulness of Yahweh he will make known (fydvx)2
with his mouth (ypb)3 which is another way of expressing
hrywx.4
The expression at the beginning of
verse 3 is ex-
plained by Driver:
At the end of the verse
the Hebrew kî 'for; indeed',
like the Ugaritic k 'for, indeed', has not causal but
affirmative force when standing
before a verb which is
not at the head of the clause (e.g. . . . 89:2-3. . .).5
In this verse where hesed
and 'emunah are repeated,
1R. Tournay, "En Marge D'une Traduction des
Psaumes,"
RB 63:2 (Avril, 1956),
163.
2See
a discussion of the hiphil form of
this word" in
Edward
R. Dalglish, Psalm Fifty-One in the Light
of Ancient
Near Eastern Patternism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962),
pp.
65-66.
3Dahood
says that "bepī
was falsely attached to vs. 2
when
the emphatic nature of ki at the
beginning of vs. 3 was
forgotten.
Of course, bepī, may
also be rendered as an adverb
'explicitly,' much like Prov viii 3, lepī 'loudly, express-
ly."'
Psalms II, p. 312. There is no evidence that one word
was
attached and one forgotten.
4G.
R. Driver maintains that verse 2 is a gloss; it
is
taken from verse 20. "Glosses in the Hebrew Text,"
L'Ancien Testament et L'Orient
(Louvain: Publications
Universitaries,
1957), p. 142. The present writer sees no
good
reason to hold that view.
5G.
R. Driver, "Another Little Drink--Isaiah 28:1-22,"
Words and Meanings:
Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas
(Cambridge: The University Press, 1968), p. 61.
Concerning
the
word ytrmx James
Kennedy claims that it ought to be read
trmx to agree with the LXX ei@paj,
An Aid to the Textual Amend-
ment of the Old
Testament
(
p.
10. In the light of the context and the parallelism this
change
seems totally unnecessary.
82
Kissane, for one, sees
corruption.1 Perhaps it is not smooth.
to some, but the literal
content and rendering as it stands
is very clear. "For I have
said, forever covenant loyalty
will be built up; Heavens, You
will establish your faithful-
ness in them." As
DuMortier declares:
Quelle que soit la lecture exacte du verset 3, le
psalmiste
semble affirmer que la hèsèd divine est
eternelle
(‘ôlâm) et it met en relation cette
fidélité
avec la stabilité cosmique (sâmaîm).2
The ytrmx-yK to the present writer simply means that
Ethan has come to a deliberate
conclusion. The comment of
Mowinckel is both right and wrong:
The
poet will certainly not sing about how and when
God's dsH and hnvmx came into existence
("were built
up"); of course they have
existed just as long as Yahweh
himself. What was "built up" is of course the
universe.3
It is not the world, but the dsH which is "built up"
according to the text. The
remarks of the Midrash on verse 3
are most interesting, although
they should be understood with
discernment:
Not
the heavens alone, but the throne, too, is estab-
lished on nothing other than mercy,
as is said And in
mercy shall the throne be established (Isa. 16:5). With
what is the throne to be compared?
With a throne that
had four legs, one of which was
short so that he who sat
upon the throne was shaken. Therefore, he took a pebble
lEdward J. Kissane, The Book of Psalms, 2 Vols. (Dub-
Browne
and Nolan Limited., 1954), Vol. II, pp. 94-95.
2DuMortier,
"Un Rituel d'Intronisation: Le Ps.
LXXXIX
2-38," p. 178.
3Sigmund
Mowinckel, "Notes on the Psalms," Studia
Theologica Cura Ordinum
Theologorum Scandinavorum Edita, XIII
(1959),
157.
83
and propped up the throne. Thus also
the throne in
heaven was shaken--if one dare say
such a thing--until
the Holy One, blessed be He, propped
it up. And where-
with did God prop it? With mercy. .
. . On what, then,
do the heavens stand? On mercy. . .
. And this refrain
runs throughout the whole Psalm.1
Plainly, the dsH of Yahweh will be forever built up
". . . rising ever greater
and fairer . . . before the wonder-
ing eyes of men, knowing no
decay, never destined to fall into
ruin.”2
Verses 4-5 are also two parallel
lines, which are
closely connected to verses
2-3. Ward urges:
Note
the parallels: hnb and Nvk in both 3 and 5; Mlvf
and rdv rdl in both 2 and 5 (and Mlvf again in 3);
hrywx and fydvx
(vs. 2) //
ytrmx (3)
// ytfbwn (4) dsH;
and hnvmx (2) //
tyrb (4).3
The synthetic parallelism of 4-5 is
none other than
the words of Yahweh Himself, which
had caused the poet to
sing in the first place. The
covenant loyalty concerns the
covenant made with His chosen
servant.4 David's descendants
1"Psalm
Eighty-Nine," The Midrash on Psalms,
2 Vols.
translated
by William G. Braude, Yale Judaica Series,
Vol.
XIII, edited by Leon Nemoy (
Press,
1959), Vol. II, p. 82.
2J. J. Stewart Perowne, The Book of Psalms, 2 Vols.,
revised
edition (
1966), Vol. II, p. 148. Also, observe the good comments
of
Carl
Bernard Moll, "The Psalms," translated with additions by
Charles A. Briggs, et al, Langes Commentary on the Holy
Scriptures, 12 Vols. revised
edition (
van
Publishing House, 1960), Vol. 5, p. 482.
3Ward,
"The Literary Form and Liturgical Background
of
Psalm LXXXIX," pp. 324-25.
4Cf.
H. C. Leupold, Exposition of the Psalms
(Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House,
1959), p. 174.
84
and thronel are
described with permanence which has far-reach-
ing implications. This summary
of the unconditional promise
in II Samuel 7 will be
discussed inverses 20-38. It must
be said that the message of
this introduction demonstrates
the author had possession of
reality.
At the conclusion of verses 5, 38,
46, 49 there is
the word hls, the meaning of which is very dubious. Lipinski
comments
on the first two instances, ". . . au Ps. 89, 5 et
38, ce mot marque la fin des passages appartenant au
poeme
royal primitif (Ps. 89, 2-5. 20-38)."2
This says nothing about
the last two usages, and,
moreover, if Lipinski's emphasis is
on "primitif" to make
the distinction, he has not taken into
account that parts of verses
6-19 are more primitive.
An entire article on the word by
Snaith adds nothing
new to Psalm 89.3
After much discussion, he concludes:
The
tradition is strong that the word selah has some-
thing to do with 'always, everlasting'. . . .
The
word selah therefore is a relic of the days when
psalms were sung in three sections.
It indicates the
place where the choir sang the
couplet "Give thanks unto
the Lord for He is good, For His mercy endureth for
1Maxmilian
Ellenbogen gives an interesting background
to
kb'), see Foreign Words in the Old
Testament: Their Origin
and Etymology (London: Luzae and
Company, 1962), p. 89.
2E. Lipinski, La
Royauté De Yahwé Dans La Poésie Et
Le
Culte De L'Ancien Israël (Brussels: Palies der
Academiën-
Hertogsstreaat
I, 1965), p. 394.
3Norman H. Snaith,
"Selah," VT, 11:1 (January,
1952),
43-56.
85
ever", and the insertion of the
word into the various
psalms dates from the beginning of
the fourth century
B.C.1
The connotation of "always, everlasting" would
be
strange for the meaning of hls at the
conclusion of verses
46, 49. The statements of
Murphy paint the true picture:
Selah, which occurs 71 times in 39 Pss,
is completely
unknown, despite desperate efforts
to give it meaning.
It
might indicate a lifting up of the tone or of the
eyes; others think it is a sign for
repetition or that
it means bowing.2
No further discussion would improve the subject. The
most that can be said is that it
was probably a musical term.
89:6-19 God's Characteristics: Basis
for Praise
This portion of Scripture extols the
unique character
of Yahweh. Delitzsch avers:
In
vers. 6-19 there follows a hymnic description of the
exalted majesty of God, more
especially of His omnipo-
tence and faithfulness, because the
value of the promise
is measured by the character of the person who promises.3
Every verse in the section holds
Yahweh's person and
work as the main thought. Even
when benefactors are men-
tioned, glory is still
attributed to Yahweh. Nevertheless,
the passage has been twisted
and perverted by many. While
lIbid., p. 56.
2Murphy, "Psalms,"
p. 570.
3Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms,
3
Vols., translated by Francis Bolton, reprint (
Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [n.d.], III, 36.
86
power is ascribed to God, some
have interpreted the passage
erroneously. Gray comments:
.
. . Psalm lxxxix, 6-18, definitely suggests an eschato-
logical victory which will repeat
the triumph of Cosmos
over Chaos in the beginning, which
has been sacramentally
experienced in the cult. . . .
especially in Psalm
lxxxix, 6-18, it is possible to see
a connection with
creation, which is the result of the
triumph of God over
the forces of Chaos.1
Later, he adds, "The theme of
God's conflict with the
unruly waters resulting in his
establishment as King recurs
in certain of the Psalms . . .
lxxxix, 8-18. . . ."2 But the
present writer agrees with
Kaufmann that none of ". . . the
ancient battles of YHWH . . .
mark the beginning of his
rule."3 The
answer to the first interpretation will be han-
dled in the exegesis.
The approach will be to treat this
section in qua-
trains which will facilitate
the bulk of material. Since
verses 18-19 do not form a
quatrain, this parallelism will
be separate.
lJohn Gray, The Legacy of
Texts and
Their Relevance to the Old Testament, revised
edition,
Supplements to Vetus Testamentum,
Vol. V (
E.
J. Brill, 1965), p. 32.
2Ibid., p. 33.
3Yehezkel
Kaufmann, The Religion of
Its Beginnings to the
Babylonian Exile,
translated and
abridged
by Moshe Greenberg (
87
Verses
6-9
Mywidoq; lhaq;Bi j~t;nAUmx<-Jxa hvAhy; j~xEl;Pi MyimawA UdOyv;
Mylixe yneb;Bi hvAhla hm,d;yi hvAhyla
j`rofEya qHawa.ba ymi yKi
NybAybis;0-lKA-lfa xrAOnv; hBAra
Mywidoq;-dOsB; CrAfEna lxe
j~yt,Obybis; j~t;nAUmx<v, h.yA
NysiHE j~vmkA-ymi tOxbAc; yhelox< hvAhy;
First of all, the unity of this
quatrain is set forth
by Ward:
Heavens (6a)// skies (7a); and this repeated round
about
thee
(8b, 9b), tying the lines together from beginning
to end. Again, holy ones (6b)// sons of God (7b)//
holy
ones (8a)// hosts (9a).
Who is like Yahweh (7a, b)//
who
is like thee (9a). These four lines give a unified
picture of the heavenly assembly
praising God, and they
close with the climactic reference
to the faithfulness
of the Lord.1
In verse 6 the word Mymw is employed to designate the
inhabitants of heaven. But the
following word jxlp poses
a
little problem. Most of the
scholars and translations treat
this word as plural, including
the LXX and Targum. Usually
it is done on the basis of
verses 10 and following. Kirk-
patrick has it singular and
says it is ". . . His wonderful
course of action regarded as a
whole. . . ."2 Attributing it
more to God's person, Briggs
translates it Thy wonderfulness.3
1Ward,
"The Literary Form and Liturgical Background
of
Psalm LXXXIX," p. 325.
2Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms, p. 533.
3Charles
A. Briggs and Emilie G. Briggs, The Book
of
Psalms, 2 Vol., International Critical Commentary, 47
Vols.,
edited
by Samuel R. Driver and Alfred Plummer, reprint (Edin-
burgh: T. & T. Clark,
1906), II, 255.
88
And
Moll claims the word "'does not here denote a work or a
deed, but the nature of God as
distinct from that of all
created beings, or separated
from their sphere of action.
. . . "1
Also, the word is parallel to jtnvmx.2
it seems
best to keep the MT reading as
singular because the nature of
God is
foremost in this quatrain. Since Mywdq occurs
in
verse 8, it will be treated
there.
Lipinski goes to great length in
discussing the yKi
that introduces verse 7.3
It is much too lengthy for review
here. His basic concern is the
switch of persons in verses
6-8,
which does not contribute to the purpose of this disser-
tation. With ymi it introduces a rhetorical question that
expresses the unique character of
God. It reminds one imme-
diately of Exodus 15:11 in its
entirety and the first part
of Micah 7:18, NOfA xWeno j~vmKA lxe-ymi.
qHw occurs
both in verse 7 and verse 38. It means
clouds or clouds of fine dust
and so has the meaning of
1Moll, "The Psalms,"
p. 483.
2Cf.
B. D. Eerdmans, "The Hebrew Book of Psalms,"
Oudtestamentische Studiën, Deel IV, edited by P.
A. H.
DeBoer (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1947), p. 422.
3Lipinski, La Royauté De Yahwé Dans La Poésie Et Le
Culte
De L'Ancien Israël, pp. 235-37. For other discussions
see
Walter Brueggemann, "Amos' Intercessory Formula," VT,
XIX:4 (October, 1969), 394 and C. J.
Labuschagne, The Incom-
parability of Yahweh in
the Old Testament,
Vol. V,
Oriental Series, edited by A. Van Selms
(
Brill, 1966), pp. 81, 85-86.
89
sky.1
Innes2 and Stadelmann3 point out that this word desig-
nates the abode of celestial
beings. The thought being empha-
sized is that God is above the Mymw and qHw in
verses 6-7.
Thus, His superiority to all
creatures is the thrust here.
The
verbs jrf and hmd are employed together also in Isaiah
40:18.4
The construct Mylx ynbb is a matter of debate among
the scholars. Space can only
permit a brief treatment. The
present writer sees no
relationship to Genesis 6; other
sources can be observed for the
problem.5 For the use of
lRobert Baker
Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testa-
ment, second edition,
reprint (
Publishing
Company, 1897), p. 265. BDB, p. 1007.
KB, p. 961.
The
LXX has nefe<liaj. E. W. Hengstenberg
says the word ". . .
is
employed poetically for the heavens, Commentary
on the
Psalms, 3 Vols. (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1860), III, 100.
Jastrow states it is the "name of one of
the seven heavens,"
II,
1551.
2D.
K. Innes, "Heaven and Sky in the Old Testament,"
The Evangelical
Quarterly,
XLIII:3 (July-September, 1971),
146-47.
3Luis
World, Analecta Biblica, 39 (
1970),
p. 55. See also pp. 93, 100.
4Hillers
wants to see the same usage in Lamentations
2:13,
but he amends the text to do so. See Delbert R.
Hillers, The
Anchor Bible: Lamentations (Garden City, New
5Leroy
Birney, "An Exegetical Study of Genesis 6:1-
4,"
JETS, XIII:I (Winter, 1970), 45.
Meredith G. Kline,
"Divine
Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4, WTJ,
XXIV:2 (May, 1962),
187-204.
90
the phrase in apocalyptic see
Russell,l and for the use in
Ugaritic see Held.2
The Targum has xykxlm ysvlkvx, "army of
angels,"3 while
the LXX has ui[oi?j qeou?. Most scholars view
the construct as
"angels" and/or "sons of God."4 However,
Gesenius
and Jouon hold that the expression does not mean
"sons of god(s)" but
"beings of a class," that is, "an indi-
vidual being part of a divine
being."5 It seems that KB
carries the same thought by
translating it "(individual)
gods."6 One
receives the impression that the last three
sources are speaking of false
gods. Girdlestone concurs,
1D.
S. Russell, The Method and Message of
Jewish
Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1964),
pp.
168, 202, 236.
2Moshe
Held, "The Action-Result (Factitive-Passive
Sequence
of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic,"
JBL, LXXXIX:III (September,
1965), 280, fn. 37. Also see UT,
pp.
357-58.
3See
Jastrow, Vol. I, p. 25; Vol. II, p.
786. See
the
view expressed in P. S. Alexander, "The Targumin and Early
Exegesis of 'Sons of God' in Genesis 6, Journal of Jewish
Studies, 23:1 (Spring, 1972),
65-66.
4BDB, p. 42. Kirkpatrick, The
Book of Psalms, p. 534.
Moll, "The Psalms," p. 483. Leupold, Exposition of the
Psalms, p. 250. Walther
Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testa-
ment, 2 Vols., translated by
J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1961), II, 194. Paul van
Imschoot, Theol-
ogy of the Old Testament. Vol. I: God,
translated by
Kathryn
Sullivan and Fidelis Buck (New York: Desclee Company,
1954), pp. 12, 48, 108.
5GKC, pp. 401, 418. P. Paul Joüon, Grammaire de
l'Hebreu
Biblique, second edition (Rome: Pontificium Insti
tutum
Bibli,cum, 1947), unpublished English translation by
Bruce
K. Waltke, Dallas, Texas, p. 117.
6KB,
p. 46.
91
"Elim is never used of the true God."l And Allis
writes:
El has two plurals in Hebrew Elim and Elohim. The
former, which we may call the normal
plural, is very
rare, occurring only four times in
the Old Testament
(Exod.
15:11; Ps. 29:1; 89:7; Dan. 11:36) and whether
in any of the four it is used of God is not certain.2
Then he goes on to demonstrate that
in Psalm 29:1
they are "sons of
God."3 But DeQueker, who parallels Psalm
29 with
89:6-15, claims that 89:7 is speaking of the angels
of Yahweh, and the expression Mylx ynbb is a direct parallel
to Mywdq in verses 6, 8.4 Cross also states
they are par-
allel terms and indicates the LXX and Peshitta agree.5
1Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, p. 31.
2Oswald
T. Allis, The Old Testament: Its Claims
and
Its Critics (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1972), p. 334.
Cf. Frank M. Cross, Jr. and David Noel Freedman,
"The Song
of
Miriam," JNES, XIV:4 (October,
1955), 242, 247 and
Labuschagne, The
Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testa-
ment, pp. 77-80. In his
discussion on these pages Labuschagne
attempts
to solve the issue by emendations, but he admits,
“.
. . this method of solving problems is undesirable." p. 80.
3Allis,
The Old Testament: Its Claims and Its
Critics, pp. 334-35.
4L. DeQueker, "Les
Qedôsîm du Ps. lxxxix a la Lumiere
des
Croyances Semitiques," ETL, 39
(1963), 476, 480. Also
see
I. L. Seeligmann, "A Psalm From Pre-regal Times," VT,
XIV:l
(January, 1964), 81.
5Frank
Moore Cross, Jr., Studies in Ancient
Yahwistic
Poetry
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1950), pp. 205-06.
92
DuMortier,1
U. S. Leupold,2 and Pope3 view the creatures in
verses 6, 7, 8 as all one
group. The construct may be ex-
pressed as "sons of the
mighty" which would still be a refer-
ence to Yahweh. Although there
are differences among those
cited, the present writer feels
it is designating angels
because of the parallelism and
the general sense of the con-
text. One cannot say for sure,
but the poet may also have
had in mind the MybiruK;. Indeed,
the fact is that Yahweh is
far superior (incomparable) to
angels, whether good or bad.
The incomparable superiority of
Yahweh is carried on
in verse 8. Here the Mywdq have reverential awe for His
unapproachable majesty. Rankin
believes the concept here was
emphasized after second Isaiah.4
This view of Rankin is
without evidence. Girdlestone
seems to apply the term to
earthly persons.5 As
already stated, the Mywdq are
celestial
beings, preferably angels.
DeQueker, who has written an
lDuMortier, "Un Rituel d'Intronisation: Le Ps.
LXXXIX
2-38," p. 180.
2Ulrich S. Leupold,
"Worship Music in Ancient Israel:
Its
Meaning and Purpose," Canadian
Journal of Theology, XV:3-4
(1969),
177.
3Marvin H. Pope, The Anchor Bible--Job (Garden City,
New
York; Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1965), pp. 9, 41, 109.
40.
S. Rankin, Israel's Wisdom Literature:
Its Bear-
ing on Theology and the
History of Religion
(New York:
Shocken
Books, 1969), pp. 222-23.
5Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, p. 176.
93
entire article on the subject,
states strongly, “. . . Ps.
LXXXIX vise manifestement les anges. . . .”1
For some reason Driver says
that xrvnv hbr is abbre-
viated and should have xUh inserted between the two words.2
The
present author fails to see the necessity. This second
part of verse 8 is a pattern
that compares with several other
portions of Scripture. See
Culley for the total picture.3
Snijders states that vybybs is peculiar and ". . . means
those who are within his sphere
of authority."4 This is
really not the sense of the
context, and, besides, Yahweh's
authority is universal.
The initial expression of verse 9
seems to be a repeat
in concept of verse 7 and also
Exodus 11:15. Culley has
pointed out the parallels to
portions of other psalm passages:
1DeQueker, "Les Qedôsîm du Ps. lxxxix à la Lumière
des Croyances Semitiques," p. 469. See also
Lipinski, La
Royauté De Yahwe Dans La Poésie Et Le Culte De L'Anciën-
Israel, pp. 281-82.
2G.
R. Driver, "Abbreviations in the Massoretic Text,"
Textus: Annual of the
Hebrew University Bible Project, Vol. I,
edited
by C. Rabin (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1960), p. 123.
3Robert
C. Culley, Oral Formulaic Language in the
Biblical Psalms (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1967),
p.
63.
4L.
A. Snijders, "The Adjective rz in the Ketubim,"
Oudtestamentische Studiën, edited by P. A. H.
DeBoer (Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1954), p. 63, fn. 8. For another
discussion on
the
word vybybs see M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, "Theory -and Prac-
tice
of Textual Criticism, Textus: Annual of
the Hebrew
University
Bible Project, Vol. III, edited by C. Rabin (Jeru-
salem: Magnes Press, 1963), p.
143, fn. 43.
94
jvmk ym hvhy Ps.
35:10
jvmk ym Myhlx Ps.
71:19
jvmk ym (tvxbc yhlx) hvhy Ps.
89:91
For the different views on tvxbc yhlx see Jacob.2
In this context the tvxbc seems to refer to the Mywdq and
Mylx
ynb.
The form NysH is found only here in the Old Testament.3
Briggs4 and Kennedy5
want to change the word to jdsH, and
in
doing so, Briggs keeps h.y and
Kennedy appears to drop it. The
basis of their thinking has
some validity, since dsH is
often
used with hnvmx. Most keep the form in the text and translate
it "strength,"
"strong," "might," or "mighty."6 A
closer
examination of the word and the
context seem to retain the
latter view. Besides the form
in the text, KB gives another
1Culley,
Oral Formulaic Language in the Biblical
Psalms, p. 54.
2Edmond
Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament,
trans-
lated
by A. W. Heathcote and P. J. Allock (New York: Harper
and
Row, Publishers, 1958), pp. 54-55.
3BDB, p. 340.
4Briggs, The Book of Psalms, II, 255-56.
5Kennedy, An Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old
Testament, p. 57.
6The LXX has dunato>j. The Targum has xnysH. Cf.
Jastrow, I,
437, 488-89.
95
word and assigns it to 89:9, Ns,Ho.1 The lexicon also places
a root above (NsH) with the meaning of "strength."2
Delitzsch
claims it ". . . is a
Syriasm; for the verbal stem is
native to the Aramaic, in
which =yDawa."3
Although
Gordon is not exactly sure of
the meaning, there is a Ugaritic
word of comparative interest, . He says that hsn is
“. . .
a kind of (military?) personnel. . . .”4 If it were
so, then h.y NysH would be an expression parallel to yhlx
tvxbc
in
meaning at least.
Contextually, the present writer
believes that Ethan
employed this word
deliberately. This will be emphasized in
the exegesis of verses 10-13,
at the end of which the rela-
tionship of verses 6-9,
especially verse 9, will be handled.
h.y is
another word that merits brief discussion.5 it
is found thirty-five times in
the Psalms.6 There is no doubt
that it is a shortened form of hvhy. The question revolves
1KB, p. 319.
2Ibid.
3Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, III,
36.
Cf. BDB, p. 340.
4UT, p. 403.
5For an interesting
discussion see Christian D.
Ginsburg,
Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition
of the Hebrew Bible (New York: Ktav Publishing
House, Inc.
1966),
pp. 374-94.
6Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, p. 36.
96
around whether it is a
superlative or not. Some have claimed
it is a superlative, others
deny it.1 Thomas lists 89:9 with
other passages and declares
that the examples “. . . are too
unsound textually to permit any
view to be based upon them."2
While
it cannot be dogmatically stated, the present writer
can see a superlative force
here. This also will be empha-
sized at the conclusion of the
next quatrain.
The 'Athnah and the waw are important to the transla-
tion. With the 'Athnah in its
present position, the waw has
to be translated something like
also because of the plural
form jytvbybs. It is possible that NysH is an adjective used
as a substantive in
juxtaposition to h.y and
translated,
"strong
or mighty is Jah." If the ‘Athnah remains where it
is, this expression belongs to
the first part of the verse.
But if
the 'Athnah were moved to jvmk, the
expression makes
good sense with the second
part. It could be an exclamatory
sentence, "Mighty is Jah,
also your faithfulness surrounds
you!" This is only a
suggestion of the possibility as the
construction is difficult.3
1D.
Winton Thomas, "A Consideration of Some Unusual
Ways of Expressing the Superlative in Hebrew, VT, 111:3
(July,
1953) , 214.
2Ibid.
3A
slightly different rendering can be seen in
Labuschagne,
The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old
Testa-
ment, p. 105
97
Thus, two attributes of Yahweh that
are so pertinent
to the following verses are set
forth, might and faithful-
ness.
Though Briggs does not agree on one point with the
present writer, his words are
appropriate, "The divine attri-
butes are here personified, as
often, and are regarded as
constantly in His company,
attending upon Him and ready to
execute His pleasure."1
It is just as Podechard writes,
"Sans
rival et tout-puisant, it pent tenir toutes ses
promesses."2
Verses 10-13
MHeB;wat; hTAxa
vyl.Aga xOWB; My.Aha tUxgeB; lweOm hTAxa
j~ybiy;Ox
TAr;z.aPi j~z.;fu faOrz;Bi bharA llAHAk, tAxKidi hTAxa
MTAd;say; hTAxa
h.xAlom;U lbeTe Cr,xA j~l;-Jxa MyimawA j`l;
Unne.ray;
j~m;wiB; NOmr;H,v; rObTA MtAxrAb; hTAxa NymiyAv; NOpcA
In this quatrain it is Yahweh
again who is preeminent.
Ward explains:
.
. . vss. 10-13, also treat a single theme. . . . They
are bound together by the constant
repetition of the
second person pronoun. The recurring
htx
(10a, 10b, 11a,
12b,
13a) and j~
(twice in 11b, twice in 12a, once in
13b) produce a staccato that sounds
consistently through
the whole unit.3
1Briggs, The Book of Psalms, II, 256.
2E. Podechard, Le Psautier, 2
Vols. (Lyons:
Facultes
Catholicques,
1949), II, 113.
3Ward,
"The Literary Form and Liturgical Background of
Psalm
LXXXIX," p. 325. Cf. Pius Drijvers, The
Psalms: Their
Structure and Meaning (Frieburg, West
Germany: Herder KG,
1965), pp. 62-63.
98
The emphasis here is different. In
verses 6-9 the
stress was upon the utmost
supremacy of Yahweh in His person
in the heavenly realm. Verses
10-13 now reveal His unpar-
alleled work in the earthly
realm. It is not as Gaster pur-
ports, ". . . this action
is taken to evince the supremacy of
Yahweh
over the benê elim and the
qedoshim. . . ."1
Yahweh's
supremacy was already noted in
verses 6-9; Gaster has grossly
misunderstood the poet here.
Probably more than any other portion of this psalm,
verses 10-13 have been
perverted to a great extent by many
scholars.2 Even more
so than verses 6-9, this present qua-
train is compared to the
findings of the ancient Near East by
scholars. Thus, a deliberate
discussion of length is enter-
tained here in order that the
context and the issues may be
ascertained clearly. There will
be allusions to some matters
which will be fully dealt with
in the next two chapters.
Verses 10-11 are a synthetic
parallelism. God's
absolute control of the sea is
declared in verse 10. The
lTheodore H. Gaster, Thespis: Ritual, Myth and Drama
in the Ancient Near East, revised edition,
Harper Torchbooks
(New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1966), p.
447. For
an
evaluation see R. T. O'Callaghan, "Ritual, Myth and Drama
in
Ancient Literature," Orientalia,
22 (Nova Series, 1953),
418-25.
2Cf.
Aubrey R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in
Ancient
Israel (Cardiff: University of
Wales Press, 1967), p. 108.
Johnson assigns vss. 6-13 to a cultic festival,
a matter
which will be treated in
chapter five.
99
main problem is the word xOWB;. Gesenius says that it is
"perhaps
only a scribal error."1 Driver changes it to Nvxw;.2
But Hengstenberg plainly views
it as ". . . a noun abbreviated
from the infinitive of xWn. . . ."3 And Delitzsch
postulates,
“. . . xOW is . . . so far as language is concerned, either
as an infinitive . . . or as an
infinitival noun, like xyWi,
loftiness, Job xx.6, with a
likewise rejected Nun."4
The
form is best construed as an
infinitive.
Kennedy wants to alter MHeB;wat; to MteyBiw;Ta.5
Dahood ren-
ders the word as
"muzzle"; he takes it from the Ugaritic root
sbh.6
Verse 11 is treated in the most
abused manner. Re-
search bears out that most of
it revolves around three words
that are combined together some
way or another, My.Aha (vs.
10),
bharA (vs.
11), MtAxrAb; (vs. 13). All of the
following quotes
are said in reference to verses
10-13. According to
Mowinckel, "bhr is another name for the primeval monster
1GKC, p. 217.
2Driver,
"Abbreviations in the Massoretic Text," p.
124.
3Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Psalms, III, 102.
4Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, III,
37. Cf. BDB,
p. 670 and KB, p. 635. For the LXX and
Peshitta see Ahlström, Psalm 89, p. 67.
5Kennedy,
An Aid to the Textual Amendment of the
Old
Testament, p. 76.
6Dahood, The
Anchor Bible--Psalms II, pp. 314, 112-13.
100
of the sea, which Yahweh
conquered before the creation.
. . . "1
Ruprecht claims, "Ps. lxxiv 13 f. and lxxxix 11
liegt dieser Kampf von der
Weltschöpfung. . . “2 Clay puts
it a little differently,
"In this conflict the hostile crea-
ture and its helpers are
overthrown, after which the heavens
and earth are created."3
And Dahood concurs, "Having dis-
posed of his foes Rahab,
Leviathan, et al., Yahweh set about
fashioning and arranging heaven
and earth."4 Pedersen plainly
affirms, "And the creation
he performed by defeating the
dragon, tannīn, Rahab or Leviathan and his helpers. . . .”5
And
Weiser admits similar thoughts.6
While the above place a battle before creation, others
place it at creation. For
example, Stuhlmueller writes,
1Sigmund Mowinckel, “lHawa,” Hebrew and Semitic Studies
Presented
to Godfrey Rolles Driver, edited by D. Winton Thomas
and
W. D. McHardy (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 97.
2Eberhard Ruprecht,
"Das Nilpferd im Hiobbuch," VT,
XXI:2
(April, 1971), 228.
3Albert
T. Clay, Light on the Old Testament from
Babel (Philadelphia: The
Sunday School Times Company, 1907),
pp.
69-70.
4Dahood, The Anchor Bible--Psalms I, p. 51.
5Johs
Pedersen, "Canaanite and Israelite Cultus,"
Acta Orientalia, 18:1 (1939), 9. Also
see his discussion
in Israel: Its Life and Culture (
Press,
1940), III, 443-44.
6Artur
Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary,
translated
by
Herbert Hartwell, The Old Testament Library (
The
101
"Present
in some biblical texts is the Semitic notion that
creation was a struggle against
the forces of chaos."1 Those
with corresponding views are
Brandon,2 Crim,3 Imschoot,4
Kidner,5
Lipinski,6 and Podechard.7 One answer to all these
misinterpretations might simply
be that the biblical account
of creation is silent on the
matter. Hasel states, "The
battle myth which is a key
motif in Enuma elish is completely
absent in Gn l."8
Another answer will be given below in a
positive way.
1Carroll
Stuhlmueller, "The Theology of Creation in
Second
Isaiah, CBQ, XXI:4 (October, 1959),
432.
2S.
G. F. Brandon, Creation Legends of the
Ancient
Near East (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1963), pp. 154-55.
3Keith R. Crim, The Royal Psalms (
John
Knox Press, 1962), p. 106.
4Imschoot, Theology of the Old Testament. Vol. I:
God,
p. 91.
5Derek
Kidner, Genesis, Tyndale Old
Testament Commen-
taries,
edited by D. J. Wiseman (
Press,
1967), p. 45.
6Edward
Lipinski, "Yahweh Malak, Biblica,
44:4
(1963), 434-35.
7Podechard, Le Psautier, II, 113. Cf. DuMortier,
"Un
Rituel d'Intronisation: Le Ps. LXXXIX 2-38, 180-81. Though
W. F. Albright does not refer to psalm 89, his
view is in
From the Stone Age to
Christianity,
second edition, Anchor
Books
edition, (
Inc.,
1957), p. 271.
8Gerhard
F. Hasel, "The Significance of the Cosmology
in
Genesis I in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Parallels,"
Andrews University
Seminary Studies,
X:l (January, 1972), 19.
102
Returning to. verse 11, Yahweh
utterly subdued the
opposition with telling force.l
Shunary points out how the
Targum omits fvrz in order to avoid anthropomorphism.2
But
the big question remains, who
or what is bhr?3
The two op-
posing camps are clearly
identified by Robinson:
The
ancient enemy is identified with the sea--always an
element of mystery and fear to the
Hebrew--and has a
name of its own--Rahab, identified
by older commentators
with
parative religion shown to be the analogue of Tiamat.4
Many, many scholars advocate that
Rahab of 89:11 is a
"monster," "evil
monster," "abyss monster," "dragon," etc.
Besides those mentioned above,
a few others holding this view
1Nicholas
J. Tromp has a very interesting study on
destruction
which involves 89:10-11, but it is much too
lengthy
to employ here. Cf. Primitive Conceptions
of Death
and the Nether World in
the Old Testament,
Biblica et Orien-
talia,
N. 21 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969),
pp.
80-83.
2Jonathan
Shunary, "Avoidance of Anthropomorphism in
the
Targum of Psalms," Textus: Annual of
the Hebrew Univer-
sity Bible Project, Vol. V, edited by S.
Talmon (
Magnes Press, 1966), p. 141. For some usages of
the word see
Anton Jirku, "Kana 'anaische Psalmenfragmente im der
Vor-
israelitischen
Zeit Palastinas and Syriens," JBL,
LII (1933),
118.
3For Greek and Syriac
variants see J. Frederic Berg,
The
Influence of the Septuagint upon the Pe Sitta Psalter
(Leipzig:
W. Drugulin, 1895), p. 120.
4Theodore
H. Robinson, "The God of the Psalmists," The
Psalmists, edited by D. C.
Simpson (London: Oxford University
Press, 1926), p. 28. Robinson also belongs to
the group that
connects a battle with
creation, pp. 28-29.
103
are Barr,1 Barth,2
Childs,3 Fishbane,4 Herbert,5 Kiessling,6
Kline,7
and Pritchard.8 Almost all of them relate 89:11 to
Psalm 74:14. There are many
passages that other scholars
with the "sea
monster" concept relate to 89:11. A few se-
lected ones will be cited: Pope
connects Job 9:13 with verse
eleven,9
Ginsburg--Isaiah 51:9,10 May--Habakkuk 3:13-15,11
1Wayne
E. Barr, "A Comparison and Contrast of the
Canaanite World View and the Old Testament World
View" (un-
published
Doctor's dissertation, Divinity School, University
of
Chicago, 1963), p. 175.
2Christoph F. Barth, Introduction to the Psalms,
translated
by R. A. Wilson (New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons,
1966), p. 54.
3Brevard
S. Childs, "A Traditio-Historical Study of
the
Reed Sea Tradition," VT, XX:4
(October, 1970), 413.
4Michael
Fishbane, "Jeremiah IV 23-26 and Job III 3-
13:
A Recovered Use of the Creation Pattern," VT, XXI:2
(April,
1971), 159.
5A.
S. Herbert, Worship in Ancient Israel,
Ecumenical
Studies
in Worship, No. 5 (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox
Press,
1959), p. 25.
6Nicolas
K. Kiessling, "Antecedents of the Medieval
Dragon
in Sacred History," JBL,
LXXXIX:II (June, 1970), 168.
7Meredith G. Kline, By Oath Consigned (Grand Rapids:
Wm.
B. Eerdmans, 1968), p. 60.
8James
B. Pritchard, Archaeology and the Old
Testament
(Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1958), pp. 189-90.
9Pope, The Anchor Bible--Job, p. 70.
10H.
L. Ginsburg, "The Arm of Yhwh in Isaiah 51-63 and
the
Text of Isaiah 53:10-11," JBL,
LXXXVII:II (June, 1958),
152-53.
11Herbert
G. May, "Some Cosmic Connotations of Mayim
Rabbîm, 'Many Waters,'" JBL, LXXIV:I (March, 1955), 9-11.
104
Vriezen--Amos
9:3,1 Graham and May--Isaiah 27:1.2 In con-
trast Gordon3 and
Wakeman4 discuss these and other verses and
concepts and never mention
89:11. Gray dogmatically asserts:
In the Hymn of Praise
which precedes the royal plaint
in Ps. lxxxix the supremacy of God
among the gods (vv.
6-7),
and his victory over the waters, and over the
monster of the deep, Rahab (vv. 9-10
[10-11]), are com-
bined with the motif of God's
covenant with David (vv.
3,
4, 19 ff. 14-5, 20 ff.]). Here, however, there is
no reference to the Exodus. . . .5
A direct conflict takes place on the
same page in The
Interpreter's Bible. McCullough
states that Rahab is not a
name for Egypt, Poteat says it
is.6 In agreement with Poteat
1Th.
C. Vriezen, The Religion of Ancient Israel
(Philadelphia:
The Westminster Press, 1967), pp. 44, 165.
2William Creighton Graham
and Herbert Gordon May,
Culture
and Conscience: An Archaeological Study of the New
Religious Past in
Ancient Israel
(Chicago: The University
of
Chicago Press, 1936), p. 135.
3Cyrus
H. Gordon, "Leviathan: Symbol of Evil,"
Biblical Motifs, Origins
and Transformations,
P. W. Lown
Institute
of Advanced Jewish Studies, Brandeis University,
Studies
and Texts: Vol. III (Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard
University Press, 1966), pp. 1-9.
4Mary
K. Wakeman, "The Biblical Earth Monster in the
Cosmogonic
Combat Myth," JBL, LXXXVIII:III
(September, 1969),
313-20.
5John
Gray, "The Kingship of God in the Prophets and
Psalms,
VT, IV (1954), 9.
6W.
Stewart McCullough, Edwin McNeill Poteat, "89,"
The Interpreter's Bible, 12 Vols. (New York:
Abingdon Press,
1955), IV, 481.
105
are Brucel and
Clarke2 and a score of others.
Considering the words in the text, the context itself,
and analogies, the exodus and
Egypt are the emphasis of Ethan.
tvxg in
verse 10 refers to the "swelling of the sea," but it
also has the connotation of
"smoke rising up" (Isa. 9:17) and
"pride"
(Ps. 17:10).3 In the same verse xvW speaks
of the
"rising or roaring of the
waves," but it (xWn) too
has a
meaning of "exalting
oneself in arrogance" (Prov. 30:13; Num.
16:3; I
Kings 1:5).4 And the word bhr (vs.
11) has a similar
meaning, "proud,"
"defiant," "arrogance."5 It appears that
the poet's words and
parallelism were well-chosen, and their
significance will enter the
discussion below.
The context of verses 10-11 matches
the revelation in
song in Exodus 15. Verse 10 summarizes
perfectly the expres-
sions in Exodus 15:7-8; verse
11 does the same with Exodus
15:4-6, 9-10.6 How
does bhr fit in? The present writer
1F. F. Bruce,
"Rahab," The New Bible
Dictionary,
edited
by J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
1962),
p. 1074.
2Arthur
G. Clarke, Analytical Studies in the
Psalms
(Kansas
City, Kansas; Walterick Publishers, 1949), p. 222.
3BDB, p. 145. KB, p. 162.
4BDB, p. 672. KB, p. 637.
5BDB, p. 923. KB, p. 876.
6For a discussion of the
word jzf
see Samuel E'.
Loewenstamm,
"The Lord is My Strength and My Glory," VT,
XIX:4 (October, 1969), 466-68.
106
concurs with Habel that
"In Ps. 87:4 and Isa. 30:7 Rahab is
clearly identified with Egypt
which would support the identi-
fication of the same in Ps.
89:11."1 This quote from a foot-
note stems from a large
discussion of which a small portion
is taken:
Tannin,
for example, is used as a metaphor to describe
Pharaoh who is given the
"scattering treatment" applied
to Yam (Ezek. 29:3-5) and made a
torrent of blood. . . .
Not
only is the "battle for kingship" imagery applied to
the exodus event, but Pharaoh, the
foe par excellence,
is described in terms of the
mythological dragons enu-
merated among the mighty acts in
Baal's rise to king-
ship. Yet the enemy of Yahweh is
still Pharaoh! This
fact becomes even clearer in Isa.
51:9-11 where the same
victorious arm of Yahweh, who once
divided the sea,
hewed Rahab, and pierced Tannin for
the redeemed to pass
over. . . In the context Tannin and
Rahab logically
refer to Pharaoh, the mightiest of
Yahweh's historical
foes.2
Habel moves on to point out that
Tannin and Leviathan
in Ps. 74:12-14 are Pharaoh.3
A similar thought is expressed
differently by Eerdmans. In
commenting on 89:11, he writes:
Ps.
lxxxvii4 and Is. xxx7 Rahab was a name for Egypt
where the yearly inundations made
the land like a great
sea, and the Pharao life a Tannin
living in the water
(Ezek.. xxix3, xxxii2).4
1Norman
C. Habel, Yahweh Versus Baal: A Conflict
of
Religious Cultures (New York: Bookman
Associates, 1964), p.
70,
fn. 59.
2Ibid., pp. 64-65.
3Ibid., p. 65. Cf. pp. 83-84. Though
Habel holds
these
views, he seems to relate 89:6-11 to the creation ac-
counts
in Scripture. See Norman C. Habel, "'Yahweh, Maker of
Heaven
and Earth': A Study in Tradition
Criticism," JBL,
XCI:III
(September, 1972), 334-35.
4Eerdmans, "The Hebrew Book of
Psalms," p. 423.
107
Harrelson plainly says, "The
real monster slain by
Yahweh was the Pharaoh and his
forces."1 Therefore, Pharaoh
the monarch of Egypt is Rahab.
But is there an enemy behind
an enemy? Pharaoh is called Nyn.iTa which means "serpent,"
"dragon,"
"sea-monster,"2 and is called bhr meaning "proud,"
"defiant,"
"arrogant."3 May suggests:
The enemy defeated by Yahweh is
something more than just
the enemy of Israel or of an
individual Israelite; he is
the enemy of Yahweh and identified
with the corporate
whole of Yahweh's antagonists.4
All of this can only point in one
direction; Satan is
the enemy behind the enemy. It
is obvious that Satan is not
a dragon, but the meaning of
the imagery leaves no doubt as
to the significance of the
symbol. Genesis 3 notes the first
instance in the Bible; Satan
here is the subtle serpent. The
last mention of Satan in
Revelation 20 removes any question
1Walter
Harrelson, "The Significance of Cosmology in
the
Ancient Near East," Translating and
Understanding the Old
Testament:
Essays in Honor of Herbert Gordon May, edited by
Harry
Thomas Frank and William L. Reed (Nashville: Abingdon
Press,
1970), p. 248.
2BDB, p. 1072. KB, p.
1034.
3The
meaning from the Hebrew lexicons had been given
earlier.
The LXX has u[perh<fanon which has the same
meaning.
Cf. Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English
Lexicon, revised by Henry
Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie,
Supplement edited by E. A. Barber (Oxford: The
Clarendon
Press,
1968), p. 1864.
4May, "Some Cosmic
Connotations of Mayim Rabbîm,
'Many Waters'," p. 11. Cf.
p.-20.--Allusions are made to
the
same concept by Kaufmann, The Religion of
Israel, pp.
62-63.
108
of identification. Verse two
reads:
And he laid hold of the
dragon, the serpent of old,
who is the Devil and Satan, and
bound him for a-thousand
years.
A study of the names reveals much
more. In Revela-
tion 12, Satan is associated
with water. In Isaiah 14 and
I Timothy 3 the arrogance and
pride of Satan are recorded.
Other
passages and thoughts could be mentioned, but the
present writer believes the
point has been made. The evi-
dence is multiplied in extra-Biblical
material. Wallace
avers, "The dragon theme
may be classed as almost universal
in mythology."l
A great number of occasions are listed by
Gaster
in Thespis.2
Thus Satan is the power behind. Pharaoh in emblematic
form. Similar instances are
found in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel
28.
Pharaoh received the appellations of a sea monster or
dragon in poetic language. And
this seems to be most appro-
priate. The exodus was by far
the focal point in Israel's
lHoward Wallace,
"Leviathan and the Beast in Revela-
tion,"
The Biblical Archaeologist, XI:3
(September, 1948),
61. Besides the instances enumerated by Wallace,
see
Russell,
The Method and Message of Jewish
Apocalyptic, pp.
123-24 and Donald W. Fatten, The Biblical Flood and the Ice
Epoch. (Seattle: Pacific
Meridian Publishing Company, 1966),
p.
191.
2Gaster,
Thespis, pp. 137-42, 148-49. Cf.
Edward
Ulback,
"The Serpent in Myth and Scripture," BS, XC:360
(October, 1933), 449-55.
109
faith and history1 as the bulk of the Old Testament does
testify. Future events were even measured by it. The cove-
nant name of Yahweh was
revealed as to its meaning just prior
to the memorable event. Israel was redeemed with blood and
with power. Statan has been Israel’s enemey ever since
because
he is the enemey of all God’s
purposes. But as Yahweh’s power
Delitzsch comments on llHk, “. . . in its fall the proudly
defiant kingdom is like one
fatally smitten.”2 Isaiah 30:7
denotes it so clearly with
irony that Egypt is an inoperative
monster. Pope’s translation of Job 26:12-14
corresponds ex-
trememly well with Psalm 89:11:
By his power he quelled the Sea,
By his cunning he smote Rahab.
By his wind he bagged the Sea,
His hand pierced the fleeting
serpent.
Lo, these are but bits of his power;
What a faint whisper we hear of him!
Who could attend his mighty roar?3
Many of the scholars mentioned above were correct in
interpreting Rahab as a
monster, but they had failed to see
Ethan’s direct reference to the
exodus. A question might
remain on whether Israel
borrowed bhr from
mythology as
1Cf. G. Ernest Wright, The Old Testament Against Its
Environment, Studies in Biblical
Theology, No. 2 (London:
SCM
Press, Ltd., 1950), pp. 49-50.
2Delitzsfch, Commentary on the Psalms, III, 37.
3Pope, The Anchor Bible—Job, pp. 163-64.
110
von Rad indicates they did.1
As shown above, the imagery was
common in the ancient Near
East, so that it is possible that
Israel
borrowed imagery, but not mythology.2 The problem
will be handled fully in a
later chapter.
Verses 12-13 do not present quite
the involution of
interpretations as the previous
parallelism did. At once,
the poet asserts that Mymw and Crx are
owned solely by
Yahweh.3
The word lbt
defines the next group of words spe-
cifically. According to
Stadelmann:
The
number of terms used to designate "earth" illus-
trates the view held by the ancient
Hebrews regarding
the spatio-physical world. Their
notion of the world
which basically is the concrete
sphere of the ground
and gradually widens its scope
toward the concept of
inhabited world as a whole. The same
thought pattern
is observed, although less
explicitly, in the use of
the word tbl "world," which occurs almost exclusively
in poetry. We may compare it with
its Akkadian equiv-
alent tābalu which occurs in the expression eli tabali
"by
land," which is parallel to eli nāru
"by water
(river)." A survey of all the passage [sic] where tbl
1Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols.,
translated
by D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper and Row,
Publishers,
1962), I, 151.
2For
a rather balanced statement see Eichrodt, Theol-
ogy of the Old Testament, II, 114 and Kyle M.
Yates, Jr.,
"Psalm 89," The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, edited by Charles
F.
Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison (Chicago: Moody Press,
1962),
p. 528. But F. F. Bruce seems to confuse the issue.
Cf. The
New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes
(Grand
Rapids; Will. B. Eerdmans, 1968), p. 43.
3Marco
Treves takes these words alone and claims that
Psalm
24:1 imitates 89:12 and, thus, is later because 24:1
begins
with the earth. This appears to be an extreme use of
analogy.
Cf. "The Date of Psalm XXIV," VT,
X:4 (October,
1960), 432-33.
111
is mentioned shows that this word is
used synonymously
with
’rs. But what distinguishes
the term tbl from 'rs
is a concrete intuition of its more
particular designa-
tion as the habitable part of the
world.1
Mtdsy shows
that Lbt was established firmly as only
Yahweh could do.2 In
his discussion of 89:10-12 Labuschagne
states:
In
Ps. 89:10f., where mythological terms are employed to
describe the deliverance from Egypt,
the idea of Yahweh's
creative activity is likewise used
as an additional ar-
gument to illustrate His power.3
Verse 13 commences and continues as
a problem to many
scholars. It is attested by
several of them that Nymyv Nvpc
and NvmrHv rvbt are four sacred or cultic mountains.4
But
this is a view that is not only
unnecessary, but unfounded.5
Both Patton and Savignac see
this verse as a difficult text.
1Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World, pp.
129-30.
Cf. Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old
Testament, p.
264
and Podechard, Le Psautier, II, 120. The LXX has the
word
oi]koumenhn, not ko<smoj. Cf. BDB, p. 385 and KB, pp.
1018,
6-7, 359.
2Cf. Pope, The Anchor Bible--Job, p. 250.
3Labuschagne,
The Incomparability of Yahweh in the
Old Testament, p. 110.
4The
following two works have views of others as well
as
their own: Dahood, The Anchor
Bible--Psalms II, p. 314
and
Oswaldus Mowan, "Quatuor Montes Sacri in Ps. lxxxix, 13?"
Verbum
Domini,
41 (1963), 11-20. A less extreme view is held
by
Crim, The Royal Psalms, pp. 106-07.
Cf. Roland de Vaux,
Ancient Israel, 2. vols. (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1965), Vol. 2, p. 281. Most of these views are
based on spn,
Baal's habitat. See UT,
p. 475.
5Cf. Podechard, Le Psautier, II, 113. Many other
works deny a sacred or cultic
connotation.
112
Patton
follows the LXX (qala<ssaj) and translates the first
two words, "Sapon and the
sea. . . ."l After a brief dis-
cussion,
Savignac's conclusion is "Tu as créé le ciel nuageux
(sâphôn)
et la mer . . . “2 Actually,
there is no need for
"cloudy skies" and
"sea" here. The "north and "south" fit
the context extremely well. It
is true that Mymw is in
the
context, but that is only
natural when creation is in view.
However,
the thrust appears to be in the earthly realm. Be-
sides, this is in a larger
context referring to the exodus.
Even
so, the meaning is not clear. Delitzsch3 and Scroggie4
are among many who say that
Mount Tabor and Mount Hermon
refer to west and east, which
is very unlikely. Kirkpatrick
does not agree with the above
scholars, ". . . because they
are the grandest and most
conspicuous natural features in
Palestine."5
The point seems to be much simpler than all the
efforts offered above. Other
passages of Scripture tell of
God's creation rejoicing or
praising Him because of His
1Patton, Canaanite Parallels in the Book of Psalms,
p. 19.
2J. de Savignac,
"Note Sur le Sens du Terme SAPHON
dans Quelques Passages de la Bible,"' VT, III:1 (January,
1953),
96.
3Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, III,
37.
4W.
Graham Scroggie, The Psalms, 4
viols., revised edi-
tion
(London: Pickering and Inglis, Ltd., 1948), II, 231.
5Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms, p. 535.
113
glorious person and work. And so it is here, vnnry jmwb.
Indeed the whole earth, from one end
to the other (the
north and the south), is His and the most noticeable
features of Palestine, Mts. Tabor and Hermon, are testi-
monies and monuments to His greatness.1
His greatness was displayed at the exodus, therefore,
the whole earth and Mts. Tabor
and Hermon possibly represent-
ing all mountains,2 “. . . are happy to acclaim his right, by
act of creation, to rule.”3 As the creation acknowledges its
Creator, the earthly realm
sings to praise Yahweh as the
heavenly realm did in verses
6-9. In observing this, Kissane
rightly connects the passage to
the exodus, “Canaan is God’s
‘inheritance’ (Exod. 15:17), of
which He disposes as He
wills.”4 While the limits of north and south are a
matter
of debate to some, and while
the significance of the geo-
graphical positions of the
named mountains are argued by
others, the context leaves no
doubt that an earlier work of
Yahweh (creation) is joyous
over a later work of Yahweh
(exodus).
Yet some scholars have the audacity to unite this
1Leslie S. M’Caw and J.
A. Motyer, “The Psalms,”
NBCR, edited by D. Guthrie, et al (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans,
1970), p. 506.
2Cf. Briggs, The Book of Psalms, II, 257.
3Poteat, Exposition of
Psalm “89,” p. 481.
4Kissane,
The Book of Psalms, II, 96.
114
portion of Scripture with
mythology.1 Ringgren does so, yet
his work is entitled The Faith of the Psalmists.2
Certainly,
the ramifications of this need
no explanation.
Verses
14-17
j~n,ymiy; MUrTA j~d;yA zfoTA
hrAUbG;-Mfi faOrz; j~l;
j~yn,pA UmD;qay; tm,x<v, ds,H, j~x,s;Ki
NOkm; FPAw;miU qd,c,
NUkl.ehay; j~yn,PA-rOxB; hvAhy; hfAUrt;
yfedOy MfAhA yrew;xa
UmUryA h~t;qAd;cib;U MOy.ha-lKA NUlygiy; j~m;wiB;
The context now moves back to the historical realm.
Unity is described by Ward:
Vss. 14-17 can also be
distinguished as a quatrain.
The
oft repeated j~- carries over here from the previous
quatrain. Thine arm (14a) and thy name
(17a) are bal-
anced in the first and last lines.
The repeated jynp
(15b,
l6b) joins the middle lines together. And the
decisive stress upon qdc in the last stichos
(17b)
echoes the fpwmv
qdc and tmxv
dsH of the
second line,
binding up the whole.3
Ward has hinted at the incomparable
power noted in
these verses. Every single word
in verse 14 is replete with
the strength of an
unconquerable warrior, Yahweh Himself.
1Langdon
Gilkey, Maker of Heaven and Earth: A
Study
of the Christian
Doctrine of Creation,
Anchor Books edition
(Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company,
Inc., 1965),
p. 316. Paul Humbert, "La Relation de Genese 1 et du
Psaume
104
avec la Liturgie du Nouvel--An Israëlite," Revue
d'Historie
et de Philosophie Religieuses, 15:1-2 (Janvier-
Avril,
1935), 1-27. Especially see p. 23.
2Helmer
Ringgren, The Faith of the Psalmists
(Phila-
delphia;
Fortress Press, 1963), pp. 94-96.
3Ward,
"The Literary Form and Liturgical Background
of Psalm LXXXIX," p. 325.
115
jxsk and jynp in verse 15 also denote power. Also, words in
verses 16-17 do the same.
This only proves that the exodus is
foremost in the
mind of the poet. Thoughts and
words in these four verses
run parallel to Exodus 15 in a
most convincing manner. Space
will not be given here to draw
the parallels, but the study
is enriching. That is why the
present writer believes Ethan
had chosen his words well in
verse 9, hy NysH. It
served as
a perfect introduction to the
exodus power in verses 10-11,
14-15,
to creation power in verses 12-13, and to enabling
power in verses 16-17.
Moreover, that expression in verse 9
is quite close to Exodus 15:2
ff. And it seems quite possible
that the author began his song
in 89:2 based upon the com-
mencing of song in Exodus 15:1.
Labuschagne says, ". . . vs.
10
contains a description of the event at the Reed Sea,
and vss. 14 f. allude to the
Exodus events."1
Returning to verse 14 in particular,
the latter por-
tion of the verse provides an
interesting study. Muilenberg
has a comparison on
anthropomorphism in the psalms and the
ancient Near East,2
while Shunary gives the view of the
1Labuschagne,
The Incomparability of Yahweh in the
Old Testament, p. 105.
2James
Muilenburg, "A Liturgy on the Triumphs of
Yahweh,"
Studia Biblica et Semitica
(Wageningen: H. Veenman
en Zonen, 1966), pp. 241-42.
116
Targum, not only for verse 14,
but also for verses 15-16.1
And Soffer relates the
instances in the LXX for verses 11,
14, 15,
16.2
Except for one letter, the first part of 89:15 and
the last of Psalm 97:2 are
identical. Culley has shown the
parallel:
jxsk Nvkm Fpwmv
qdc
89:15
vxdk Nvkm Fpwmv
qdc 97:23
With righteousness4 and justice as the
foundation of
Yahweh's
throne, His administrative government of sovereignty
really needs no further
comment. In reference to Nvkm,
Gaster
says "This metaphor is admirably illustrated by the
fact that the Egyptian
hieroglyphic sign for "right, nor-
malcy" (mu‘at), viz., originally meant the base of a
throne."5
1Shunary,
"Avoidance of Anthropomorphism in the
Targum
of Psalms," pp. 135, 139, 141.
2Arthur
Soffer, "The Treatment of Anthropomorphisms
and
Anthropopathisms in the Septuagint of Psalms," HUCA,
XXVIII
(1957), 86, 95-96.
3Culley,
Oral Formulaic Language in the Biblical
Psalms, p. 81.
4For
views of qdc with which the present
writer does
not
concur see C. F. Whitley, "Deutero-Isaiah's Interpreta-
tion
of Sedeq,” VT, XXII:4 (October, 1972), 471.
5Theodor
H. Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom in
the
Old Testament (New York: Harper and
Row, Publishers, 1969),
p.
769. For -a verification of mu'at see Alan Gardiner,
Egyptian
Grammar,
third edition, revised (London: Oxford
118
genii of sacred history . . . stand
before His face like
waiting servants watching upon His nod.l
What a basis this is for His people
to experience
enabling power in verses 16-17.
yrwx reminds one of Psalm
1:1.
But in this context, it applies to the Mfh "who
know
the joyful sound" (or
"blast of the horn"). They are of the
redeemed; a realization of
those in Exodus 15:13. The poet
seems to have moved on in time.
These redeemed are exper-
iencing the shouts of joy at the festive occasions
in Numbers
23:21
and many of those following. This is not a dogmatic
interpretation, but it appears
to be the best. Of course,
this was when Israel was
obedient as the latter portion of
verse 16 signifies. On such
occasions Yahweh showered His
favor upon them. Vermes gives a
translation of the Targum:
Blessed
are the people . . . who walk, 0 Lord, in the
light of the splendour of thy
countenance and are found
pure in the Judgment.2
Judgment is not implied in the
passage. Verse 17
needs no explanation. The
people respond to Yahweh's person
and they are the recipients of
His work. At the close of
this quatrain, one can go back
and note the conceptual
tern. The incomparable person
of Yahweh in the heavens is
extolled in Verses 6-9 with
heavenly beings rejoicing in Him.
1Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, III,
38.
2G.
Vermes, "The Torah is a Light," VT,
VIII:4
(October, 1958), 437.
119
Verse 9
leads to the following verses. The incomparable work
of Yahweh in the earth is
exalted in verses 10-13 with all
natural creation rejoicing in
Him. Verse 14 returns to the
historical event followed by
the facts of heaven. Verses 16-
17 go
back to earth with His redeemed people rejoicing in His
person and work. If there is
anything the poet understands,
it is Yahweh and His
sovereignty, the great demonstration of
His
power at the exodus, and the joy His people can know be-
cause of His covenant loyalty
and all its provisions.
Verses
18-19
Unner;qa My.rTA j~n;cor;biU hTAxA
Omz.Afu tr,x,p;ti-yKi.
UnKel;ma
lxerW;yi wOdq;liv; Unne.gimA hvAhyla yKi
These verses form a parallelism that makes a perfect
conclusion to verses 6-19, and
at the same time seems to be
preparation for verses 20-38.1
The climax is set off by
. . . . yk . . . . yk. Verse
18 is directly related to verse 17
and yet it encompasses all the
truth of verses 6-17. Although
it is only noted by few
scholars, there is a significant
change of persons within the
verse. It is significant because
it aids the correct
interpretation in the ensuing argument.
The suffix on vmzf is
singular because its antecedent is Mfh,
and can be rightly translated their. But the suffix on vnnrq
is our. The waw ties the two
together. If a paraphrase be
1Gf. Ward, "The
Literary Form and Liturgical Back-
ground of Psalm LXXXIX, p. 325.
120
permitted, the poet is saying
that You (Yahweh) are the glory
of their strength, and by that
same token, that is, You have
done something for them (the
people years ago of verses 16-
17), so
now Your favor does exaltl our horn. In other words,
what favor Yahweh had shown in
time past, He is showing now
in the poet's day, even though
the purposes are different.
As
Kirkpatrick states, "By the change of person, the poet
claims his share in this
glorious inheritance."2
A variety of interpretations can be
listed for verse
19, but not by any means will
all of them be entertained here.
Gray
surmises that the word vnngm could
be changed from "our
shield" to "our
intercession" because "mgn
is found in paral-
lelism with gzy" in a Ugaritic text.3 The change, "our
inter-
cession," does not fit the
context nor the parallelism. There
is a word in Hebrew, mgn, that compares to the Ugaritic mgn,
but it is not the meaning in
verse 19.4 However, vnngm is
lEither the Kethiv or Qere reading here is acceptable.
The LXX
agrees with the Qere and the Targum agrees with the
Kethiv. The present writer
prefers the Kethiv (hiphil form).
2Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms, p. 536.
3Gray, The Legacy of Canaan, p. 272. In another
work,
Gray cites more support for his position. Cf.
John Gray, The
Krt Text in the
Literature of Ras Shamra, second edition
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964), p. 69. Concurring
are Patton,
Canaanite Parallels in
the Book of Psalms,
p. 41 and Francis
D. Nichol, ed., "Psalm 89," The Seventh-day Adventist Bible
Commentary, 7 vols. (Washington,
D. C.: Review and Herald
Publishing
Association, 1954), III, 838.
4Cf. KB, p. 493 and UT, p.
430.
121
only part of a larger problem.
Several scholars concur with Moran's
conclusion:
From
Ugaritic, too, we learn of the particle l
(vo-
calization uncertain) with different
uses. The first
and commonest is the asseverative l (probably la), found
also in Amorite. . . . Thus, in
Psalms 89:19 we have
"For
truly is Yahweh (l-YHWH) our shield,
truly the Holy
One (l-qedôs)
of
Moran's translation, but tends
to disagree with KB.2
Others
hold that the lamed denotes possession and that vnngm and
vnklm do not
refer to Yahweh.3 Perowne says, "The rendering
'Jehovah is our shield' is
against grammar."4 Clarke concurs
1William L. Moran,
"The Hebrew Language in its North-
west
Semitic Background," The Bible and
the Ancient Near East.
Essays
in honor of William Foxwell Albright, edited by G.
Ernest
Wright (
Inc., 1961), p. 60. In agreement are C. F.
Whitley, "Some
Functions
of the Hebrew Particles Beth and Lamedh," JQR,
LXII:3 (January, 1972), 201; Ronald. J.
Williams, Hebrew
Syntax: An Outline (
1967), p. 53; and P. J. van Zijl, "A
Possible Interpretation
of
Zech. 9:1 and the Function of 'the Eye' (‘Ayin) in Zech-
ariah,"
JNSL, I (1971), 66.
2Cf.
William L. Holladay, ed., A Concise
Hebrew and
Aramaic Lexicon of the
Old Testament,
based on the lexical
work
of L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner (
Eerdmans, 1971), p. 170. The expressions in KB indicate the
opposite
view, p. 494.
3C,f.
Moll, "The Psalms," p. 483 and C. R. North, "The
Religious
Aspects of Hebrew Kingship," ZAW,
Neuter Band: 1
01932),
22.
4Perowne,
The Book of Psalms, II, 150. Cf.
Hengsten-
berg,
Commentary on the Psalms, III, 104-05
and Podechard, Le
Psautier, II, 114-15, 121. The
latter discusses the views of
others.
122
with KB and views "shield" as a "metaphor for the king as
protector of the people."1
There is no doubt that Yahweh is
protector and King, and most
certainly He is the Holy One of
Israel.2
However, the change of persons, the present con-
text, and the continuity of
thought seem to demonstrate that
"
pears again in verse 25 and
refers to David. Since the word
denotes strength, it parallels zf in verse 18. Thus, our
horn, our shield, our king, all
refer to David and his dy-
nasty.4 Barnes
comments, ". . . their very protectors were
themselves protected by Jehovah."5
The significance of the poet's
present day has now
come to the fore. He had
already stated it in verses 4-5.
The incomparable Yahweh has
made a covenant that is permeated
with covenant-loyalty. And, on
the basis of this fact, He is
the possessor and sustainer of
that which He has established.
It is
Yahweh's covenant with David that is the thrust of his
composition now. Therefore with
verses 18-19, Ethan has
1Clarke, Analytical Studies in the Psalms, pp.
211,
222.
2Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament,
52-54.
3Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, III,
39.
Cf. JFB, III, 294.
4Cf. Briggs, The Book of Psalms, II, 258.
5Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament Psalms,
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1950), II, 375.
123
masterfully brought together
the composite parts.
89:20-38 God's Covenant: Basis for
Confidence
With the transition made and verse
20 picking up and
continuing the thought, the
poet now comes to the covenant he
explicitly mentioned in verses
4-5. The exegetical treatment
of verses 20-38 will be even
less detailed than the previous.
There
are several reasons for this. Many of the verses and
thoughts are directly from II
Samuel 7 as indicated earlier.
An
in-depth exegesis would call for a handling of both pas-
sages. Also, there are not as
many problems involved; most
of the material is quite clear
and self-explanatory. Serious
grammatical problems are at a
minimum. And the last reason,
for a minimal exegesis is the
treatment of those who draw
ancient Near East comparisons
and parallels. Much of the
entire section is dealt with on
a conceptual basis rather
than a verse by verse basis.
Thus, the verses in Hebrew will be
omitted at the
commencement of each quatrain,
and only employed when neces-
sary. The present writer is not
shirking a full exegesis of
this rich passage; he is
attempting to facilitate space and
combine the purposes of the
dissertation.
As for the structure, Ward explains,
"The oracle
(vss. 20-38) consists of five
quatrains: (1) 20a, 20b, 21,
124
22; (2)
23-26; (3) 27-30; (4) 31-34; and (5) 35-38."1 The
expressions of thought,
parallelisms, and repetitions more
than demonstrate this
intelligible arrangement.
Verses
20-22
The poet referred to the king of Israel in verses 18-
19,
which seems to be David according to that context and the
one that follows. Verse 20 now
commences the thought and, at
the same time, introduces the
specifics. The word zx,
"then,
at that time" points to
the time or occasion.2 But the lat-
ter of the following words
presents a problem, NvzHb-trbd
jydysHl.3
Many of the manuscripts have the singular, jdysHl
On the
question whether it is singular or plural, the schol-
ars are about equally divided;
and they are too abundant to
cite here. Those who hold that
the word is singular usually
say it is applied to Nathan.
And those who advocate the
plural generally apply it to
Samuel and Nathan. All agree
that the vision is a reference
to II Samuel 7, but verses
20-21 could also refer to I
Samuel 16. The word is translated
lWard, "The Literary
Form and Liturgical Background
of
Psalm LXXXIX," p. 326.
2Cf. John R. Wilch, Time and Event (Leiden: E. J.
Brill,
1969), p. 88.
3William
Emery Barnes shows how trbd is treated in
the
various mss. of the Peshitta in The
Peshitta Psalter
According
to the West Syrian Text: Edited with an Apparatus
Criticus (Cambridge: The
University Press, 1904), pp. xvii,
xxv,
xxv i, , 138.
125
various ways from the basic
meaning of uprightness, loyalty,
piety.1
Ugaritic has influenced some
scholars to emend a part
of the expression rvbg lf rzf ytyvw, particularly the word
rzf.2
Albright argues:
In Psalm lxxxix, 19[20],
where the Authorized Version
renders 'I have laid help upon one
that is mighty . . .',
Ugaritic
evidence proves that we must translate 'I have
placed a youth above the mighty man.
. . The context
shows that David is meant.3
What Albright has done is to
exchange the Hebrew word
rzf for
the Ugaritic word gzr.4 A
few others have done the
1Cf.
BDB, p. 339; KB, p. 319; Glueck, HESED in
the
Bible, pp. 7-8; and David
Baron, Types, Psalms and Prophecies
(New
York: American Board of Missions to the Jews, Inc.,
1948), p. 211. For a different view see Mitchell
Dahood,
"Hebrew-Ugaritic
Lexicography VII," Biblica, 50:3
(1969),
345.
2Note
the views cited by Johnson, Sacral
Kingship in
Ancient Israel, pp. 29-30 and A. S.
van der Woude, "Zwei Alte
Cruces im Psalter," Studies on Psalms, Deel XIII, Oudtesta-
mentische Studiën, edited by P. A. H.
DeBoer (Leiden: E. J.
Brill,
1963), pp. 135-36.
3William
Foxwell Albright, The Archaeology of
Pales-
tine (Gloucester,
Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1971), p. 234.
Cf. H. G. Jefferson, "Canaanite Literature
and the Psalms,"
The Personalist, 39 (Los Angeles,
1958), 358 and Arnold A.
Wieder,
"Ugarit'ic-Hebrew Lexicographical Notes, JBL, LXXXIV:
II
(June, 1965) , 162.
4For
gzr see UT, p. 463. Cf. Gray, The
Legacy of
Canaan, pp. 263-64 and Habel,
"'Yahweh, Maker of Heaven and
Earth'; A Study in Tradition
Criticism," p. 331, fn. 40.
126
same.1 In expressing
his support for the view, Held accuses
KB for completely ignoring the
matter in Hebrew lexicography.2
The entire problem is amply
discussed by Allis who disagrees
with all the above and says:
But
the burden of proof would clearly rest with the one
who proposed the new and exceptional
meaning, and it
would only be acceptable if the
context clearly required
it. Such is not the case here.3
The RSV has changed the word to rzn4 and
Allis has a
very significant reply to this
conjectural emending:
The
RSV Old Testament Committee of which Dr. Albright
was a member apparently disregarded
the "must." For it
preferred a rendering, "I have
set the crown upon,"
despite the fact that
"crown" involved a conjectural
emendation (changing 'ezer into nezer), to the one which
Dr.
Albright regarded as a "must." The only warrant for
the "must" is the desire
to discover a Ugaritic word in
this psalm-verse.5
Therefore, it is best to leave it as
rzf and trans-
late it normally as help. Aid was conferred on David as a
1Cf.
James Barr, Comparative Philology and the
Text
of the Old Testament (Oxford: The Clarendon
Press, 1968),
pp.
139-41, but note especially Driver's view on p. 139. Cf.
Ginsberg's view in Theodor H. Gaster, "An
Ancient Eulogy on
Israel:
Deuteronomy 33:3-5, 26-29," JBL,
LXVI (1947), 60.
2Held,
"The Action-Result (Factitive-Passive) Se-
quence
of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic,"
p.
278, fn. 31. See KB, 695-96; his
attack is also directed
at
Supplementum, pp. 11776-220.
3Allis,
The Old Testament: Its Claims and Its
Crit-
ics, p. 330. But see his
discussion prior to this on p. 329.
4Cf.
A. R. Hulst, The Old Testament
Translation Prob-
lems (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1960), p. 110.
5Allis,
The Old Testament: Its Claims and Its
Critics, p.
330.
127
Divine
gift. Kirkpatrick states that Yahweh "endowed him
with the power and assigned to
him the office of helping My
people in their need."1
David had been called a rvbg in
Samuel 16:18 and II Samuel
17:10.
The following expression parallels the former,
Mfm rvHb ytvmyrh. The election of David did not
haply come
about. Yahweh had deliberately
chosen him at His own voli-
tion.2 See verse 4.
Verse 21 continues the thought and
undoubtedly refers
to I Samuel 16 as well as 89:4 and
II Samuel 7. Sanders re-
fers to 89:21 and I Samuel 16
in his comparison of the LXX
and a Qumran text.3
The quatrain is completed with guaran-
teed strength for David. ydy and yfvrz of
verse 22 speak of
the same power that attended
the exodus and after in verse
14.
1Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms, p. 537.
2David
recognized this choice by his last words in
II
Samuel 23:1-7. C. H. Spurgeon preached one of his famous
sermons
based on this portion, "The People's Christ," The
New Park
Street Pulpit,
Vol. I, American edition (Grand
Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1963), pp. 77-84.
3Cf.
J. A. Sanders, "Nos. I, II, and III of the Five
Syriac
Apocryphal Psalms," Discoveries in
the Judean Desert
of Jordan IV: The Psalms
Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa)
(Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1965), p. 58 with
p. 55. For
a
discussion of the LXX reading e]lai<& in verse 211 see Peter
Walters (formerly Katz), The Text of the Septuagint: Its
Corruptions and Their
Emendations,
edited by D. W. Gooding
(Cambridge: University Press,
1973), p. 59.
128
Verses 23-26
David was promised not only guaranteed strength, but
also Divine support for
external matters.1 The parallelism
of verses 23-24 demonstrates
that David would have very little
trouble with oppression or
distress, as far as Yahweh is con-
cerned. The phrase hlvf-Nb is taken directly from II Samuel
7:10.
Allegro shows the relationship of this phrase in
89:23, II Samuel 7:10, I
Chronicles 17:9, LXX, and a Qumran
fragment.2
At the same time Yahweh's hnvmx and dsH will
be with
him. The Mw of Yahweh has been brought up for the third
time
in this psalm, denoting
ownership, power, reputation, and
enablement. The strength of
David and the strength of his
kingdom were guaranteed glory
and success. Verse 26 espe-
cially refers to the extent,
power and influence of David's
kingdom, generally held to be
from the Mediterranean to the
1For
comparison of some verses from this point to
verse
38 with II Samuel 7 see S. R. Driver, Notes
on the
Hebrew
Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, second
edition,
revised and enlarged, reprint (Oxford: The Clarendon
Press,
1966), pp. 275-76 and Glueck, HESED in the
Bible, pp.
76-78.
2Cf.
John M. Allegro, "Florilegium," Discoveries
in
the Judean Desert of
Jordon V Qumran Cave 4:1 (4Q158-4Q186)
(Qxford: The Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 55 with
p. 53 and
"Fragments
of a Qumran Scroll of Eschatological Midrasim,"
JBL, LXXXVII:IV (December,
1958), 351. For lvf see Girdle-
stone,
Synonyms of the Old Testament, p. 79;
BDB, p. 732;
and KB, pp. 687-88.
129
Tigris-Euphrates
area.1 The dy and Nymy are those of David,2
but they are empowered by the dy and Nymy of
verse 14 and the
dy and fvrz of verse 22. Because of Yahweh, David's
military
and political endeavors were
fulfilled.
Verses
27-30
In the first quatrain there was choice by election,
in the second there was
conquest by enablement, and now in the
third there is a climax by
exhibition. As DuMortier states:
Ce lien intime entre
Yahvé et son Oint, dont les
manifestations
viennent ainsi d'être enumerees, trouve
son
expression la plus profonde au verset 27: "Il
m'appellera:
Toi, mon père, mon Dieu et le rocher de
mon
salut!"; cette expression du lien filial entre Yahvé
et le
roi n'est pas isolee dans la Bible; les parallels
les plus
eclairants sont le Ps. ii7 et 2 Sam. viil4.
. . . 3
The personal pronouns are significant: ynxrqy xvh
ytfvwy
rvcv ylx htx ybx. Every
word is fraught with tremen-
dous import. The first half
recalls II Samuel 7:14 and the
last reminds one of many Psalm
expressions. The htx ybx
would show utter dependence,
respect, and confidence. In his
1For example, see
Podechard, Le Psautier, II, 115.
For additional and strange views see Dahood, The Anchor Bible
--Psalms II, p. 317; Frederick Houk
Borsch, The Son of Man in
Myth and History (Philadelphia:
TheWestminster Press, 1967),
p. 118; and Lipinski,
La Royauté De Yahwé Dans La Poésie Et
Le
Culte De L'Ancien Israël, pp. 133-34.
2For different views on the words, dy and Nymy see
Jan
Holman, "Analysis of the Text of Ps. 139, Biblische
Zeitschrift, 14 (Neue Folge, 1970), 53-54.
3DuMortier,
"Un Rituel d'Intronisation: Le Ps.
LXXXIX 2-38," p. 188.
130
discussion of the relationship,
Fensham says, "It is thus
clear that the biblical
reference in Ps. 89 is used to illus-
trate the fidelity of the
Israelite king and his willingness
to stay in the covenant
relationship with the Lord."1
Verse 28 is just as profound, Nvylf vhntx rvkb ynx-Jx
Crx-yklml. But Dentan indicates that the king is a semi-
divine ruler or some kind of
god in his view of these two
verses (27-28):
Instead
of the simple figure of the charismatic judge or
leader who stood at the head of the
community in war, or
on the rare occasions when the
tribes met together for
consultation or worship, there now
stood permanently at
the head of the nation a king who
owed his office to
inheritance and divine right, who
was separated from
the sphere of common life by the sacred
oil of his con-
secration, and was considered to be
a semidivine figure,
a "son" of Yahweh (2 Sam.
7:14; Ps. 2:7; 89:26f.), if not
some kind of "god" himself
(Ps. 45:6, RSV margin?).2
Kaufmann answers this
conjecture quite sufficiently:
The Bible knows of no
worship of kings or heroes,
nor is ancestor worship evidenced
for biblical Israel.
To
be sure the king has sanctity; to curse him is on a
par with cursing God (Exod. 22:27; I
Kings 21:10, 13).
Poetry
styles him a "son" of God (Ps. 2:7). Metaphori-
cally God is his father (II Sam.
7:14) and he is God's
"firstborn"
(Ps. 89:28), meaning that God is his espe-
cial guardian and help. But
deification of kings is
1F.
Charles Fensham, "Father and Son as Terminology
for
Treaty and Covenant," Near Eastern
Studies in Honor of
William Foxwell Albright, edited by Hans
Goedicke (Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins Press, 1971), p. 130. Cf. also
references
to
similar expressions in Labuschagne, The
Incomparability
of Yahweh in the Old
Testament,
p. 120, fn. 3.
2Robert
C. Dentan, The Knowledge of God in
Ancient
Israel (New York: The Seabury
Press, 1968), p. 22. See also
Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History, p. 112.
131
mentioned only as a heathen custom.
Had it existed in
Israel
the prophets would certainly not have failed to
denounce it.1
And later, after a considerable number of pages,
Kaufmann adds:
The
Israelite conception rejected all the divine aspects
of kingship and based itself
exclusively on the idea of
divine election (I Sam. 10:24; 16:1
ff.; II Sam. 6:21;
Deut.
17:15; etc.). There are linguistic vestiges of
the idea that the king is a
"son" of God (Pss. 2:7;
89:27 f.). But that these are purely
figurative (cf.
II
Sam. 7:14) is evident from the absence of any mytho-
logical motifs. There is no allusion
to the divine
origin of the reigning dynasty. No
Israelite king is
condemned for having vaunted himself
a god or for in-
stituting a cult celebrated in his honor.2
Cooke cites the views of others, and
he too very
adequately replies, while
advocating the adoption view at
the same time.3
Eaton puts it, "In a way he is like 'elyon,
the Most High (Ps. 89:28), supreme
over the waters in the
image of the Creator (v.
26)."4
Several scholars point to Exodus
4:22 and Deuteronomy
26:19 for Israel being the
first recipient (rvkb) of
the
privileged blessing. Thus,
David was heir to the same prom-
ise and privilege. Also, the
Lord Jesus Christ is entitled
1Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Begin-
nings to the Babylonian
Exile,
p. 77.
2Ibid., p. 266. Cf. de Vaux, Ancient
Israel, I, 112.
3Gerald Cooke, "The
Israelite King as Son of God,"
ZAW, 73 (1961), 209-212.
4Eaton, "The King as God's Witness,"
p. 35.
132
such in the New Testament. But
the tenor of the biblical
corpus in the Old Testament and
89:23 seem to more than point
in that direction of King of
kings before the New Testament
was written. Phillips sees
Messianic overtones in these
verses, and rightly so.l
However, the interpretation here
concerning firstborn is as
Kissane avers, "As such, David was
to be above all the kings of
the earth."2 And with Yahweh's
exhibition of grace, David
fulfilled the privileged position.
For the
last half of the verse, Culley observes a formulaic
pattern:
Crx
yklml Nvylf Ps. 89:28
Crx
yklml xrvn Ps. 76:133
This exhibition of covenant loyalty has eternal value
according to verses 29-30. The
word rvmwx is a Kethiv form
and it is to be translated as a
Qal imperfect.4 ydsH and
ytyrb
parallel each other as do vfrz and vxsk in the next
10. E. Phillips, Exploring the Messianic Psalms
(Philadelphia:
Hebrew Christian Fellowship, Inc., 1967), p.
182. Cf. R. B. Y. Scott who also notes the same
in "Wisdom
in
Creation: The Amon of Proverbs VIII 30," VT, X:2 (April,
1960), 218. Cf. W. D. Davies for the Messianic
concept and
the
Book of Enoch in Paul and Rabbinic
Judaism: Some Rab-
binic Elements in
Pauline Theology,
Harper Torchbooks (New
York:
Harper and Row, Publishers, 1948), p. 279.
2Kissane, The Book of Psalms, II, 97.
3Culley,
Oral Formulaic Language in the Biblical
Psalms, p. 79.
4Werner
Weinberg treats the word as an imperfect
hyphenated,
"The Qamās Qātān Structures,"' JBL, LXXXVII:II
(June, 1968), 160.
133
verse. df can
mean "eternal, everlasting" as in Exodus 15:18
and Isaiah 9:5. Although tnmxn does mean "confirmed," it can
carry the significance of
lasting duration. Thus, it seems
that Mlvfl parallels tnmxn and dfl parallels Mymw
ymyk. The
two verbs can denote the
connotation of something being es-
tablished, and when Yahweh does
it, it is permanent.
According to Sanders, there are some
reflections of
these verses in the Qumran
texts.1 But there is no reflec-
tion of Ethan's part. With the
reference to David's de-
scendants and throne, he makes
an introduction and transition
to the following portion of his
composition.
Verses
31-34
The last two quatrains deal primarily with David's
descendants. The covenant is
made by One Who is holy, there-
fore He expects obedience.2
The first quatrain relates that
He
chastises because He is holy; the second relates that He
changes not for the same
reason.
The parallelism in verses 31-32 is quite noticeable.
Both
commence with -Mx. The
verbs vbzfy and vllHy parallel
as do Nvkly xl and vrmwy
xl.
Each noun referring to Yahweh
1J. A. Sanders,
"Pre-Masoretic Psalter Texts," CBQ,
XXVII:2
(April 1965), 122-23.
2Cf. James Muilenburg, The Way of Israel (New York:
Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1961), p. 21.
The same con-
cept is found in Psalm 132:12.
134
is very meaningful, and also in
parallel, ytrvt,1
yFpwmb,
ytqH, and ytvcm.
Of course, disobedience or rebellion
is met with
Divine chastisement (vs. 33),
but covenant loyalty is not
disturbed (vs. 34).2
Obedience was required if the blessings
of the covenant were to be
enjoyed. The thoughts of these
four verses are taken directly
from II Samuel 7:12-15.3
Verse 34 is not only a
confirmation to climax this quatrain,
but it also serves as an
introduction to the next.
Verses
35-38
The suffix on ytyrb again
makes it clear as to the
1For
a few brief studies involving hrvt see Barnabas
Lindars, "Torah in Deuteronomy," Words and Meanings: Essays
Presented to David
Winton Thomas
(Cambridge: The University
Press, 1968), pp. 132-33; George Widengren,
"King and Cove-
nant,"
JSS, II:1 (January, 1957), 24-25; and
Perry B. Yoder,
"A-B Pairs and Oral Composition in Hebrew
Poetry, VT, XXI:4
(October,
1971), 476.
2Cf.
Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism
Today
(Chicago:
Moody Press, 1965), p. 121 and Hillers, The
Anchor
Bible:
Lamentations,
p. 66. For the LXX and dqp see Henry
Snyder
Gehman, " ]Episkepomai, ]episkeyij, ]episkopoj, and
]episkoph< in the Septuagint in
Relation to dqp and other
Hebrew
Roots--a Case of Semantic Development Similar to that
of
Hebrew, VT, XXII:2 (April, 1972),
201. Interesting views
related
to 89:33 are given by Leah Bonner, "The Rechabites,"
De Fructu Oris Sui;
Essays in Honour of Adrianus van Selms,
edited
by I. H. Eybers, et al (Leiden: E. J.
Bill, 1971),
p.
14.
3For
studies relating to the covenant aspect see
James
Muilenburg, "The Form and Structure of the Covenantal
Formulations, VT, IX:4 (October, 1959), 355-56.
135
covenant's Author, recalling
verses 4 and 29.1 Yahweh will
not profane nor alter that
which He has spoken; His word is
irrevocable. Concerning ytqw, Soffers relates the view of
the LXX2 and Shunary the view of the Targum.3 As for xcvm
a Qumran text has a similar
expression.4
For Yahweh to swear "by His
holiness" simply means
that He swears by Himself (cf.
Amos 4:2 and 6:8). ytfbwn is
the only positive verb of the
four employed in verses 35-36;
all of which pertain to
Yahweh's word. The Mx
following
ytfbwn is an
emphatic negative.5 Commenting on Psalm 72,
Samuel
writes, "On more than one occasion has God given David
the promise that it would be
accomplished, and he knew that
no one word of it would fail
(see Psa. 89.35 [36]."6
As verses 29-30 did, so verses 37-38 speak of the
1For
various views of tyrb see J. Barton Payne, "The
B'rith
of Yahweh," New Perspectives on the
Old Testament,
edited
by J. Barton Payne (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Pub-
lisher,
1970), pp. 243-44.
2Soffer,
"The Treatment of Anthropomorphisms and
Anthropopathisms
in the Septuagint of Psalms," p. 93.
3Shunary, "Avoidance
of Anthropomorphism in the Targum
of
Psalms," p. 138.
4Cf. P. Wernberg-Moller, The Manual of Discipline,
Vol. 1, Studies
on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, edited
by
J. Van Der Ploeg (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1957), pp. 37, 145.
5Cf. BDB, p. 50 KB, p. 58.
6Bendor
Samuel, The Prophetic Character of the
Psalms
(London: Pickering and Inglis, [n.d.],
p. 171.
136
eternal duration of the
covenant. Verse 37 has great pro-
phetic significance but it
cannot be discussed here.l Yahweh
compares the duration of the
covenant to the durability of
something that all men can see
and recognize--the heavens,
His own
creation. Many of the sun-moon
parallelisms in
Scripture are cited by Gevirtz.2
Dahood3 and several
others4 want to change df from
witness to throne on the basis of Ugaritic
readings. Eaton
says that the word refers to
the king.5 For this context
these views are unnecessary. qHw has
the same meaning here
as it did in verse 7. Verse 38
is saying that the "testimony
in the sky is faithful
(confirmed or established)." df may
even include the stars. It is
not a question with Jacob, who
avers, "The stars move
according to laws of which God himself
guarantees the fixity (Ps.
89.38; 104.19; Eccl. 1.5). . . .”6
1Cf. J. Dwight Pentecost,
Things to Come (Findlay,
Ohio:
Dunham Publishing Company, 1958), pp. 102, 485, 491;
and
Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the
Kingdom (Grand
Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), pp. 156, 215-16,
282. McClain states, ". . . 89th Psalm,
perhaps the greatest
of
all the Kingdom songs. . . .", p. 171.
2S. Gevirtz, Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel,
SAOC
32 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), p. 49.
3Dahood, The Anchor Bible-Psalm II, p. 318.
4Cf. J. D. Shenkel,
"An Interpretation of Psalm 93,
5,”
Biblica,
46 (1965), 406-07.
5Eaton, "The King as
God's Witness," pp. 35-36.
6Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 145.
137
If it
refers only to the moon, the thought may be that when
the sun sets, the moon still
reflects its light; therefore,
it is a witness as proof that
God's covenant will last for-
ever. Regardless, df here should retain its ordinary meaning
of witness.1
Thus ends a long poetic section in
which Yahweh's
covenant with David and his
seed has been reviewed in unques-
tionable language. While the
whole of it is in the poet's
mind, it seems that the last
quatrain (35-38) in particular
is foremost. It serves as an
introduction, or, better yet,
as a basis for the great
contrast that follows in the next
section.
89:39-46
God's Chastisement: Basis for Petition
Having referred to other historical events in his
composition thus far, the
author now comes to one that recent-
ly occurred. In the light of
verses 2-38, this event brought
a severe problem in the mind of
Ethan.
The eight verses seem to break down
well into two
quatrains. Ward explains,
"The crown of the lst parallels
the scepter-throne of the 2nd. The reproach
of the lst is
lPatrick W. Skehan sees a
similar meaning for the
word
in a Masada fragment in Studies in
Israelite Poetry and
Wisdom, The Catholic Biblical
Quarterly Monograph Series I
(Washington,
D. C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of
America, 1971), p. 131.
138
balanced by the shame of the 2nd."1
Verses
39-42
The abrupt change in the composition is remarkably
clear. As Allis claims, "Psalm 89 is a striking example of
sudden contrast."2
The very first word is most significant.
After a
brief discussion of the previous verses, Ridderbos
states:
Then
comes the crucial juncture: "And thou, thou hast
cast off and rejected", v. 39. hTAxav;: again and again
this term, as it is used in the
psalms, is laden with
meaning--but nowhere is it more
heavily laden than here:
And
thou, thou God of omnipotence; thou God of faithful-
ness; thou who hast given such
glorious and firm prom-
ises; thou who hast sworn under oath
not to annul thy
covenant--thou hast cast off and rejected.3
The strong language continues. The Hitpa'el form,
trbfth, is
translated both reflexive and intensive. The
NASB has "Thou hast been
full of wrath." KB says that it
means "show oneself
infuriated."4 And Barnes postulates,
"Literally, 'Thou has
suffered [thine anger] to overflow,'
lWard, "The Literary
Form and Liturgical Background
of
Psalm LXXXIX," p. 326.
2Allis,
The Old Testament: Its Claims and Its
Critics, p. 93.
3N.
H. Ridderbos, "The Psalms: Style-Figures and
Structure,"
Studies on Psalms, Deel XIII, Oudtestamentische
Studiën, edited by P. A. H. De
Boer (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1963),
p. 58.
4KB,
p. 676.
139
or to pour itself forth."1
This is directed at jHywm.
Klausner
claims, ". . . this word designates the whole peo-
ple, Israel."2
The context seems to refer to David's seed,
not to the people as a whole.
However, since the king was
Yahweh's
representative, the people were included. The fol-
lowing verses along with verse
37 indicate a particular king
of the Davidic dynasty. The
words in verse 40 help to sup-
port this: jdbf and vrzn.
The exact meaning of rxn (vs. 40) is uncertain. KB
suggests abandon with a question mark.3 BDB4 and most trans-
lators translate it as abhor or spurn. There is no direct
help from Ugaritic. The
following verb, tllH is the
same
word as in verse 35. The very
thing Yahweh said He would not
do seems to have occurred as a
result of this historical in-
cident. An answer to this will
be considered later. Kennedy
wants to emend the text to read
tlFH,5 which does not
help
1Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament: Psalms, II,
380.
Engnell
has misinterpreted 89:39 in A Rigid
Scrutiny, p. 227.
2Joseph
Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel:
From
Its Beginning to the
Completion of the Mishnah (London:
George
Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1956), p. 7.
3KB, p. 586. With this root an Akkadian root (nāru)
is
given which means kill, but that cannot be the meaning
here.
4BDB, p. 611. An Arabic root ( ) is listed which
means
abhor.
5Kennedy,
An Aid to the Textual Amendment of the
Old
Testament, p. 77.
140
the situation at all. The worse
conjecture of all is that
cited by Widengren, "At
the same time, however, even in the
same psalm the covenant may be
seen as an agreement that can
be annulled by both partners;
cf. Ps. lxxxix.40."1 Even sin
cannot annul an unconditional
covenant by Yahweh. Widengren
has misunderstood the import of
the passage.
It was suggested in the previous
chapter that these
verses apply to King Rehoboam.
Yahweh had said about His
covenant with David, ytrvt vynb vbzfy-Mx (vs. 31a). And it
was said of Rehoboam in II
Chronicles 12:1, hvhy trvt-tx bzf.
By
comparing verse 5, the truth is emphasized that to forsake
His law is to forsake Him. All
of this is supported by the
context of I Kings 14:21-24.
As a result, Divine judgment
followed in the form of
an invasion. Punishment was due
because of Rehoboam's
treacherous acts. But how can
one account for the poet's
severe language in verses
39-40? Certainly Ethan knew of
Rehoboam's
sin, and he also knew of Yahweh's holiness. More-
over, Ethan knew full well that
Yahweh had dealt with the sin
of David and Solomon. But, for
some reason, the author looks
upon Yahweh's punishment here
quite seriously. A ready an-
swer for this is not simple.
The solution suggested for
verses 39 and following is that
a foreign invasion to Ethan
was the most devastating
punishment, so much so that on the
1Widengren, "King and Covenant," p.
24.
141
surface it seemed the covenant
was in jeopardy. In his life-
time, the author had not known
of a foreign invasion; he had
not known of his king being
treated as such, as the following
verses would add to the argument.
Even the dividing of the
kingdom five or six years
earlier did not present the picture
of affecting the covenant and
crown. But to Ethan, who had
seen the blessings of Yahweh on
Rehoboam's father and grand-
father, the punishment here was
extremely severe. He had
glorious praise for and deep
faith in Yahweh, but he was also
jealous for his king. For a
foreigner to subdue the king was
looked upon as chastisement
that had covenant and crown im-
plications.
Verses 41-42 speak of the invasion in particular.
The
parallelism of verse 41 could refer to II Chronicles
12:4. The fortresses were those that Rehoboam himself had
strengthened (II Chron.
11:5-12). King Shishak of
not only captured these,l
but he had approached
This
city's walls were not destroyed, nor was the city cap-
tured in the sense of those
around it. The reasons are given
in II Chronicles 12:6-8. Verse
42 sets forth the natural
results when one's defenses are
broken down. According to
Ethan's expression, plundering
the land is the same as
1For
a discussion of htHm and LXX
renderings in
Scripture see Walters (formerly Katz), The Text of the
Septuagint:
Its Corruptions and Their Emendation, p. 257.
142
plundering the king.1
But being a reproach to his neighbors
would disturb the poet greatly.
Rehoboam's predecessors had
control and influence over
ceiving tribute from them. Of
course, with these taken away,
Rehoboam's
neighbors would be taking every kind of advantage
conceivable, and thus, the
reproach. Culley sees a formulaic
system here with Psalms 44:14
and 79:4.2
Verses
43-46
As mentioned, the first quatrain closed with re-
proach, and the second closes
with shame. The poetic form
is very articulate. The poet
had spoken of Yahweh and the
king alone in verses 39-41.
Then in verse 42 he specifically
refers to a third party. The
reverse is true in the follow-
ing quatrain. A third party is
spoken of in verse 43, while
44-46 refer back to Yahweh and
the king alone.
Another matter that would be strange
in the eyes of
the poet is Yahweh exalting the
hand of a foreign enemy.
Ethan had never seen that
before, but now he recognizes the
1In an almost devastating
review of Ahlström's work,
Sigmund Mowinckel says, "What capers he
cuts in order to
interpret
'all that pass by the way' in v. 42 as a 'cultic
term'. . . " Review of Psalm 89. Eine Liturgie aus dem
Ritual des leidenden Königs, JSS, V:3 (July, 1960), 295.
See another view involving 89;42 in Hillers, The Anchor
Bible: Lamentations, p. 103.
2Culley,
Oral Formulaic Language in the Biblical
Psalms, p. 76.
143
Divine chastisement. If the
present interpretation is held,
verses 43-44 would refer to II
Chronicles 12:2-3. The se-
quence of the parallel pair, vyrc and vybyvx, is
discussed
by Gevirtz in relation to a
Biblical text and a Ugaritic
text.1 Verse 44
makes it quite clear that Shishak did not
achieve anything on his own.
Neither the I Kings nor the II
Chronicles
passages indicate any strong effort on the part
of Rehoboam to stop Shishak. In
unison with verse 43, one
can see that Yahweh's
punishment of sin can have a two-fold
prong. For a lexical study of bywt see Holladay.2
Other matters of interest cannot be discussed here.
Wilensky
has some manuscript studies involving verses 44-45.3
Sanders claims there is a
verses 44-46.4
The last two parallel verses, 45-46,
include problems
according to some. The major
problem is the word vrhfm.
McCullough, for one, sees an
emended text that would have
lGevirtz, Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel,
pp.
37-38.
2William
L.
ment (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1958), p. 91 f.
3Michael Wilensky,
"About Manuscripts I: A Psalm--
MS.
and Its Entries," HUCA, XII-XIII
(1937-1938), p. 565.
Verses
11, 14, 23 are found on p. 562.
4Sanders,
"Pre-Masoretic Psalter Texts," pp. 115-
120. Verses 50-53 are listed
also, pp. 115-120.
144
hFm, sceptre.1 Kissane2
and Podechard3 cite similar views of
others. That it would fit the
context and the word vxsk in
the same verse is part of the
argument. But the text does
not need emended at all to read
sceptre. The problem revolves
around two other meanings.
These are elucidated by Dahood:
The hapax legomenon mithār (cf. Ugar. thr, "gem")
expresses the radiance that
enveloped the king in battle
and struck terror into his
opponents, a theme discussed
at Ps xlv4. Cf. also Ps xxi6 and Num
xxiii2l, tōra‘at
melek,
"royal majesty," as rightly pointed and explained
by Albright in JBL 63 (1944), 215,
n.43; 224.
There
remains, however, the possibility that the text
should read hisbattā-m (enclitic mem) tohorō;
in this
case the substantive would be tōhar, "splendor,
purity,"
that occurs in other texts.4
All of the discussions of the
scholars and lexicons
cannot be viewed here. Since
there is very little agreement
and a whole lot of conjecture,
the present writer would sug-
gest the following. The form is
either a participial form
that became a noun in use and
thus the suffix; or, it is
simply a noun form with the
preposition Nm
prefixed to it.
The
latter seems best. As for meaning, purity
does not fit
the context well. Splendor seems appropriate if seen as regal
1McCullough, Exegesis of
Psalm "89," p. 485.
2Kissane,
The Book of Psalms, II, 98. Cf. John
Edgar
McFadyen,
The Messages of the Psalmists
(London: James Clarke
and
Company, 1904), p. 276.
3Podechard, Le Psautier, II, 123.
4Dahood, The Anchor Bible--Psalms II, p. 319. Cf.
BDB, p.
372; KB, p. 348; UT, p. 406.
145
splendor or
some similar meaning. Dahood's first view above
seems most fitting. Keeping
with the context, the present
writer prefers the explanation
of Barnes, "The allusion is to
the splendor, the glory, the
magnificence connected with his
rank as king. This had been
destroyed, or had come to
nought."l The
second half of verse 45 agrees with this
thoroughly. But caution is
noted by Eerdmans:
The verses tell us that
the king was beaten by his
enemies and that the glory of his
throne was humiliated.
Yet the throne still existed, be it
in a shameful state.
They do not justify a conclusion of
complete rejection.2
Many scholars view 46a as meaning the king has become
prematurely old because of the
circumstances.3 It could be
an idiom with the meaning that
the king had not attained the
glory and power, especially as
Yahweh's anointed servant.
This
would be significantly true with Rehoboam following the
reigns of David and Solomon.
The last half of verse 46 would
concur readily. Fohrer
explains:
hwvb is on the one hand 'the
shame' which, like the
feeling of terror that can fill a
man, is visible in the
expression of his face (Ezek. 7:18). The consequence of
1Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament: Psalms, II,
381. For other biblical verses that relate to
89:46ff. see
Muilenburg,
The Way of Israel, p. 24.
2Eerdmans, "The
Hebrew Book of Psalms," p. 425.
3To
name a few: JFB, III, 296; Delitzsch, Biblical
Commentary on the
Psalms,
III, 44; Hengstenberg, Commentary,
on the Psalms, III, 113. For a
relationship to another
biblical
passage see A. Schoors, "Two Notes on Isaiah XL-LV,"
VT, XXI:4
(October, 1971), 503.
146
being thus put to shame (which
indeed follows certain
wrong doing) is on the other hand
the 'disgrace' which
covers a man or a people, or clings
to them (Obad. 10;
Mic. 7:10; Ps. 89:46).1
The poet has clearly defined Yahweh's chastisement.
Verses
45-46 could refer to I Kings 14:26-28 and II Chronicles
12:9-12. The present writer is
not at all dogmatic about this
specific historic situation. It
just seems to fit best, even
with its problems. Some of the
problems may be explained by
poetic expressions of the
results of the event. As it is,
these two quatrains lay the
foundation for the verses that
follow.
89:47-52 Conclusion: Prayer for Restoration
The conclusion is a very vital part of the composi-
tion. As for the structure,
Ward says:
Vs.
47, with its reference to Yahweh's wrath, is an apt
connective between the preceding
group of quatrains and
the final six-line prayer. The
prayer in turn comprises
two triplets. In each of these the
third line (vss. 48,
52) is a synonymous parallel to the
second (vss. 47, 51);
while the middle line of each begins
with the injunction
Remember!2
The initial expression of verse 47, hvhy hm-df, is
1Georg
Fohrer, "Twofold Aspects of Hebrew Words,"
Words and Meanings:
Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas
(Cambridge:
The University Press, 1968), p. 100.
2Ward,
"The Literary Form and Liturgical Background
of
Psalm LXXXIX," p. 326.
147
a cry noted elsewhere in
Scripture.1 Culley lists a close
parallel to Psalm 79:5.2
Contrary to the apparent sense, the
expression is not a cry of
despair. Reich states:
Many of the Psalms are
the outcome of perplexity.
The
heart of the seeker after God, baffled with the
mysteries of life and death, often
gave way before the
unexplained and the inscrutable.
Hence the repeated
"Why,"
"Wherefore," and "How long" cry of the Psalmist.
The
latter has been called "Faith's mighty question,"
as it is really a confession that
wrong cannot be per-
manent in a universe presided over
by one whose throne
is based on Justice and Right.3
The next two words, Hcnl rtst,4 do not mean that
Yahweh had withdrawn completely
nor permanently. As Wolver-
ton explains, "There was a
tendency to believe that when God
hid himself, i.e., withheld his
grace or favour, the individ-
ual or the community became
prey to inimical forces."5 And
1Cf.
James Muilenburg, "The Terminology of Adversity
in
Jeremiah," Translating and
Understanding the Old Testament:
Essays in Honor of
Herbert Gordon May,
edited by Harry Thomas
Frank
and William L. Reed (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970),
p.
56. Also see Hillers, The Anchor Bible:
Lamentations, p.
102.
2Culley,
Oral Formulaic Language in the Biblical
Psalms, p. 76.
3Max Isaac Reich, Studies in the Psalms of Israel,
second
edition (Harrisburg, Pa.: Christian Publications, Inc.,
1942),
p. 17.
4For
the LXX rendering see Barr, Comparative Philology
and the Text of the Old
Testament,
p. 253. For the careless-
ness
and variants of the Peshitta on vs.
47 see Berg, The In-
fluence of the
Septuagint upon the Pe Sitta Psalter, pp. 31-
32.
5Wallace
I. Wolverton, "The Psalmists' Belief in God's
Presence," CJT, IX:l (January, 1963), 87.
148
for the latter half of the
verse, "The nearness of God was
felt in a wrath which burnt
like fire."1 These views fit the
context well. Yahweh had
punished; it appeared that since
the former glory was not
reinstated, Yahweh's wrath seemed
intensified. The forever and the burn like fire indicates a
duration of the judgment.
Verse 48 sets off the contrast.
Whitlock writes, "In
Hebrew psychology, the weakness
of the flesh (creature) is
set off in contrast to the
power of God. In this context,
the person is shorn of any
undue confidence in self."2
Gesenius,3
Podechard,4 Eerdmans,5 and McCullough6 want to
alter the text to read yndx-rkz instead of ynx-rkz in
order
to parallel verse 51. But many
of the scholars agree with
Delitzsch,
"The conjecture of Houbigant and modern exposi-
ters, yndx
rkz
(cf. ver. 51) , is not needed, since the in-
verted position of the words is
just the same as in xxxix.5."7
1Ibid. For the LXX and its treatment of jtmH see
Soffer, "The Treatment of Anthropomorphisms
and Anthropo-
pathisms
in the Septuagint of Psalms," p. 104.
2Glenn
E. Whitlock, "The Structure of Personality in
Hebrew Psychology," Interpretation, XIV:l (January, 1960), 13.
3GKC, p. 438.
4Podechard,
Le Psautier, II, 123.
5Eerdmans, "The
Hebrew Book of Psalms," p. 425.
6McCullough, Exegesis of
Psalm "89," p. 485.
7Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, III,
44.
149
Davidson avers, "Ps. 89.48
ynx stands
for emphasis first:
remember, I, what transitoriness."1 These are abrupt ex-
pressions that denote
earnestness in the midst of prayer.
The
present writer admits that the exact translation and
meaning of this verse is
difficult. xvw hm-lf alone
presents
problems. With the following
words it may be translated,
"for
(lf) what nothingness hast thou
created man?"2 Or, an-
other may be "wherefore
hast thou made all men in vain?"3
Many
other different translations could be given. The mean-
ing will be considered with the
following verse.
While the root form of rbg in verse 49 does denote
power or strength, Barr cites
this verse with others and says
that these are ". . .
cases where man as an earthly and mor-
tal creature is being
contrasted with God or where the weak-
ness and mortality of man is
otherwise being involved."4 The
remainder of the verse is clear
and self-explanatory. There
are theological considerations,
but they are not in the pur-
poses of the dissertation.
A clear interpretation is somewhat difficult. Verse
1A. B. Davidson, Hebrew Syntax, third edition (Edin-
burgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1901), p. 2.
2BDB, p. 996.
3JFB, III, 297.
4James
Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language
(London: Oxford University
Press, 1961), p. 146.
150
47
relates the problem in the poet's thinking on whether the
present state of conditions
were to continue to exist. An
interpretation of verses 48-49
is conveniently omitted or
treated lightly by many
scholars. But one source avers:
It
seems that God has made men for a mere nothing; all
must die and that comparatively
quickly. Unless God
reaffirms the covenant speedily the
Davidic dynasty,
the trusting psalmist and all men
will come together to
the grave and deliverance will be
too late.l
Another view postulates:
In
relation to Israel, which is the main reference, the
sense is, If God's covenant with
David's house and people
were to fail, the blessings to the
world at large which
depend on the covenant with David,
would not be realized,
and man would have been created in vain.2
Both of these interpretations seem
to add a little too
much, and, in light of the
following verses, they do not pre-
sent the clearest picture.
Probably Kirkpatrick has the
simplest and best thoughts:
.
. . the shortness and uncertainty of life are pleaded
as a ground for the speedy
restoration of God's favour.
The
Psalmist desires to see the solution of the riddle
with his own eyes. . . .
Must life end thus in unsatisfied
longing?3
He who had seen God's favor showered on David and
Solomon wanted a restoration of
the same. The present writer
1NBCR, p. 507.
2JFB, III, 297.
3Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms, p. 542.
151
does not feel that the covenant
was in jeopardy, but it was
the blessings of that covenant
that needed to be restored;
that is, the king would be
reinstated in all his regal splen-
dor, power and influence. This
the poet yearned to see.
Verses 50-52 not only complete the six-line prayer,
but also provide a most fitting
conclusion to the entire
psalm. With jydsH and jtnvmx the
author now returns to verse
2 and
following in particular and 2-38 as a whole. Except
for the change of suffix, the dvdl tfbwn of verse 50 is the
same as dvdl ytfbwn, of verse 4. With the commencement of the
word hyx the psalmist is now ready to express his faith
more
explicitly.
Ethan again calls on the Lord to
remember. In verse
42 the king had become the object
of reproach to his neigh-
bors; in verse 51 the poet
wants the Lord to remember the
scorn being directed toward His
servants. Dahood argues:
"your
servant". The dispute concerning the plural
form ‘abadekā in Ps 89,51 must take into account similar
plurals of majesty designating the
king in other pas-
sages. Thus Ps 89,20, hasîdekā may likewise
be explained
as a plural of majesty referring to
King David, the de-
voted one par excellence . . . 1
And Podechard remarks:
Au lieu du plur. jydbx [sic], 24 mss. et P attestent
jDeb;xa [sic] qui est plus conforme soit aux pronoms de la
première
personne du sing. dans le vers soivant, soit
a
"ton oint" du v. 52.2
1Dahood,
"Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography VII," p. 345.
2Podechard, Le Psautier, II, 123.
152
Dahood's plural of majesty may help
a dispute else-
where, but it does not help
here. As for Podechard, his
position that it should agree
with verse 52 has overlooked
the parallelism within verse
51. jydbf could
be a parallel
to Mymf. With the king subdued, the people of Israel,
also
His
servants, would be open to the scorn of all unfriendly
peoples. Kirkpatrick states,
"The taunts which they have to
bear as the servants of God
Who, say their enemies, cannot
or will not help them."1
yqyHb ytxw signifies that the
psalmist himself bore the
reproach of the people. The total
situation pressed upon his
heart like an extremely heavy
burden.
The last words of verse 51, Mymf Mybr-lk are called
by Gesenius a corrupted text.2
The main problem is the word
Mybr. One
suggestion is given by Hulst:
The RSV has accepted a
reading k'elimmot 'ammīm 'the
insults of the peoples', in place of
the MT kol rabbīm
‘ammīm. The Hebr could be
rendered 'all great peoples',
but the construction is somewhat
strange. In any case,
a fitting word such as 'insult' (AV
'reproach') needs
to be supplied.3
Hummel states, "MT Mybr is impossible, but we can
easily translate Mymf M-ybari as 'the controversies of the
1Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms, p. 542.
2GKC, p. 428.
3Hulst, Old
Testament Translation Problems, p. 110.
153
peoples.'"1
Kitchen attempts to solve the problem by employ-
ing Hummel's view:
In
other cases, recognition of an enclitic mêm
can
clarify not only the grammatical
form but also the mean-
ing of the text. Thus, in Psalm
89:50 (Heb. 89:51), in
parallel with: 'Remember, 0 Lord,
the reproach of
(i.e., on) thy servants', for he
unhappy [sic], '(How)
I
bear . . . all the mighty, peoples', one may substi-
tute: '(How) I bear in my bosom all
the contenttions
[sic]
(rîbē-mi for rabbîm) of (the) peoples.'2
This view has yet to be proven. Gordon says ". . .
the complex origins of Ugar. -m require further investigation."3
The
problem is that Mybr stands
before the noun. However, it
does not require a change, nor
is there a need to supply an
additional word.
The
position of Mybr before the principal word may be
explained in two ways. It is either
due to the concep-
tion of the adjective as an
indefinite numeral (Ps.
xxxii.10. Prov. xxxi.29; I Chron.
xxviii.5; Nahum
ix.28). Or it is to be regarded as a
substantive and
explained, according to Jer. xvi.16,
as many, that is,
people.4
Either view is quite acceptable. As
a great inter-
cessor, Ethan feels a personal
responsibility to all his
people. The burden is carried
to the final verse of the
1Horace
D. Hummel, "Enclitic MEM in
Early Northwest
Semitic,
Especially Hebrew," JBL,
LXXVI:II (June, 1957), 98.
2K.
A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old
Testament
(Chicago:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1966), pp. 161-62.
3UT, p. 103.
4Moll, "The
Psalms," p. 484. Cf. also Delitzsch,
Biblical
Commentary on the Psalms, III, 45.
154
psalm.
The two parts of verse 52 begin with
vprH rwx. The
first half really needs no
explanation. The plea at once
points out that the enemies of
David, his descendants, and
the people are also Yahweh's
enemies. The sense is expressed
well by Barnes: "Have
reproached thee and me. Wherewith
they reproach thy character and
cause, and reproach me for
having trusted to promises
which seem not to be fulfilled."1
Again, as intercessor, he was a
representative of the
people. But the very last
matter the psalmist will mention
is that which no doubt is
closest to his heart: vprH rwx
jHywm
tvbqf.
Here Ethan concludes his prayer by claiming
restoration for another
representative of Yahweh's people,
Thine anointed or the
king himself. Eerdmans explains the
word tvbqf. "The
expression is rooted in the conception that
all things belonging to a person
are associated with him, his
shade, his portrait, his
footsteps."2 In other words, the
king's position, authority,
actions, movements, and endeavors
were all reproached.
Much more could be said, but these words suffice.
lBarnes, Notes on the Old Testament: Psalms, II,
383.
2Eerdmans, "The
Hebrew Book of Psalms," p. 425. Cf.
also
J. B. Rotherham, Studies in the Psalms
Bible Study
Textbook Series, 2 vols. (Joplin,
Missouri: College Press,
1970), II, 109, fn. 22.
155
Other
studies such as those in the LXX,l
Targum,2 and other
sources3 provide
great interest, but will not be considered
here.
Although the composition seemingly
concludes with a
dark note, the element of faith
is always there. McKenzie
says:
The
psalm expresses the faith of the devout Israelite
that the promise of Yahweh cannot be
frustrated, what-
ever may be the conditions, at the
moment, of Israel and
its dynasty. If it should fall, a
restoration must be
expected. No such limitation,
however, is present on
the horizon of the oracle of Nathan
except the vague
condition that: if David's
successors sin, they will be
punished as other men; but the dynasty must endure.4
A simple statement is made by Yates,
"While no hope
is expressed, the enthusiasm of
the former sections would
suggest a positive expectation
of hope."5 This is all empha-
sized by verses 2 and 52. The
song could not be taken away
because of the reality of election,
Thine anointed.
lSidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study
(Oxford:
The Clarendon Press, 1968), pp. 121-22.
2Cf. Targum, p. Hn; Perowne, The
Book of Psalms, II,
155;
and Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms,
p. 543.
3John Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature:
An
Introduction to Jewish Interpretations of Scripture (Cam-
bridge:
The University Press, 1969), pp. 281-82.
4John
L. McKenzie, Myths and Realities: Studies
in
Biblical Theology (Milwaukee: The Bruce
Publishing Company,
pp.
206-07.
5Yates,
"Psalm 89," p. 528. Cf. also Hillers, The
Anchor
Bible: Lamentations, p. 105.
156
89:53 Benediction of Book III
It is generally held that the Psalter is divided into
five books with Psalms 73-89
comprising the third book. In
reference to Psalm 89:53 and
other passages, Murtonen states,
. . . there are quite a number
of passages in which no cause
of the praise is indicated or at
least not clearly connected
with it."1 The
present writer believes he understands what
Murtonen
is saying, but, on the other hand, there is great
deal in Psalms 73-89 to warrant
a benediction of praise.
Psalm
89 alone could merit a benediction of Mlvfl
hvhy jvrb
Nmx
Nmx.
1A.
Murtonen, "The Use and Meaning of the Words
LeBAREK
and BeRAKA" in the Old Testament," VT, IX:2 (April,
1959), 169.
CHAPTER IV
SOME
COMPARISONS FROM THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST
With the exegesis of Psalm 89
clearly in mind, the
purpose now is to demonstrate
some comparisons from the an-
cient Near East. For one to say
that there are no comparisons
would be foolish. Evidence is
abundant. The task of mani-
festing the comparisons is
rather difficult. Some writers
state explicitly that this or
that is a comparison, simi-
larity, affinity, or a
parallel, and the present writer has
no right to alter their
designations. However, the difference
between this chapter and the
next is to some purely a question
of semantics. But others are
very vague in revealing their
intentions. Therefore the
present writer reveals the sub-
jectivity involved in
classifying some writers and their
quotes. But some facts are so
obvious that it does not matter
who has written. Included in
the study are refutations be-
cause some comparisons are not
valid. By no means will this
chapter be exhaustive.
Philological
Similarities
While some materials from the ancient Near East are
recognized as psalms,
"Psalms as such have not yet been
157
158
unearthed at Ras Shamra. . .
."1 Nevertheless, Ras Shamra
has produced records which
contain poetry with striking simi-
larities. Actually, several
dissertations could be written
in pointing out philological
similarities in the psalms. Time
and space cannot be given here
to relate the similarities of
ancient Near Eastern
consonants, phonology, morphology,
tenses, prepositions, grammar
and syntax to Psalm 89.2 A
few were mentioned in the
exegesis. The main purpose is to
consider lexicography and
poetic structure.
Studies have been made to note the
number of common
roots in related languages.
Most of the research has Ugaritic
compared to Hebrew. One such
study was done by Tsevat, who
states:
Turning back to the comparison of
actual psalm words,
forms, and phrases with Canaanite,
Ugaritic, and "Amor-
ite", we have found: 16/20 items have been paired
with
1Mitchell
Dahood, The Anchor Bible--Psalms I
(Garden
City,
New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1966), p. XVII.
2Cf.
K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old
Testament
(Chicago:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1966), pp. 160-66; Sabatino
Moscati, et
al, An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of
the Semitic Languages:
Phonology and Morphology (Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrassowitz, 1969), pp. 1-185; Wilfred
Watson, "Shared
Consonants
in Northwest Semitic," Biblica,
50:4 (1969), 525-
33; UT, pp. 11-158; Frank Moore Cross, Jr. and
David Noel
Freedman,
Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the
Epigraphic
Evidence, American Oriental
Series, Volume 36, edited by James
B.
Pritchard (New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental So-
ciety, 1952), pp. 1-77; and Jean Ouellette,
"Variants qum-
raniennes du Livre des Psaumes," Revue de Qumran, 25:7,
fascicule
1 (December, 1969), pp. 107, 110. Horace D. Hummel,
"Enclitic MEM in Early Northwest Semitic, Especially Hebrew,"
JBL, LXXXVI:II (June,
1957), 85-107.
159
corresponding words and forms from
Canaanite sources,
21/22
with analogues from Ugarit, and 5 with pertinent
words culled from the Old Babylonian texts.l
After including six other items, Tsevat
continues:
This
means: Out of 166 elements of the language of the
psalms, i.e. elements which in
classical Hebrew are
known solely or overwhelmingly from
the psalms, 35/40
are known from closely related
languages of Israel's
precursors or contemporaries.
.
. . Psalm hapax and dis legomena as well as relatively
frequent, yet substandard words and
forms are not in-
cluded in this study. . . .
According to Albright, the
number of words, preserved in the
Ugaritic poetic texts,
is little more than half the number
of the words of the
Psalter.2
The present writer has undertaken the task of compar-
ing the similarities to Psalm
89. Several resources were
combined to achieve the endeavor.3
There is no attempt to be
exhaustive, but the study will
reveal that some words have no
comparative roots. The effort
was limited to Akkadian and
Ugaritic
words. One reason for this is to demonstrate a
point in the next chapter.
There are approximately 192 basic roots, prepositions,
and pronouns in Psalm 89. In
this number there are about 90
lMatitiahu Tsevat, A Study of the Language of the
Biblical
Psalms,
Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph
Series,
Volume IX (Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Liter-
ature,
1955), p. 55. Psalm 89 is well represented in this
work
by Tsevat.
2Ibid., 55-56.
3Ibid.,
pp. 1-153; KB, pp. 1-1138; UT, pp. 347-507.
160
Ugaritic
comparisons and 82 of the Akkadian. In no way does
this imply vocabulary
comparisons. Some of the cognate words
have similar meanings, others
do not. As for usage, the
total words that are common
come to 122. These are composed
of basic roots, prepositions,
and pronouns that are common
to all three literatures, plus
those which are common alone
between Ugaritic and Hebrew and
Akkadian and Hebrew. In
other words, there are
approximately 70 Hebrew roots of which
there are no known cognates at
the present time. It is pos-
sible that some of these may be
of Hebrew origin. Perhaps
other Semitic languages will
yield cognates of these 70, with
the result that there will be
no native Hebrew words. The
treatment of parallels and the
question of borrowing will be
viewed in the following
chapter.
Another area of comparison is poetic structure.
Gordon postulates:
At the outset it should be stated
that unit-lengths,
types of parallelism, strophic
structures etc. can be
duplicated in the literatures of
Mesopotamia, Asia
Minor,
Phoenicia, Egypt and especially in the poetic
books of the Old Testament. The
poetic structure of
Ugaritic
corrects some of the current misconceptions
regarding Heb. poetry.l
Unit-lengths, types of parallelism,
and strophic
structure of Psalm 89 were
identified in the exegesis. "De-
grees of parallelism can be
illustrated by comparing some
1UT,
p. 131.
161
pre-biblical samples. . .
."1 The following material is
taken from Werner and ANET:
An Egyptian example is:
The
Lord of truth and father of all gods
Who made all mankind and created the
beasts,
Lord
of what is, who created the fruit tree
Made herbage and gave life to cattle.2
A Sumero-Akkadian example is:
Who--to her greatness, who can be
equal?
Strong, exalted, splendid are her
decrees.
Istar--to her greatness who can be
equal?
Strong, exalted, splendid are her decrees.3
A Sumerian example is:
Let the weapons of battle return to
your side,
Let them produce fear and terror.
As
for him, when he come, verily my great fear will fall
upon him,
Verily
his judgment will be confounded, his counsel will
be dissipated.4
An Akkadian example is:
I will show Gilgamesh, the joyful
man!
Look thou at him, regard his face.
He is radiant with manhood, vigor he
has.
With ripeness gorgeous is the whole
of his body,
Mightier strength has he than thou,
Never resting by day or by night.5
lEric Werner, "The
Origin of Psalmody," HUCA, XXV
(1954),
330-31.
2Ibid., p. 331; ANET, p.
365.
3Ibid.;
ANET, p. 383.
4Ibid.;
ANET, p. 46.
5Ibid.;
ANET, p. 75.
162
A Ugaritic example:
Thy
decree, El, is wise: Wisdom with ever-life thy
portion.
Thy
decree is: our King's Puissant Baal, Our sovereign
second to none;
All
of us must bear this gift, all of us must bear this
purse.1
Gordon lists examples of a particular
type of struc-
ture and claims, "There is
a host of common and occasional
ballast variants in Ugaritic.
The phenomenon is also at-
tested in Heb. (and other
ancient Near East) poetry . . . Ps
. .
. 89:26. . . . “2 Many other comparisons could be given,
but these suffice to illustrate
the point. Some comparisons
of poetic parallelisms and
lexicography can be identified in
the remainder of this chapter
and the next.
Modes of Expression
This is such a vast subject that only a hint will be
entertained here. A few that
relate to Psalm 89 can be seen
in the ancient Near Eastern
material cited above. Concerning
the expression, htxv, in verse 39 and the abrupt change,
Ridderbos states:
This
phenomenon of a hymn which functions as the
basis for making a plea is not
peculiar to the O.T.
The same device played an important role already: in
lWerner, "The Origin
of Psalmody," p. 331; ANET, p.
133.
2UT, pp. 136-37. For the total picture include p.
135.
163
Assyrian-Babylonian and Egyptian literature.
ANET gives
several examples of this.1
Much of the material that could be
listed here appears
also under the next heading. In
order to avoid overlapping,
modes of expression will
continue in the following.
Concepts and
Institutions
Many aspects of the treatment here are obvious and
others are not. Some concepts
or ideas fit rather general
categories, while others are
quite specific. But the material
cannot be divided so easily.
Comparisons will commence with
the simple thoughts.
Many of the following Qumran
quotations are derived
from biblical antecedents, so
they are not comparisons in the
same sense as the other
materials. But they are included
here because some scholars
treat them as comparisons.
The idea in a Qumran scroll,
"from with Thee is the
might," is comparable to
89:14.2 The word perhaps
is employed
by Yadin in seeing a relation of
"to raise up by judgment" to
89:17.3 For thoughts
of certain expressions in verses 10 and
1N.
H. Ridderbos, "The Psalms: Style-Figures and
Structure," Studies on Psalms, Deel XIII, Oudtestamentische
Studiën, edited by P. A. H.
DeBoer (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1963),
p. 59.
2Yigael
Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons
of
Light Against the Sons
of Darkness,
translated by Batya and
Chaim
Rabin (London: Oxford University Press, 1962), p. 310.
3Ibid.,
p. 326.
164
45,
Mansoor sees similarities in another Qumran text.1 Ideas
as they occur in pairs are
compared to Ugaritic texts by
Gevirtz.
The verses are 2, 5, and 43 with a question on
verses 23-24.2
A striking similarity of thought
occurs in an apocry-
phal composition and 89:15. The
verse of the Psalm reads:
jxsk
Nvkm Fpwmv qdc
jynp
vmdqy tmxv dsH
And the Qumran portion reads:
vynp
bybs tmxv dsH
vxsk
Nvkm qdcv Fpwmv tmx3
Sanders remarks on the entire Qumran composition:
"The
metre is highly irregular and the language is forced
and pedestrian. The imagery and
vocabulary are late, in
biblical terms."4
Other views on the comparisons of extra-
biblical literature with verse
15 are not conservative.
Widengren is especially
extreme. After a brief discussion
1Menahem Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns, Vol. III,
Studies on
the Texts of the Desert of Judah, edited by J. Van
Der
Ploeg (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1961), p. 109, fn.
6;
p. 156, fn. 9.
2Stanley
Gevirtz, "The Ugaritic Parallel to Jeremiah
8:23,"
JNES, 20:1 (January, 1961), 43-44-
3J.
A. Sanders, "Hymn to the Creator," Discoveries
in the Judean Desert of
Jordon IV: The Psalms Scroll of
Qumran Cave II (llQPsa) (Oxford: The Clarendon
Press, 1965),
p.
89.
4Ibid.
165
of Babylonian concepts, he
claims, "The Israelitic psalms,
however, also indicate the
existence of a pantheon."1 Then
he purports that Sedek was an
". . . old Canaanitic deity.
Sedek
is also mentioned as an independent deity, though be-
longing to Jahve's retinue and
subordinate to him."2 Follow-
ing this he cites 89:15,
"Sedek and Mispat are the habitation
of Thy throne."3
Shortly thereafter he concludes with a
statement that is not agreeable
to the present writer, "I
think the above will suffice to
prove that there is no con-
clusive difference between the
ideas of god of the Accadian
and Israelitic psalms of
lamentation. . . . "4 His compara-
tive studies on 89:6 also show
polytheistic tendencies.5
Following
his comments on the "epiphany of v. 2-5,"
Lipinski
says of 89:15:
En effet, la phrase "justice et
droit sont le support de
son trône"
ne relève pas de la terminologie epiphanique.
Elle appartient à un groupe de
textes bibliques qui
1George Widengren, The Accadian and Hebrew Psalms of
Lamentation
as Religious Documents: A Comparative Study
(Stockholm:
Bokforlags Aktiebolaget Thule, 1937), p. 71.
2Ibid.
3Ibid.
4Ibid. p. 72.
5Ibid., p. 69. Also, see his comparison of 89:39 ff.
to
a portion of Oxford Editions of Cuneiform
Texts and a por-
tion
of "Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, in the
British
Museum," p. 106.
166
considerent
la, justice comme le soutien du trône et
reflètent 1'idéologie royale de
l'ancien Proche-Orient.l
Then he
compares the second half of verse 15 with an
Akkadian
expression:
Les
hendiadys sedeq ûmispāt et, dans une moindre mesure,
hesed we'emet ont
certainement un rapport avec l'ex-
pression
akkadienne kittu u mēsaru,
"droit et justice",
personnifiés
sous la figure de deux génies protecteurs
se tenant de part et d'autre du
souvenain juge.2
Lipinski
then goes on to discuss comparative studies
of the word Nvkm with
Egyptian concepts,3 but later he dis-
agrees with Kraus on comparing Fpwmv qdc to the
festival of
the Tabernacles.4
Some of the comparisons are not clear-cut
issues; it appears that a few
authors mix in subjectivism.
The contents of verses 6-9 have some
similarities to
the ancient Near East. Yadin
avers:
Holy ones (qĕdhoshim).--The scrolls frequently use
'holy ones' as a synonym for angels.
The expression
appears in various combinations,
e.g. 'Realm of Holy
Ones'
(xi, 8-9; DST, xi, 12), 'a Host of Holy Ones'
(DST, iii, 22; x, 34), 'a council (sodh) of Holy Ones'
(DST,
iv, 25; frg. 63; I QDM iv, I). These phrases
indicate the organization and tasks
of the angels as
advisors, messengers and fighters.
Compare with the
above combinations: .
. . Ps. lxxxix, 6-9).5
1E. Lipinski, La Royauté De Yahwé Duns La Poésie Et
Le Culte De L'Ancien Israël
(Brussels: Paleis der Academien-
Hertogsstraat
I, 1965), p. 211.
2Ibid., p. 212.
3Ibid., pp. 212-13.
4Ibid., p. 214.
5Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light
Against
the Sons of Darkness, p. 231.
167
A little earlier he had given a
number of comparisons
to Mylx (vs. 7) from Qumran texts.1 Mansoor
points to near-
ly the same similarities in
other expressions of Qumran
angelology.2 In
still another Dead Sea composition there
is the Mywvdq wvdq that is similar to verses 6, 8, and rvdl
rvdv of
verse 5.3
From his translation of Enuma Elish (vi, 143), Gaster
has "The congregation of
the holy ones. . . ."4 Then in his
footnote he states, "For
this expression, cf. Ps. 89:6. It
corresponds to the 'Assembly of
the Holy Ones (mphrt qdsm)'
in the inscription of Yehimilk
of Byblos (tr. Rosenthal, ANET,
499)."5 Vriezen
has a very extreme view:
Since
then, Yahweh has been the God who causes the pas-
tures to 'drop fatness' and the
fields to rejoice, as
the psalms say (Psalms 65:10ff.;
104). Canaanite
psalms, such as Psalm 29, were taken
over and used to
enhance the honour and glory of Yahweh.
In
that way the struggle with Baalism actually con-
tributed to enrich men's picture of
Yahweh, by making
him Lord over the powers of living nature.
lIbid., p. 230.
2Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns, p. 80; p. 81,
fn.
3;
p. 82, fn. 5; p. 127, fn. 9.
3Sanders, "Hymn to
the Creator," p. 89.
4Theodor
H. Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom in
the
Old Testament (New York: Harper and
Row, Publishers, 1969),
p.
750.
5Ibid., p. 843, fn. 24. Cf. ANET, p. 653. On page
xxviii,
Gaster speaks of verse 6 in terms of mythology. For
a
direct answer to this see Elmer B. Smick, "Mythology and
the
Book of Job."' JETS, XIII:II
(Spring, 1970), 107.
168
Thus Yahweh gradually
assumed a number of the char-
acteristics of El and of Baal; but
he also acquired a
variety of titles under which those
gods were venerated:
the title of Melek, king, which had
belonged first of
all to El, was now employed as an
epithet for Yahweh,
who was thereby honoured as Lord of
all gods in heaven
and on earth. . . .
Thus Yahweh turns out to
be the winner in this com-
petition of the gods; and as a
result of the struggle
with El and Baal for the soul of the
people of Israel
he acquires the rank of king and
comes to be seen as
head of the divine world. Other gods
become his ser-
vants; and messengers come at his
command. The idea
emerges of a divine 'royal
household', with Yahweh as
absolute ruler. This notion is in
many respects not
unlike that of the Canaanite
pantheon. The difference
is that, as the Israelites conceived
it, Yahweh is the
absolute
ruler; and none of the gods around him is to
be likened with him (see Psalms
29:1; 82; 89:6-8), none
of them even has a name.l
Albright says, "In Psalms 82
and 89 we have refer-
ences to the divine assembly in
which Canaanite terminology
is transparent."2
While it is not specifically stated,
Albright's
reference must include Mylx ynb, to
which Allis
replies, "The claim that
it is 'Canaanite' cannot be estab-
lished."3
In his work, The
Assyrian and Hebrew Hymns of Praise,
Cumming asserts:
1Th.
C. Vriezen, The Religion of Ancient
Israel
(Philadelphia:
The Westminster Press, 1967), p. 170.
2William
Foxwell Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of
Canaan (Garden City, New York:
Doubleday and Company, 1968),
pp.
191-92. Cf. also C. F. Whitley, The
Genius of Ancient
Israel (Amsterdam: Philo
Press, 1969), pp. 95, 155.
3Oswald
T. Allis, The Old Testament: Its Claims
and
Its Critics (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1972), p. 334.
169
It
may be said at the outset, that there are practically
no specific cases where literary
dependence can be dem-
onstrated, but, what is more
important, there is a very
striking similarity of phraseology,
implying similar re-
ligious ideas. . . .
In comparing the
phraseology of the Assyrian and the
Hebrew
hymns, the most obvious difference is that the
Assyrian hymns are addressed to many
different deities,
each with its own proper name,
Shamash, Sin, Marduk,
Ninib,
and many others. The existence of other gods is
implied in some Hebrew hymns, but
the Hebrew hymnist
never concedes to them an individual
independent exis-
tence, much less a name.1
With this understanding, Cumming
moves on to demon-
strate the similarities of
ideas. The comparisons are as
follows:
The
question is followed by the answer in the following
examples:
Who is exalted in
heaven, Thou alone art exalted;
Who is exalted on earth,
Thou alone art exalted.
--Hymn
to Sin No. 5.
What god in heaven or
earth can be compared to thee,
Thou
art high over all of them
Among the gods superior
is thy counsel.
--Hymn
to Marduk No. 3.
Biblical examples of such
rhetorical questions are:
For who in the skies can be compared
unto Yahwe,
Who is like Yahwe among the gods?
--Psalm
89:7
Yahwe god of hosts who is like thee?
Strong
art thou Yahwe and thy faithfulness is round
about thee.
--Psalm
89:92
lCharles Gordon Cumming, The Assyrian and Hebrew
Hymns of Praise (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1934),
pp.
100-101.
2Ibid.,
p. 103.
170
Moreover
there is, for Assyrian, as for Hebrew, the
council of the gods, in which one
god is the supreme
judge.
0 mighty god to whom there is no
rival in the assembly
of the great gods. --Hymn to
Marduk No. 3.
Then come the great gods for trial
before thee.
--Hymn
to Shamash No. 3.
Yahwe takes his stand in the council
of gods:
In the midst of gods he judgeth.
--Psalm
82:1.
A God very terrible in the council
of the holy ones,
And
to be feared above all them that are round about
Him. --Psalm
89:8.1
There is an expression in the
"Psalm to Marduk" that
may be compared to 89:47:
"How long," . . . In a
footnote
Stephens says:
The refrain is now
augmented by the words, "How long?"
and continues in this form through
line 28, although in
its written form it appears only
represented by the first
word. "How long?" is an
abbreviated exclamation, meaning,
"How
long will you remain in your present state? Is it
not time for a change?"2
Gray cites the entire portion of
89:6-18. Then he
affirms:
Here all the essential
features of the Canaanite myth
contained in the text GORDON, UH 68 are expressed, name-
ly God's victory over the unruly
waters (vv. 10-11), His
establishment of order in nature,
and His kingship (im-
plicit in the above and explicit in v. 19). Not only
lIbid., pp. 103-04. For a comparison to verse 11 see
p.
138, and for a comparison to verse 14, see p. 136.
2Ferris
J. Stephens, translator, "Psalm to Marduk,"
Ancient Near Eastern
Texts,
edited by James B. Pritchard
(Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1969), p. 390, fn.
7. Third edition.
171
so, but the theme of the other
fragment of the same
Canaanite myth (GORDON, UH, 137), God's championship
of thi divine assembly, is also
included (vv. 6-B).
. . .1
It may be said that there are similar expressions or
the same essential features,
but one must be careful not to
imply that similarities prove
derivation. Engnell says that
89:21
ff. is "substantially akin" to a Krt text in Ugaritic
literature.2
In discussing the servant aspect of
89:4, de Vaux
observes,
"Il n'y a rien dans tout cela qui distingue vrai-
ment
Israël de ses voisins de 1'Orient Ancien."3 He then
moves on to draw comparisons
from Sumerian, Babylonian,
Egyptian,
Hittite, and Aramaic texts. Before
continuing he
affirms,
"Les rois orientaux, comme ceux d'Israel, sont en
effet
les 'serviteurs' de leur dieu."4 Following this are
more comparisons taken from an
inscription of Karatepe and
from Alalakh. A large
discussion ensues in which de Vaux
rightly concludes:
lJohn Gray, "The
Hebrew Conception of the Kingship of
God:
Its Origin and Development, VT, VI:3
(July, 1956), 276.
2Ivan
Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in
the
Ancient Near East, revised edition
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1967), p. 147.
3R. de Vaux, Bible et Orient (Paris: Les Éditions
Du Cerf, 1967) , p. 289.
4Ibid., p. 290.
172
La comparaison peut être
poussée plus loin. Les
grands
rois de l'Orient imposaient un traité à leurs
vassaux:
ceux-ci devaient a leur suzerain l'obeissance,
le
tribut et certains services, mais ils pouvaient
compter
sur sa protection, aussi longtemps qu'ils
restraient
fidèles. . . . En effet, cette alliance
avec
David et sa descendance ne peut pas être brisée.
. . . 1
Later he shows that certain Hittite treaties contain
a promise similar to that which
Yahweh had made for David's
descendants.2 On the
matter of "anointing" (vs. 21) and
"anointed" (vs. 39) de Vaux discusses
comparative instances
in the ancient Near East.3
In reference to 89:4-5 Tucker
asserts, "Close similar-
ities between the OT covenant
pattern and the Near Eastern
treaties have been noted and
generally accepted."4 Examples
are taken from Akkadian
records, Mari Letters, Alalah tablets,
and several other
extra-biblical materials, especially
Hittite.
lIbid., p. 292.
2Ibid., pp. 292-93.
3Ibid., pp. 297-99.
4Gene M. Tucker,
"Covenant Forms and Contract Forms,"
VT, XV:4 (October, 1965),
489. For a further reference to
Psalm
89 in Tucker's work, see pp. 494-95. Other sources
that
may be used for further research are D. J. McCarthy,
Treaty and
Covenant: A Study in the Ancient Oriental Docu-
ments and in the Old
Testament,
Analecta Biblica, no. 21
(Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963) and George E.
Mendenhall, Law
and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near
East
(Pittsburgh: The Biblical Colloquium, 1955).
173
Greenfield,l Margulis,2
and O'Callaghan3 point out
the comparison of a Ugaritic
text, a Karatepe inscription,
and 89:37-38. A strange
comparison and interpretation are
cited by Jones:
Many
scholars take the 'decree' to be God's act of
adoption and renewal of the Covenant
with the king on
his ascension. References have been
made to the Egyp-
tian custom of giving the king a new
name and it has
been maintained that a similar
custom existed in Israel.
The
decree given to the king is, therefore, interpreted
as a charter, declaring the
adoption, and containing
his new name. This interpretation is
again followed in
explaining tOdfe in 2 Kgs. xi 12 and tyriB; in Ps. lxxxix
40.4
The present writer concurs with Jones that neither
the comparison nor the
interpretation is valid. Concerning
the rvkb of 89:28, Widengren says:
Now,
certain hints in both Ugaritic and Old Testament
texts would seem to indicate that
the ruler as son of
the godhead was given the special
designation of 'first-
born', cf. Ps. lxxxix.28. . . .
This proclamation
assumes that it is possible to
elevate a person to the position of
the firstborn. . . .
Actually
in the Ugaritic Krt text the same institution
1Jonas C. Greenfield,
"Scripture and Inspiration:
The
Literary and Rhetorical Element in Some Early Phoenician
Inscriptions," Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William
Foxwell Albright, edited by Hans
Goedicke (Baltimore: The
Johns
Hopkins Press, 1971), p. 267.
2B. Margulis, "A
Ugaritic Psalm (RS24.252)," JBL,
LXXXIX:III
(September, 1970), 298.
3R.
T. O'Callaghan, "Echoes of Canaanite Literature
in
the Psalms," VT, IV (1954), 165.
4G. H. Jones, "The
Decree of Yahweh (Ps. II 7)," VT,
XV:3 (July, 1965), 340-41.
174
appears in a context which shows a
remarkable coinci-
dence with Ps. lxxxix.28.1
The Ugaritic text is given in a footnote:
Krt. iii. 13-19:
Be most exalted, oh Krt!
In the midst of the Rephaim of the
earth,
in the assembly of the
gathering of Datan,
I shall make the youngest of them
the firstborn.2
But this view of Widengren must be seen in conjunction
with another of his views. He
evidently believes the king
represents a dying and rising
deity.3 But Mowinckel argues:
In
Israel, as in Babylonia, the sources afford no
evidence for the idea (found in
Egypt) that the king is
one with the dead god, and that he
was represented in
the cult as suffering, dying, and
rising again, or that
in enacting this role he ever represented Yahweh.4
There are other comparisons that
could be noted, but
these will suffice to
demonstrate some common concepts and
institutions. The evaluation
below will be brief since some
evaluation was given above.
Evaluation
Common form and lexicography may indicate common
1George
Widengren, “Early Hebrew Myths and Their
Interpretation,”
Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, edited by
S. H.
Hooke
(Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1958), pp. 174-75.
2Ibid., p. 175, fn. 1.
3Cf.
Sigmund Mowinckel, He That Cometh,
translated by
G.
W. Anderson (New York: Abingdon Press, In.d.), p. 86,
fn.
5.
4Ibid.,
p. 86.
175
ideas, but not common content
and meaning. Again, the rev-
elation of Yahweh is such that
there is a great gulf fixed,
and content and meaning are
distinctly different from that of
the ancient Near East. It may
be said that a differing
Weltanschauung makes
Israel's religious concepts quite dif-
ferent, even though they use similar
vocabulary, idioms,
imagery, etc. Indications to
this effect were given above.
While other nations had a god or
gods, it is unthink-
able to draw any comparisons to
Yahweh; He is incomparable.
Even on
the lower scale, the manner in which the ancient Near
Eastern gods conducted
themselves removes any possibility for
direct analogies to the Mywdq or the Mylx
ynb in
in 89:6-8.
Thus,
the approach of a comparative-religionist is detrimen-
tal, not contributory.
Also, while there are resemblances
of treaties and
covenants, there are marked
differences. As already implied
the Source of Israel's covenant
is unquestionably different.
The
making or renewal of a covenant was unlike the pagan
nations and gods because of the
connected fertility rites
of the latter. There are other
disagreements, but a major
one is that the Davidic
Covenant was eternal due to its
Maker.
The next chapter will carry some related facts into
further detail.
Finally, the kingship was distinctly
different. The
ancient Near Eastern kings were
gods or servants of gods. In
the previous chapter it was
observed that David was a servant
176
of Yahweh (89:4, 21), but this
in no way implied that David
was a god or deity. Neither was
the king of David's line
deified, and there was no hint
in the psalm that his God had
indicated any ritual
ceremonies.1 Fertility rites were ab-
solutely forbidden. While some
further distinctions were
made earlier in this chapter,
other distinctions related to
the king will be developed more
fully in the next chapter.
The present writer commenced the
evaluation by infer-
ring that common form and
lexicography may indicate common
ideas. This will be handled in
the following chapter, but
a few brief comments are
necessary here. The present chapter
began with what appeared to be
valid comparisons in lexi-
cography and poetic structure.
Now the question remains,
What value or contribution do these have in
studying the
text
of Psalm 89 or in the exegesis?
The material from Ras Shamra will be
taken as an
example. As a way of reminder,
Dahood had employed Ugaritic
to aid the understanding of
Psalm 89.2 Verses of particular
note are 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13,
15, 20, 23, 26, 30, 37, 43,
lSigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel's Worship,
2 vols., translated by D. R. Ap-Thomas (New
York: Abingdon
Press,
1962), Vol. II, pp. 61, 63, 68. Several other
scholars
were cited in this present work who held that
ritual
occurred in this psalm, especially in reference to
the
king.
2Dahood, Psalms
II, pp. 311-20.
177
45, and
47. A few are helpful, some are questionable, and
other so-called comparisons are
absolutely wrong as pointed
out in the last chapter of
exegesis. It should be noted
that Dahood at times will
freely handle the text to achieve
lexicographical, structural,
and interpretive patterns. Some
evidence of these emendations
was observed in the exegesis.
These
verses are 13, 15, 20, 30, and 43.1 In each one of
these cases the Ugaritic was of
no special help, in fact,
the results were mostly
misinterpretations. The present
writer cannot find any special instance
where Ugaritic con-
tributed significantly.
There has been some very recent
criticism of Dahood's
approach to the text. Nicholas
writes:
In
Psalms II he wishes to distance
himself from terms
he formerly used to describe the
relationships between
Ugaritic
and biblical Hebrew, such as 'influence' and
'dependence,' and now wishes to use
such terms as 'elu-
cidation.' This is a commendable
step in the right
direction. It is still true,
however, that Dahood must
be judged guilty of the charge of
virtually equating
Ugaritic,
Phoenician, and Hebrew--as has unceasingly
been pointed out by his critics.2
Precisely what is meant by Nicholas
is disclosed in
a later statement, "The
greatest problem faced by the philo-
logical approach today is not
that it makes use of cognate
lIbid., pp. 314-18.
2Thomas
A. Nicholas, "The Current Quest For the Mean-
ing
of the Text of the Old Testament," WTJ,
XXXIV:2 (May,
1972), 133-34. His reference to Dahood's
statements are
found in Psalms II, pp. XV-XVII.
178
languages, but rather that it
uses them in such an undisci-
plined manner."1
This is followed by pertinent quotes from
Barr
and Smith, as well as his own views.2 The conclusions
of Fensham are especially worth
noting:
It
is thus clear that a more rigid linguistic method
must be followed to escape from
preconceived ideas
about meanings of words. Our task is
to determine the
meaning of a word as precisely as
possible with all the
aid we can muster. It seems to me
that philology is
important to determine the sphere of
meaning because
if one has a different word in the
source language, one
has to start somewhere with the
meaning of a difficult
word. Philology must then not be
used as an end in
itself,
but always in combination with syntax and
semotaxis. We must listen to what
the Bible wants
to say to us, and not correct the
Bible by either
forcing a preconceived meaning on it
or by a clever
discovery which is based on bad
linguistics or on an
even more slender basis.3
Thus, in the whole realm of
comparisons one must be
extremely aware of the
distinctions which are unalterable
facts. To approach such a study
calls for principled methods
and biblical presuppositions.
lIbid., p. 134.
2Ibid., pp. 134-35.
3F. C. Fensham,
"Problems in Connection with Transla-
tion
of Ancient Texts," De Fructu Oris
Sui: Essays in Honour
of Adrianus van Selms, edited by I. H. Eybers,
et al (Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1971), pp. 56-57.
CHAPTER V
SOME
PARALLELS FROM THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST
At some point controversy usually reaches a climax.
In many
ways this chapter constitutes just that. As the
problem was cited in the first
chapter of this dissertation,
the purpose now is to bring to
the fore the application of
parallels from the ancient Near
East to Psalm 89.
The discussion could be extremely
long and involved.1
Extra effort has been taken to
make it concise, yet signifi-
cant. Reflections on many of
the assertions will not be made
individually or immediately.
The reason is twofold: many
have been set forth in the
preceding three chapters, and
others are covered in an
evaluation within this chapter.
The Application of Parallels
in the Hermeneutical
Method
Scholars see parallels everywhere with no specific
guidelines, which is hardly a
sign of scholarship. As this
chapter will illustrate, some
parallels are drawn to Psalm
89 with the result that the
uniqueness of Scripture is
1For
example, see the many references for Ugaritic
parallels
in Loren R. Fisher, ed., "Indices: Texts," Ras
Shamra
Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew
Bible, Vol. I, Analecta
Orientalia 49, edited (Roma: Ponti-
ficium Institutum Biblicum,
1972), pp. 470-71.
179
180
reduced. Therefore, it seems
absolutely mandatory that some
thought be given to the
appropriate uses of parallels for the
biblical hermeneutic.
There is a wealth of documentation
from the ancient
cult. But are they all valid?
Much depends on the material
and the modus operandi by which it is done, as well as pre-
suppositions. The attempt will
be to approach the issue with
specific direction.
For a bona-fide parallel there would
have to be a
common cultural milieu. This is
not hard to demonstrate.
Psalm
89 mentions a covenant, kings, crown, throne, heavenly
holy ones, anointing, vision,
firstborn, battle, plunder, etc.
All of
these and more are found in the culture of the ancient
parcel of both cultures. The
literary expressions from the
ancient Near East leave no
question concerning common cul-
tural parallels to the thoughts
expressed in the psalm.
Along with this would be a common
geographical
setting. It is generally
recognized by all that
within what is commonly known
as the
Also, there should be some
linguistic similarities
in order to have common
religious expressions. This was
demonstrated in the previous
chapters and will be done even
more so in this chapter.
Thus, numerous literary parallels
reveal almost
181
identical thought structures
between Psalm 89 and the ancient
guidelines. Do these thought
structures agree in every
respect?
In other words, what was the concept
of two different
peoples concerning a
supernatural Being or beings? Was He or
they transcendent and free,
etc.? Or their concept of nature,
was it deified or not? How were
morals conceived or not con-
ceived? Questions could
persist; however, the issue is clear
with these.
When applying parallels, it must be
realized that
cepts are distinctly different.
Ullendorff's statement is
most vital here:
No
longer need we look for a few isolated parallels
but we can now observe a long
tradition which expresses
itself in common idioms, common
poetic structure, sim-
ilar collocations, and a basic
identity of form. Iden-
tity of form--but not of content or of spirit.l
But some scholars are guilty of
doing what Allis
accuses some archaeologists of
doing:
We
are often told today that the life of ancient
aims of the archaeologist is to fill in that vacuum and
lEdward Ullendorff,
"Ugaritic Studies Within Their
Semitic and Eastern Mediterranean Setting,"
BJRL, 46:1
(September,
1963), 239. Another true statement given by
Ullendorff is that ". . . many emendations
proposed for the
text
of the Old Testament can, in fact, be shown to be super-
fluous. . . ." p. 239.
182
to
discover not only the background or context but also
the sources of the religious
beliefs of Israel.1
Later in his work Allis annotates
nine distinctive
features which set apart
Israel's religion ". . . from the
religions of the peoples with
which Israel was more or less
closely related or
associated."2 Therefore, when it comes
to any consideration of
applying parallels from the ancient
Near
East to Psalm 89, that consideration must recognize
that Israel had a distinct Weltanschauung.
To apply the principle more
specifically, now do the
literary parallels relate, in
as much as Psalm 89 as a por-
tion of the biblical corpus has
qualities that are unique,
especially in theological
concepts? Certainly the matter of
Divine
revelation and inspiration must enter the discussion
when referring to any biblical
material. The content or
spirit of any piece of
literature would reflect the thinking
of its composer and any or all
external influences upon him.
For
example, when Ethan speaks of Yahweh's retinue in the
sky, can it possibly have the
same spirit or meaning as when
another ancient writer of
another people speaks of Baal and
his retinue? Yes, the same form
or structure, but not the
same spirit of religious
belief, nor does it have the same
meaning. Further developments
of this will be acknowledged
1Oswald
T. Allis, The Old Testament: Its Claims
and
Critics (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1972), p. 346.
2Ibid.,
p. 371. See full discussion on pp. 372-78.
183
throughout the chapter.
In Terms of Vocabulary
Under a chapter entitled, "Word Parallels,"
Patton
claims:
When
the vocabulary of the Psalms is compared with the
vocabulary of all the Ugaritic
literature extant, it is
found that approximately 46 percent
of all roots appear-
ing in the Psalms are common to
both, while 54 percent
of the roots appearing in Ugaritic are common to both.1
Yet, he cites only five cases related to Psalm 89.
The one
is rvdv rvd in verses 2 and 5.2
Several Ugaritic
texts have words that parallel dy and Nymy in
verse 14.3 He
parallels Ngm in verse 19 to some texts and thus translates
it supplication.4 In the exegesis it was argued that the
word should be translated
shield which is correct. Therefore
Patton
is in error here. And finally he notes parallels to
rc in
verse 43.5 In his review of Patton's work, Ginsberg
says:
However,
Patton's study also includes a number of com-
parisons between Ugaritic and
biblical texts in which a
partly erroneous interpretation is
given to one or both.
But after all, the joy of making new observations in the
1John
Hasting Patton, Canaanite Parallels in
the Book
of Psalms (Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins Press, 1944), p. 32.
2Ibid., p. 36.
3Ibid., p. 39
4Ibid., p. 41
5Ibid.,
p. 33
184
Bible
in the light of newly discovered comparative
material is so great that it is too
much to expect the
critical faculty to weed out all the
imaginary ones at
the outset. On the other hand, some
real ones are also
bound to be missed at first. For
example, one does not
find Ps 89:45 listed in the index;
although the emenda-
tion which makes that verse a
striking parallel to I AB
6:28-29
and to the conclusion of the Ahiram inscription
was made long before the latter were known.1
While saying Patton was partly in error,
Ginsberg was
heading for the same with his
emendation. Ullendorff writes:
I
have found it quite diverting, though not very prof-
itable, to make out a case for
Ugaritic propinquity to
every single Semitic language in
turn. What would be
of value, however, is not the
tracing of chance rela-
tions between individual roots but
the collection of
complete semantic fields.2
Nicholas remarks:
In
the search for meaning for a Hebrew word, it has too
frequently been assumed that a
certain root in Hebrew is
likely to have a meaning identical
or similar to the
same root in a cognate language.3
The same caution should be given to
Dahood's "Pairs
of Parallel Words in the
Psalter and in Ugaritic."4 Not all
of them are valid. For a true
parallel the meaning of a word
1H.
L. Ginsberg, review of Canaanite
Parallels in the
Book of Psalms by John Hasting Patton, JAOS, 65 (1945), 65.
2Ullendorff,
"Ugaritic Studies Within Their Semitic
and
Eastern Mediterranean Setting," p. 249.
3Thomas
A. Nicholas, "The Current Quest for the Mean-
ing
of the Text of the Old Testament," WTJ,
XXXIV:2 (May,
1972),
135.
4Mitchell
Dahood, The Anchor Bible--Psalms III
(Garden
City,
New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1970), p. 445,
89:27,
43; p. 449, 89:14, 16; p. 450, 89:26; p. 453, 89:5, 30;
p. 455, 89:6-7, 15.
185
in one context must correspond
identically to the same word
in another context, and neither
Patton nor Dahood seemed to
have bothered with contextual
meanings in every case. There-
fore a vocabulary parallel
requires more than just taking the
same word from two different
texts and calling them parallel.
Allusions to
Ideas
Patton sees several parallels between Ugaritic and
Psalm
89 in the area of "Thought Patterns" or ideas. He
takes the Father-son
relationship in 89:27 and sees close
parallels to El and his cohorts
in Ugaritic texts.1 After
the conclusion, he avers,
"In this same connection it is well
to note the expression of El as
king and ruler in Ugaritic
and YHWH as king and ruler in
the Psalms."2 With this he
quotes 89:19. Because of
"B'l spn, 'Baal of the north,"' and
"El
spn, 'El (or god) of the north,'" Patton suggested that
Nvpc in
89:13 is a place name.3 In another place he asserts:
The familiar method of
expressing the idea of a mes-
sage being sent in Ugaritic is: bph
rgm lipa bspth hwt,
"From
his mouth let a message go forth, from his lips a
word," found in I D 75, 113,
127, 141; 68:6. The iden-
tical form is not found in the
Psalms but a hint of the
idiom is present in Psalm 89:35,
"I will not violate my
covenant, nor what my lips have uttered" (ytapAW; xcAOm).4
lPatton, Canaanite Parallels in the Book of Psalms,
pp.
15-16.
2Ibid., p. 17.
3Ibid., p. 19.
4Ibid.,
p. 22.
186
At the finish of a different
discussion, Patton con-
cludes:
The
pagan polytheistic idea of the assembly of the gods
had developed until it was thought
of as the assembly of
the worshipers of the one God, YHWH.
One other word
(dvs) may be reminiscent of
the same idea in Psalm 89:8a,
"El is to be feared in the holy
council (Mywidoq;-dOs)."1
This conclusion cannot be substantiated. Moreover,
according to Job 38:1-7, Yahweh
had an assembly about Him at
the laying of the foundation of
the earth. Like nearly all
comparative-religionists, he
sees 89:10-11 parallel with
Ugaritic
thinking.2 Several of Patton's suggested parallels
do not concur with the
discussion given in the beginning of
this chapter, nor with the
exegesis in the third chapter.
Following a discussion pervaded with
error and com-
parison, Dahood seems to draw a
parallel:
In
Canaanite myth, the principal foes of Baal are Yamm
and Mot, while in biblical
mythopoeic [sic] language the
rivals of Yahweh are Yamm and Tannin
in Ps lxxiv 13,
Rahab
in Ps lxxxix 11, and Rahab, Tannin, Yamm, and
Tehom--four in number--in Isa li 9-10.3
The reference to 89:11 cannot be
likened to the
Canaanite myth because Yamm and
Mot are gods. It was veri-
fied in the exegesis that Rahab
referred to Egypt. Besides,
1Ibid., p. 24.
2Ibid., pp. 27-28.
3Dahood, Psalms I, p. 51. For a very similar
conclu-
sion
see James B. Pritchard, Archaeology and
the Old Testa-
ment (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1958), pp.
189-90.
187
Yahweh
is incomparable and cannot be lowered to the same
level as Baal in dealing with
rivals. Further answers to
this will be given later.
Oesterley refers to
thought-structure in assuming his
parallels:
To come now to some of
the Babylonian and Egyptian
hymns and psalms in which we find
points of thought-
contact with the Hebrew psalms. As
an illustration of
the mythological ode, we may give a
quotation from the
Babylonian
Creation-myth (Fourth Tablet), which lies at
the back of such passages as Ps.
74:13-15, 89:9-14, 104:
6-9--namely,
the conflict between Marduk and Tiamat; the
Hebrew psalmist has taken the rôle of the hero-god
Marduk, and applied it to Yahweh. .
. .1
Since Oesterley does not hold to the biblical concep-
tion of revelation, he is free
to apply non-biblical material
as he sees fit. This is a good
example of how the uniqueness
of Scripture is reduced.
After illustrating the above point,
Oesterley con-
tinues:
Our
next illustration is an Egyptian hymn of praise
in honour of the Sun-god, Amon-Re,
the highest among all
the gods; it belongs to the middle
of the fifteenth cen-
tury B.C. As will be seen, there are
various instances
in it of thoughts and expressions
which find a parallel
in verses of some of the Hebrew
psalms. There is no
question here of borrowing; but such
parallels illustrate
the existence of similarity of
mental outlook on the part
of religious poets, expressed in their poems. . .2
1W.
0. E. Oesterley, The Psalms: Translated
with
Text-Critical and
Exegetical Notes,
reprint (London: S.P.C.
K.,
1962), p. 39.
2Ibid.
188
Only two lines of the hymn will be shown here:
Thou, greatest in heaven (cp. Ps. 89:6), most
ancient
on earth; thou, lord of all that is,
that abidest
in all things.
The
only one of his kind among the gods (cp. Ps. 86:8,
96:4,
135:5), the stately Bull of the thrice-three
gods, the lord of all gods.1
Concerning these latter verses (89:6-8), Wright says,
"The
ascription is simply borrowed from a pagan context and
used of Yahweh, any definite comparative notion having
fallen
into the background."2
His reference to borrowing will be
handled later. Oesterley's thought contact and similarity
of
mental outlook are purely a result of his own thought
structure.
In his consideration of
"Breaking the sceptre,"
Hillers cites a passage from
the Shamshi-Adad treaty and a
parallel one from the Code of
Hammurabi.3 These are followed
by similar passages from a
Ugaritic text and the Ahiram in-
scription. Then he parallels
several biblical verses, after
which he purports, "Ps.
89:45, corrupt in its present form,
seems to contain the same
picture: note the parallelism of
throne and sceptre, as in the
Ugaritic example quoted
1Ibid., p. 40. For further comments see pp. 400-01.
2G.
Ernest Wright, The Old Testament Against
Its
Environment, Studies in Biblical
Theology, No. 2 (London:
SCN
Press, Ltd., 1950), p. 34, fn. 49.
3Delbert
R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old
Testa-
ment Prophets (Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1964),
p. 61.
189
above. . . ”1 Except
for what he calls a fundamental differ-
ence between Isaiah 45:15 and
Psalm 89:47, Williams would see
an Egyptian text parallel with
the latter.2
The present writer admits a
difficulty at this point
in determining what may be
treated as allusions or direct
application to Psalm 89. In
studying the broader contexts,
all of the above seem to be
treated as allusions. Some of
the so-called parallels in the
next section may seem to be
allusions, but for other
reasons they are treated there.
Direct Application to Concepts and Institutions
In one sense this might be called the hard-core area
in applying the ancient Near
East to Psalm 89. DeQueker, as
one
example, claims, "Le début du psaume LXXXIX présente donc
des
parallèls frappants avec la litérature ugaritique et
phénicienne."3
And he wastes no time in noting them. He
even cites what he calls an
Akkadian parallel and says, "Ici
l'affirmation
est identique pour ainsi dire à celle du Ps.
XXXIX,
8."4 After several other so-called parallels, he
makes
the blunt statement, "Les benê
elîm et les qedosîm du
lIbid.
2Ronald
J. Williams, "Some Egyptianisms in the Old
Testament,"
Studies in the Honor of John A. Wilson,
SAOC, No.
35
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969), p. 95.
3L. DeQueker, "Les Qedosam du Ps. lxxxix à la Lumière
des Croyances Semitiques," ETL, 39 (1963), p. 479.
4Ibid.
190
psaume
LXXXIX formet la cour de Yahweh, tout comme les bn ilm
formaient
celle des dieux El et Baal dans la religion canané-
enne ou phenicienne."1
And many more could be listed here.
In commenting on 89:6-8 Labuschagne
provides a very
suitable answer to DeQueker and
all others cited earlier who
drew parallels to this portion:
The
reason for the psalmist's emphasizing Yahweh's in-
comparability with reference to the
heavenly beings can
only be that he realized the peril
of regarding them as
gods surrounding Yahweh, a dangerous
tendency he un-
doubtedly observed among his
contemporaries. In this
conception Yahweh would be nothing
but a god among the
gods and there would be no
difference between Yahweh
with his entourage of gods and Baal with his assembly
or Marduk with his. This confusion
of Yahweh's entou-
rage with the pagan divine assemblies was in fact very
real. In my view our psalmist
polemizes against the
tendency to identify the pagan
conception of the divine
assembly with the Hebrew conception
of Yahweh's entou-
rage, and regard these attendant beings as gods, headed
by Yahweh, in the same way as El or
Baal was the head
of the Canaanite pantheon and Marduk
the head of the
gods in Babylonia.2
Driver sees a parallel in function.
He quotes 89:7
and Psalm 29:1 and postulates:
These
'sons of God' perform for Jahveh the same func-
tions as the Igigi, 'the gods of the
upper world,' who
represent the host of visible stars,
and the Anunnaki,
'the
gods of lower world,' perform for the principal
deities of the Babylonian pantheon.3
lIbid., pp. 480-81.
2C.
J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability of
Yahweh in
the Old Testament, Vol. V, Pretoria Oriental Series, edited
by
A. Van Selms (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966), pp. 81-82.
3Godfrey
R. Driver, "The Psalms in the Light of Baby-
lonian
Research," The Psalmists, edited
by D. C. Simpson
(London: Oxford University
Press, 1926), p. 153.
191
Later he quotes 89:15 with the following remark,
so various kinds of favourable
demons stood around
the greater gods and goddesses
of the Babylonian pantheon."1
How he can compare tmxv dsH with
favourable demons is beyond
the present writer's thinking. He observes at least two
other parallels to Psalm 89.2 But, on the other hand, Driver
is somewhat different from
certain scholars who claim par-
allels. He rightly comments:
The
similarities between these two literatures to which
I have here drawn attention are
significant as shewing
how alike was the diction and,
superficially, the
thought of these two great peoples;
but how much more
significant are the differences,
both moral and spir-
itual!3
There would be no point in listing
all the scholars
who see parallels to 89:10-11,
Rahab, etc.4 Many were
cited
in the third chapter. One of
the adherents not yet mentioned
is Rogers. In an early work he
states, "Here is a passage in
the Psalter in which we can
discern quite plainly the influ-
ence of the Babylonian creation
story."5 Then
he quotes
lIbid., p. 164.
2Ibid., pp. 123-24; 140-41.
3Ibid., p. 172.
4For additional views see
Antoon Schoors, "Literary
Phrases," Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and
the Hebrew Bible, Vol. I, Analecta Orientalia 49, edited by
Loren
R. Fisher (Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum,
1972),
pp. 34-36.
5Robert William Rogers, The Religion of Babylonia and
Assyria (New
York: Eaton and Mains, 1908), p. 133.
192
89:9-13, after which he
declares:
This
poet has heard of Tiamat and her story. Here Tiamat
is called Rahab, and it is not
Marduk, but Jehovah, who
has slain her. Just as the elder
Bel, or Ellil, was dis-
placed, as we have seen by Marduk,
so here Marduk is
displaced by Jehovah. He has
"broken Rahab in pieces"--
nay, more, he has scattered his
enemies, that is, the
helpers of Rahab. And then, then,
after he has defeated
Rahab,
he creates the world. It is certainly the Baby-
lonian Tiamat and Marduk story which
this poet has in
mind and is using poetically to
glorify Jehovah. And be
it observed he is following exactly
the same order of
progression as we have just seen in
the Babylonian story
--first the conflict, then the creation.1
And in a later work he has another
discussion on Rahab
and 89:10 [11].2 But in this effort he includes a picture
of
the conflict in myth on a
limestone slab.3 (See
the following
page of this dissertation and
especially note his comments
opposite the plate.) As for the
totality of his remarks, only
a portion is correct on four
counts: (1) No doubt the poet
had heard the Babylonian story,
(2) Jehovah defeated Rahab,
(3) the
poet wrote to glorify Jehovah, and (4) the Babylonian
story is a myth. All else is
pure conjecture. One may say
that Rogers' so-called parallel
is a mixture of fact and fancy.
In the third chapter on exegesis it was carefully
lIbid., p. 134. Also see
H. Wheeler Robinson, The Old
Testament: Its Making
and Meaning
(New York: Abingdon-Cokes-
bury
Press, 1937), p. 142 and C. F. Whitley, The
Genius of
Ancient Israel (Amsterdam: Philo
Press, 1969), p. 62.
2Robert.William Rogers,
ed., Cuneiform Parallels to
the Old Testament, second edition (New
York: The Abingdon
Press,
1926), pp. 60-61.
3Ibid., p. 487.
193
PLATE.
NO. 8
Conflict between a god, as the
representative of Cosmos, and a horned
dragon,
as the representative of Chaos. In the early mythology it was
Ellil who thus destroyed the dragon. In the
later mythology it was
Marduk
who assumed this role, and when the Hebrews caught up these
mythological
ideas the role of destroyer was taken by Jahweh. See
Psalm
89. 8-12, and compare Rogers, Religion of
Babylonia and Assyria,
New
York, 1908, pp. 133, 134.
The original is in the British
Museum. Limestone slabs, Numbers
28
and 29.
Illustration from L. W. King. Babylonian Religion and Mythology,
London,
1903, by kind permission of Messrs. Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trübner & Co., Ltd.
194
spelled out that Rahab was
Egypt. In no way could it be a
reference to Tiamat. Also,
there is no evidence that Yahweh
replaced Marduk. On pages 99
ff. of this dissertation it
was demonstrated by the
hermeneutical method that creation
did not follow conflict.
The problem and the hapax legomenon (vrhFm) in 89:45
have been referred to before.
But now the passage in which
it appears is distinctly said
to be in parallel with a
Ugaritic
passage. However, it is seen as such only on the
basis of an emendation. Morton
reviews the emendations of
Oesterley and Gunkel, and
asserts:
That
this emendation is in the right direction is sup-
ported by a striking parallel
passage from the Ugaritic
(49:VI:28-29),
(28) sbtk lyhpk ks'a mlkk
(29) lysbr ht msptk
(28) . . . Verily he will overturn
the throne of thy
kingdom;
(29) Verily he will break the scepter of thy rule. l
He continues by endeavoring to give
support to Gins-
berg's emendation on the same
problem.2 It is
well here to
switch to the broader
discussion of Greenfield. In connec-
tion to the Ugaritic reference
cited above, Greenfield
1William Hardy Morton,
"The Bearing of the Records of
Ras Shamra on the Exegesis of the Old
Testament" (unpublished
Doctor's
dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,
1946), pp. 79-80. A portion of Morton's material
is taken
directly
from George A. Barton, "A North Syrian Poem on the
Conquest
of Death," JAOS, 52 (1932), pp.
221-31.
2Ibid., p. 80.
195
states, "The clearest
parallel (Ps. 89:45) was first noted by
H. L. Ginsberg."1 Opinions are given in a footnote:
H.
L. Ginsberg, who first drew the parallel with the
Ugaritic text (JAOS 65 11945]: 65 n.2) proposed reading
matteh
yādō by comparing Ugar. mt
yd. For a recent ren-
dering of the unchanged consonantal
text cf. G. Ahlstrom,
Psalm 89 (Lund 1959), p. 137. He is
followed by M.
Dahood,
The Psalms II (N.Y., 1968), p. 319.
But Dahood's
rendering of mithārō as "his splendor" is not acceptable
for the putative Ugaritic thr "gem" does not exist. This
vocable occurs as an adjective
meaning "pure" and de-
scribing iqni
in UT 51, V. 81.96.2
While scholars differ over Ugaritic
words and mean-
ings, it is interesting to note
that emendations are part of
the cause.3 Since the matter has been covered in the
exege-
sis, there is no advantage in
repeating it.
Psalm 89:20-30 and II Samuel 7 have
been seen to have
parallels in the ancient Near
East. In commenting on Nathan's
covenant oracle to David and
the literary parallels in Egyp-
tian hymns of victory, Kline
says in a footnote:
Nathan's
oracle also has its parallels in the
suzerainty treaties which promise
prolongation of
dynasty to the vassal king, as is
argued successfully
by P. J. Calderone in Dynastic
Oracle and Suzerainty
1Jonas C. Greenfield,
"Scripture and Inscription:
The Literary and Rhetorical Element in Some
Early Phoenician
Inscriptions,
Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William
Foxwell
Albright,
edited by Hans Goedicke (Baltimore: The
Johns
Hopkins Press, 1971), p. 256.
2Ibid., fn. 17.
3Greenfield himself
quotes an emendation " . . which
does
least violence to the Massoretic text. . . . Ibid., p.
257. But why have any violence?
196
Treaty (Manila, 1966). Cf. too
TGK, pp. 36 ff. These
parallels
consist in formal similarities in ideology and
concept.1
Kline is pointing out that a transference is made from
king-vassal in the Egyptian
literature to hvhy-servant
(vas-
sal) in biblical literature.
However, in Israel the covenant
concept came directly from
Yahweh with guaranteed eternal and
spiritual significance, the
same cannot be said for human-
conceived covenants or treaties
in the ancient Near East.
At this point the present writer is
forced to be
extremely selective. If he were
to write according to his
findings in research, this work
would easily double in size.
Scholars
have run wild in seeing parallels to concepts and
institutions of covenants,
adoption, kingship, enthronement,
ruling, and festivals. The
reader should keep in mind that
the following is just a trickle
of the vast material avail-
able.
Hohenstein has a chapter in his
dissertation entitled
"The Royal Psalms and
Ancient Near Eastern Parallels" and he
commences with these remarks:
lMeredith G. Kline,
"Canon and Covenant: Part III,"
WTJ, XXXIII:1 (November,
1970), 50, fn. 108. Kline does not
mention
Psalm 89, but then he does not need to do so. There-
fore
see Joachim Becker, review of Dynastic
Oracle and
Suzerainty
Treaty
by Philip J. Calderone, Biblica, 50:1
(1969),
111--15. While Weinfeld does not exactly employ the
word
parallel, his material should be read
in conjunction
with
the above. Cf. M. Weinfeld, "The Covenant of Grant in
the
Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East, JAOS,
90:2
(April-June, 1970), 189-92.
197
As has been frequently
observed, the methodology of
historical criticism often involves
an interpretation
of the Biblical material in the
light of ancient Near
Eastern
parallels. This is especially true of the ex-
pressions concerning Israelite
kingship as they are
found in the Royal Psalms. The
conclusion of critical
scholars is that kingship in Israel
is a modified ver-
sion of kingship in Egypt and
Mesopotamia and that the
Biblical Royal Psalms reflect this
similarity.1
To admit parallels without a guideline intensifies
the problem of handling the
critics. And he gives evidence
of this. Later he says,
"In the Royal Psalms there are at
least three passages that seem
to support the notion of
divine kingship. They are Pss.
2:7; 89:20-30; and 110:3."2
The
notion that the king of Israel is divine is denied, but
why admit they seem to support? Cooke cites the
adherents
of the Uppsala school who hold
such a view and sufficiently
disproves that such a concept
was held in Israel.3
Along the same thought, Engnell writes:
In
the ideology prevalent throughout the ancient Near
East, the sacral king was considered
divine in origin
and the incarnate god in the cult,
where he played the
role of the god according to the
"cultic pattern" which
appears in more or less similar form
in the different
regions of the uniform culture of
the ancient Near East.
This
sacral-divine kingship also existed in Israel and
its ideology was valid: the king is
of divine origin
(Pss.
2:7; 89:29; 110:3; II Sam. 7:14); he is divine
(Pss. 8:6; 45:7; II Sam. 7:9); he is the incarnation
lHerbert E. Hohenstein,
"Psalms 2 and 110: A Compar-
ison
of Exegetical Methods" (unpublished Doctor's disserta-
tion,
Concordia Seminary, Saint Louis, 1967), p. 136.
2Ibid., p. 142.
3Gerald Cooke, "The
Israelite King as Son of God,"
ZAW, 73 (1961) , 202-25.
198
of "righteousness"; he is
the perfect judge; and he
functions in the cult in the dual
role of suffering
and victory, of expiator and savior.
Here, already,
we find a messianic ideology
connected with the living
historical bearer of the kingship,
which is taken over
from the Canaanite, pre-Israelite
period. As a matter
of fact, this early Canaanite stage
of the Old Testament
belief in a Messiah is more or less
fully found in extra-
biblical West Semitic sources: the
Amarna letters, the
Panammu,
Kalamu, and Zakir inscriptions, and last, but
not least, the texts from Ras Shamra.
As
bearer of this whole cultic and ideological real-
ity, the Israelite king is
designated by the special
name "Messiah" (Hebrew māshîah,
Aramaic meshîha', "the
Anointed
One"), due to the well-known fact that the
king was consecrated to his office
by a holy anointing
with oil (compare I Sam. 10:1--Saul,
16:13--David, I
Kgs. 1:39--Solomon, II Kgs.
9:6--Jehu, 11:12--Joash),
by which he was made partaker of the
Holy Spirit, that
is, of the divine life, and thus became divine himself.1
Of course, if one treats portions of
Scripture as
Engnell did, then anything can
be assumed. Answers to this
particular issue will be given
later.
Johnson takes a less harsh position than Engnell,
“. . .
in Israelite thought the king was a potential
'exten-
sion' of the personality of
Yahweh. . . ."2 Some
other
lIvan Engnell, A Rigid Scrutiny: Critical Essays
on the Old Testament, translated and edited
by John T.
Willis,
with the collaboration of Helmer Ringgren (Nashville:
Vanderbilt University Press, 1969), pp. 222-23.
See also
Engnell's
work, Studies in Divine Kingship in the
Ancient
Near East, revised edition
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967),
p.
147.
2A. R. Johnson,
"Divine Kingship and the Old Testa-
ment,"
ET, LXII:2 (November, 1950), 42.
According to Johnson,
Mowinckel held a ". . . belief in some form
of divine king-
ship."
p. 37. For other comments see Schoors, "Literary
Phrases," pp. 54-55.
199
studies on kingship have been
cited in this present work.1
The
reader is urged to peruse them to observe the effort
scholars go to in order to draw
parallels to Psalm 89. A few
more that could be mentioned2 prove only one thing: that the
parallels which scholars
associate with the psalm really
prove that specific guidelines
are needed. The exegesis in
the third chapter has already
handled the biblical account.
A new aspect is now ready for
consideration--the
paralleling of the content of Psalm
89 to a festival. Con-
tinuing with Johnson, he
comments:
Gunkel's point of view
was early taken up by the Nor-
wegian scholar S. Mowinckel, who
published an attractive
exposition of the royal psalms in
the light of their
Egyptian
and Assyro-Babylonian parallels, and extended
the class so as to embrace Ps . . . 89. . . . 3
Then Johnson relates a few other
matters and ties
Mowinckel's "some form of
divine kingship" with the following:
1For example, the two
footnotes just previous to this
one;
also, A. R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in
Ancient Israel
(Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1967);
"Hebrew Concep-
tions
of Kingship," Myth, Ritual, and
Kingship, edited by S.
H.
Hooke (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1958); and John Gray,
"The Hebrew Conception of the Kingship of
God: Its Origin
and
Development," VT, VI:3 (July,
1956), 268-85.
2Cf. John Gray, The Krt Text in the Literature of Ras
Shamra, second edition
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964), pp. 7-8;
"Canaanite
Kingship in Theory and Practice," VT,
II (1952),
193-220;
review of Sacral Kingship in Ancient
Israel by A. R.
Johnson, VT,
VI:4 (October, 1956), 440-43; also consideration
should
be given to the first seven chapters of Myth,
Ritual,
and Kingship (see fn. 1 above).
3Johnson, "Divine
Kingship and the Old Testament,"
p. 37.
200
This
thesis was later touched upon by Mowinckel in his
famous series of studies in the
Psalter, where a place
was found for the king in the ritual
of the New Year
Festival
at Jerusalem, as Mowinckel sought to recon-
struct it on the basis, primarily,
of the Babylonian
akitu
festival and the partially analogous ritual of
the Osiris-Horus complex including,
of course, the
associated royal ideology.l
Others have followed. Johnson continues:
Accordingly,
it is not surprising to find that shortly
afterwards H. Schmidt, who accepted
Mowinckel's theory
in principle, restated it with a
slightly stronger em-
phasis upon the part played by the
king, incorporating
(in addition to Ps 132) Ps 2, 20, 21, 89:1-3, 6-19.
Johnson finally gets around to his
position. What is
interesting to note is how he
arrived at his conviction:
At
about the same time the present writer, who had
been examining the Psalter from an
entirely different
angle (i.e., that of a comparative
study of Greek and
Israelite
ideas of life after death), found himself
forced into a partial acceptance of
Mowinckel's views
together with a greater emphasis
upon the role of the
king in the New Year Festival
through reading the dis-
cussion of the hyH in the challenging work
of W. W.
Baudissin
on the Adonis-Esmun-Tammuz relationship and
its possible bearing upon the
conception of Yahweh as
'a
living God.' Taking his stand upon
the view that
Ps 2, 18, 89, 110, 118 and 132 are
all royal psalms,
he advanced the thesis that the New
Year Festival, in
the modified form of Mowinckel's
theory which the
writer is prepared to accept, was
rooted in the pre-
Davidic cultus of Nvylf
lx (R. V.
'God Most High'), and
lIbid. Cf. Sigmund Mowinckel, The
Psalms in Israel's
Worship, 2 vols., translated by
D. R. Ap-Thomas (
Abingdon
Press, 1962), I, 106-92. For Psalm 89 see I, 118,
144, 176. In addition to Mowinckel, see the
views of Weiser
and
Kraus in Harvey H. Guthrie, Jr., Israel's
Sacred Songs:
A Study of Dominant
Themes
(
1966),
pp. 14-21.
2Johnson, "Divine
Kingship and the Old Testament,"
p. 38.
201
that
in the ritual drama the kings or nations of the
earth,
who represented the forces of darkness and death
as
opposed to those of light and life, united in an ef-
fort
to destroy Yahweh's chosen people by slaying the
Davidic king upon whom its vitality and indeed
its sur-
vival as a social body was held
to be dependent.1
After quoting Psalm 89:8-11 [9-12],
"All
of this adds up to the conclusion that the hymns to
Yahweh as King belong
essentially to the New Year's festival
celebrated in
this is not half as serious as
the parallels Gaster conceives.
Only
portions of his total discussion will be cited. He
quotes 89:2-5 and says:
Here
is reproduced, clearly and unmistakably, the
familiar coronation element of the
Ritual Pattern. In
this case, however, it is not the
accession of the god
that is represented but that of a
king--a regular fea-
ture, as we have seen, of the
seasonal festivals. Even
the stereotyped terminology is
preserved . . . we may
aptly compare the Babylonian
coronation formula . . .
and we may recall also that similar
expressions are to
be found in the Canaanite Poem of Baal. . . .3
For verses 6-11 he avers:
1Ibid., p. 39. See also his work, Sacral Kingship in
Ancient Israel, pp. 106-110.
2Bernhard W.
ment, second edition
(Englewood Cliffs,
Hall, Inc., 1966), p. 483. Especially see his
footnote 33
for
other views. Practically the same view is held by Donald
Anders-Richards,
The Drama of the Psalms (
Longman and Todd, 1968), pp. 62-63. Cf. also
Whitley, The
Genius of Ancient Israel, p. 56 and George
Widengren, "King
and
Covenant," JSS, 2:1 (January,
1957), 22.
3Theodore H. Gaster, Thespis: Ritual Myth and Drama
in the Ancient Near East, revised edition,
Harper Torchbooks
(New York: Harper and Row,
Publishers, 1966), p. 447.
202
We
are reminded, therefore, of the scenes in the
ite Poem of Baal (VAB), the Babylonian New Year myth (EE
VI,
72 ff.), and the Hittite Purulitext in which the gods
foregather to acknowledge and pay
homage to theirnew
king.1
He quotes 6-11 and continues:
Then,
just as in the Babylonian New Year Myth (EE V) the
triumph of Marduk over Tiamat issues
in the establishing
of the cosmic order, so here the
psalm passes naturally
to the celebration of Yahweh as lord
and creator of the
world (vv. 12-13).2
At last, he cites verses 14-19 and this remark en-
sures:
The phrasing of these
last lines, it should be noted,
echoes the profession of allegiance
wherewith the gods
acknowledge the sovereignty of
Marduk in the Babylonian
New Year myth (Enuma
Elish VI, 113-14). . .
The view of Engnell is as follows:
Throughout
the ancient Near East, which is characterized
by a more or less homogeneous
cultural level dominated
by the institution and ideology of
the sacral kingship,
the unique characteristic of the New
Year festivals
above all is the central role which
the king plays in
them. He leads the fight against the
power of chaos,
is temporarily defeated,
"dies," and "descends into
Sheol," but "rises"
again and brings home the victory,
ascends the throne, celebrates his hieros gamos, and
"determines
the destinies"--creates fertility and bless-
ing, prosperity and good years--by
certain symbolic
rites; and he does all this in his
capacity as the in-
carnate "youthful god." Since this renewal of
the
1Ibid.
2Ibid., p. 448.
3Ibid. His next page could be consulted for an addi-
tional
parallel to Psalm 89 along with Psalm 93, and espe-
cially
Psalm 74. Similar thoughts are noted by John Gray,
The Canaanites (New York: Frederick A.
Praeger, Publishers,
1964), pp. 136-37, 160.
203
cosmos has the character of a
renewal of the first crea-
tion, it is only natural for the
creation epic to occupy
a prominent place in the New Year
festivals. It is the
cultic text recited in these
festivals. This is best
known from Babylon, where the Enuma elis, the Accadian
creation epic, has this central role
in the akītu, the
New
Year Festival. Texts like Genesis, chapter 1, and
Pss. 74:12 ff., 89:9 ff. allow us to
suppose that there
was an analogous situation in
Israel. As far as this is
concerned, it is no exaggeration to
speak of a common
pattern in the ancient Near Eastern
New Year festivals,
although everyone admits that this
pattern in its com-
plete form is a synthetic
construction and therefore
that, in every reconstruction of
these different forms,
we must allow for local variations
which depend on dif-
ferent factors including national
and religious pecu-
liarities.1
What is this New Year's festival or
akitu festival
to which some see parallels to
Psalm 89? A reading of the
sources already cited and
Engnell above would give anyone a
wide spectrum, therefore, an
additional explanation will be
given here for clarification.
Usually it is explained as a New
Year festival taking
place in April, or, as some
say, in Nisan. It was a week-
long activity somewhat similar
to a Mardi Gras. Allis has
summarized the material and the
views of others very well:
Professor
Hooke has described the religious rites
which dramatized the great events of
the feast and
were supposed to act by sympathetic
magic in bringing
the blessing of the gods on the
people, as follows:
(a) The dramatic
representation of the death and
resurrection of the god.
(b) The recital or
symbolic representation of the
myth of creation.
(c) The ritual combat,
in which the triumph of the
god over his enemies was depicted.
(d) The sacred marriage
(hieros gamos).
lEngnell,
Rigid Scrutiny, p. 182.
204
(e) The triumphal
procession, in which the king
played the part of the god followed by a
train
of lesser gods or visiting deities.
This is, in general, the ritual
pattern which scholars
of the Myth and Ritual school in
Britain and of the
Scandinavian
school are concerned to discover in the
Old Testament as characterizing more
or less fully the
pre-exilic cultus in Israel.
The position taken by
Professor Hooke and the influ-
ential school of thought which he
represents may be
summed up in three brief
propositions:
(1)
Such a cultic pattern as has been described pre-
vailed extensively among the nations of
antiquity,
expecially among those with which Israel
came
more or less closely into contact.
(2) Israel must
originally have shared this pattern.
(3)
Therefore, the scarcity of the evidence of this
sharing to be found in the Old Testament
books
dealing with the pre-exilic period must be
due
to the efforts to eliminate this evidence
made
by the writers and editors of the Old
Testament
books,
as these books have come down to us.1
In one of his replies to the above, Allis states:
It
is to be recognized, of course, that there are
many passages in the old Testament
which speak of God's
sovereign control over the world and
over the men that
are in it (e.g., Ps. 104:5-18, 29;
cf. Ps. 68 and 89;
Isa.
24, 27 and 30, Ezek. 21). But there is no evi-
dence to show that such passages
formed part of a
ritual, an annual ritual,
corresponding to the celebra-
tion of Marduk's triumph over Tiamat
in the Babylonian
New Year celebration.2
The same occasion
occurred at Ugarit according to
Kapelrud:
The autumnal New Year festival was
an important occasion
not only at Ugarit but in most Near
Eastern countries:
the ancient Sumerian zagmug festival and the akitu fes-
tival in Assyria and Babylonia were the same type. The
lAllis, The Old Testament: Its Claims and Critics,
pp.
348-49.
2Ibid., pp. 358-59. See also p. 472,
fn. 44.
205
character of this festival as it was
celebrated at
Ugarit (and correspondingly in
Canaan) is clearly indi-
cated by what we are told about
Baal. It was, in fact,
the drama of Baal which was enacted
in the autumnal New
Year festival. . . .1
The comments of Kapelrud could have
been continued in
order to show the similarities,
but that is not the purpose
here. But in a very interesting
article by Nakata, the ques-
tion is raised on whether akîtu was a New Year festival or
not.2 Throughout the article he discloses all
the problems
and the lack of significant
evidence. Opinions of several
scholars are aired. Though not
thoroughly convinced, he
concludes that akîtu was a New Year festival.3 How can a
parallel be drawn with
something that lacks solid evidence?
In a very excellent and quite extensive discussion,
Oh
relates the biblical facts of Israel's festivals and cal-
endar. At one point he states,
"In the Old Testament there
is no explicit reference to the
'New Year.' The phrase
lArvid S. Kapelrud, The Ras Shamra Discoveries and
the Old Testament, translated by G. W.
Anderson (Norman:
University
of Oklahoma Press, 1963), pp. 67-68. Cf. p. 72.
Also
cf. Engnell, A Rigid Scrutiny, pp.
182-83.
2Ichiro Nakata,
"Problems of the Babylonian Akîtu
Festival," Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of
Columbia University, 1:1 (Fall, 1968),
41-49.
3Ibid., p. 49. Cf. W. G. Lambert, "The Great Battle
of
the Mesopotamian Religious Year: The Conflict in the
Akitu House," Iraq, XXV:2 (Fall, 1963), 189-90 and Thorkild
Jacobsen,
Toward the Image of Tammuz and Other
Essays on
Mesopotamian
History and Culture,
edited by William L. Moran
(Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1970),
p. 36.
206
hnwh
wxr
occurs only once, namely in Ezekiel 40:1."1 The
material that follows is most
valuable, but too lengthy to
quote here. Just following the
discussion on ancient Near
Eastern
festivals he concludes, "The theory therefore is a
mere conjecture in an effort to
find parallels with the Baby-
lonian Akitu festival in
Israel."2 And
Wright concurs:
While the Scandinavian
scholars have thrown consid-
erable light on the theology of the
monarchy and of the
Messiah in Israel, certain
qualifications must be made.
The
initial assumption that virtually all of the Psalms
and much other Old Testament
literature were composed
as ritual material for use in the
cult cannot be proved.
Still
less can it be proved that there was ever an im-
portant cult drama in Israel each
New Year's Day in
which a divine battle myth, borrowed
from Canaan or
Babylon,
was re-enacted with the king taking the role
of the victorious God. Certainly
none of the Old Testa-
ment ritual preserved, including
that of the Day of
Atonement, contains any hint of such a drama.3
The present writer looked very carefully at a Ugar-
itic enthronement ritual4
and saw absolutely nothing that
would even constitute a
comparison to Psalm 89. Moreover,
there is no evidence that the
psalm was employed in a ritual
at the time of its composition
or even for a thousand years
1Pyeng Seh Oh, "The
Kingship of Yahweh as a Motif
for
the Universal Savior in the Old Testament" (unpublished
Doctor's
dissertation, Concordia Seminary, Saint Louis,
1961),
pp. 99-100.
2Ibid., p. 122.
3Wright, The Old Testament Against Its Environment,
p.
66.
4Loren R. Fisher and F.
Brent Knutson, "An Enthrone-
ment Ritual at Ugarit," JNES, 28:3 (July, 1969), 157-67.
207
afterward. To sing a psalm or
to have it as part of a ritual
are two different things, thus
a parallel is out of the ques-
tion. Also, the guidelines laid
out at the commencement of
this chapter eliminate any such
thing.
It appears to some that drawing
parallels to the psalm
is not enough. They want to
charge the poet with borrowing.
The Question of
Borrowing
The problem of borrowing seems totally unnecessary
but because scholars declare
such, space must be given to it
One example for evidence is
Anderson, who writes:
To
many it will seem that Professor Engnell's reconstruc-
tion of the history of Israelite
religion does less than
justice to the evidence of a real
and lasting conflict
between the distinctive Hebraic
tradition and Canaanite
religion. That Israel borrowed much
from the latter is
clear; and it is begging the
question to assume that all
such borrowing involved loss.1
Kapelrud uses a little different
terminology, but he
purports, "The psalms are
firmly rooted in the Yahwistic
faith and the Jerusalem cult;
but this does not mean that
they do not contain many
elements derived from Canaanite re-
ligion."2 And Richardson says:
In
order to ascertain fully whether these affinities
are due to borrowing or common
ancestry a careful exam-
ination along the lines followed in
this study would
need to be made for the entire Near East. However, in
1G. W. Anderson,
"Some Aspects of the Uppsala School
of
Old Testament Study," HTR,
XLII:4 (October, 1950), 252.
2Kapelrud, The Ras Shamra Discoveries and the Old
Testament, p.
81.
208
the
area of language, in the light of many similarities
of
expression, the conclusion that Israel borrowed from
its
neighbors cannot be avoided. Likewise, in the realm
of
ideas and institutions, some things that the Israel-
ites
did and thought were unquestionably derived from
their neighbors.1
Dahood quotes Albright as saying, "Ugarit and
Canaan-
ite Palestine shared a common
literary tradition, which pro-
foundly influenced
Israel."2 And
Dahood does not deny it.
In the
next volume of his three volume work, he remarks con-
cerning the writer of Psalm 74,
"The poet describes this
triumph in mythical language
taken over from the Canaanites,
as we know from Ugaritic
literature."3 On the
same page he
comments on the views of
another scholar and relates his own,
"Willesen unfortunately
overlooks those historical psalms,
such as Ps lxxxix, which
intersperse the description of his-
torical occurrences with
mythological motifs."4 Under
a
heading of "Relationships
Between Ugaritic and Hebrew" in
his last volume, Dahood admits
with another who reviewed his
work, "These volumes
assume that Israelite poetry continues
the poetic tradition of the
Canaanites, borrowing Canaanite
1Henry Neil Richardson,
"Ugaritic Parallels to the
Old
Testament" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Boston
University
Graduate School, 1951), pp. 262-63.
2Dahood, The Anchor Bible--Psalms I, p. XVI. For
Psalm
89 see pp. XXXI, XXXVII, XXXVIII.
3Dahood, Psalms II, p. 205.
4Ibid. In conjunction with this also
note p. 300.
209
poetic techniques, parallelism,
vocabulary, imagery, etc."l
Other citations could be given
to demonstrate this over-
emphasis.
On the other hand, Dalglish argues:
It
is interesting to note that the Hebrew conception
of creation, reflected in Psalms
(lxxiv, lxxxix, civ),
Deutero-Isaiah,
Job and Habakkuk (ch. iii) is more in-
debted to the Sumero-Accadian
materials than to the
Ugaritic (ibid.
pp. 24 f.).2
And the argument could go on. But
the present writer
would ask the question,
"Did Israel borrow from anybody?"
Barr
has written an extensive contribution to the study on
the world views of Israel and
her neighbors.3 The
Canaanite
world view was based on nature
and Israel's was based on
Jehovah.4 Certainly nothing was borrowed here.
Concerning
kingship, McKenzie rightly
contends:
1Dahood, Psalms III, p. XXII. His view, at least
in
part,
stems from his concept of comparative religion and late
date
of the Exodus, pp. XXII-XXVI. Concerning this influence
from
Ugarit, one should read Allis, The Old
Testament: Its
Claims and
Its Critics,
p. 326 and UT, p. 292; but neither
view
proves anything. For other references to borrowing, see
pp.
14, 188 of this dissertation.
2Edward R. Dalglish, Psalm Fifty-One in the Light of
Ancient Near Eastern
Patternism
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962),
p.
272, fn. 111.
3Wayne E. Barr, "A
Comparison and Contrast of the
Canaanite World View and the Old Testament World
View" (un-
published
Doctor's dissertation, Divinity School, University
of
Chicago, 1963), pp. 1-242. The present writer cannot con-
cur
with all of Barr's comments, such as those on Psalm 89:10-
11,
but he does agree with his basic conclusions.
4Ibid., especially see pp. 217-32.
210
That Yahweh is king of Israel is
clear, particularly in
the Pss. And while it is not
necessary at this point of
the paper to define more precisely
the meaning of the
kingship of Yahweh, we shall have to
point out that the
human ruler cannot be understood as
king except as asso-
ciated with Yahweh. Israelite
theology would not permit
the kind of king who appeared in
Mesopotamia and Egypt.
There
was similarity, and we shall point out some similar
features; but Hebrew kingship and
its ideology cannot be
explained as a derivation or a
borrowing from foreign
ideologies because of its connection
with the kingship
of Yahweh, which is a distinctive Hebrew belief.l
In his article Feinberg distinctly
qualifies what he
means in the area of borrowing:
. . . we understand the similarities
to arise, not from
borrowing but from the same
background of world thought.
Though
the Hebrew psalmody will be seen as a
part of a world literature, yet it
must be regarded as
sui
generis. It has the inspiration of the Spirit of
God and a boundless power of its own.2
His last two statements are enough to conclude here,
but the present writer feels
that there is another point to
be made. Hebrew and its cognate
languages form the family of
Semitic languages that go back
to a proto-Semitic language,
so there is no need of
borrowing. Where do scholars get the
idea that every time the poets
of Israel wanted to employ a
word they had to borrow it?
Even when it comes to poetic
structure, it seems quite
evident that Israel did not borrow
here either. Gevirtz points out
that "Lamech's Song to His
lJohn L. McKenzie,
"Royal Messianism," CBQ,
XIX:l
(January,
1957), 26.
2Charles Lee Feinberg,
"Parallels to the Psalms in
Near
Eastern Literature," BS, 104:415
(July-September, 1947),
294-95.
211
Wives"
had fixed pairs, couplets, and parallel structure.1
He claims that Lamech did it
". . , through a clever manipu-
lation of poetic
convention."2 And Gluck
says, "Rime seems
to have always existed in
Semitic literature. . . ."3 Then
he goes on to show the
articulate rhyme arrangement of Gen-
esis 4:23 and many other
ancient biblical poems.4 The
ques-
tion might be raised, "Who
borrowed from whom?" Since this
occurred before the Flood, the
wisest thing to say is that
poetic form had been in
existence before writing.
In the common culture of the ancient Near East,
similar vocabulary, thought
forms, poetic structure, figures
of speech, etc., belonged to
each ethnic group in common.
Hence,
the parallels that crop up everywhere. But the mean-
ing in biblical literature is
often unique because of its
distinctly different
theological and philosophical viewpoint.
As
Bright comments, "That Israel's faith was a unique phe-
nomenon, a thing sui generis in the ancient world, would
be
denied by no informed person
today."5
1S. Gevirtz, Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel,
SAOC
32 ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963). p.'25.
2Ibid.
3J. J. Glück,
"Assonance in Ancient Hebrew Poetry:
Sound
Patterns as a Literary Device," De
Fructu Oris Sui:
Essays in Honour of
Adrianus van Selms,
edited by I. H.
Eybers, et al
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971), p. 71.
4Ibid., pp. 72-75.
5John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament
(Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1967), p. 127.
212
The conclusion may be
oversimplified, but there is no ques-
tion about Ethan borrowing in
composing Psalm 89.
Evaluation
This brief survey of material
manifests the dire need
of some type of guideline in
noting parallels. Especially is
this evident in the realm of
religious thought-structure.
For
example, Yahweh was identified with Baal and Marduk, not
only by name, but even with
regard to action. The exegesis
clearly pointed out that
Yahweh's person, name, character-
istics, and power were
incomparable. Yamauchi explains
Israel's thought-structure
extremely well:
Belief
in the existence of only one God, who is the
Creator
of the world and the giver of all life; the
belief that God is holy and just,
without sexuality or
mythology; the belief that God is
invisible to man ex-
cept under special conditions and
that no graphic nor
plastic representation of Him is
permissible; the belief
that God is not restricted to any
part of His creation,
but is equally at home in heaven, in
the desert, or in
Palestine;
the belief that God is so far superior to all
created things, whether heavenly
bodies, angelic mes-
sengers, demons, or false gods, that
He remains abso-
lutely unique. . . .1
Parallel with a pagan
deity?--IMPOSSIBLE: Since
lEdwin M. Yamauchi,
"Anthropomorphism in Ancient
Religions," BS, 125:497 (January-March, 1968), 44. Also see
Labuschagne,
The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old
Testa-
ment, especially pp. 22,
48-57 and William Foxwell Albright,
Archaeology
and the Religion of Israel, Anchor Books edition
(Garden
City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1968),
p.
115, but one must be extremely careful as to how he eval-
uates
Albright's statements because of his treatment of Psalm
89 on page 124.
213
Psalm
89 has the inspiration of the Spirit of Yahweh, there
is the compelling necessity to
apply literary parallels in
the light of the biblical
hermeneutic. Driver affirms:
We cannot, therefore, believe that
Babylonian hymns
and psalms exercised any real
influence on the work of
the Hebrew Psalmists. A few
Babylonian poems reach a
comparatively high level of thought,
but the vast major-
ity fail to do so; even the latent
monotheism, if it may
be so termed, exhibited by a
Babylonian or Assyrian
psalmist, is at bottom rather the
enthusiasm of a devo-
tee who is striving to exalt his
favourite god or goddess
to a preeminent position in the
pantheon or the vague
speculations of a philosopher rather
than a matter of
vital religion.1
Harrison discusses the term Rahab in
Psalm 89 and
other portions of Scripture and
concludes the paragraph with
this thought:
Again,
it should be observed that although there is an
undeniable literary and linguistic
relationship between
the cuneiform sources from Ugarit
and many sections of
the Hebrew Bible, it remains true
that the character-
istic mythological forms of the
ancient Near East found
no place in Old Testament
literature. As Gordon has re-
marked, the mythology of Canaan
constituted little more
to the Hebrew writers than a
literary background upon
which to draw poetic images.2
In his work, The
Assyrian and Hebrew Hymns of Praise,
Cumming concludes:
Not
only is the background of the hymns relatively
similar in both civilizations, but
the principal features
of Hebrew poetry, the rhythm, the uniform length of
lines,
lGodfrey R. Driver,
"The Psalms in the Light of Baby-
lonian
Research, The Psalmists, edited by D.
C. Simpson
(London:
Oxford University Press, 1926), p. 172.
2R.
K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old
Testament
(Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969),
p. 369.
214
parallelism, arrangement in
strophes, the rhetorical
question, the refrain, the
antiphonal responses, the
introduction into the hymn of the
divine oracle, all
belong to the literature of the
older civilization.
Israel did not invent, but rather
found already in
existence, its literary forms. . . .
However, this certainly
does not mean that the He-
brews were merely passive recipients
of Assyrian Culture.
They
did obviously take over certain literary forms and
devices, but they created a new and
distinct type of
hymn, which begins and ends with the
exhortation to
praise Yahwe.l
The literary parallels certainly
demonstrate that
Psalm 89 was from the same
background of thought structure,
but it has the inspiration of
Yahweh. Therefore it has the
same forms and structures as
other ancient Near Eastern po-
etry, but the pagan poetry did
not exercise any real influ-
ence on the composer. The meaning
of the content in the
Psalm
cannot be compared to any thing outside the biblical
corpus.
Again, the present writer emphasizes
the requirement
of certain limitations in
applying literary parallels. If
not, then anyone can become
like some of the scholars cited
in this work. The present
writer followed their method and
found all kinds of parallels in
ANET and elsewhere that could
be misapplied. One of the major
problems is cited by Schoors:
1Charles
Gordon Cumming, The Assyrian and Hebrew
Hymns of Praise (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1934),
pp.
154-55. What Cumming has to say applies to Ugaritic
material
as well. However, the present writer cannot agree
with all of Cumming's
conclusions on pp. 156-57.
215
As
far as I can see, all parallel phrases have been
discovered already. However,
scholars often quote only
the parallel without analysing its
background. This
way, limiting their attention to the
external similarity
of a Hebrew and a Ugaritic phrase,
they sometimes attach
too much importance to parallels
which are purely acci-
dental. The lack of a thorough
analysis of the back-
ground of an eventual parallel even
induces scholars to
discover parallels where they do not exist.1
Another aspect of these scholars'
problem is that
they made the same mistake that
Albright did in another area:
In
early 1968, I found once again that I had been snared
in the habitual patterns of biblical
criticism. For
many years I had considered Num. 31
as a priestly docu-
ment of late date and had not
troubled to analyze its
content.2
Thus, by not troubling themselves to
analyze the
background and contents of
Psalm 89, the adherents of all-out
parallelism have these marks
against them in addition to the
other three already indicated
in this dissertation: they did
not recognize the uniqueness of
Yahweh, the inspiration of
His
Word, and the direction or guidelines needed for drawing
such parallels.
Summary
This chapter had commenced with some
directions in
applying parallelism. The
significant feature of the dis-
1Schoors, "Literary
Phrases," p. 3.
2William
F. Albright, "Midianite Donkey Caravans,"
Translating
and Understanding the Old Testament: Essays in
Honor of Herbert Gordon
May,
edited by Harry Thomas Frank
and
William L. Reed (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970), p.
197.
216
cussion was theological
thought-structure. In the area of
vocabulary, the application is
only valid if contextual mean-
ing is identical, and then, the
choice of words must be se-
lective. When it came to ideas,
concepts, and institutions,
the literary parallels were
distinctly different because of
the thought and meaning behind
them. The question of Ethan
borrowing was no question at
all. Therefore, it must be con-
cluded that the content of
Psalm 89 is unique in relationship
to the ancient Near East. It
has been proven that the whole
matter of comparative analogies
is a very dangerous one. But
the theological viewpoint
embraced in Psalm 89 was unknown
outside of Israel. In other
words, the literary parallels
from the ancient Near East are
not to be treated as something
more than just literary
parallels.
CHAPTER VI
NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES
The New Testament is to be treated
with the same
respect as Psalm 89 since both
are a part of the biblical
corpus. The only problem here
is not comparisons or paral-
lels, but one of selection. It
seemed like every critical
and some devotional New
Testament commentators had something
to say in reference to Psalm
89. The present writer has
chosen only a few works to
denote the relationship.
Though New Testament verses are not always specified,
some writers view Psalm 89 as a
Christmas Psalm.1 Rodd
says:
This
psalm has been traditionally associated with
Christmas
Day. The covenant promise to David did not
fail, even though the monarchy came
to an end and
Israel
became a subject people. It was fulfilled in
Jesus. . . . 2
Whether a Christmas
Psalm or not, the truth just
cited cannot be denied. Jesus
Christ is related to David at
both ends of the New Testament:
Matthew 1:1 and Revelation
1Cf.
C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (New
York:
Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1958), p. 124 and C. H.
Spurgeon,
"Psalm LXXXIX," The Treasury of
David, 6 vols.
(London:
Marshal, Morgan and Scott Limited, 1950), IV, 37.
2Cyril
S. Rodd, Psalms 73-150, Epworth
Preacher's
Commentaries, edited by Greville P. Lewis
(London: The
Epworth Press, 1964), p. 37.
218
22:16. Also, the analogy of all
the Scripture would verify
the relationship.
But looking at particular references cited by the
scholars, Freed sees the psalm
as having influence on the
thought and language of the
Apostle John.1 The text of John
7:42 and the psalm references
are given as follows:
Jn 7:42
ou]x h[ grafh>
ei#pen o!ti e]k tou? spermatoj
Daui<d, kai> a]po>
Bhqle<em th?j kw<mhj o!pou
h#n Daui<d, e@rketai o[
Xristo<j; . . .
Ps 89:4 f. (LXX B)
w@mosa Dauei>d
t&? dou<l& mou
e!wj tou? ai]w?noj e!toima<sw
to> spe<rma sou
Ps 89:4 f. (MT)
ydbf dvdl ytfbwn
jfrz Nykx Mlvf-df
Ps 89:36 f. (LXX B)
ei] t&? Dauei>d yeu<somai
to>
spe<rma au]tou? ei]j to>n ai]w?na menei?
Ps 89:36 f. (MT)
bzkx dvdl-Mx
hyhy Mlvfl vfrz2
Later in his work Freed again refers
to John 7:42 and
speaks of Psalm 89:4 f. and 36
f. as a part of “. . . the
1Edwin
D. Freed, Old Testament Quotations in the
Gospel of John, Vol. XI, Supplement to Novum Testamentum,
edited
by W. C. Van Unnik, et al (Leiden: E.
J. Brill,
1965),
p. 41. Especially see p. 47 also.
2Ibid.,
pp. 39-40.
219
most likely direct sources. . .
."1 The NASB also has
89:4
in the margin for John 7:42.
Another scholar holds that 89:37 was
the source for
John 12:34. With 89:4-5 and
John 7:42 in his discussion,
Van
Unnik states concerning 89:37, "If it was said that the
'seed of David' would remain
for ever, it did apply a forti-
ori to the 'Son of David' which
is a well-known name for the
Messiah."2 Then
the author relates this to o[ Xristo<j in
John
12:34. Speaking of the psalm passage (89:37), Van Unnik
concludes:
At
any rate this text is far more suitable as the source
for John xii34 and could more easily
be adopted than any
of the others adduced so far. It has
the advantage of
.
. . being a specific text and not a vague reminiscense
. . . offering parallel to the most
important part of
the text. . . . 3
As for Pauline usage, some writers see a direct con-
nection of Psalm 89:20 with
Acts 1:3:22. Among those who do
are Bruce4 and
Harmon.5 Other passages of the psalm are
lIbid., p. 119.
2W. C. Van Unnik,
"The Quotation from the Old Testa-
ment
in John 12:34," Novum Testamentum,
111:3 (July, 1959),
178.
3Ibid., p. 179.
4F.
F. Bruce, Commentary on the Books of Acts
(Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1956), pp. 272-
74.
Other references to the psalm may be found on pp. 78,
202.
5Allan
M. Harmon, "Aspects of Paul's Use of the
Psalms," WTJ, XXXII:l (November, 1969), 22-23.
220
employed by Higgins in
discussing the Christology of the New
Testament.1
And Forbes gives a great deal of attention in
his deliberation to show the
relationship of Psalm 89:28
(Hebrew)
to Hebrews 1:6.2 These are just a few of the sug-
gestions of how Psalm 89 has
influenced some of the New
Testament
writers. Besides New Testament commentaries and
related articles, theology
books and general works, both
conservative and liberal,
contain much to denote the psalm's
bearing on New Testament
thought.
A fair amount has been said about Psalm 89 and
Christ's first advent. The
fullness of the Davidic Covenant
will be realized in Jesus
Christ at His second advent.
Verses
4-5 could relate to Revelation 11:15. Ethan had
asked the question of faith,
"How long, 0 Lord?" (Ps. 89:47
[Hebrew]).
If one may apply the answer of an angel just
prior to that final advent,
". . . there shall be delay no
longer" (Rev. 10:6).3
1A.
J. B. Higgins, "The Old Testament and Some As-
pects
of New Testament Christology," CJT,
VI:6 (July, 1960)
200,
fn. 1; 202.
2John Forbes, Studies on the Book of Psalms (Edin-
burgh:
T. and T. Clark, 1888), pp. 98-108.
3Cf.
Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the
Kingdom
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1959), p. 473.
CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSION
Concerning the four-fold problem
stated at the outset
of this work, it has been
answered in the chapters that fol-
lowed. Archaeological
discoveries from the ancient Near East
have aided much to the
understanding of the background of the
Scripture.
But it was seen in noting the relationship to
Psalm 89 that certain basic
presuppositions were needed. The
observation was made that all
scholars approach this matter
with assumptions, and thus,
interpretation becomes the issue.
In comparing the finds of the
ancient Near East to Psalm 89,
one's assumptions and
interpretation determine the outcome.
It
takes more than a biblically-oriented scholar; it takes
one who has biblical
presuppositions and a hermeneutical
method based on sound
principles.
One of the purposes then was to take
the latter ap-
proach and exegete the psalm
and set forth its truths. The
other main purpose was to see
how materials from the ancient
achieved, the prerequisites to
the exegesis had to be con-
sidered.
Form criticism has made some
contribution to the
psalm in the area of literary
genres, types, and word studies.
221
222
However,
on the whole, it is a discipline that requires bib-
lical assumptions also.
Following this were the questions of
authorship, date, background,
type, and meter. The proposed
suggestion on the first three
was that Ethan had written the
psalm shortly after the
invasion of Shishak in the days of
Rehoboam.
Because of the nature of the composition, it was
considered a royal lament. The
question of meter is yet to
be solved.
Of course the key to the entire
study was the exe-
gesis. It was held that the
poet was singing praises to
Yahweh
for His eternal covenant with David. Then Yahweh's
incomparable person and work
was declared in the realms of
heaven and earth. The author
then brought the effects of
Yahweh's
grace down to his own day. At this point, the truth
is related that the
all-powerful, all-graceful one had made a
covenant with His chosen and
anointed servant, David. The
promises and guarantee were
extended to David's seed. But
obedience was required if the
blessings of the covenant were
to be enjoyed. Then comes the
description of an invasion
that must have been the rod of
chastisement. It was evident
to Ethan that Yahweh had not
restored things to what had
been known and experienced
before. With that, his cry of
faith comes forth as he wants
to see the restoration in his
lifetime. Although the poet did
not see it, expectation is
there because of the reference
to the anointed in the last
verse before the benediction.
223
Several views of certain scholars were refuted
throughout the exegesis. But
these views gave an indication
of what was to follow in the
succeeding chapters.
When it came to comparisons, the
evidence revealed
that some were valid and others
were not. Words and fixed
pairs
could be identical in form but not always in meaning.
Modes
of expression fit into the same category. The reason
much of the aforementioned has
some comparison to the liter-
ature of the ancient Near East
is that the poetic diction,
structure, and style were
stereotyped. Concepts and institu-
tions such as angels, king,
ruling, covenant-treaties, first-
born, etc. can only be
recognized as common matters in the
cultures of the day. The
spiritual and moral significance
of those that belonged to
Parallelism is where the battle really takes place;
this is where the infantry
fights. But this conflict is not
won by a steady offensive and
sturdy defense, it can only be
decided by certain directives
in applying parallels. The
recognition that cultural,
geographical, and linguistical
ties existed was not the
problem in total. For the full
sense of parallelism it is mandatory
that the theological
thought structure of peoples be
considered. Since the
thought structure of Psalm 89
is based entirely on Yahweh,
His
person, inspiration, and work, the literary parallels
from the ancient Near East
should not be considered as con-
taining the same spirit.
Vocabulary, allusions to ideas,
224
direct application of concepts
and institutions were taken
into account and found wanting.
When the smoke had cleared,
it was observed that Psalm 89
was unique. Borrowing was put
into the same category as myth
and ritual--disqualified. The
statement was offered in the
first chapter of this disserta-
tion that the parallels from
the ancient Near East cited by
many scholars would be
evaluated as to their contribution.
It may
be said without question that archaeology has made its
contribution to help one see
that the psalm was certainly in
the ancient Near East, but in
no way can it demonstrate that
the ancient Near East was in
Psalm 89. As indicated, the
Bible
must be seen in its ancient Near Eastern setting, but
as the Word of God, it is also
against the ancient Near East.
Both parallels and fulfillment were
found in the New
Testament for very obvious
reasons. As the son of David,
Jesus
Christ will complete all aspects of Yahweh's covenant
with David. The
thought-structure in the Word remains con-
stant throughout.
It is hoped that this paper will only aid others to
see the uniqueness of Psalm 89
regardless of its setting in
the ancient Near East. Finally,
to clarify one last thing,
the effort was not to try to
defend the Scripture, but clar-
ify its relationship to the
literary finds provided by the
efforts of archaeologists. Rather
than attempt a defense of
the Word of God, the present
writer would much rather join
Spurgeon in the defense of a
lion!
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Texts and Tools
Brown, Francis; Driver, S. R.; and Briggs,
Charles A. A
Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament.
Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1959. Pp. xix + 1127.
Davidson,
A. B. Hebrew Syntax. Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark,
1901. Third edition. Pp. x + 233.
Fisher,
Loren R., ed. "Indices: Texts." Ras Shamra Paral-
lels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible.
Vol. I. Analecta Orientalia 49. Roma: Pontificium
Institutum Biblicum, 1972. Pp. 453-92.
Gardiner, Alan. Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to
the Study of Hieroglyphs. London: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 1969. Third edition,
revised. Pp.
xxxvi + 646.
Gesenius, William. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. Edited and
enlarged by E. Kautzsch. Second
English edition re-
vised from the twenty-eighth German
edition by A. E.
Cowley.
Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1910. Re-
print. Pp. xvi + 598.
Ginsburg,
Christian D. Introduction to the
Massoretico-
Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible. New York:
Ktav Publishing House, Inc., 1966. Pp. LI + 1028.
Gordon, Cyrus H. Ugaritic Textbook. Roma: Pontificium
Institutum Biblicum, 1965. Pp. 556.
Holladay, William L., ed. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic
Lexicon of the Old Testament. Based on the Lexical
Work of L. Koehler and W.
Baumgartner. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1971. Pp. xix + 425.
Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud
Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature.
2 Vols. New York: Pardes Publishing
House, Inc.,
1950.
Kittel,
Rudolf, ed. Biblia Hebraica. Stuttgart:
Privileg.
Württ. Bibelenstalt, 1937.
226
227
Koehler,
Ludwig and Baumgartner, Walter. Lexicon
in Veteris
Testaments Libros. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1958. Pp.
LXVI + 1138.
Liddell, Henry George and Scott, Robert. A Greek-English
Lexicon. Revised by Henry
Stuart Jones and Roderick
McKenzie. Supplement edited by
E. A. Barber. Ox-
ford: The Clarendon Press, 1968. Pp.
xlv + 2042 +
xi + 153.
Mandelkern, Solomon. Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae. Tel
Aviv: Schocken Publishing House,
Ltd., 1967. Pp.
XVIII + 1565.
Mosse,
Walter M. A Theological German Vocabulary.
New York:
Octagon Books, Inc., 1968. Pp. viii + 148.
Pritchard,
James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts.
Prince-
ton: Princeton University Press,
1969. Third
edition. Pp. xxv + 710.
Rahlfs,
Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. 2 Vols.
Stuttgart:
Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935.
Stephens, Ferris J. "Psalm to Marduk."
Ancient Near Eastern
Texts. Edited by James B. Pritchard. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1969. Pp. 389-90.
Williams,
Ronald J. Hebrew Syntax: An Outline.
Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1967. Pp. xii + 122.
Würthwein, Ernst. The Text of the Old Testament. Translated
by Peter R. Ackroyd. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1957.
Pp. X + 173.
“ylwm
Mylht.” “Fp .” tvlvdg
tvxrqm.
Vol. y.
New York:
Pardes Publishing House, Inc., 1951. Pp.
Books
Ackroyd,
Peter R. Israel Under Babylon and Persia.
London:
Oxford University Press, 1970. Pp. xvi + 374.
Ahlstrbm,
G. W. Psalm 89 Eine Liturgie aus dem
Ritual des
Leidenden Königs. Translated by Hans-Karl
Hacker and
Rudolf Zeitler. Lund: Hakan Ohlssons
Boktryckeri,
1959. Pp. 228.
228
Albright,
William Foxwell. Archaeology and the
Religion of
Israel. Anchor Books edition.
Garden City, New
York: Doubleday and Company, Inc.,
1968. Pp. xx +
257.
_________.
From the Stone Age to Christianity.
Anchor Books
edition. Garden City, New York:
Doubleday and Com-
pany, Inc., 1957. Second edition. Pp. viii + 432.
_________.
The Archaeology of Palestine.
Gloucester, Massa-
chusetts: Peter Smith, 1971. Pp. 271.
_________. Yahweh
and the Gods of Canaan. Garden City, New
York: Doubleday and Company, 1968. Pp. xiv + 294.
Alexander,
Joseph A. The Psalms: Translated and
Explained.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, [n.d.].
reprint of 1864 edition. Pp. 564.
Allis, Oswald T. The Old Testament: Its Claims and Its
Critics. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.
Pp. xii + 509.
Alock, George A. Key to the Hebrew Psalter. A Lexicon and
Concordance Combined.
London: Eliot Stock, 1903.
Anderson,
Bernhard W. Understanding the Old
Testament.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1966. Second edition. Pp. xxi + 586.
Anders-Richards,
Donald. The Drama of the Psalms.
London:
Darton, Longman and Todd, 1968. Pp. 122.
Ap-Thomas,
D. R. A Primer of Old Testament Text
Criticism.
Facet
Books--Biblical Series 14. Edited by John
Reumann. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1966. Pp.
viii + 56.
Archer,
Gleason L., Jr. A Survey of Old Testament
Introduc-
tion.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1964. Pp. 507.
Barnes, Albert. Notes on the Old Testament: Psalms. 3
Vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1950.
Barnes, William Emery. The Peshitta Psalter According to
the West Syrian Text: Edited with an Apparatus
Criticus. Cambridge: The University Press, 1904.
Pp. lxi + 227.
229
Baron,
David. Types, Psalms and Prophecies.
New York:
American Board of Missions to the
Jews, Inc., 1948.
Pp. xiii + 363.
Barr, James. Comparative
Philology and the Text of the Old
Testament. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1968. Pp.
ix + 354.
________.
The Semantics of Biblical Language.
London: Ox-
ford University Press, 1961. Pp. x + 313.
Barth, Christoph F. Introduction to the Psalms. Translated
by R. A. Wilson. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons,
1966. Pp. 87.
Berg, J. Frederic. The Influence of the Septuagint upon the
PeSittâ Psalter. Leipzig: W. Drugulin, 1895. Pp.
160.
Bewer, Julius A. The Literature of the Old Testament. New
York:
Columbia University Press, 1940. Revised
edition. Pp. xiv + 464.
Boman,
Thorleif. Hebrew Thought Compared With
Greek. Trans-
lated by Jules L. Moreau.
Philadelphia: The West-
minster Press, 1960. Pp. 224. Second edition.
Borsch,
Frederick Houk. The Son of Man in Myth
and History.
Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1967. Pp. 431.
Bowker, John. The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An
Introduction to Jewish Interpretations of Scripture.
Cambridge:
The University Press, 1969. Pp. xxi +
379.
Box, G. H. Judaism
in the Greek Period. Old Testament
Volume
V of The Clarendon Bible. Edited by
Thomas
Strong, et al.
Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1932.
Boylan, Patrick. The Psalms: A Study of the Vulgate Psalter
in the Light of the Hebrew Text. Dublin: M. H. Gill
and Son, Ltd., 1948. Pp. xi + 404.
Brandon,
S. G. F. Creation Legends of the Ancient
Near East.
London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1963. Pp. xiv + 241.
Briggs, Charles A. and Briggs, Emilie G. The Book of
Psalms. 2 Vols.
International Critical Commentary.
Edited
by Samuel R. Driver and Alfred Plummer. 47
Vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906.
230
Bright,
John. The Authority of the Old Testament.
Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1967. Pp. 272.
Bruce, F. F. Commentary
on the Book of the Acts. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1956.
Pp. 555
________.
The New Testament Development of Old
Testament
Themes. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1968. Pp. 122.
Buttenweiser, Moses. The Psalms: Chronologically Treated
with a New Translation. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1938. Pp. xviii + 911.
Cheyne, T. K. The Book of Psalms. 2 Vols. London: Kegan
Paul, Trench, Trubner and Company, Ltd., 1904.
Clarke, Arthur G. Analytical Studies in the Psalms. Kansas
City, Kansas: Walterick Publishers, 1949. Pp. 372.
Clay,
Albert T. Light on the Old Testament from
Babel.
Philadelphia: The Sunday School
Times Company, 1907.
Pp. xvi + 437.
Clements, R. E. Prophecy and Covenant. Studies in Biblical
Theology, No. 43. London: SCM Press,
Ltd., 1965.
Pp. 135.
Crim, Keith R. The Royal Psalms. Richmond, Virginia: John
Knox Press, 1962.
Cross,
Frank Moore, Jr. Studies in Ancient
Yahwistic Poetry.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1950. Pp. 355.
Cross, Frank Moore, Jr. and Freedman, David
Noel. Early
Hebrew Orthography: A Stud of the
Epigraphic Evi-
dence. American Oriental Series, Volume 36. Edited
by James B. Pritchard. New Haven,
Connecticut:
American Oriental Society, 1952. Pp. 77.
Culley, Robert C. Oral Formulaic Language in the Biblical
Psalms. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967.
Pp. viii + 139.
Cumming, Charles Gordon. The Assyrian and Hebrew Hymns of
Praise. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1934.
Dahood, Mitchell. The Anchor Bible--Psalms I (1-50); Psalms
II
(51-100); Psalms III (101-150). Garden City, New
York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966, 1968, 1970.
231
Dalglish, Edward R. Psalm Fifty-One in the Light of Ancient
Near Eastern Patternism. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962.
Pp. XIV + 305.
Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic
Elements in Pauline Theology. New York: Harper and
Row, Publishers, 1948. Harper
Torchbooks. Pp. xvii
+392.
Delitzsch,
Franz. Biblical Commentary on the Psalms.
3 Vols.
Translated
by Francis Bolton. Grand Rapids: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [n.d.]. Reprint.
Dentan,
Robert C. The Knowledge of God in Ancient
Israel.
New York: The Seabury Press, 1968. Pp. xii + 278.
Dickson, David. The Psalms. 2 Vols. London: The Banner of
Truth Trust, 1959. Reprint. First published in 1653.
Drijvers,
Pius. The Psalms: Their Structure and
Meaning.
Freiburg,
West Germany: Herder K G, 1965. Pp. xii +
269.
Driver, S. R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old
Testament. Cleveland: The World Publishing Company,
1956. Pp. xxiv, xi + 577.
_________.
Notes on the Hebrew Text and the
Topography of the
Books of Samuel. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1966.
Second edition: revised and
enlarged. Reprint. Pp.
xcvi + 390.
Eichrodt,
Walther. Theology of the Old Testament.
2 Vols.
Translated
by J. A. Baker. Philadelphia: The West-
minster Press, 1961.
Eissfeldt,
Otto. The Old Testament: An Introduction.
Trans-
lated by Peter R. Ackroyd. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell,
1966. Pp. xxiv + 861.
Ellenbogen,
Maximilian. Foreign Words in the Old
Testament:
Their Origin and Etymology. London: Luzac and Com-
pany, 1962. Pp. x + 190.
Engnell, Ivan. A Rigid Scrutiny: Critical Essays on the
Old Testament. Translated from the
Swedish and
edited by John T. Willis. With the
Collaboration
of Helmer Ringgren. Nashville:
Vanderbilt Univer-
sity Press, 1969. Pp. xiv + 303.
232
_________.
Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient
Near
East. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1967. Revised edi-
tion. Pp. XXVII + 261.
Forbes,
John. Studies on the Book of Psalms.
Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1888. Pp. x + 276.
Frankfort, Henri. Kingship and the Gods. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1948. Pp. xxiii + 444.
Freed, Edwin D. Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of
John. Vol. XI. Supplement to Novum Testamentum.
Edited by W. C. van Unnik, et al.
Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1965. Pp. XIV + 130.
Freehof,
Solomon B. The Book of Psalms--A
Commentary. Cin-
cinnati: Union of American Hebrew
Congregations,
1938.
Gadd,
C. J. Ideas of Divine Rule in the Ancient
Near East.
London: British Academy, 1948.
Gaster, Theodor H. Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old
Testament. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers,
1969. Pp. lv + 899.
_________.
The Dead Sea Scriptures. Garden City,
New York:
Doubleday
and Company, 1964. Anchor Books: Revised
and enlarged edition. Pp. x + 420.
__________.
Thespis: Ritual, Myth and Drama in the
Ancient
Near East. Revised edition;
Harper Torchbooks. New
York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1966. Pp. 512.
Gevirtz, S. Patterns
in the Early Poetry of Israel. SAOC
32. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1963.
Pp. 97.
Gibson,
John C. L. Textbook of Syrian Semitic
Inscriptions.
Volume
I: Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1971. Pp. viii + 119.
Gilkey, Langdon. Maker of Heaven and Earth: A Study of the
Christian Doctrine of Creation. Garden City, New
York: Doubleday and Company, Inc.,
1965. Anchor
Books edition. Pp. xi + 378.
Girdlestone,
Robert Baker. Synonyms of the Old
Testament.
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company,
1897. Second edition. Reprint. Pp. xiv + 346.
233
Glueck,
Nelson. HESED in the Bible.
Translated by Alfred
Gottschalk.
Cincinnati: The Hebrew Union College
Press, 1967. Pp. ix + 107.
Goldziher, Ignaz. Mythology Among the Hebrews and Its
Historical Development. New York: Cooper
Square
Publishers, Inc., 1967. Pp. xxxv + 457.
Gordon,
Cyrus H. Ugarit and Minoan Crete. New
York: W. W.
Norton & Company, Inc., 1966. Pp. 166.
Graham, William Creighton and May, Herbert
Gordon. Culture
and Conscience: An Archaeological Study of the New
Religious Past in Ancient Israel. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1936. Pp. xxviii + 356.
Gray, George Buchanan. A Critical Introduction to the Old
Testament. London: Gerald Duckworth and Company,
Limited, 1913. Pp. xi + 253.
Gray,
John. The Canaanites. New York:
Frederick A. Praeger,
Publishers, 1964. Pp. 244.
________.
The Krt Text in the Literature of Ras
Shamra.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964. Second
edition. Pp.
x + 87.
_________.
The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra
Texts and
Their Relevance to the Old Testament. Revised edi-
tion. Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum. Vol. V.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965. Pp. xi + 348.
Gray,
Louis H. Introduction to Semitic
Comparative Lin-
guistics. New York: Columbia University' Press,
1934.
Gunkel,
Hermann. The Psalms: A Form-Critical
Introduction.
Translated
by Thomas M. Horner. Facet Books--Bibli-
cal Series XIX. Edited by John
Reumann. Philadel-
phia: Fortress Press, 1967. Pp. xi + 52.
Gunn, George S. God in the Psalms. Edinburgh: The Saint
Andrews Press, 1956. Pp. xii + 216.
Guthrie, Harvey H., Jr. Israel's Sacred Songs: A Study of
Dominant Themes. New York: The Seabury Press, 1966.
Pp. x + 24.1.
Habel,
Norman. Literary Criticism of the Old
Testament.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971. Pp. x + 86.
234
_________.
Yahweh Versus Baal: Conflict of Religious Cul-
tures. New
York: Bookman Associates 1964. Pp. 128.
Hahn,
Herbert F. The Old Testament in Modern
Research. Phil-
adelphia: Fortress Press, 1966. Pp. xii + 332.
Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1969.
Pp. xvi + 1325.
Hengstenberg,
E. W. Commentary on the Psalms. 3
Vols.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1860.
Herbert, A. S. Worship in Ancient Israel. Ecumenical Studies
in Worship, No. 5. Richmond, Virginia: John Knox
Press, 1959. Pp. 51.
Hillers, Delbert R. Covenant: The History of a Biblical
Idea. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1969.
Pp. xii + 294.
_________.
The Anchor Bible: Lamentations.
Garden City, New
York:
Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1972. Pp. XLVIII
+ 116.
__________.
Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament
Prophets.
Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964. Pp. XIX
+ 101.
Holladay,
William L. The Root SUBH in the Old
Testament.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1958. Pp. vii + 191.
Hulst,
A. R. Old Testament Translation Problems.
Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1960. Pp. XV + 261.
Imschoot,
Paul van. Theology of the Old Testament.
Vol. I:
God. Translated by Kathryn
Sullivan and Fidelis
Buck. New York: Desclee Company,
1954. Pp. xiii +
300.
Jack, J. W. The
Ras Shamra Tablets: Their Bearing on the
Old Testament.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1935.
Jacob, Edmond. Theology of the Old Testament. Translated by
A.
W. Heathcote and P. J. Allcock. New York: Harper
and Row, Publishers, 1958. Pp. 368.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. Toward the Image of Tammuz and Other
Essays on Mesopotamian History and
Culture.
Edited
by William L. Moran. Cambridge,
Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1970. Pp. x + 507.
235
Jellicoe,
Sidney. The Septuagint and Modern Study.
Oxford:
The Clarendon Press, 1968. Pp. xix + 424.
Johnson,
Aubrey R. Sacral Kingship in Ancient
Israel. Car-
diff: University of Wales Press,
1967. Pp. xiv +
167.
Kapelrud, Arvid S. The Ras Shamra Discoveries and the Old
Testament. Translated by G. W. Anderson. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press, 1963. Pp. 91.
Kaufmann,
Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel: From
Its Begin-
nings to the Babylonian Exile. Translated and
abridged by Moshe Greenberg.
Chicago: The Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1960. Pp. xii + 486.
Kennedy, James. An Aid to the Textual Amendment of the Old
Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928. Pp.
ix + 255.
Kidner,
Derek. Genesis. Tyndale Old Testament
Commentaries.
Edited
by D. J. Wiseman. Chicago: Inter-Varsity
Press, 1967. Pp. 224.
Kirk, G. S.
Myth: Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and
Other Cultures. Cambridge: University Press, 1970.
Pp. xii + 299.
Kirkpatrick, A. F., ed. The Book of Psalms. Cambridge: The
University Press, 1910. Pp. cxii + 852.
Kissane,
Edward J. The Book of Psalms. 2 Vols.
Dublin:
Browne and Nolan Limited, 1954.
Kitchen,
K. A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament.
Chicago:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1966. Pp. xii + 191.
Klausner, Joseph. The Messianic Idea in Israel: From Its
Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah. London:
George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1956. Pp. xv + 543.
Kline,
Meredith G. By Oath Consigned. Grand
Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans, 1968. Pp. 110.
Knox, John. Myth
and Truth: An Essay on the Language of
Faith. Charlottesville: The University Press of
Virginia, 1964. Pp. vii + 87.
236
Koch,
Klaus. The Growth of the Biblical
Tradition: The
Form-Critical Method. Translated from the
2nd
German edition by S. M. Cupitt. New
York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1969. Pp. xv + 233.
Kuhl,
Curt. The Old Testament: Its Origins and
Composition.
Translated by C. T. M. Herriott.
Richmond, Virginia:
John Knox Press, 1961. Pp. viii + 354.
Labuschagne, C. J. The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old
Testament. Vol. V. Pretoria Oriental Series.
Edited by A. van Selms. Leiden: E.
J. Brill, 1966.
Pp. XI + 164.
Lambert, W. G. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: The
Clarendon Press, 1960. Pp. xvi + 358, plates 75.
Leslie,
Elmer A. The Psalms. Nashville:
Abingdon Press,
1949. Pp. 448.
Leupold,
H. C. Exposition of the Psalms. Grand
Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1959. Pp. 1010.
Lewis,
C. S. Reflections on the Psalms. New
York: Har-
court, Brace and Company, 1958. Pp. 151.
Lipinski,
E. La Royauté De Yahwé Dans La Poésie Et
Le Culte
De
L'Ancien Israel. Brussels: Paleis der Academien-
Hertogsstraat I, 1965. Pp. 560.
Mansoor,
Menahem. The Thanksgiving Hymns. Vol.
III.
Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah.
Edited
by J. Van Der Ploeg. Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans,
1961. Pp. xi + 227.
McCarthy, D. J. Treaty and Covenant: A Study in the Ancient
Oriental Documents and in the Old
Testament.
Ana-
lecta Biblica, 21. Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Insti-
tute, 1963.
McClain,
Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom.
Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1959. Pp. xvi + 556.
McFadyen,
John Edgar. The Messages of the Psalmists.
London:
James Clarke and Company, 1904. Pp. xxii + 334.
_________.
The Psalms in Modern Speech and
Rhythmical Form.
[n.d.]. Second edition. Pp. xiv + 248.
237
McKenzie,
John L. Myths and Realities: Studies in
Biblical
Theology. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company,
1963. Pp. xvi + 285.
Mendenhall, George E. Law and Covenant in Israel and the
Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: The Biblical
Colloquium, 1955.
Morris,
Leon. The Gospel According to John.
The New Inter-
national Commentary on the New
Testament. Edited by
F.
F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publish-
ing Company, 1971. Pp. xi + 936.
Moscati, Sabatino, et al. An Introduction to the Comparative
Grammar of the Semitic Languages:
Phonology and
Morphology. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1969.
Pp. VIII + 185.
Mowinckel,
Sigmund. He That Cometh. Translated
by G. W.
Anderson. New York: Abingdon Press,
[n.d.]. Pp.
xvi + 528.
__________. The Old
Testament as Word of God. Translated by
Reidar B. Bjornard. Nashville:
Abingdon Press,
1959. Pp. 144.
__________.
The Psalms in Israel's Worship. 2
Vols. Trans-
lated by D. R. Ap-Thomas. New York:
Abingdon Press,
1962.
Muilenburg, James. The Way of Israel: Biblical Faith and
Ethics. Vol. V. Religious Perspectives. Edited by
Ruth Nanda Ashen. New York: Harper
and Brothers
Publishers, 1961. Pp. 158.
North, Christopher R. The Old Testament Interpretation of
History. London: The Epworth
Press, 1946. Pp. xiii
+ 210.
Oesterley,
W. 0. E. The Psalms: Translated with
Text-
Critical and Exegetical Notes. London: S. P. C. K.,
1962. Reprint. Pp. xi + 599.
Ottley,
Robert Lawrence. Aspects of the Old
Testament.
London: Longmans, Green, and
Company, 1898. Pp.
xix + 448.
Patten,
Donald W. The Biblical Flood and the Ice
Epoch.
Seattle: Pacific Meridian Publishing
Company, 1966.
Pp. xvi + 336.
238
Patton,
John Hasting. Canaanite Parallels in the
Book of
Psalms. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1944.
Pp. vii + 59.
Pederson,
Johs. Israel: Its Life and Culture.
Vols. III-IV.
London: Oxford University Press, 1940.
Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come. Findlay, Ohio: Dunham
Publishing Company, 1958. Pp. xxx + 633.
Perowne, J. J. Stewart. The Book of Psalms. 2 Vols. Grand
Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1966. Revised
edition.
Pfeiffer, Robert H. Introduction to the old Testament. New
York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1948. Pp. xii + 909.
Phillips,
0. E. Exploring the Messianic Psalms.
Philadel-
phia: Hebrew Christian Fellowship,
Inc., 1967. Pp.
318.
Podechard, E. Le
Psautier. 2
Vols. Lyon: Facultes
Catholiques, 1949.
Pope, Marvin H. The Anchor Bible--Job. Garden City, New
York: Doubleday and Company, Inc.,
1965. Pp.
LXXXII + 293.
Pritchard,
James B. Archaeology and the Old
Testament.
Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1958. Pp.
xii + 263.
Rad,
Gerhard von. Old Testament Theology.
2 Vols. Trans-
lated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York:
Harper and
Row, Publishers, 1962.
Rankin, 0. S. Israel's Wisdom Literature: Its Bearing on
Theology and the History of Religion. New York:
Schocken Books, 1969. Pp. xvi + 271.
Rappoport,
A. S. The Psalms in Life, Legend and
Literature.
London: The Century Press, 1935.
Reich,
Max Isaac. Studies in the Psalms of
Israel. Harris-
burg, Pa.: Christian Publications,
Inc., 1942.
Second edition. Pp. 118.
Ringgren,
Helmer. The Faith of the Psalmists.
Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1963. Pp. xii + 138.
239
Robert,
André and Feuillet, André. Introduction
to the Old
Testament. 2 Vols. Translated by Patrick W. Skeham,
et
al. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Com-
pany, Inc., 1970. Image Books edition.
Robinson, H. Wheeler. The Old Testament: Its Making and
Meaning. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1937.
Pp. 247.
Rodd,
Cyril S. Psalms 73-150. Epworth
Preacher's Commen-
taries. Edited by Greville P. Lewis.
London: The
Epworth Press, 1964. Pp. 134.
Rogers, Robert William, ed. Cuneiform Parallels to the Old
Testament. New York: The Abingdon Press, 1926.
Second edition. Pp. XXIV + 567.
__________.
The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria.
New York:
Eaton and Mains, 1908. Pp. XIV + 235.
Rotherham,
J. B. Studies in the Psalms: Bible Study
Text-
book Series. 2 Vols. Joplin, Missouri: College
Press, 1970.
Rowley,
H. H. Worship in Ancient Israel: Its Form
and Mean-
ing. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967. Pp. xv +
307.
Russell,
D. S. The Jews From Alexander to Herod.
London:
Oxford University Press, 1967. Pp. xiii + 329.
_________.
The Method and Message of Jewish
Apocalyptic.
Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1964. Pp. 464.
Ryrie,
Charles Caldwell. Dispensationalism
Today. Chicago:
Moody Press, 1965. Pp. 221.
Sabourin,
Leopold. The Psalms: Their Origin and
Meaning.
2 Vols. Staten Island, New York: Alba House, 1969.
Samuel,
E. Bendor. The Prophetic Character of the
Psalms.
London: Pickering and Inglis, [n.d.]. Pp. 206.
Scroggie,
W. Graham. The Psalms. 4 Vols.
London: Dicker-
ing and Inglis, Ltd., 1948. Revised edition.
Skehan,
Patrick W. Studies in Israelite Poetry
and Wisdom.
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly
Monograph Series I.
Washington,
D. C.: The Catholic Biblical Associa-
tion of America, 1971. Pp. xii + 265.
240
Smith,
J. M. Powis. The Psalms. Chicago: The
University of
Chicago Press, 1926. Pp. xiii + 274.
Snaith,
Norman H. The Distinctive Ideas of the
Old Testament.
New York: Shocken Books, 1964. Pp. 194.
Sorg,
Dom Rembert. Hesed and Hasid in the
Psalms. St. Louis:
Pio Decimo Press, 1953. Pp. 63.
Stadelmann, Luis I. J. The Hebrew Conception of the World.
Analecta Biblica, 39. Rome: Biblical
Institute
Press, 1970. Pp. X + 207.
Thiele,
Edwin R. The Mysterious Numbers of the
Hebrew Kings.
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company,
1965. Revised edition. Pp. xxvi + 232.
Tromp, Nicholas J. Primitive Conceptions of Death and the
Nether World in the Old Testament. Biblica
et
Orientalia,
N. 21. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1969. Pp. XXIV + 241.
Tsevat, Matitiahu. A Study of the Language of the Biblical
Psalms. Journal of Biblical
Literature Monograph
Series, Volume IX. Philadelphia:
Society of Bibli-
cal Literature, 1955. Pp. viii + 153.
Tucker,
Gene M. Form Criticism of the Old
Testament. Phila-
delphia: Fortress Press, 1971. Pp. xii + 84.
Vaux, Roland de. Ancient
Israel. 2
Vols. New York:
Hill Book Company, 1965.
Vriezen, Th. C. The Religion of Ancient Israel. Philadel-
phia: The Westminster Press, 1967. Pp. 328.
Walters
(formerly Katz), Peter. The Text of the
Septuagint:
Its Corruptions and Their Emendation. Edited by D.
W. Gooding.
1973. Pp. xx + 419.
Weaver,
Horace R. The Everlasting Covenant.
Graded Press, 1965. Pp. 231.
Weiser, Artur. The Psalms: A Commentary. Translated by
Herbert
Hartwell. The Old Testament Library. Phil-
adelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962. Pp. 841.
241
Wernberg-Moller,
P. The Manual of Discipline. Vol. I.
Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah.
Edited
by J. Van Der Ploeg.
Pp. 180.
Westermann,
Claus. The Old Testament and Jesus
Christ.
Translated
by Omar Kaste.
Publishing House, 1968. Pp. 80.
__________. The
Praise of God in the Psalms. Translated by
Keith R. Crim. Richmond,
1965. Pp. 172.
Whitley,
C. F. The Genius of Ancient Israel.
Philo Press, 1969. Pp. X+ 179.
Widengren,
George. The Accadian and Hebrew Psalms of
Lamen-
tation as Religious Documents: A Comparative Study.
371.
Wilch, John R. Time and Event: An Exegetical Study of the
Use of ‘eth in the Old Testament in
Comparison to
Other Temporal Expressions in Clarification of the
Concept of Time.
XV + 180.
Robert Dick. A
Scientific Investigation of the Old
Testament. Revisions by E. J. Young.
Moody Press, 1959. Pp. 194.
Wright,
G. Ernest. The Old Testament Against Its
Environ-
ment. Studies in Biblical Theology, No. 2. London:
SCM Press, Ltd., 1950. Pp. 116.
Yadin, Yigael. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light
Against the Sons of Darkness. Translated by Batya
and Chaim Rabin. London: Oxford
University Press,
1962. Pp. xix + 387.
Articles in Books
Albright,
William F. "Midianite Donkey Caravans." Trans-
lating and Understanding the Old Testament: Essays
in Honor of Herbert Gordon May. Edited by Harry
Thomas Frank and William L. Reed.
Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1970. Pp. 197-205.
242
Allegro,
John M. "Florilegium." Discoveries
in the Judean
Desert of Jordan V: Qumran Cave 4:1(4Q158-4Q186).
Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1968. Pp. 53-57.
Baumgartel,
Friedrich. "The Hermeneutical Problem of the Old
Testament."
Translated by Murray Newman. Essays on
Old Testament Hermeneutics. Edited by Claus
Wester-
mann. English translation edited by
James Luther
Mays. Richmond, Virginia: John Knox
Press, 1963.
Pp. 134-59.
Bright,
John. "Modern Study of Old Testament Literature."
The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays
in
honor of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by G.
Ernest
Wright. Garden City, New York: Doubleday
and Company, Inc., 1961. Pp. 13-31.
Bronner,
Leah. "The Rechabites, a Sect in Biblical Times."
De Fructu Oris Sui: Essays in Honour of
Adrianus
van Seims. Edited by I. H. Eybers, et al. Vol. IX.
Pretoria
Oriental Series. Edited by A. van Selms.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971. Pp. 6-16.
Bruce, F. F. "Rahab." The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by
J.
D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub-
lishing Company, 1962. P. 1074.
Bultmann, Rudolf. "'e@leoj,
e]lee<w."
Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel.
Translator
and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1964.
Vol. II, pp. 477-85.
Burney, C. F. "Notes on the Books of
Kings." The Book of
Judges and Notes on the Hebrew Text
of the Books of
Kings. Revised. The Library of Biblical Studies.
Edited
by H. M. Orlinsky. New York: Ktav Publishing
House, 1970. Pp. xlviii + 384.
Driver,
G. R. "Abbreviations in the Massoretic Text."
Textus: Annual of the Hebrew University
Bible
Project. Vol. I. Edited by C. Rabin. Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, 1960. Pp. 112-31.
_________.
"Another Little Drink--Isaiah 28:1-22." Words
and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton
Thomas. Cambridge: The University Press, 1968.
Pp. 47-67.
243
__________.
"Glosses in the Hebrew Text." L'Ancien Testament
et L'Orient.
Louvain: Publications Universitaires,
1957. Pp. 123-61.
__________ . "The Psalms in the Light of Babylonian
Research."
The
Psalmists. Edited by D. C. Simpson. London:
Oxford University Press, 1926. Pp. 109-175.
Eaton, J. H. "The King as God's
Witness." Annual of the
Swedish Theological Institute.. Vol. VII. Edited
by Hans Kosmala. Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1970. Pp.
25-40.
Eerdmans,
B. D. "The Hebrew Book of Psalms." Oudtesta-
mentische Studiën, Deel IV. Edited by P. A. H.
DeBoer. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1947. Pp. 1-428.
Eissfeldt, Otto. "Die Psalmen als
Geschichtsquelle." Near
Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright.
Edited by Hans Goedicke. Baltimore:
The Johns
Hopkins Press, 1971. Pp. 97-112.
Fausset,
A. R. "Psalm LXXXIX." A
Commentary: Critical,
Experimental and Practical on the
Old and New Testa-
ments. By R. Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and D. Brown.
Vol.
III, Job--Isaiah. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerd-
mans Publishing Company, 1961. Pp. 292-97.
Fensham, F. Charles. "Father and Son as
Terminology for
Treaty
and Covenant." Near Eastern Studies
in Honor
of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by Hans
Goedicke.
Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins Press, 1971. Pp. 121-
35.
Fohrer, Georg. "Twofold Aspects of Hebrew
Words." Words
and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton
Thomas. Cambridge: The University Press, 1968.
Pp. 95-103.
Freedman,
David Noel. "Archaeology and the Future of Bibli-
cal Studies." The Bible in Modern Scholarship.
Edited by J. Philip Hyatt.
Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1965. Pp. 294-312.
Frost, Stanley Brice. "Apocalyptic and
History." The Bible
in Modern Scholarship. Edited by J. Philip Hyatt.
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1965. Pp. 98-113.
244
Glück,
J. J. "Assonance in Ancient Hebrew Poetry: Sound
Patterns as a Literary Device."
De Fructu Oris Sui:
Essays in Honour of Adrianus van
Selms.
Edited by
I. H.
Eybers, et al. Vol.
IX. Pretoria Oriental
Series. Edited by A. van Selms. Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1971. Pp. 69-84.
Gordon, C. H. "Leviathan: Symbol of
Evil." Biblical
Motifs,
Origins and Transformations. P. W. Lown
Institute of Advanced Jewish
Studies, Brandeis Uni-
versity, Studies and Texts, Vol.
III. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press, 1966. Pp.
1-9.
Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. "Theory and
Practice of Textual
Criticism: The Text-critical Use of
the Septuagint."
Textus: Annual of the Hebrew University
Bible
Project. Vol. III. Edited by C. Rabin. Jerusalem:
Magnes Press, 1963. Pp. 130-58.
Gottwald,
N. K. "Poetry, Hebrew." The
Interpreter's Dic-
tionary of the Bible. Four Volumes. New York:
Abingdon Press, 1962. Volume K-Q, pp. 829-38.
Greenfield,
Jonas C. "Scripture and Inscription: The Lit-
erary and Rhetorical Element in Some
Early Phoeni-
cian Inscriptions." Near Eastern Studies in Honor
of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by Hans
Goedicke. Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins Press,
1971. Pp. 253-68.
Harrelson, Walter. "The Significance of
Cosmology in the
Ancient
Near East." Translating and
Understanding
the Old Testament: Essays in Honor of Herbert
Gordon May. Edited by Harry Thomas
Frank and
William L. Reed. Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1970.
Pp. 237-52.
Hempel, J. "Psalms, Book of." Interpreters Dictionary of
the Bible. Four Volumes. New York: Abingdon
Press, 1962. Vol. K-Q, pp. 942-58.
Hicks,
R. Lansing. "Form and Content: A Hermeneutical
Application."
Translating and Understanding the
Old Testament: Essays in Honor of Herbert Gordon
May. Edited by Harry Thomas Frank and William L.
Reed. Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1970. Pp. 304-
34.
245
Hooke,
S. H. "Myth and Ritual: Past and Present." Myth,
Ritual, and Kingship. Edited by S. H. Hooke.
Ox-
ford: The Clarendon Press, 1958. Pp. 1-21.
Hummel, Horace D. "The Influence of
Archaeological Evidence
on the Reconstruction of Religion in
Monarchical
Israel." A Symposium on Archaeology and Theology.
Saint-Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 1970. Pp.
30-45.
Johnson,
A. R. "Hebrew Conceptions of Kingship." Myth,
Ritual, and Kingship. Edited by S. H. Hooke.
Ox-
ford: The Clarendon Press, 1958. Pp. 204-35.
_________.
"The Psalms." The Old Testament
and Modern Study.
Edited
by H. H. Rowley. London: Oxford University
Press, 1961. Pp. 162-209.
Kapelrud, Arvid. "Scandinavian Research in
the Psalms after
Mowinckel."
Annual of the Swedish Theological Insti-
tute. Vol. IV. Edited by Hans Kosmala. Leiden: E.
J. Brill, 1965. Pp. 74-90.
Lindars,
Barnabas. "Torah in Deuteronomy." Words
and Mean-
ings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas.
Cambridge: The University Press, 1968. Pp. 117-36.
M'Caw, Leslie S. and Motyer, J. A. "The
Psalms." The New
Bible Commentary Revised. Edited by D. Guthrie,
et
al. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
1970. Pp. 446-
547.
M'Clintock,
John and Strong, James. "Ethan." (and) "Ez-
rahite." Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and
Ecclesiastical Literature. 12 Vols. Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1969. Reprint.
Vol. III, pp.
317-18; 439-40.
_________.
"Psalms, Book of." Cyclopaedia
of Biblical, Theo-
logical, and Ecclesiastical Literature. 12 Vols.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1969. Reprint. Vol.
VIII, pp. 746-57.
McCullough,
W. Stewart. Exegesis of Psalm "89." The Inter-
preter's Bible. 12 Vols. New York: Abingdon Press,
1955. Vol. IV, pp. 478-86.
246
Mendenhall,
George E. "Biblical History in Transition." The
Bible and the Ancient Near East:
Essays in honor of
William Foxwell Albright. Edited by G. Ernest
Wright.
Garden City, New York: Doubleday and
Company, Inc.,
1961. Pp. 32-53.
Moll, Carl Bernard. "The Psalms."
Translated with additions
by Charles A. Briggs, et al. Lange's Commentary on
Holy Scriptures. 12 Vols. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan
Publishing House, 1960. Revised
edition. Vol. 5,
pp. 1-679.
Moran, William L. "The Hebrew Language in
its Northwest
Semitic
Background." The Bible and the
Ancient Near
East: Essays in honor of William Foxwell Albright.
Edited by G. Ernest Wright. Garden
City, New York:
Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1961. Pp. 54-72.
Mowinckel, Sigmund. "Psalms and
Wisdom." Wisdom in Israel
and in the Ancient Near East. Edited by M. Noth and
D.
Winton Thomas. Vol. III. Supplements to
Vetus
Testamentum. Edited by G. W. Anderson, et al.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969. Pp. 205-24.
__________. “lHawa,” Hebrew and Semitic Studies Presented to
Godfrey Rolles Driver. Edited by D. Winton Thomas
and W. D. McHardy. Oxford: The
Clarendon Press,
1963. Pp. 95-103.
Muilenburg,
James. "A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh."
Studia Biblica et Semitica. Wageningen:
H. Veenman
en Zonen, 1966. Pp. 233-51.
__________.
"The Terminology of Adversity in Jeremiah."
Translating
and Understanding the Old Testament:
Essays in Honor of Herbert Gordon
May.
Edited by
Harry Thomas Frank and William L.
Reed. Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1970. Pp. 42-63.
Murphy,
Roland E. "Psalms." The Jerome
Bible Commentary.
Edited by Raymond E. Brown, et al.
Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. Pp. 569-602.
Nichol,
Francis D., ed. "Psalm 89." The
Seventh-day Ad-
ventist Bible Commentary. 7 Vols. Washington,
D.C.:
Review and Herald Publishing
Association, 1954. Vol.
3, pp. 836-40.
247
Payne,
J. Barton. "The B'rith of Yahweh." New Perspectives
on the Old Testament. Edited by J. Barton Payne.
Waco,
Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1970. Pp. 240-
64.
Poteat,
Edwin McNeill. Exposition of Psalm "89." The Inter-
preter's Bible. 12 Vols. New York: Abingdon Press,
Vol. IV, pp. 478-86.
"Psalm
Eighty-Nine." The Midrash on Psalms.
2 Vols. Trans-
lated by William G. Braude. Yale Judaica Series.
Vol.
XIII. Edited by Leon Nemoy. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1959. Vol. II, pp. 82-83.
Ridderbos,
N. H. "The Psalms: Style-Figures and Structure."
Studies on Psalms. Deel XIII. Oudtestamentische
Studiën.
Edited by P. A. H. DeBoer. Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1963. Pp. 43-76.
Robinson, Theodore H. "The God of the
Psalmists." The
Psalmists. Edited by D. C.
Simpson. London: Oxford
University Press, 1926. Pp. 23-44.
Rohr Sauer, Alfred von. "The Meaning of
Archaeology for the
Exegetical
Task." A Symposium on Archaeology
and
Theology. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House,
1970. Pp. 7-29.
Roth, Cecil, ed. "Ethan the Ezrahite."
The Standard Jewish
Encyclopedia. Garden City, New York:
Doubleday and
Company, Inc., 1966. P. 642.
Sanders, James A. "Cave 11 Surprises and
the Question of
Canon." New Directions in Biblical Archaeology.
Edited
by David Noel Freedman and Jonas C. Green-
field. Anchor Books edition. Garden
City, New York:
Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1971. Pp. 113-30.
__________.
"Hymn to the Creator." Discoveries
in the Judean
Desert of Jordan IV: The Psalms
Scroll of Qumran
Cave 11 (11QPsa). Oxford: The Clarendon
Press,
1965. Pp. 89-91.
__________.
"Nos. I, II, and III of the Five Syriac Apocryphal
Psalms."
Discoveries in the Judean Desert of
Jordan
IV: The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa).
Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1965. Pp. 53-76.
248
Sarna,
Nahum M. "Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exe-
gesis." Biblical and Other Studies. Edited by
Alexander
Altmann. Philip W. Lown Institute of Ad-
vanced Judaic Studies, Brandeis
University: Studies
and Texts: Volume I. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1963. Pp. 29-46.
Sarna,
Nahum M., et al. "Psalms, Book
of." Encyclopaedia
Judaica. 16 Vols. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing
House, Ltd., 1971. Vol. 13, pp. 1303-34.
Schoors,
Antoon. "Literary Phrases." Ras
Shamra Parallels:
The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible. Vol. I.
Analecta Orientalia 49. Edited by Loren R. Fisher.
Roma:
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1972. Pp.
1-70.
Segert,
Stanislav. "The Ugaritic Texts and the Textual Crit-
icism of the Hebrew Bible." Near Eastern Studies in
Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by Hans
Goedicke. Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins Press, 1971.
Pp. 413-20.
Shunary, Jonathan. "Avoidance of
Anthropomorphism in the
Targum
of Psalms." Textus: Annual of the
Hebrew
University Bible Project. Vol. V. Edited by S.
Talmon.
Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1966. Pp. 133-
44.
Smick,
Elmer B. "Ugaritic and the Theology of the Psalms."
New
Perspectives on the Old Testament. Edited by J.
Barton Payne. Waco, Texas: Word
Books, Publisher,
1970. Pp. 104-16.
Snijders,
L. A. "The Adjective rzA in the Ketubim." Oud-
testamentische Studien. Edited by P. A. H. DeBoer.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1954. Pp. 60-110.
Spurgeon, C. H. "Psalm LXXXIX." The Treasury of David. 6
Vols. London: Marshall, Morgan and
Scott Limited,
1950. Vol. IV, pp. 23-59.
__________.
"The People's Christ." The New
Park Street Pul-
pit. Volume I. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1963. American
edition. Pp. 77-84.
Vaux,
R. de. "Le Roi d'Israël, Vassal de Yahvé." Bible et
Orient.
Paris: Les Editions Du Cerf, 1967. Pp.
287-301.
249
Widengren,
George. "Early Hebrew Myths and Their Interpreta-
tion." Myth, Ritual, and Kingship. Edited by S. H.
Hooke.
Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1958. Pp. 149-
203.
Williams,
Ronald J. "Some Egyptianisms in the Old Testa-
ment." Studies in the Honor of John
A. Wilson.
SAOC, No. 35. Chicago: The
University of Chicago
Press, 1969. Pp. 93-98.
Woude,
A. S. van der. "Zwei Alte Cruces
im Psalter."
Studies on Psalms. Deel XIII. Oudtestamentische
Studiën. Edited by P. A. H. DeBoer. Leiden: E.
J. Brill, 1963. Pp. 131-36.
Woudstra, Marten H. "The Tabernacle in
Biblical-Theological
Perspective." New Perspectives on the Old Testament.
Edited by J. Barton Payne. Waco,
Texas: Word Books,
Publisher, 1970. Pp. 88-103.
Yates,
Kyle M., Jr. "Psalm 89." The
Wycliffe Bible Commen-
tary. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F.
Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962. Pp. 527-28.
Zimmerli, Walther. "Promise and
Fulfillment." Translated
by James Wharton. Essays on Old Testament Hermeneu-
tics. Edited by Claus Westermann. English transla-
tion edited by James Luther Mays.
Richmond, Virginia:
John Knox Press, 1963. Pp. 89-122.
Periodicals
Albright, W. F. "A Catalogue of Early
Hebrew Lyric Poems
(Psalm
LXVIII)." Hebrew Union College
Annual, XXIII,
Part 1 (1950-1951), 1-39.
Alexander, P. S. "The Targumim and Early
Exegesis of 'Sons
of God' in Genesis 6." Journal of Jewish Studies,
23:1 (Spring, 1972), 60-71.
Allegro,
J. M. "Fragments of a Qumran Scroll of Escha-
tological Midrasim." Journal of Biblical Literature,
LXXVII:IV (December, 1958), 350-54.
Anderson, George W. "Enemies and Evildoers
in the Book of
Psalms." Bulletin of John Rylands Library, 48:1
(Autumn, 1965), 18-29.
250
__________.
"Some Aspects of the Uppsala School of Old Testa-
ment Study." The Harvard Theological Review, XLII:4
(October, 1950), 239-56.
Archer, Gleason L., Jr. "Old Testament
History and Recent
Archaeology
From Abraham to Moses." Bibliotheca
Sacra,
127:505 (January-March, 1970), 3-25.
Barker,
K. L. Review of New Perspectives on the
Old Testa-
ment. Edited by J. Barton Payne. Bibliotheca Sacra,
129:514 (April-June, 1972), 153-54.
Barr, James. "The Meaning of 'Mythology' in
Relation to the
Old Testament." Vetus Testamentum, IX:l (January,
1959), 1-10.
Becker, Joachim. Review of Dynastic Oracle and Suzerainty
Treaty by Philip J. Calderone. Biblica, 50:1 (1969),
111-15.
Birney,
Leroy. "An Exegetical Study of Genesis 6:1-4."
Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society,
XIII:I (Winter, 1970), 43-52.
Blenkinsopp,
J. "Stylistics of Old Testament Poetry."
Biblica, 44:3
(1963), 352-58.
Boling,
Robert G. "'Synonymous' Parallelism in the Psalms."
Journal of Semitic
Studies, V:3 (July, 1960), 221-55.
Brown, Harold O. J. "Editor's Page." Themelios, 7:2-3
(1970), 30-31.
Brueggemann, Walter. "Amos' Intercessory
Formula." Vetus
Testamentum, XIX:4
(October, 1969), 385-99.
Byington, Steven T. "A Mathematical
Approach to Hebrew
Meters." Journal of Biblical Literature, LXVI (1947),
63-77.
Carroll,
R. P. "Psalm LXXVIII: Vestiges of a Tribal Po-
lemic." Vetus Testamentum, XXI:2 (April, 1971),
133-50.
Castellino, G. Review of Die Psalmen nach dem hebräischen
Grundtext by Bernard Bonkamp. Vetus Testamentum,
111:2 (April, 1953), 203-08.
Childs, Brevard S. "A Traditio-Historical
Study of the Reed
Sea Tradition." Vetus Testamentum, XX:4 (October,
1970), 406-18.
251
Cooke,
Gerald. "The Israelite King as Son of God." Zeit-
schrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 73
(1961), 202-25.
Coppes, Leonard J. "An Introduction to the
Hermeneutic of
Hermann Gunkel." The Westminster Theological Journal,
XXXII:2 (May, 1970), 148-78.
Crenshaw, J. L. "Popular Questioning of the
Justice of God
in Ancient Israel." Zeitschrift fur die Alttesta-
mentliche Wissenschaft, 82:3
(1970), 380-95.
Crim, Keith R. "Translating the Poetry of
the Bible." The
Bible Translator, 23:1
(January, 1972), 102-09.
Cross, Frank M., Jr., and Freedman, David Noel.
"The Song of
Miriam." Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 14:4
(October, 1955), 237-50.
Dahood,
Mitchell. "Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography VII."
Biblica, 50:3
(1969), 337-56.
_________.
"The Value of Ugaritic for Textual Criticism."
Analecta
Biblica, 10 (Rome, 1959), 26-36.
DeQueker,
L. "Les Qedôsîm du Ps. lxxxix à la Lumiére des
Croyances Semitiques." Ephemerides Theologicae
Lovanienses, 39 (1963), 469-84.
DeVault, Joseph J. A Review of Psalm 89: Eine Liturgie aus
dem Ritual des Leidenden Konigs by G. W. Ahlström.
Theological Studies, XXI
(1960), 280-81.
Dulles,
Avery. "Symbol, Myth, and the Biblical Revelation."
Theological Studies,
XXVII:l (March, 1966), 1-26.
DuMortier,
Jean-Bernard. "Un Rituel d'Intronisation: Le
Ps. LXXXIX 2-38." Vetus Testamentum, XXII:2 (April,
1972), 176-96.
Erlandsson, Seth. "Is There Ever Biblical
Research Without
Presuppositions?" Themelios, 7:2-3 (1970), 23-29.
Feinberg, Charles Lee. "Parallels to the
Psalms in Near
Eastern Literature." Bibliotheca Sacra, 104-415
(July-September, 1947), 290-97.
Fishbane, Michael.. "Jeremiah IV 23-26 and
Job III 3-13: A
Recovered
Use of the Creation Pattern.” Vetus
Testa-
mentum, XXI:2
(April, 1971), 151-67.
252
Fisher,
Loren R. and Knutson, F. Brent. "An Enthronement
Ritual at Ugarit." Journal of Near Eastern Studies,
28:3 (July, 1969), 157-67.
Gaster,
Theodor H. "An Ancient Eulogy on Israel: Deuter-
onomy 33:3-5, 26-29." Journal of Biblical Literature,
LXVI (1947) , 53-62.
_________.
"Canaanite Parallels to the Psalms." Jewish
Quarterly Review, 35:3
(January, 1945), 355-56.
Gehman,
Henry Snyder. "'
]Episkepomai, ]episkeyij, ]episkopoj,
and e]piskoph< in the Septuagint in Relation to dqp
and other Hebrew Roots--a Case of
Semantic Develop-
ment Similar to that of
Hebrew." Vetus Testamentum,
XXII:2 (April, 1972), 197-207.
Gevirtz,
Stanley. "The Ugaritic Parallel to Jeremiah 8:23."
Journal
of Near Eastern Studies, 20:1 (January,
1961), 41-46.
Ginsberg, H. L. Review of Canaanite Parallels in the Book of
Psalms by John Hastings
Patton. Journal of Ancient
Oriental Studies, 65
(1945), 65.
__________.
"The Arm of Yhwh in Isaiah 51-63 and the Text of
Isaiah 53:10-11." Journal of Biblical Literature,
LXXVII:II (June, 1958), 152-56.
__________. "The Ugaritic Texts and Textual
Criticism." Jour-
nal of Biblical Literature, LXII
(1943), 109-115.
Gray, G. Buchanan. "The References to the
'King' in the
Psalter,
in Their Bearing on Questions of Date and
Messianic Belief." The Jewish Quarterly Review, 7
(July, 1895) , 658-86.
Gray,
John. "Canaanite Kingship in Theory and Practice."
Vetus Testamentum,
II (1952), 193-220.
_________. Review of
Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel by A.
R. Johnson. Vetus Testamentum, VI:4 (October, 1956),
440-43.
_________.
"The Hebrew Conception of the Kingship of God:
Its Origin and Development." Vetus Testamentum,
VI:3 (July, 1956), 268-85.
__________.
"The Kingship of God in the Prophets and Psalms."
Vetus Testamentum,
IV (1954), 1-29.
253
Habel,
Norman C. "'Yahweh, Maker of Heaven and Earth': A
Study
in Tradition Criticism." Journal of
Biblical
Literature,
XCI:III (September,,1972), 321-37.
Hals, Ronald M. "Legend: A Case Study in OT
Form-Critical
Terminology." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly,
XXXIV:2 (April, 1972), 166-76.
Harmon,
Allan M. "Aspects of Paul's Use of the Psalms."
Westminster
Theological Journal, XXXII:l (November,
1969), 1-23.
Hasel, Gerhard F. "The Significance of the
Cosmology in
Genesis
I in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Paral-
lels." Andrews University Seminary Studies, X:1
January, 1972) , 1-20.
Held, Moshe. "The Action-Result
(Factitive-Passive) Sequence
of Identical Verbs in Biblical
Hebrew and Ugaritic."
Journal of Biblical Literature,
LXXXIV:III (Septem-
er, 1965) , 272-82.
Higgins, A. J. B. "The Old Testament and
Some Aspects of
New
Testament Christology." Canadian
Journal of
Theology, VI:6
(July, 1960), 200-210.
Holman,
Jan. "Analysis of the Text of Ps 139." Biblische
Zeitschrift,
14 (Neue Folge, 1970), 37-71.
Humbert, Paul. "La Relation de Genèse 1 et du Psaume 104
avec la
Liturgie du Nouvel--An Israëlite." Revue
d'Historie et de Philosophie
Religieuses, 15:1-2
(Janvier-Avril, 1935), 1-27.
Hummel,
Horace D. "Enclitic MEM in Early Northwest Semitic,
Especially Hebrew." Journal of Biblical Literature,
LXXVI:II (June, 1957), 85-107.
Innes, D. K. "Heaven and Sky in the Old
Testament." The
Evangelical Quarterly, XLIII:3 (July-September,
971), 144-48.
Jefferson,
H. G. "Canaanite Literature and the Psalms."
The Personalist,
39 (Los Angeles, 1958), 356-60.
Jeske,
John C. "The Role of Archaeology in Bible Study."
Wisconsin
Lutheran Quarterly, LXVIII:4 (October,
1971), 228-36.
254
Jirku, Anton. "Kana 'anaische
Psalmenfragmente im der
Vorisraelitischen Zeit Palastinas
and Syriens."
Journal of Biblical
Literature, LII (1933), 108-20.
Johnson, A. R. "Divine Kingship and the Old
Testament." The
Expository Times,
LXII:2 (November, 1950), 36-42.
Jones,
G. H. "The Decree of Yahweh (Ps. II 7)." Vetus
Testamentum, XV:3 (July, 1965), 336-44.
Kiessling, Nicolas K. "Antecedents of the
Medieval Dragon
in Sacred History." Journal of Biblical Literature,
LXXXIX:II (June, 1970), 167-77.
Kline, Meredith G. "Canon and Covenant:
Part III." The
Westminster
Theological Journal, XXXIII:l (November,
1970), 45-72.
_________.
"Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4." The West-
minster Theological Journal, XXIV:2 (May, 1962),
187-204.
Lambert, W. G. "The Great Battle of the
Mesopotamian
Religious Year: The Conflict in the
Akitu House."
Iraq,
XXV:2 (Fall, 1963), 189-90.
Laperrousaz,
E. M. "Chronique." Revue de
L'Histoire des
Religions, 171
(Nouvelle Serie, 1966), 101-08.
Leupold, Ulrich S. "Worship Music in
Ancient Israel: Its
Meaning and Purpose." Canadian Journal of Theology,
XV:3-4 (1969), 176-86.
Lipinski,
E. "Recherches sur le Livre de Zacharie." Vetus
Testamentum, XX:1
(January, 1970), 25-55.
__________.
"Yahweh MA lak." Biblica,
44:4 (1963), 405-60.
Loewenstamm, Samuel E. "The Lord is My
Strength and My
Glory." Vetus Testamentum, XIX:4 (October, 1969),
464-70.
Margulis, B. "A Ugaritic Psalm
(RS24:252)." Journal of
Biblical Literature, LXXXIX, III (September, 1970),
292-304.
May, Herbert Gordon. "'AL . . . . in the
Superscriptions of
the Psalms." The American Journal of Semitic Lan-
guages and Literatures, LVIII:l (January, 1941), 70-
83.
255
_________.
"Some Cosmic Connotations of Mayim
Rabbîm, 'Many
Waters.'"
Journal of Biblical Literature,
LXXIV:I
(March, 1955), 9-21.
McCown,
C. C. "The Current Plight of Biblical Scholarship."
Journal
of Biblical Literature, LXXV:I (March, 1956),
12-18.
McKenzie, John L. "Myth and the Old
Testament." The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly, XXI:3 (July, 1959),
265-82.
___________.
Review of Psalms 1:1-50 by Mitchell
Dahood.
Catholic
Biblical Quarterly, XXIX:l (January, 1967),
138-40.
___________.
"Royal Messianism." The
Catholic Biblical Quar-
terly, XIX:l
(January, 1957), 25-52.
__________
. "The Dynastic Oracle: II Samuel 7." Theological
Studies VIII:2
(June, 1947), 187-218.
Melugin, Roy F. "Deutero-Isaiah and Form
Criticism." Vetus
Testamentum, XXI:3
(July, 1971), 326-37.
Mihelic, Joseph L. "The Influence of Form
Criticism on the
Study
of the Old Testament." Journal of
Bible and
Religion, XIX:3
(July, 1951), 120-29.
Moran, W. L. Review of Psalm 89, Eine Liturgie aus dem
Ritual des Leidenden Königs, by G. W. Ahlström.
Biblica, 42:2
(1961), 237-39.
Mowan, Oswaldus. "Quatuor Montes Sacri in Ps.
lxxxix, 13?"
Verbum Domini,
41 (1963), 11-20.
Mowinckel,
Sigmund. "Notes on the Psalms." Studia
Theo-
logica Cura Ordinum Theologorum Scandinavorum Edita,
XIII (1959), 134-65.
___________.
“Psalm Criticism Between 1900 and 1935." Vetus
Testamentum, V:l
(January, 1955), 13-33.
____________.
Review of Psalm 89. Eine Liturgie aus dem
Ritual
des leidenden Königs by G. W. Ahlström. Journal of
Semitic Studies, V:3
(July, 1960), 291-98.
Muilenburg, James. "Form Criticism and
Beyond." Journal of
Biblical Literature,
LXXXVIII:I (March, 1969), 1-18.
256
___________. "The Form and Structure of the
Covenantal Formula-
tions." Vetus Testamentum, IX:4 (October, 1959),
347-65.
Murphy, Roland E. "A New Classification of
Literary Forms in
the Psalms." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, XXI:l
(January, 1959), 83-87.
Murtonen,
A. "The Use and Meaning of the Words LeBAREK and
BeRAKA in the Old Testament." Vetus Testamentum,
IX:2 (April, 1959), 158-77.
Nakata,
Ichiro. "Problems of the Babylonian Akītu Festival."
Journal
of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of
Columbia University, 1:1
(Fall, 1968), 41-49.
Nicholas, Thomas A. "The Current Quest for
the Meaning of
the Text of the Old Testament."
The Westminster
Theological Journal
XXXIV:2 (May, 1972), 118-36.
North,
C. R. "The Religious Aspects of Hebrew Kingship."
Zeitschrift
für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft,
Neunter Band:l (1932), 8-38.
O'Callaghan, R. T. "Echoes of Canaanite
Literature in the
Psalms." Vetus
Testamentum, IV (1954), 164-76.
____________.
"Ritual, Myth and Drama in Ancient Literature."
Orientalia,
22 (Nova Series, 1953), 418-25.
Ouellette,
Jean. "Variantes qumraniennes du Livre des
Psaumes."
Revue de Qumran, 25:7, fascicule 1
(December, 1969), 105-23.
Paterson,
John. Review of Psalmen by
Hans-Joachim Kraus.
Journal of Semitic Studies V:3 (July,
1960), 290-
91.
Pedersen, Johs. "Canaanite and Israelite
Cultus." Acta
Orientalia, 18:1
(1939), 1-14.
Peters, J. P. "A Jerusalem
Processional." The Journal of
the Palestine Oriental Society, 1:1 (October, 1920),
36-41.
Robertson,
David A. Review of Anchor Bible: Psalms
I, 1-
50 by Mitchell Dahood. Journal of Biblical Litera-
ture,
LXXXV:IV (December, 1966), 484-86.
257
Rowley,
Harold H. "The Unity of the Old Testament." Bulle-
tin of John Rylands Library, 29:2 (February, 1946),
326-58.
Rinaldi,
P. Giovanni, ed. "Il Salmo 89." Review of Psalm
89 by G. W. Ahlstrom. Bibbia e Oriente, Anno 4
(Milano, 1962), 196-97.
Ruprecht, Eberhard. "Das Nilpferd im
Hiobbuch." Vetus
Testamentum, XXI:2
(April, 1971), 209-31.
Sanders, J. A. "Pre-Masoretic Psalter
Texts." The Catholic
Biblical Quarterly,
XXVII:2 (April, 1965), 114-23.
Savignac,
J. de. "Note Sur le Sens du Terme SAPHON dans
Quelques
Passages de la Bible." Vetus Testamentum,
III:1 (January, 1953), 95-96.
Schoors,
A. "Two Notes on Isaiah XL-LV." Vetus
Testamentum,
XXI:4 (October, 1971), 501-05.
Scott, R. B. Y. "Wisdom in Creation: The
Amon of Proverbs
VIII 30." Vetus Testamentum, X:2 (April, 1960),
213-23.
Scullion, John J. "An Approach to the
Understanding of
Isaiah 7:10-17." Journal of Biblical Literature,
LXXXVII:III: (September, 1968), 288-300.
Seeligmann, I. L. "A Psalm From Pre-regal
Times." Vetus
Testamentum, XIV:l
(January, 1964), 75-92.
Shenkel,
J. D. "An Interpretation of Psalm 93, 5." Biblica,
46 (1965), 401-416.
Smick, Elmer B. "Mythology and the Book of
Job." Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society, XIII:II
(Spring, 1970) , 101-08.
Smith,
Morton. "The Present State of Old Testament Studies."
Journal
of Biblical Literature, LXXXVIII:I (March,
1969), 19-35.
Snaith, Norman H. "Selah." Vetus Testamentum, II:1
(January, 1952) , 43-5`6.
Soffer, Arthur. "The Treatment of
Anthropomorphisms and
Anthropopathisms in the Septuagint
of Psalms."
Hebrew Union
College Annual, XXVIII (1957), 85-107.
258
Stoebe, Hans Joachim. "Die Bedeutung des
Wortes Häsäd im
Alten Testament." Vetus Testamentum, 11:3 (July,
1952), 244-54.
Stuhlmueller, Carroll. "The Theology of
Creation in Second
Isaias." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, XXI:4
(October, 1959), 429-67.
Thomas, D. Winton. "A Consideration of Some
Unusual Ways of
Expressing
the Superlative in Hebrew." Vetus Testa-
mentum, 111:3 (July, 1953), 209-24.
Tournay,
R. "En Marge D'une Traduction des Psaumes." Revue
Biblique, 63:2
(Avril, 1956), 161-81.
Toy, C. H. "Rise of Hebrew Psalm
Writing." Journal of the
Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, VII
(June, 1887), 47-60.
Treves,
Marco. "The Date of Psalm XXIV." Vetus
Testamentum,
X:4 (October, 1960), 428-34.
___________.
"The Reign of God in the O.T."
Vetus Testamentum,
XIX:2 (April, 1969), 230-43.
Tucker, Gene M. "Covenant Forms and
Contract Forms." Vetus
Testamentum, XV:4
(October, 1965), 487-503.
Ulback,
Edward. "The Serpent in Myth and Scripture." Biblio-
theca Sacra, XC:360
(October, 1933), 449-55.
Ullendorff, Edward. "Ugaritic Studies
Within Their Semitic
and Eastern Mediterranean
Setting." Bulletin of John
Rylands Library, 46:1
(September, 1963), 236-49.
Unger,
Merrill F. "The Use and Abuse of Biblical Archae-
ology." Bibliotheca Sacra, 105:419 (July-September,
1948), 297-306.
Van
Buren, E. Douglas. "The Dragon in Ancient Mesopotamia."
Orientalia,
15:1-2 (Nova Series, 1946), 1-45.
Van Unnik, W. C. "The Quotation from the
Old Testament in
John 12:34." Novum Testamentum, 111:3 (July, 1959),
174-79.
Vermes,
G. "The Torah is a Light." Vetus
Testamentum,
VIII:4 (October, 1958), 436-38.
259
Wakeman,
Mary K. "The Biblical Earth-Monster in the Cos-
mogonic Combat Myth." Journal of Biblical Literature,
LXXXVIII:III (September, 1969), 313-20.
Wallace,
Howard. "Leviathan and the Beast in Revelation."
The
Biblical Archaeologist, XI:3 (September, 1948),
61-68.
Waltke,
Bruce K. Review of Form Criticism of the
Old Testa-
ment by Gene M. Tucker. Bibliotheca
Sacra, 129-514
(April-June, 1972), 175.
__________.
Review of Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical
Edition of the Hebrew Bible by Christian D.
Ginsberg.
Bibliotheca
Sacra, 123:492 (October-December, 1966),
364-65.
__________.
Review of Israel's Sacred Songs: A Study
of
Dominant Themes by Harvey H. Guthrie,
Jr. Biblio-
theca Sacra,
123:492 (October-December, 1966), 363.
Ward, J. M. "The Literary Form and
Liturgical Background of
Psalm LXXXIX." Vetus
Testamentum, XI (1961), 321-39.
Watson,
Wilfred. "Shared Consonants in Northwest Semitic."
Biblica, 50:4
(1969), 525-33.
Watts, John D. W. "Yahweh Mālak
Psalms." Theologische
Zeitschrift, 21:4
(Juli-August, 1965), 341-48.
Weddle, Forest. "The Limitations of
Archaeology Imposed by
Interpretation and Lack of
Data." Grace Journal
11:3 (Fall, 1970), 3-10.
Weinberg, Werner. "The Qamas Qatan
Structures." Journal of
Biblical Literature,
LXXXVII:II (June, 1968), 151-65.
Weinfeld, M. "The Covenant of Grant in the
Old Testament and
in the Ancient Near East." Journal of the American
Oriental Society, 90:2
(April-June, 1970), 184-203.
Werner, Eric. "The Origin of
Psalmody." Hebrew Union
College Annual. XXV
(1954), 327-45.
Whitley,
C. F. "Deutero-Isaiah's Interpretation of SEDEQ."
Vetus Testamentum,
XXII:4 (October, 1972), 469-75.
_________.
"Some Functions of the Hebrew Particles Beth and
Lamedh."
The Jewish Quarterly Review, LXII:3
(Jan-
uary, 1972) , 199-206.
260
Whitlock,
Glenn E. "The Structure of Personality in Hebrew
Psychology." Interpretation, XIV:l (January, 1960),
3-13.
Widengren, George. "King and
Covenant." Journal of Semitic
Studies, II:l
(January, 1957), 1-32.
Wieder,
Arnold A. "Ugaritic-Hebrew Lexicographical Notes."
Journal
of Biblical Literature, LXXXIV:II (June,
1965), 160-64.
Wilder,
Amos N. "Scholars, Theologians, and Ancient Rhet-
oric." Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXV:I
(March, 1956), 1-11.
Wilensky, Michael. "About Manuscripts I: A
Psalm-MS. and
Its
Entries." Hebrew Union College
Annual, XII-XIII
(1937-1939), 559-72.
Willis, J. T. "Engnell's Contributions to
Old Testament
Scholarship." Theologische Zeitschrift, 26:6
(November-Dezember, 1970), 385-94.
Wiseman,
Donald J. "Archaeology and Scripture." The West-
minster Theological Journal, XXXIII:2 (May, 1971),
133-52.
Wolverton, Wallace I. "The Psalmists'
Belief in God's
Presence." Canadian Journal of Theology, IX:l
(January, 1963), 82-94.
Yamauchi,
Edwin J. "Anthropomorphism in Ancient Religions."
Bibliotheca
Sacra, 125:497 (January-March, 1968),
29-44.
Yoder, Perry B. "A-B Pairs and Oral
Composition in Hebrew
Poetry." Vetus Testamentum, XXI:4 (October, 1971),
470-89.
Young, G. Douglas. "Ugaritic Prosody."
Journal of Near
Eastern Studies, 9:3
(July, 1950), 124-33.
Zijl, P. J. van. "A Possible Interpretation
of Zech. 9:1
and the Function of 'the Eye'
('Ayin) in Zechariah."
Journal
of Northwest Semitic Languages, I (1971),
59-67.
261
Unpublished
Works
Alexander, Ralph Holland. "Hermeneutics of
Old Testament
Apocalyptic
Literature." Unpublished Doctor's dis-
sertation, Dallas Theological
Seminary, 1968. Pp.
290.
Barr, Wayne E. "A Comparison and Contrast
of the Canaanite
World
View and the Old Testament World View." Un-
published Doctor's dissertation,
Divinity School,
University of Chicago, 1963. Pp. IV + 242.
Faw,
Chalmer Ernest. "Royal Motifs in the Hebrew Psalter."
Unpublished Doctor's dissertation,
Divinity School,
University of Chicago, 1939. Pp. v + 109.
Goldberg, Daniel. "The Moral Attributes of
God in the
Psalms."
Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Grace
Theological Seminary, 1971. Pp. vi + 193.
Hohenstein, Herbert E. "Psalms 2 and 110: A
Comparison of
Exegetical
Methods." Unpublished Doctor's Disser-
tation,
Concordia Seminary, Saint Louis, 1967. Pp.
iii + 269.
Jouon, P. Paul. Grammaire
de 1'Hebreu Biblique. Rome:
Pontificium
Institutum Biblicum, 1947. Second edi-
tion. Unpublished English
translation by Bruce K.
Waltke,
Morton, William Hardy. "The Bearing of the
Records of Ras
Shamra
on the Exegesis of the Old Testament." Un-
published Doctor's dissertation,
Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary, 1946. Pp. x + 135.
Oh, Pyeng Seh. "The Kingship of Yahweh as a
Motif for the
Universal
Savior in the Old Testament." Unpublished
Doctor's dissertation, Concordia
Seminary, Saint
Louis, 1961. Pp. 167.
Richardson, Henry Neil. "Ugaritic Parallels
to the Old
Testament." Unpublished
Doctor's dissertation,
+ 293.
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt: ted.hildebrandt@gordon.edu