Abstract
Snearly investigates Book V of the Psalms within the editorial context of the Psalter. Editorial criticism suggests the Psalms redactor intended to convey a meta-narrative greater than the sum of its parts. But such views are often met by charges of subjectivism. Can this charge be answered? By way of answer, Chapter 3 looks at the best criteria employed by editorial critics: concatenation; distant word links; superscriptions; themes; structural parallels. Chapter 4 seeks to ground editorial-critical methodology in text-linguistics and poetics. Snearly outlines his own methodology based on these disciplines with computer-assisted lexical analysis.
The second section (Book V in Perspective) reviews theories of Book V’s structure. While many see the tripartite Halleluyah / Hodu splits as marking three section breaks—between Pss 106/107, 117/118, and 135/136—this separates Pss 118 and 136 from the foregoing psalms, to which they belong, and does not adequately explain Pss 119 and 137.
Chapter 6 suggests that the Psalter is a unified literary text with ‘a beginning, middle, and end, and there is one dominant character … who acts’ (p. 85). Ps. 89 is the turning-point in this story. Some think it points to the eclipse of David’s dynasty. However, Snearly thinks it is ‘a lament over the present, shameful state of the Davidic dynasty, yet hope remains that Yahweh’s covenant loyalty will reverse this deplorable condition’ (pp. 99–100).
The third section (Research Analysis) breaks the structure of Book V into five sections: Pss. 107–118; 119; 120–137; 138–145; 146–150. Chapter 12 offers evidence that Israel never abandoned hope in the house of David, but that such hope continued throughout the post-exilic period.
All in all, Snearly’s fivefold structure improves upon previous solutions. And I find persuasive his views that Pss. 107–118 are a reaffirmation of the Davidic covenant in response to Ps. 89; that Ps. 119 responds to Ps. 1 and Deut. 17.14–20; that Pss. 120–137 reaffirm the David-Zion ideology of Ps. 2; that Pss. 138–145 recall the themes of Books I–III. I agree too with the view that the King returns in Book V. Of course, others have suggested as much. But Snearly’s study raises the discussion to a new level of methodological sophistication.
Next month, we publish James S. Anderson’s ‘El, Yahweh, and Elohim: The Evolution of God in Israel and its Theological Implications’. We also publish an article by Sebastian Selvén, responding to a previous piece by Anne Conway-Jones, entitled ‘The Bible in Jewish–Christian Dialogue: A Jewish Perspective’ together with George G. Nicol’s personal view of ‘The Bible as a Document of the Church’.