Copyright © 1987 by
THE CHIASTIC STRUCTURE
OF PSALM 151
J. BJORNAR
STORFJELL
The psalms scroll which later was to
become known as 11 QPsa
was discovered in a cave a short distance to the
north of Khirbet
Qumran
and ended up in the
November
of 1961.1 The early reports about this
discovery also
indicated the content of the scroll. Among the
several psalms which
were represented was the one numbered 151 in the
LXX.
J. A. Sanders provides us with an
insight into the prior knowl-
edge of this psalm in Syriac,
where it was one of five non-canonical
psalms which were part of a Book of Discipline dated
to the tenth
century A.D. They were noted in a manuscript in
the
in the middle of the eighteenth century and
published by W.
Wright
in 1887.2 The most interesting work
relating to the text of
these psalms appeared in 1930, when Martin Noth not only pub-
lished a collated text of the
psalms but also proceeded to translate
three of the five back into Hebrew, which he
considered to have been
the original language. The first psalm—the 151st of
the LXX and
the topic of this brief study—was not one of the
three translated.3
The 151st psalm of the LXX is
essentially the same as the first
of the five Syriac
psalms, but there are significant differences between
these and the 11QPsa 151st psalm that seem
to indicate a different
textual tradition. Since Noth
thought that the Vorlagen
of the five
Syriac psalms were Hebrew and since the Syriac and the LXX are
in basic agreement, it is only appropriate to ask
a question about
1 The complete story of
the discovery and unrolling of the scroll can be found in
R.
de Vaux, "Fouilles de Khirbet
Sanders,
"The Scroll of Psalms (11QPss) from Cave 11: A Preliminary Report,"
BASOR, no. 165 (1962), pp.
11-15.
2 The earliest
description by J. A. Sanders appears in "Ps. 151 in 11QPss," ZAW
75
(1963): 73-86. An almost identical account is found in J. A. Sanders, The Psalms
Scroll of
1965).
3 M. Noth,
"Die funf syrisch uberlieferten apokryphen Psalmen," ZAW
48
(1930):
1-23.
97
98 J.
BJORNAR, STORFJELL
the relationship between the LXX and the 11QPsa.
Sanders has
pointed out that in the cases where the
the MT they also differ from the LXX. It is
therefore quite clear
that the LXX cannot be considered a translation of
the 11 QPsa
151st
psalm.4
There are a number of possibilities
for exploring the poetic
structure of this poem. Sanders chose to use only bicola, fourteen
in all, in his ordering of the psalm.5
He also saw possibilities, of
influences of Orphism in the poem. The introduction
of the trees
and the animals enjoying the music of David, but
unable to express
their appreciation, appear to have some similarities
with the myth
of Orpheus; and David's phrase, "I said in my
soul," is seen to be
especially intelligible to the Hellenistic ear.6
Isaac Rabinowitz
early in the debate opposed this position,
which was most strongly defended by Andre Dupont-Sommer.
Rabinowitz does not see the phrase, "I said in
my heart," to be a
particularly Hellenistic
construction. Instead, he draws a parallel
with similar introductory formulas used in Eccl 2:1
and 3:17, where
no Hellenistic influence is suggested. Frank Moore
Cross has also
dismissed any links to Orphism. He sees in the
poem some funda-
mental biblical modes of expression and points out
that in Ps 148
nature indeed praises the Lord and that this poem does
not step
outside the biblical tradition.7
Jean Magne
has argued for influences of Orphism in the psalm
but he cannot support the views of Dupont-Sommer regarding
Pythagorean
doctrines in, and an Essene origin of, the psalm.8
Magne also notes a chiastic structure of the psalm, 2
2 3 3 2 3-
3 2 3 3 2 2, where 2 stands for a bicolon
and 3 for a tricolon.
Auffret has questioned this chiasmus because of
a lack of corre-
spondence in the thematic order
of the psalm.9 It is in light
of this
4 Sanders, "Ps.
151," pp. 78-80. C
5 Sanders, The Psalms Scroll, pp. 55-56.
6 Sanders, "Ps.
151," p. 82.
7 See Andre Dupont-Sommer, "Le Psaume
CLI dans 11 QPsa
et le probleme de
son origine essenienne," Sem 14 (1964): 25-62; Isaac Rabinowitz,
"The Alleged
Orphism
of 11Q Pss 28:3-12," ZAW 76 (1964): 193-200; and Frank Moore Cross,
"David,
Orpheus, and Psalm 151:3-4," BASOR,
no. 231 (1978), pp. 69-71.
8 Jean Magne, "Orphisme, pythagorisme, essenisme dans le texte hebreu
du
Psaume
151?"
RevQ 32
(1975): 545.
9 Ibid.,
p. 520; and Pierre Auffret, "Structure litteraire et interpretation du
Psaume 151 de la grotte 11
de
CHIASTIC STRUCTURE OF
PSALM 151 99
disagreement concerning the chiastic
structure of the psalm that I
have completed the present brief study.
1. The
Text and Its Translation
The Hebrew text of 11 QPsa consists of ten lines, with no
attempt to divide the lines according to any
kind of poetic or other
structure. In the translation that follows (on the
next page), the
numbers on the left indicate my division of the
psalm into cola, a
division which is in basic agreement with the
work of Magne. The
three columns on the right indicate organization of
content, number
of syllables, and number of stress accents. The
introductory line of
the psalm, "A Hallelujah of David, the Son of
Jesse," is only a
lengthened form of the introductions found in Pss 146-150. As an
introductory phrase, it is omitted
from the poetic reconstruction of
the psalm.
2. Poetic Analysis
The first two bicola,
verse 1, make a clear conceptual unit. In
both cola repetitive parallelism is used, yet the
second bicolon is a
progression of thought from the first. The
relationship between the
two bicola can best be
described as synthetic parallelism.
The next unit, verse 2, is a tricolon. Sanders used only bicola
in his arrangement. Rabinowitz, J. Carmignac,
Magne, and P. W.
Skehan all have a tricolon
in this place.10 The verb w'symh, an
imperfect with a waw
consecutive, seems to tie the sentence to the
preceding text rather than to begin a new bicolon. When given a
past-tense translation, it also agrees with the
verbs in the two first
cola in this tricolon. On
the other hand, if the last line of tricolon 2
together with the first line of tricolon 3 were to make up a bicolon,
a future-tense translation would make the most
sense. As a tricolon
a thematic whole is allowed to exist: with flute
and lyre the psalmist
gave glory.
Tricolon 3
starts with the phrase, "I said in my soul." This
line introduces what follows, rather than concluding
what has
10 A number of poetic
reconstructions of Ps 151 have appeared. For comparative
purposes the following can be consulted: Sanders,
"Ps. 151," p. 77; Rabinowitz,
p.
196; Jean Carmignac, "Precisions sur la forme poetique
du Psaurne 151," RevQ
18
(1965): 250; Magne, p. 544; and Patrick Wm. Skehan, "The Apocryphal Psalm
151,"
Bib 25 (1963): 408-409.
100 J.
BJORNAR STORFJELL
PSALM 151
11QPsa
First Strophe Cont
Syll Acc
1.
Smaller was I than my brothers abc 8 3
And younger than the sons of my father ac 8 2
Yet he appointed me shepherd for his sheep abc 10 3
And ruler over his kids. bc 8 2
2.
My hands have made a flute abc 6 3
And my fingers a lyre, ac 7 2
And I have given glory to Yahweh. xyz 8 3
3.
I said in my soul, xyz 8 3
0 that the mountains would bear witness for
me abc 8 3
And 0 that the hills would
tell. ab 8 3
4.
The trees have taken away my words abc 8 3
And the sheep my works. bc 7 2
5.
For who can tell, ab 4 3
And who can speak, ab 5 2
And who can recount my works? abc 9 3
Second
Strophe
6.
The Lord of all saw, abc 6 2
God of all, He heard, abc 8 3
And He has heeded. ac 5 2
7.
He sent His prophet to anoint me; abc 6 2
Samuel to make me great. bc 8 2
8.
My brothers went out to meet him; xyz 8 3
Handsome of form, ab 4 1
And handsome of
appearance. ab 6 1
9.
Tall in their height; ab 8 2
Handsome with their hair. ab 7 2
Them did Yahweh God not choose. xyz 9 4
10.
But He sent and took me from behind the sheep, abc 13 4
And anointed me with holy
oil. def 10 3
And He appointed me leader for His people, abc 10 3
And ruler over the sons of
His covenant. bc 8 2
CHIASTIC STRUCTURE OF
PSALM 151 101
preceded. In the reading of lw' I have followed Cross and taken this
as an exclamatory particle rather than as a
negative.11 The alterna-
tive reading—"The
mountains do not bear witness for me, And the
hills do not tell"—does not, however, change the
overall intent of
this portion of the psalm. An argument could be made
for retain-
ing that reading since it
leads naturally into bicolon 4. There I
have taken the disputed word ‘lw and read it as the verb
"to take
away."12 Bicolon
4 is then parallel in thought to tricolon 3. The
first strophe ends with tricolon
5, which forms a conceptual unit.
The second half of the psalm is by
structure a mirror image of
the first half, the whole being a structural
chiasmus. As I have
already mentioned, Magne
has seen this chiasmus, but his main
concern was an investigation of the Hellenistic
influences in the
psalm. The whole second half of the psalm is a
continuous narra-
tive in poetic style with an
internal chiasmus.
Tricolon 6
is a conceptual unit which flows into bicolon 7,
constructed in synonymous parallelism. My reading of
verse 6
differs considerably from the reading of
Sanders, who combines
verses 5 and 6 as follows:
For who can proclaim and who can
bespeak
and
who can recount the deed of the Lord?
Everything has God seen,
everything
has he heard and he has heeded.13
Rabinowitz
has a syntax which seems easier to support. He
reads, "The Master of the universe was; the God
of the uni-
verse. . . . "14 In Sanders's sentence the direct object is definite,
hkwl. The word occupies the
same place in the bicolon and both
times without the sign of the definite direct object.
The particle ‘t
occurs four times in this psalm and one would expect
it preceding
a definite direct object.
It is true that in verse 7 the word nby'w seems to be
the direct
object of the verb slh, and since it is definite it
should have the sign
of the definite direct object preceding it. If the
second half of
11
Cross, p. 70.
12 Ludwig Koehler and
Walter Baumgartner, eds., Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti
Libros (
13 Sanders, The Psalms Scroll,
p. 56.
14 Rabinowitz,
p. 196.
102 J.
BJORNAR STORFJELL
bicolon 7 were not there, one
could easily make the word "prophet"
the subject in the sentence and read: "His
prophet stretched out to
anoint me." But the next half of the bicolon will not allow this
because here Samuel is seen as the direct object
of some previous
verb, and the context most easily makes that verb slh. The
structure
of this verse is different from the structure of
verse 6. The difference
is that in the second colon of verse 7 the sign of
the definite direct
object is present. There is no main verb in this
colon, but this
second colon is strongly connected with the first half
of the verse.
The
definite direct object of the whole sentence consisting of the
bicolon is the second colon,
and it is accompanied by the sign of
the definite direct object.
Tricola 8
and 9 form an internal chiasmus. By emphasizing
the chiastic structure, I can avoid calling the
first line of tricolon 8
and the last line of tricolon
9 a split bicolon.
The last two bicola
of the psalm show no technical difficulties.
They
are quite regular in their synthetic and repetitive parallelism,
respectively.
The tabulation of the syllable count
and the stress accents does
not add significantly to a poetic analysis of the
psalm. At least in
this case, such means were not considered important
in terms of the
poetic outcome. It appears to have been more important
to follow
the classical poetic style of Hebrew literature,
where parallelism in
its varied applications predominates.
3. Commentary
This psalm is a concrete
narrative-type poem in classical
Hebrew poetic style. It sings about the
election of David to the
monarchy of
account found in 1 Sam 16:1-13.
Date of the Psalm
The question of interpretation is
complicated by the difficulty
of arriving at a certain date for the writing of
the psalm. Robert
Polzin has pointed out that the lack of agreement
regarding the
reading of the psalm should make us cautious
when "using lin-
guistic arguments based on controverted interpretations to estab-
lish a date for this
composition."15
15 Robert Polzin, "Notes on the Dating of the Non-Massoretic Psalms of
11QPsa,"
HTR 60 (1967): 475.
CHIASTIC STRUCTURE OF
PSALM 151 103
The questions of date and
interpretation are closely connected
in the case of this psalm. If one accepts the
validity of Orphic
influences in the psalm, it becomes difficult to
accept the date
suggested by W. F. Albright, the seventh-sixth
century B.C.16 The
Psalm
does not truly reflect the typical poetic style of
Since
the classical poetic style probably went out of use in the post-
exilic period, the poem could be dated to the sixth
century B.C. or
earlier on stylistic grounds.17 The
argument of poetic style should
be allowed its proper weight in the determination
of a date for the
psalm. Cross argues for a date in the Persian period,
based on
orthographic survivals," and
strong reasons for a later date have
been advanced by Sanders.19
Sanders has pointed out "that
at Qumran David was con-
sidered the author of the
psalter."20 But it must also be pointed out
that in spite of Polzin's
caution, there are some phrases which
make an early date difficult. These are 'dwn hkwl and bny bryt.
The
first phrase has been demonstrated to be post-biblical. It is
found in Syriac, Palmyrene, the Babylonian Talmud, the LXX
(Job
5:8), and Ben Sira (36:1). The second phrase is one
of the best
known from the
ture, the Odes of Solomon
(17:15), and the NT (Acts 3:25).21 The
expressions would make it difficult to hold to an
early date unless
one sees such expressions as an attempt to
establish legitimacy for
the
have to mean that Hellenistic influences are
operative. The lan-
guage used is biblical, both
in content and in expression, even
though some idioms used are of post-biblical origin. I
would allow
poetic style to be the weightier argument in
establishing a date for
the psalm. A linguistic stratigraphy
with a terminus post quem
in
the Hellenistic period would be very difficult to
establish. The
document in its present form dates to this
period, but its date of
authorship is probably sixth century.
16 W. F. Albright in
correspondence cited in Sanders, The
Psalms Scroll, p. 54.
17 For a thorough
discussion of Hebrew poetic style, see Wilfred G. E.
Watson,
Classical Hebrew Poetry:
A Guide to Its Techniques, JSOT Supplement Series,
no. 26 (Sheffield, Eng., 1984).
18 Cross, p. 70.
19 Sanders, The Psalms Scroll, pp. 62-63.
20 Ibid.,
p. 64.
21 See the discussion in Polzin, p. 475, n. 33.
104 J.
BJORNAR STORFJELL
Analysis of Thematic
Chiasmus
In a psalm which has a chiastic
structure one would expect
also to find a thematic chiasmus. As has been
mentioned above,
Auffret argued against a structural chiasmus
because of a lack of a
thematic correspondence. On the other hand, when
a structural
chiasmus can be detected as in this psalm, that
structure should be
allowed to assist and shape the understanding of
the thematic
content of the poem. Thus, it is quite proper to
look for the
thematic correspondents which may not be evident
at first. The
chiastic structure becomes the mandate for
understanding the corre-
sponding components in the poem.
First an
overview of the psalm: The narrative of the first
strophe poses all of the questions which are
then answered or
contrasted in the second strophe. Verse 1 speaks
about the size and
age of David in comparison to his brothers and
about his appoint-
ment to the work of
shepherd. The counterpart is found in verse 10,
which contrasts the facts that size and age are not
criteria for being
appointed to the position of leader over
verse 1, the first one corresponds with the last one
in verse 10. One
could therefore argue for separating these verses
into two verses
each, thus giving the psalm a total of twelve verses.22
But there is
an inner cohesiveness in these two verses which
ties them together
into units. The second bicolon
of verse 10 makes use of the same
verb and nearly all the nouns of the second bicolon in verse 1.
Verse 2 continues the narrative of
verse 1. It speaks about what
David
has done, and the continuation from the shepherd scene of
verse 1 indicates that it is while doing the work of
a shepherd that
he has made the instruments which he used to give
glory to
Yahweh. It seems quite natural that one who
works as a shepherd
should find his joy in giving glory to someone other
than himself.
Contrasted
with verse 2 is verse 9. The focus has changed. to the
brothers of David who, relying on their natural
stature and hand-
some appearance, were not chosen by God. The fact
that they were
not chosen implies that they really expected to be.
The other-
centeredness of David is contrasted
with the self-centeredness of his
brothers.
The genius of the chiastic narrative
poem is that it makes
sense as a continuous account, while at the same time
also making
22 Magne,
p. 544, has divided the psalm in this way.
CHIASTIC STRUCTURE OF
PSALM 151 105
sense in its chiastic structure—unit with
corresponding unit. Thus
verse 3 continues the story of the first two verses.
David is the
shepherd whose virtues remain unknown, yet they
have been
observable; but in the mountains and the hills
there was none who
could testify in his behalf. The corresponding verse
8 continues the
contrast of David with his brothers. While David
longs for some-
one to testify on his account, his brothers rely on
their physical
appearance. Internal and external virtues are
contrasted.
In verse 4 the wilderness isolation
theme is continued and an
element of despair is introduced. All of David's
work has been in
the presence of the trees or nature and the sheep
that have taken
away his words and his work. And at the same time
that despair
becomes evident in verse 4, the corresponding
verse in the chiastic
structure, verse 7, introduces hope. Again
contrasting themes are
used to intensify the answer to the problem posed in
verse 4.
The climax of the psalm is reached
in verses 5 and 6 and was
already anticipated in the previous verse. The
despair introduced in
verse 4 is heightened in verse 5 with a series of
three questions of
"who." These three questions are answered in verse 6
with "The
Lord, ... God of all, . . . He.... " This is at the same time both
the conclusion and the center of the poem.
Within the second strophe there is a
smaller chiasmus in verses
8
and 9, where the first line in verse 8 corresponds to the last line in
verse 9. It is not only a thematic chiasmus but also
a structural one.
Respectively,
the two tricola have the first and the last lines as
variants, as shown by the content indicators xyz,ab,ab : ab,ab,xyz.
The whole poem can be seen as a
chiastic envelope which
reads as five sets of corresponding verses. It can
also be read as a
continuous complete narrative.
4. Conclusion
Psalm 151 from 11QPsa is basically
the same as Ps 151 in the
LXX,
but there are distinct differences which preclude the latter's
being a direct translation of 11 QPsa
151. Several possibilities have
been explored in terms of structure and origin of
the psalm. Orphic
influences have been seen as possibilities by
Sanders, and as direct
influences by Dupont-Sommer,
Magne, and others. Rabinowitz
and
Cross,
to mention only two scholars with a different view, have
argued against Orphic influences and for biblical
modes of expres-
sion and thinking.
106 J.
BJORNAR STORFJELL
The question of date and authorship
is not easily answered.
Strong
arguments can be found for a late date in the Hellenistic
period, for a little earlier in the Persian period, or
for as early a
date as that of Albright in the seventh-sixth
century B.C. I have
chosen a date in the sixth century because of the
poetic style used.
This essay has dealt with the
chiastic structure of the psalm, a
structure noted by Magne
and disputed by Auffret. The chiasmus is
not limited to the structural composition of the
psalm, but includes
the thematic elements also. The corresponding units
in the psalm
follow mostly a contrasting-of-ideas approach, but the
climax of
the poem is found in making God the answer to three
desperate
questions of "who." By using a chiastic
structure which relies on
stark contrasts, this narrative is in fact able to
discuss and provide
answers to some abstract philosophical
questions. Those questions
dealing with ideas and concepts are not removed
from the concrete
situation of personal experience, even the
experience of herding
sheep.
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
SDA Theological
Berrien Springs
http://www.andrews.edu/SEM/
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: