‘May YHWH avenge me on you;but my hand shall not be against you’ (1 Sam. 24:13): Mapping land and resistance in the ‘biographical’ notes of the ‘Book’ of Psalms

Abstract

The ‘biographical’ notes of the Masoretic ‘Book’ of Psalms are often understood as placing the psalms in dialogue with 1-2 Samuel, and casting David as a pious exemplar. As David prayed psalms in his distress, so can anyone. Indebted to an influential article by Brevard Childs, many scholars also see early traces of midrashic exegesis. However, this is not entirely persuasive, and to inquire into these issues, the article proceeds from the observation that many of the ‘biographical’ notes cluster around similar events. In most of them, David is fleeing from Saul. Following a survey of the ‘biographical’ notes in both the Masoretic text and the Septuagint, it is argued that the often-suggested connections between the psalms and 1-2 Samuel are quite weak, and that a better way to understand the addition of ‘biographical’ notes is found when reading them in light of a resurfacing Saulide–Davidic rivalry in post-exilic times.

Keywords

Biographical notes Book of Psalms Brevard Childs David exile land Persian period psalms Saul superscriptions

1. Introduction

The history of the formation, reception, and use of the ‘Book’ of Psalms and the psalms gathered therein is a tangled one. It is possible to trace various trajectories, and an interesting glimpse into how psalms have been read and appropriated as prayers in new circumstances is provided by the so-called ‘biographical’ notes. But why were such notes added? Now forming part of the superscriptions of 13 psalms in the Masoretic ‘Book’ of Psalms, and an additional five in the LXX, they seem to place these psalms in dialogue with stories of David, and it is often argued that they were added to appropriate the psalms for private, devotional use. Dated fairly late (sometime after 1-2 Chronicles), they do, according to Brevard S. Childs, unlock the ‘inner life’ of David, and were possibly added by ‘a pietistic circle of Jews whose interest was particularly focused on the nurture of the spiritual life’.¹ In fact, a main strand of research on these superscriptural elements has focused on the layering of scriptures visible in this kind of activity, arguing for a fairly emergent notion of written scripture, and both Childs and Elieser Slomovic have suggested that the activity bears traces of early midrashic exegesis.² This is argued on the basis of observed overlaps between the psalms and the narratives, be they lexical, conceptual, thematic, or the like. However, such a view is not without problems, not least the fact that it fails to account for the fact that most of the Masoretic ‘biographical’ notes cluster around similar events.³ David is fleeing from Saul. Childs, for one, asks why so few incidents in the life of David are chosen, but does not provide any answer apart from the conclusion that ‘it seems highly likely that there were other factors at work in the formation of the titles which can no longer be determined with certainty’.⁴ But can such ‘other factors’ be further specified? Proceeding from such a question, the aim of this article is to provide a fresh understanding of the possible original function(s) of the ‘biographical’ notes, which all (except for Pss. 7 and 18) have an identical syntax (see below).⁵ This will be achieved by placing them in dialogue with three contexts: (1) the narratives in 1-2 Samuel, (2) the LXX superscriptions, and (3) a possible historical context. The following notes are taken into consideration:⁶

מזמור לדוד בברחו מפני אבשלום בנו‎ Absalom Ps. 3:1

שגיון לדוד אשר־שר ליהוה על־דברי־כוש בן־ימיני‎ ? Ps. 7:1

למנצח לעבד יהוה לדוד אשר דבר ליהוה את־דברי השירה הזאת ביום הציל־יהוה אותו מכף כל־איביו ומיד שאול ויאמר‎ (Saul) Ps. 18:1-2

לדוד בשנותו את־טעמו לפני אבימלך ויגרשהו וילך‎ Saul Ps. 34:1

למנצח מזמור לדוד בבוא־אליו נתן הנביא כאשר־בא אל־בת־שבע‎ Bathsheba Ps. 51:1-2

למנצח משכיל לדוד בבוא דואג האדמי ויגד לשאול ויאמר לו בא דוד אל־בית אחימלך‎ Saul Ps. 52:1-2

למנצח בנגינת משכיל לדוד בבוא הזיפים ויאמרו לשאול הלא דוד מסתתר עמנו‎ Saul Ps. 54:1-2

למנצח על־יונת אלם רחקים לדוד מכתם באחז אתו פלשתים בגת‎ Saul Ps. 56:1

למנצח אל־תשחת לדוד מכתם בברחו מפני־שאול במערה‎ Saul Ps. 57:1

למנצח אל־תשחת לדוד מכתם בשלח שאול וישמרו את־הבית להמיתו‎ Saul Ps. 59:1

למנצח על־שושן עדות מכתם לדוד ללמד בהצותו את ארם נהרים ואת־ארם צובה וישב יואב ויך את־אדום בגיא־מלח שנים עשר אלף‎ Battle Ps. 60:1-2

מזמור לדוד בהיותו במדבר יהודה‎ Saul? Ps. 63:1

משכיל לדוד בהיותו במערה תפלה‎ Saul Ps. 142:1

Ps. 3:1 A Psalm of David, when he fled from his son Absalom.

Ps. 7:1 A Shiggaion of David, which he sang to YHWH concerning Cush, a Benjaminite.

Ps. 18:1-2 To the leader. A Psalm of David the servant of YHWH, who addressed the words of this song to YHWH on the day when YHWH delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul. He said:

Ps. 34:1 Of David, when he feigned madness before Abimelech, so that he drove him out, and he went away

Ps. 51:1-2 To the leader. A Psalm of David, when the prophet Nathan came to him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba.

Ps. 52:1-2 To the leader. A Maskil of David, when Doeg the Edomite came to Saul and said to him, ‘David has come to the house of Ahimelech’.

Ps. 54:1-2 To the leader: with stringed instruments. A Maskil of David, when the Ziphites went and told Saul, ‘David is in hiding among us’.

Ps. 56:1 To the leader: according to The Dove on Far-off Terebinths. Of David. A Miktam, when the Philistines seized him in Gath.

Ps. 57:1 To the leader: Do Not Destroy. Of David. A Miktam, when he fled from Saul, in the cave.

Ps. 59:1 To the leader: Do Not Destroy. Of David. A Miktam, when Saul ordered his house to be watched in order to kill him.

Ps. 60:1-2 To the leader: according to the Lily of the Covenant. A Miktam of David; for instruction; when he struggled with Aram-naharaim and with Aram-zobah, and when Joab on his return killed twelve thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt.

Ps. 63:1 A Psalm of David, when he was in the wilderness of Judah.

Ps. 142:1 A Maskil of David, when he was in the cave. A Prayer.

2. Putting the notes in context, part 1

2.1. A brief walkthrough

The first and most obvious point of reference when it comes to the ‘biographical’ notes is their possible relation to the stories of David as found in 1-2 Samuel. This relation is also the most discussed. In fact, it was by reading the ‘biographical’ notes alongside 1-2 Samuel that Childs proposed that they reflected a conscious ‘scholarly study of the Psalms in relation to other Old Testament passages’,⁷ and others have similarly concluded that they are best understood as the result of some scribal activity, an ‘interpretive addenda’ belonging to a time when the psalms to which they are attached were seen as ‘authoritative and edifying’,⁸ hence comprising the oldest attested exegesis of these psalms.⁹ Some even argue that the notes cast David as the composer of the psalm,¹⁰ or at least that they specify an original performative setting.¹¹ However, as will be seen, not all of these suggestions are convincing. Rather, a somewhat contrasting picture will be revealed.

The first psalm in the Masoretic sequence that has a ‘biographical’ note is Ps. 3. It is an individual complaint psalm, and the note, speaking of David’s flight from Absalom, seems to relate to a story now found in 2 Sam. 15-19. Proceeding from such a connection, scholars have searched for overlaps that could explain why the two texts have been put in dialogue. John Goldingay, for one, notes a ‘general suitability’ and a number of ‘precise verbal links’,¹² while Childs finds no lexical links, instead arguing for conceptual similarities as both the psalm and the narrative speak about lying down to sleep (v. 6, cf. 2 Sam. 16:14).¹³ The first example thus illustrates some of the difficulties with the approach. On what grounds should possible overlaps be evaluated? What text should be presupposed? Such difficulties will become clearer as more examples are adduced, so for now, no conclusion regarding the possible relationship between the passages will be drawn.

A Benjaminite named Cush is mentioned in the superscription of Ps. 7, also an individual complaint. This is puzzling since it has no clear referent in the books of Samuel. Apart from the possibility that this might be a musical direction,¹⁴ it has been suggested that it might be a euphemism for Shimei ben Gera (2 Sam. 16:5), or that it refers to either an unknown follower of Saul, or Saul himself.¹⁵ More common, however, are the suggestions that it either alludes to the words of the Cushite of 2 Sam. 18, who informs David of the death of Absalom,¹⁶ or that it relates to a tradition now lost.¹⁷

As with Ps. 7, the ‘biographical’ note of Ps. 18 differs from the other 11 in its syntax, but shares a focus on a Benjaminite, this time Saul. It is well known that this psalm also features in the narrative context of 2 Samuel (2 Sam. 22), and so, this note is probably to be interpreted as belonging to a slightly different development. As I have argued in my study on the formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms, the relation between the psalm and 2 Samuel is probably to be understood as one of parallel transmission, and the inclusion of the entire psalm in 2 Sam. 22 could almost be seen as a theological commentary to the stories of David in 1-2 Samuel where David’s success is explained as a result of his devotion to YHWH.¹⁸

The note of Ps. 34, an acrostic thanksgiving of the individual, is regularly related to 1 Sam. 21:10-15,¹⁹ and it has been proposed that it ‘may well reflect a careful study of the book of Samuel’.²⁰ However, the fact that the superscription mentions Abimelech, rather than Achish, is a problem. Suggesting three possible solutions—a ‘slip in memory’;²¹ Abimelech being a nomen dignitatis of Philistine kings;²² or that it is an intentional link to Abimelech of Gerar in Gen. 20 and 26—²³Childs deems them all unsatisfactory and concludes that the issue cannot be settled. However, it is also possible that the title reflects a lost, alternative tradition which included Abimelech rather than Achish,²⁴ and if so, there would be no clear connection to 1-2 Samuel; rather the opposite.

The superscription of Ps. 51, a complaint psalm with clear penitential motifs, relates to a story found in 2 Sam. 11-12.²⁵ Marvin E. Tate suggests ‘a number of verbal and content parallels’,²⁶ as does, for example, James D. Nogalski, so that the psalm ‘becomes an affirmation of David’s proper response to YHWH when David is confronted with the error of his ways’.²⁷ If so, one could perhaps see some traces of the often-suggested ‘pious’ David previously noted.²⁸

Psalm 52, a communal complaint psalm, overlaps somewhat with the Doeg incident retold in 1 Sam. 22:9-23.²⁹ According to Childs, one reason for adding the ‘biographical’ note could have been to fill in a gap in 1 Samuel, namely, to report the fate of Doeg, which would then be found in Ps. 52:7.³⁰ This is a common interpretation, although an intriguing suggestion is proposed by Samuel A. Meier. He correctly observes that since the ‘biographical’ notes summarize biblical stories, ‘it is the reader who must identify the morally appropriate features that correspond with each character named in the rubric: Doeg, Saul, David, Ahimelech’.³¹ By a reading of 1 Sam. 21-22, he then argues that the very sparse mentions of Doeg in fact portray him as a ‘loyal official of the king, reporting accurately what he has seen without prejudice. He is certainly not a liar’.³² According to Meier, it is rather David who is cast as a liar, and so, if one reads Ps. 52 (a psalm he understands as excoriating a wicked man who is primarily depicted as a liar) through 1 Sam. 21-22, ‘the only possible application of these words is to David’.³³ The words would thus relate to David’s confession of guilt in 1 Sam. 22:22 (‘I am responsible for the lives of all your father’s house’)³⁴ so that David ‘convicts himself and confesses his sin’.³⁵ Now, even if one does not agree with Meier’s suggestion, it could serve as a reminder not to read the ‘biographical’ notes too quickly as self-evidently related to a tradition that would eventually minimize David’s shortcomings and glorify his pious trust in YHWH. Rather, a more complex image is starting to emerge.

The individual complaint Ps. 54 has been argued to have ‘general similarities in thought’ and ‘parallels in situation’ with the story found in 1 Sam. 23:14-28.³⁶ As an example, many have noted overlaps between Ps. 54:3b, ‘the ruthless seek (בקש‎) my life (נפש‎)’, and 1 Sam. 23:15, ‘Saul had come out to seek (בקש‎) his life (נפש‎)’, and Erhard S. Gerstenberger concludes that a direct literary dependence is likely here.³⁷ However, others have seen less overlaps. Gerald H. Wilson, for one, sees nothing in the psalm that corresponded to the events in 1 Sam. 23.³⁸

Moving on, the notion of David’s seizure in Gath mentioned in Ps. 56:1 (an individual complaint psalm) has a possible parallel in 1 Sam. 21:10-22:1 (thus similar to Ps. 34:1), although the latter does not mention any seizure.³⁹ Some have suggested that the notion of David being בידם‎ (‘in their hands’, 1 Sam. 21:14),⁴⁰ or that ‘the context, along with the mention of his escape in 22:1’⁴¹ or the military language of the psalm would have enabled the conclusion of the ‘biographical’ note, while others have argued that there are numerous wordplays between the psalm and 1 Sam. 21.⁴² According to Martin Kleer, the notion of fear is significant. David is afraid in 1 Sam. 21 but he overcomes that fear in the psalm through trust in God (e.g. Ps. 56:4).⁴³ However, Wilson notes that ‘nothing in the text of the psalm makes that connection explicit or necessary’.⁴⁴

A similar range of conclusions can also be observed in relation to the ‘biographical’ notes of Ps. 57 and Ps. 142; both are individual complaints which refer to David being in a cave and have been argued to relate to either 1 Sam. 22, 1 Sam. 24, or no passage in particular.⁴⁵ This is also the case for Ps. 59, also an individual complaint, which possibly overlaps with 1 Sam. 19:9-17. Where some have seen extensive lexical overlaps,⁴⁶ others have argued for little resemblance,⁴⁷ but there is certainly significance in the psalm’s relationship to yet another episode where David is on the run from Saul.

As for the superscription of Ps. 60, an individual complaint psalm, it cannot easily be related to either 2 Sam. 8, 1 Chr. 18, or 1 Kgs. 11:15, since none of these passages are in agreement concerning the details of the battle (cf. the mention of either David, Joab, or Abishai). Moreover, while 2 Sam. 8 recounts a great victory, Ps. 60 speaks only of defeat.⁴⁸ Attempts to solve the latter have been proposed by, for example, Childs, who suggests that there would have been an extended conflict, so that the superscription relates to a defeat not attested in 1-2 Samuel, but alluded to in 1 Kgs. 11:15 where Joab is reported to have buried the dead.⁴⁹ Similarly, others have proposed a notion of multiple events,⁵⁰ while Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, based on Kleer, see the psalm as teaching the people to re-actualize an old divine promise in a time of need and assure themselves of divine help.⁵¹ Despite these attempts to solve the discrepancy, it becomes quite clear that the superscription provides a perspective quite different from 2 Sam. 8 at least.⁵²

Lastly, Ps. 63, a thanksgiving of the individual, does not relate to any specific episode as found in 1-2 Samuel, but rather speaks more generally about David being in the wilderness of Judah. The points of reference often suggested are either 1 Sam. 21-31 (Saul) or 2 Sam. 15-17 (Absalom). Scholars arguing for the latter regularly point to shared motifs like the notion of a dry land without water, and, not least, that the psalm mentions a ‘king’ in v. 12.⁵³ However, the shared motifs would be just as easy to relate to the Saul episodes, and the relating of the king in v. 12 to the David of the superscription is not clear cut. In fact, it could perhaps instead be argued that the psalmist (‘David’) and the mentioned king are not one and the same in the psalm since there is an otherwise odd shift to the third person singular.⁵⁴ The final verses might also be a later addition.⁵⁵ If so, the psalm is perhaps not to be interpreted as ‘thoughts of a king who has been banished from his home … yearning for the presence of God’,⁵⁶ but thoughts of a person being in the wilderness knowing that it is the king who is supposed to ‘guarantee[s] justice and thus protection for the psalmist’.⁵⁷ Consequently, if any connection is to be found with stories in 1-2 Samuel, it would rather speak in favour of 1 Sam. 21-31.⁵⁸ But since the superscription only makes a general reference, no such conclusion is necessary.

2.2. Debunking the idea of midrashic exegesis

What this very brief overview has shown is that there are some significant differences between the ‘biographical’ notes and 1-2 Samuel: Ps. 7:1 features an unknown Cush; Ps. 34:1 mentions Abimelech rather than Achish; Ps. 56:1 speaks of a seizure; and the events in Ps. 60:1-2 differ in detail from 2 Sam. 8. Furthermore, many are not relating to any specific episode, but to general series of events, so that a connection to 1-2 Samuel is not necessary: Ps. 3:1 speaks of David fleeing from Absalom; Pss. 57:1 and 142:1 both speak of David being in a cave; and Ps. 63:1 speaks generally of David in the wilderness of Judah. As for the remaining superscriptions, overlaps have been suggested but if taken together with the discrepancies just mentioned, a better conclusion seems to be that the ‘biographical’ notes in fact do not depend on 1-2 Samuel,⁵⁹ and the idea of the notes being an early form of midrashic exegesis consequently appears somewhat unpersuasive.⁶⁰ If so, it becomes clear that many of the suggested readings above are only valid when a literary dependence is presupposed—an example would be Kleer’s suggested relation between Ps. 56 and 1 Sam. 21—and are thus unnecessary when such a presupposition is deconstructed.

This conclusion does, however, provide an unexpected reminder, namely, that it should not be assumed that the dialogue embedded in the ‘biographical’ notes is between two texts, but rather might be between looser concepts of psalmody and narrative.⁶¹ This said, it has also become clear that a surprising amount of the ‘biographical’ notes relate to an ongoing rivalry between Saul and David (possibly as many as 10 of 13) prior to the ascension of David to the throne, but after his anointing by Samuel. David is set up but escapes (Ps. 59), is seized (Ps. 56) but plays mad (Ps. 34), hides but gets exposed (Pss. 52 and 54), flees again and hides in a cave (Pss. 57 and 142) in the desert of Judah (Ps. 63?).⁶² He has a right to the throne but nevertheless has no control of the land. The latter is also the case in Ps. 3, although the focus is now on the latter part of the stories of David, where he flees from his son, Absalom, leaves the throne, and runs into the wilderness. Put bluntly, these notes do not seem to be concerned with David’s life in general; the aim does not seem to be to ‘fill in the blanks’ of the stories of David in 1-2 Samuel, but to point to a specific part of these stories, namely, the rivalry with Saul. But why would such stories be relevant in a time after 1-2 Chronicles, if following a common dating? It has been proposed that the answer lies in the fact that David is cast as a ‘powerless fugitive’.⁶³ He is no great, victorious king, nor a founder of a temple cult, and since the psalms have him turn to YHWH in times of distress, he is interpreted as an ‘ideal man of piety’.⁶⁴ This is then regularly taken as an indication that it is now possible for any individual (or congregation) to use the psalms in a similar way (i.e. as responses to various situations in life) so that ultimately, David is turned into a model: ‘as David, so every man!’⁶⁵

But is this really reasonable? Do the ‘biographical’ notes really introduce a connection to David? Do they really relate to various situations in life? Do they really focus primarily on some inner life of a reader? Do they really introduce the idea that anyone could pray the psalms? Is the dichotomy between king on one hand, and person of faith on the other really constructive? What if it was not so much about giving a specific psalm a setting, as it was giving a specific setting an answer by means of reinterpreting a psalm? Framed in such a way, the interpretive development regularly presupposed (i.e. as a move towards greater applicability) is in fact somewhat reversed; a similar observation has been made by Wilson in relation to Ps. 3:⁶⁶

The attempt to spell out the specifics of the setting behind the distress of the psalmist and to identify the enemy precisely as Absalom often has the unfortunate effect of so fixing the historical reference that the reader is distanced even further from the psalm and hindered from appropriating its insight for personal application. If this is merely a psalm describing David’s response to a personal circumstance centuries—even millennia—ago, why ought I to assume that this psalm can influence the way I respond today to my own situations of distress?

Taking this quote as an illustrative example, the notion of general applicability regularly attached to the interpretation of the ‘biographical’ notes seems somewhat problematic, and this could indicate that the question of whether the notes contain a possible historical memory needs to be somewhat reframed. It is regularly concluded that the ‘biographical’ notes do not relate to real, historical events in the lifetime of David,⁶⁷ but what if the notes preserve the memory of another, somewhat different historical context? Before drawing any conclusions, a brief look at the additional notes in the LXX is necessary.

3 Putting the notes in context, part 2

3.1. ‘Biographical’ notes in the LXX

Apart from a translation of the biographical notes also found in the MT, the LXX provides an additional five notes as follows:

Ψ.⁶⁸ 26:1 Anointing Τοῦ Δαυιδ πρὸ τοῦ χρισθῆναι

Ψ. 95:1 Temple Ὅτε ὁ οἶκος ᾠκοδομεῖτο μετὰ τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν ᾠδὴ τῷ Δαυιδ

Ψ. 96:1 Order in land Τῷ Δαυιδ ὅτε ἡ γῆ αὐτοῦ καθίσταται

Ψ. 142:1 Absalom Ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαυιδ ὅτε αὐτὸν ὁ υἱὸς καταδιώκει

Ψ. 143:1 Goliath Τῷ Δαυιδ πρὸς τὸν Γολιαδ

Ψ. 26:1 Pertaining to David, before he was anointed.

Ψ. 95:1 When the house was being rebuilt after the captivity. An Ode, pertaining to David.

Ψ. 96:1 Pertaining to David, when his land is being brought to order.

Ψ. 142:1 A Psalm, pertaining to David, when his son is pursuing him.

Ψ. 143:1 Pertaining to David, referring to Goliath.

Similar to the Masoretic ‘biographical’ notes, it is possible to make connections to the stories of David,⁶⁹ but in the LXX additions, it becomes clear that the possible Saulide–Davidic rivalry noted as so permeating the notes of the MT is nowhere to be found. In fact, the LXX notes fit more neatly with the conclusion that the psalms were associated with the stories of David in general. Taken together with the translated notes of the MT, they now feature most of the major events in these stories (the victory over Goliath, the anointing, the flight from Saul, the Bathsheba episode, the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem, military victories, the flight from Absalom, and the writing of psalms at the end of David’s life), and so, it is only at this point that they can correctly be described as possibly ‘filling in details’ in the life of David and enriching his character. Such an observation makes the focus of the MT even more striking, but also sheds light on the more explicit relationship between the biographical notes and David. In the LXX, it is quite clear that the LXX has added ‘biographical’ notes to psalms that already had Davidic ‘author’ designations in Ψ. 26, 142, and 143, while both ‘author’ designations and ‘biographical’ notes were added to Ψ. 95 and 96. Consequently, it would be possible to suggest that some of the ‘biographical’ notes in the MT were added to psalms that already had Davidic ‘author’ designations as well.⁷⁰ Support for such a conclusion could also be found in the fact that in these psalms, there is a great variety regarding the placement of the ‘author’ designations and other superscriptural elements, while the actual ‘biographical’ notes have an identical syntax.⁷¹

If the above is plausible, it also follows that the often-suggested function of the ‘biographical’ notes presented above is greatly diminished. If added later than the ‘author’ designations, they would not primarily have facilitated a use of psalms as individual responses to various situations in life with David as a model, simply because such a connection would already be in place! Furthermore, it is quite probable that the complaints of the individual which feature these notes would have been used by various individuals and groups to express suffering and belief long before the addition of ‘author’ designations,⁷² and so, there is no warrant for the idea that the ‘biographical’ notes would have opened up for the psalms to be read in such a way. Moreover, if the psalms in question featured לדוד‎ at the time of the addition of the ‘biographical’ notes, it is likely that the notion of a ‘suffering’ David would have already been evoked since most of the psalms provided with such notes are individual complaint psalms. Rather than increasing possible uses of a psalm, then, the ‘biographical’ notes could be seen as limiting the options.⁷³

To conclude, the ‘biographical’ notes do not seem to introduce a connection to David, they do not relate to various situations in life (at least not in the MT), nor do they introduce the idea that anyone could pray these psalms. But if the purpose of the ‘biographical’ notes was not to make the psalms more fitting for some private, devotional use, or to relate psalmody to the character of David in general, why were they added?⁷⁴ What problem did they attempt to solve? Here, the notion of a rivalry between David and Saul could point us in an, as yet, unexplored direction.

4 Putting the notes in context, part 3

4.1. Narrowing the time frame

Looking first at arguments for the dating of the ‘biographical’ notes, most agree that any such endeavour is highly speculative,⁷⁵ and suggestions have ranged from an ‘extremely late post-exilic phenomenon’,⁷⁶ to the late 6th to 5th centuries, or at least before 1-2 Chronicles.

Arguing for the former is Childs. He has an extensive discussion where he traces the way in which poetic material in the Hebrew Bible could have been provided with superscriptions, and concludes that the older collections did not carry separate superscriptions.⁷⁷ A clue for dating the ‘biographical’ notes is then found when Isa. 38, which has a superscription with a similar syntax (ב‎ + infinitive construct), is related to 1-2 Chronicles, which does not use such a form. According to Childs, this indicates that the form must be later, ‘because the material of the Chronicler would seem to lend itself admirably to the use of the superscription form if it had been available’.⁷⁸ Consequently, a late date was necessary, and this was further supported by the notion of the notes presupposing written scripture.⁷⁹ However, Childs’ argument is somewhat unpersuasive, for at least two reasons. First, it would imply that Isa. 38 was composed after 1-2 Chronicles, and second, the overview above has shown that a notion of authoritative, written scripture is not necessary.

In contrast to Childs, others have suggested that the ‘biographical’ notes belong instead to an early phase of the davidization of psalmody, and that the critical impulse for this would be related to the exile. Kleer, for one, relates them to the late-6th to 5th centuries,⁸⁰ and Hossfeld and Zenger propose that an early collection of psalms including Pss. 51-72 took shape in the 5th century, a collection that was davidized by the addition of both לדוד‎ and ‘biographical’ notes.⁸¹ Furthermore, Nogalski notes a contrast between the notes and the idealized presentation of David known from 1-2 Chronicles, and suggests that the former would plausibly have been added ‘in a time or place where the Chronicler’s account of David was not yet available’.⁸² Related to the addition of ‘biographical’ notes sketched in the previous section, as well as to the fuzzy relationship to 1-2 Samuel, it would perhaps not be unreasonable to argue that a first set of notes—presumably most of the ones focusing on Saul—could have been added at a time when 1-2 Samuel had either not yet achieved its final form or not yet acquired authoritative status within the community. At least, such a scenario would provide a fair starting-point for raising the question of why complaint psalms in particular were reinterpreted in light of an old pre-exilic Saulide–Davidic rivalry in the (early?) Second Temple period.

4.2. A post-exilic Saulide–Davidic rivalry?

It is indeed a complex task to attempt to reconstruct events in the (early) post-exilic period, especially if they are also to be related to developing traditions concerning both Saul and David, and although what follows will be somewhat speculative and generalized, I believe that a case could be made that there was in fact a resurfacing Saulide–Davidic rivalry in the early Persian period.

As is well known, the exile brought about a shift of political and administrative centres in Judah, and this would have caused some theological processing. Consider, for example, Jeremiah, the ‘Benjaminite prophet who criticized the Davidic dynasty and foretold the destruction of the Jerusalemite temple’.⁸³ As regularly portrayed, he was giving voice to a minority position that urged that Judah’s submission to Babylonia was the best political option. Although a minority position, he likely had support from a fairly influential circle that would gain power after the fall of Jerusalem.⁸⁴ More specifically, when Jerusalem, with its Davidic monarch, was sacked and destroyed, Mizpah became the capital of the region, and those remaining in the land during the exilic period would thus have been based primarily in the territory of Benjamin.⁸⁵ Such a relocation of political power would also have resulted in a change of leaders and priest, for example, and so it would not be far-fetched to suggest that these events would have given rise to what Philip R. Davies calls a ‘revival of the memory of Saul, and perhaps at the same time, a revision of the memory of David’.⁸⁶ If reasonable, it could be suggested that there was, in exilic Yehud, a developing pro-Saulide ideology that included a ‘Benjaminite conquest of its land and its role in the defence of early Israel’.⁸⁷ If further related to, for example, parts of 1 Sam. 9-10, there could also have been claims of divine legitimation.⁸⁸

Coming at the issue from the opposite direction, 1-2 Chronicles provides a contrasting picture. Here, there is no explicit mention of a Saulide–Davidic rivalry. Events that are retold at great length in 1 Samuel are not mentioned at all. However, Saul is briefly mentioned in 1 Chr. 10, and this chapter has an interesting addition (if compared to 1 Sam. 31). In v. 13-14, a theological explanation is given for the failure of Saul, namely, that he died because of his מעל‎, his ‘unfaithfulness’. According to Sarah Japhet, this root has a very general meaning in 1-2 Chronicles: ‘it was not a specific, occasional sin which caused Saul’s misfortune, but his whole practice’.⁸⁹ If reasonable, this passage could indicate that a Vorlage has been reworked into a fundamental rejection of Saul.⁹⁰ The memory of a rivalry was fading, although not entirely erased,⁹¹ and so, it would be possible to conclude, with Davies, that if disregarding DtrH, ‘we would have no evidence that Saul was ever a controversial figure’.⁹²

Portraying the two contexts sketched above as two (quite generalized) poles, one Benjaminite, pro-Saulide ideology centred at Mizpah and one pro-Davidic group centred on Jerusalem and its temple, it is clear that the latter eventually got the upper hand (so 1-2 Chronicles), but why (and when) did such a shift take place? Here, Diana V. Edelman has argued that the return of Jews to the land after 538 BCE would have created a clash between the ‘non-golah community in Benjamin and the golah group over (1) whether the descendants of the Saulide or Davidide royal houses should be appointed governor and (2) where the temple should be rebuilt—in Gibeon or Jerusalem’.⁹³ Similarly, Marc Zvi Brettler notes that a ‘pro-Saul ideology continued long after the death of Saul’,⁹⁴ but while Brettler sees primarily an ongoing ideological battle, Edelman proposes an actual struggle for power. Focusing primarily on 1-2 Samuel, she argues that a conflict between Saulides and Davidides is best understood in relation to the last third of the 6th century BCE, ‘soon after the appearance of either Sheshbazzar or Zerubbabel and Yeshua to claim leadership of the Persian province of Yehud’.⁹⁵ In light of the two poles above, such a scenario makes sense, and according to Edelman, the most acute phase of such a conflict would have been settled in 515 BCE with the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem.⁹⁶ Although Edelman’s suggestion is difficult to substantiate in full, it does point to the important conclusion that there would have been tensions between Saulides (Benjaminites) and Davidides at this time.

4.3. Mapping land and resistance

If the major contours of the above scenario are somewhat reasonable, this resurfacing of a Saulide–Davidic rivalry in the early Persian period would have left its mark on the literature that took shape during this time, and this would apply not only to 1-2 Samuel—‘books’ that obviously contain conflicting positions in regard to these two figures of the past—but plausibly also to the ‘biographical’ notes that focus on Saul. If so, one could suggest that the ‘biographical’ notes were reflecting intense negotiations between the competing traditions about Saul and David that were circulating at this time. But if both Saulides and Davidides were making claims to power and possession of the land, what was the ‘answer’ provided by the ‘biographical’ notes?

In the notes that do focus in some way on Saul, David is depicted as wandering about in the land, hiding from Saul. Despite being the chosen king-to-be of YHWH (hence rendering unnecessary any dichotomy between king and person of faith), David was threatened by the ruler and prevented from gaining possession of the land. However, he did not attempt to fight Saul but rather waited for YHWH himself to intervene, and one of the explanations given in 1-2 Samuel is that Saul was also YHWH’s messiah (משיח יהוה‎, see, for example, 1 Sam. 24:7). Here, the message conveyed by the ‘biographical’ notes begins to become clear to be uncovered. By infusing the stories of David with well-established psalms, that is, psalms that had been used by the community for a long time, the ones responsible for the notes placed themselves alongside the Davidides but nonetheless provided a critique of both sides of the conflict. Saul is criticized for chasing David, but to those lobbying for a Davidic rule over Yehud, the notes likewise had an urgent message. By not appealing to the Davidide claims to power, and by not painting David in idealistic colours, the notes assert that resistance against power and longing for possession of the land is related to the performing of psalms. It would not have been news for those returning from exile that complaint psalms could sustain hope and resistance in times of distress, but now a bold interpretive move was set in motion, proposing that it was when David turned to YHWH by means of psalmody that he was able to foster a sustained and faithful resistance. Ultimately, Saul would die without any intervention from David, and history might repeat itself. The ‘biographical’ notes thus imply that the answer to the resurfacing Saulide–Davidic rivalry lies not in the arena of politics but in that of the cult. So put, it was nonetheless a political act: like David, the great king of old, they should not seek positions of power but should remain in ‘exile’ even when in the land.

If reasonable, it becomes clear that the ‘biographical’ notes are not about the ‘exploring of an area which has been staked out by means of a sacred text’.⁹⁷ Focus is not on some ‘inner life’ of the reader, neither are the notes concerned with ‘filling in the blanks’ of a beloved character, nor are they directly related to a davidization of psalmody. Rather, they attempt to map a way of continuing resistance in the shadow of a struggle for power in post-exilic Yehud.

Understood in such a way, explanatory light is also shed on their later reception. When the needs of this specific context were no longer acute, when the Saulide–Davidic rivalry was again to be seen as part of the past (as in 1-2 Chronicles), the notes would lose their original function and be transformed along with the reshaping of the traditions of Saul and David. Consequently, they would likely have been subsumed into the larger process of davidization. More notes were added (e.g. to Pss. 51; 60 etc., and then to the LXX as described above), some perhaps inspired by the stories of David later included in 1-2 Samuel, and so, the overall use and function of the notes would have changed into a general relating of psalmody to the stories of David. Ultimately, what is seen is a fascinating example of the complex history of interpretation and use of psalms in the Second Temple period and beyond.

Footnotes

1.

: 149).

2.

Childs (1971); Slomovic (1979). See, however, , p. 2:100).

3.

Cf. the brief discussion in : 184-87).

4.

: 148).

5.

Because of these shared features, Pss. 7 and 18 are often left out of surveys of these notes but are nevertheless included here to provide a complete picture of the Masoretic ‘Book’ of Psalms. Also to be noted is Ps. 30, which has the superscription מזמור שיר־חנכת הבית לדוד‎ ‘A Psalm. A song at the dedication of the temple. Of David’.

6.

Translations are from the NRSV, unless stated otherwise.

7.

Childs (1971: 148), Rendtorff (2005: 54-55), or : 38), who propose that the ‘biographical’ notes give ‘a hint about how the psalm might be read in the canonical tradition’, more specifically, the psalms are to be read along with 1 Samuel (p. 3).

8.

: 30).

9.

: 149).

10.

: 25).

11.

Cf. the discussion in , pp. 1: 80-81).

12.

Goldingay (2006: 109). Others have also identified numerous verbal links, see, e.g. Auwers (2000: 138), Nogalski (2001: 170), Craigie and Tate (2004: 72-73), : 55).

13.

Childs (1971: 144), , p. 1:128), has similarly noted that ‘there is no specific reference to that event in the text of the psalm’.

14.

As indicated by the preposition על‎ (cf. Dahood [1965: 40], A critique is formulated by : 123, n. 1)).

15.

For an overview of these alternatives, see Slomovic (1979: 366), nn. 49-51. See also the discussion in : 127-30).

16.

See, e.g. Hutton (1986: 129-30, 134-36), Gerstenberger (1988: 64), Aurelius (2004: 394, 408-11), Rendtorff (2005: 55), Goldingay (2006: 144-45), : 61).

17.

This observation was made early on by Kittel and Gunkel (cf. Hutton [1986: 127], Kraus [1993: 169]), and later followed by, e.g. Craigie and Tate (2004: 99) and deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson and Tanner (2014: 110). The former suggest that ‘the obscurity of the incident tends to support both its antiquity and its authenticity’ (cf. also Kidner [1973: 61], Somewhat surprisingly, : 366-67) argues that it relates to 1 Sam. 24:8-22, based on thematic as well as lexical links.

18.

Willgren (2016: 293-95), recently suggested canonical reading of their relationship is not convincing in this regard.

19.

See, e.g. Childs (1971: 144), Slomovic (1979: 369), Nogalski (2001: 172), Wilson (2002: 1:567), Craigie and Tate (2004: 278), Rendtorff (2005: 57), Mays (2011: 152), deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, and Tanner (2014: 321), : 61).

20.

: 144), He also suggests a literary relationship between the title and 2 Sam. 21:13.

21.

For the notion of scribal error, see also, e.g. Kraus (1993: 383), and Gerstenberger (1988: 146-47). This is, however, (correctly) deemed unlikely by, e.g. Childs (1971: 144) and : 278).

22.

For this position, see, e.g. : 278).

23.

For the latter, see also : 477-78), pwho proposes that such a link would be intended to teach how to respond to fear.

24.

Cf. deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, and Tanner (2014: 321).

25.

Childs (1971: 145), Slomovic (1979: 370), Gerstenberger (1988: 212), Nogalski (2001: 175), Rendtorff (2005: 58), Mays (2011: 198), deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, and Tanner (2014: 453), : 235).

26.

: 12-13).

27.

: 178).

28.

An alternative suggestion has been proposed by Bathja Bayer. Arguing that some of the ‘biographical’ notes might actually have been subscripts to the preceding psalm, she suggests that the note now made part of Ps. 51 has a better fit as a subscript to the second half of Ps. 50. Here, a רשע‎ is portrayed as a hypocrite who associates with thieves and ‘keep[s] company with adulterers’ (vv. 16-19). Hence, the psalm could be seen as preventing ‘some actual association with a ruler notorious for deceit and adultery’, and thus provides an implicit critique of David, rather than portraying him as a pious penitent. This, and similar readings then provide Bayer (1982) with a basis for the conclusion that the ‘biographical’ notes seem to ‘invite accusations of disloyalty or actual incitement to rebellion’ (pp. 108-109). For her entire discussion of these notes, see 104-109. The issue of the placement of the psalm superscriptions has been regularly discussed, see, e.g. . Although quite speculative, it could at least serve as a reminder not to read the notes too quickly as necessarily pro-Davidic.

29.

Wilson (2002: p. 1:785), Rendtorff (2005: 58), Nogalski (2001: 178), cf. Slomovic (1979: 371), Sam. 21-22 (also Mays [2011: 205], Brueggemann and Bellinger Jr [2014: 243], Goldingay [2006: 142-43], cf. Gerstenberger [1988: 216], 1 Sam. 21:8; 22:6-19; : 30]).

30.

Childs (1971: 145), see also, e.g. Auwers (2000: 143), Nogalski (2001: 180), Rendtorff (2005: 58), : 30).

31.

: 145).

32.

: 150).

33.

: 153).

34.

: 156), also finds further support for this view in the similarities between the ‘biographical’ notes in Pss. 51 and 52. Both have someone coming (בבוא‎ + name [Nathan/Doeg]), and this is interpreted as providing the ‘narrative background for David’s ultimate awareness of his offence’.

35.

: 153).

36.

Childs (1971: 145), Slomovic (1979: 372), Tate (1990: 47), Auwers (2000: 143), Wilson (2002: p. 1:798), Rendtorff (2005: 58), Hossfeld and Zenger (2005: 46), Goldingay (2006: 158-59), (he also mentions 1 Sam. 26, as does Nogalski (2001: 181), Brueggemann and Bellinger Jr (2014: 248), deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson and Tanner (2014: 469).

37.

: 221).

38.

: p. 1:798).

39.

The connection is often made. See, e.g. Childs (1971: 146), Slomovic (1979: 372), Gerstenberger (1988: 227), Wilson (2002 p. 1:820), Mays (2011: 209), Brueggemann and Bellinger Jr (2014: 255), deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, and Tanner (2014: 480), : 183) mentions both 1 Sam. 21:10-22:1 and 27:1-29:11, but sees lexical links to the first one only.

40.

: 146).

41.

: 69).

42.

See : 69).

43.

Kleer (1996: 99-100), Hossfeld and Zenger (2005: 63), Cf. also : 144).

44.

: p. 1:820).

45.

For Ps. 57, see the conclusions drawn in Slomovic (1979: 372-73), Tate (1990: 73), : 193), Mays (2011: 210), Brueggemann and Bellinger Jr (2014: 258), deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, and Tanner (2014: 486) and Wilson (2002: 1:830). Of the two possible stories, Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger opt for the latter based on an identification of lexical links and a ‘comparable structure of events’ (Hossfeld and Zenger (2005: 70), building on Kleer (1996: 100); cf. Auwers (2000: 144), Rendtorff [2005: 59], and Wilson (2002: 1:830), concludes that while there is little in the text that ‘demands’ such a context, the language of the psalm is nevertheless quite appropriate for such events. For a discussion of possible lexical links in Ps. 142, see Allen (2002: 348), or the suggestion by Goldingay (2006: 664-65), that since David’s spirit did not fail in 1 Sam. 24, it probably refers to 1 Sam. 22.

46.

See, e.g. Tate (1990: 95), Kleer (1996: 101-102), Nogalski (2001: 183-86), Rendtorff (2005: 59), Hossfeld and Zenger (2005: 88-89.), : 235-36), sees a near exact quote of 1 Sam. 19:11.

47.

: p. 1:849).

48.

This is regularly noted as a curious problem. See, e.g. Kleer (1996: 102-104), Wilson (2002: p. 1:860), Hossfeld and Zenger (2005: 98), : 62).

49.

: 146-47).

50.

deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, and Tanner (2014: 505), : 267).

51.

Hossfeld and Zenger (2005: 99), cf. : 106).

52.

See a similar observation in : 188-89).

53.

Childs (1971: 147), Kidner (1973: 242), Slomovic (1979: 374-75), Tate (1990: 126-27), Kleer (1996: 108), Auwers (2000: 146-47), Rendtorff (2005: 59), Hossfeld and Zenger (2005: 123), Goldingay (2006: 256), Cf. : 61).

54.

This is a common interpretation (see, e.g. Weiser [1962: 456], Kraus [1989: 21], Hossfeld and Zenger (2005: 122), although, some like : 262), interpret the use of the third person as indicating that the psalmist now speaks of ‘kings generically’.

55.

Cf. the overview in : 120-23).

56.

So : 374).

57.

: 279).

58.

As with, e.g. Mowinckel (1967: pp. 2:100-101), Gerstenberger (2001: 13), Wilson (2002: p. 1:889), ; Mays (2011: 218), deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, and Tanner (2014: 519), also mention David’s earlier career as shepherd as a possible reference. This, however, seems unlikely.

59.

Cf. perhaps Bayer (1982: 105), and Mays (1986: 154). It is interesting to note that : 127) argues that the ‘biographical’ notes (his focus is on Ps 7) cannot be referring to a story outside of DtrH, ‘given the obvious midrashic intention of such notices’.

60.

To be fair, what scholars like Childs and Slomovic are doing is not so much arguing that the ‘biographical’ notes are themselves midrashic but rather that a midrashic-like activity might have caused the addition of the superscriptions. Consequently, their focus is on what is not extant in the text, namely on the possibility of reconstructing implicit exegetical considerations behind the selection of the psalms that were to be related to the stories of David. In this sense, it could be said that it is in fact Childs and Slomovic themselves who provide the midrash, so that the hypothesis depends on the nature of the possible overlaps between the psalms and 1-2 Samuel.

61.

62.

The superscriptions to Pss. 7 and 18 do not relate to these events, but nevertheless mention either Saul, or refer more generally to Benjamin.

63.

The expression is borrowed from : 55).

64.

Knowles (2005: 236). See also Auwers (2000: 151), Nogalski (2001: 190), Rendtorff (2005: 63), Brueggemann and Bellinger Jr (2014: 258), cf. Mays (1986: 152). A slightly different reading is suggested by : 61-67), who criticizes the notion of midrash (as well as the often-suggested notion of Davidic authorship), and proposes that the scribal aim would not have been to interpret the text of the psalms themselves, but to animate and dramatize them ‘in the voice of a beloved character’ (although with a primary focus on the ‘penitent’ and ‘suffering’ David). So put, they are rather to be seen as character driven ‘hagiographic expansion[s]’ (p. 67).

65.

The quote is from Wilson (1985: 173); cf., e.g. Eissfeldt (1971: 99), Mays (1986: 152), Zenger (1991: 407), Ballhorn (1995: 24), Kleer (1996: 126), Vos (2005: 49), Rendtorff (2005: 56), Zenger (2011: p. 1:28), : 153).

66.

Wilson (2002: 1:128). See, however, : 170-73), where he adheres to the idea that the notes provide ‘models for individual response’.

67.

In fact, one of the strengths of the approach of Childs et al. was that it provided good grounds to move beyond issues of the relationship between the ‘biographical’ notes and suggested ‘original settings’ for the psalms (as argued by, e.g. ).

68.

I use Ψ. to refer to the number of the psalm in the LXX sequence.

69.

For an overview of possibilities, see Slomovic (1979: 356-64). Ψ. 26; 142; 143 overlap somewhat with events also retold in 1-2 Samuel, while Ψ. 96 is not so entirely clear (cf. perhaps the notion of rest, ויהוה הניח־לו מסביב מכל־איביו‎, in the MT of 2 Sam. 7:1, although the LXX rather speaks of inheritance καὶ κύριος κατεκληρονόμησεν αὐτὸν κύκλῳ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐχθρῶν αὐτοῦ τῶν κύκλῳ, see also Josephus’ notion of David composing psalms at the end of his life in A.J. 7.12.3), and Ψ. 95 does not refer to any part of the stories of David in 1-2 Samuel, but perhaps relates to the understanding of psalmody implied in passages like 1 Chr. 16 (cf. the discussion of that passage in : 211-16, 295)). It is also possible to mention in this context Ψ. 70, but since the superscription does not focus on the life of David, but on the “the sons of Jonadab, and the first that were taken captive”, it is not included in the analysis.

70.

For this, see also Bayer (1982: 107), Gerstenberger (1988: 146-47), (on Ps. 34); Wilson (2002: p. 1:80-81), deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, and Tanner (2014: 72-73), (on Ps. 3); cf. Mays (1986: 151), : 137).

71.

This is possibly underscored further by the citation of Pss. 57 and 60 in Ps. 108. The latter is provided with a Davidic ‘author’ designation in a way similar to the addition of superscriptions in the LXX (cf. : pp. 179, 300]), but does not feature any ‘biographical’ note.

72.

See further .

73.

This is also pointed out by Mroczek (2016: 65), who argues that the ‘biographical’ notes seem to have the opposite effect of midrash. While the former contextualizes originally timeless texts, the midrash generally ‘undoes’ such a historicizing: ‘All that David said in his Book of Psalms applies to himself, to all Israel, and to all the ages’ (Midrash on Ps. 18:1, translation from : 1:230]).

74.

One additional suggestion should be briefly mentioned here. In line with much recent research on the ‘Book’ of Psalms, Hossfeld and Zenger have argued that the superscriptions are to be seen in relation to the neighbouring psalms, and suggest that the clustering of many of the Masoretic ‘biographical’ notes around Pss. 51-63 (8 of 13) indicates an intentional theological progression throughout Pss. 51-72. Proceeding from the sins of David (Ps. 51), they argue that he is rightly(!) persecuted throughout Pss. 52-63. Then, David praises YHWH (Ps. 65), suffers again (Ps. 69), and the series ends with the reign of Solomon in Ps. 72 (Hossfeld and Zenger (2005: 18-19). Other synchronic readings are presented by, e.g. Rendtorff [2005]). However, such a scenario is unlikely. Apart from the critique I have formulated recently in relation to the attempts to read the psalms synchronically as a ‘book’ (I will not repeat the arguments here, but refer the reader to Willgren (2016, 2017a, )), it is quite odd that a redactor who wanted to create a theological progression of this kind did not provide more psalms with ‘biographical’ notes, and that the notes are not placed in chronological order.

75.

Cf. : 351): ‘it is very difficult, if not impossible, to fix the date or dates at which any particular Psalm was captioned’.

76.

So Childs (1971: 148), based on form, and since they are argued to presuppose a clear notion of written scripture. Cf., e.g. Anderson (1972: 51), Craigie and Tate (2004: 32). The notes are attested in the earliest Dead Sea ‘psalms’ scrolls, e.g. the note of Ps. 54 in 4Q83 from the mid-2nd century BCE (cf. : 85-86]).

77.

: 141).

78.

: 148).

79.

For this, see also, e.g. : 12-13), who also argues that they would even presuppose the notion of scripture for the psalms themselves, and ‘thus the proper place to find answers about questions like, “When did David pray this prayer?” was in the scriptural account of David’ (p. 54).

80.

Kleer (1996: 126), (he sees the notes in Pss. 51-72 as the oldest, thus functioning as prototypes for the other, cf. : 149]).

81.

: 3).

82.

: 190).

83.

: 138).

84.

Cf. : 462-63), Davis (2013: 138-39).

85.

Cf. the discussion in : 482-85, 510).

86.

: 139).

87.

: 140).

88.

Cf. : 109).

89.

: 229-30).

90.

See a similar argument in : 649), who identifies several aspects of the passage where the Chronicler seems to have reworked 1 Sam. 31 from a more anti-Saulide perspective.

91.

Consider, for example, 1 Chr. 12:29, where it is related that David only received minimal military support from Benjamin since ‘the majority had continued to keep their allegiance to the house of Saul’. There are also some genealogies occurring in 1 Chr. 8:29-40; 9:35-44 that relate to Saul. It has been suggested that this implies that there were people at the time of the composition of 1-2 Chronicles who traced their descent back to Saul (living in Jerusalem[?], cf. Flanagan (1982)) and perhaps even saw themselves as potential royalty (cf. Brettler [1995: 110]). This is uncertain, however. It has been pointed out by Blenkinsopp (2013: 39-40), for example, that the lists would not have extended beyond the reign of Manasseh, so that the question is raised ‘as to whether a suitable candidate would have been available anytime after the fall of Jerusalem’. For this, see also : 655).

92.

: 137).

93.

: 90).

94.

: 109).

95.

: 72).

96.

However, : 658), argues that the ‘Saul polemic … expressed the tensions between the Judeans and the Benjaminites, … and a protest against the claim that the Davidic dynasty was the only legitimate option to power’, and that this polemic continued, as it is reflected in 1-2 Chronicles and Esther.

97.

: 150).

References

Allen

Leslie C.

Psalms 101-150 (WBC 21, 2002).

Amit

Yairah

. ‘The Saul Polemic in the Persian Period’, in Lipschits

Oded

Oeming

Manfred

(eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (2006), pp. 674-61.

Anderson

Arnold A.

Psalms 1-72 (NCBC, 1972).

Aurelius

Erik

. ‘Davids Unschuld: Die Hofgeschichte und Psalm 7’, in Witte

Markus

(ed.), Gott und Mensch in Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag (BZAW 345/I, 2004), pp. 391-412.

Auwers

Jean-Marie

. La composition littéraire du psautier: Un état de la question (CahRB 46, 2000).

Ballhorn

Egbert

. ‘“Um deines Knechtes David willen” (Ps 132,10): Die Gestalt Davids im Psalter’, BN 76 (1995), pp. 16-31.

Bayer

Bathja

. ‘The Titles of the Psalms: A Renewed Investigation of an Old Problem’, in Adler

Israel

(ed.), Yuval Studies of the Jewish Music Research Centre (Yuval Studies 4, 1982), pp. 29-123.

Blenkinsopp

Joseph

. David Remembered: Kingship and National Identity in Ancient Israel (2013).

Braude

William G.

(ed.), The Midrash on Psalms (vols. 2, YJS 13, 1959).

10.

Brettler

Marc Zvi

. The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (1995).

11.

Brueggemann

Walter

Bellinger

William H.

Jr. , Psalms (NCBC, 2014).

12.

Craigie

Peter C.

Tate

Marvin E.

Psalms 1-50, 2 ed. (WBC 19, 2004).

13.

Childs

Brevard S.

‘Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis’, Journal of Semitic Studies, 16, no. 2 (1971), pp. 137-50.

14.

Dahood

Mitchell

. Psalms I: 1-50 (AB 16, 1965).

15.

Davies

Philip R.

‘Saul, Hero and Villain’, in Edelman

Diana V.

Zvi

Ehud ben

(eds.), Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian & Early Hellenistic Periods: Social Memory and Imagination (2013), pp. 131-40.

16.

deClaissé-Walford

Nancy L.

Jacobson

Rolf A.

Tanner

Beth LaNeel

. The Book of Psalms (NICOT, 2014).

17.

Edelman

Diana V.

‘Did Saulide-Davidic Rivalry Resurface in Early Persian Yehud?’, in Dearman

J. Andrew

Graham

M. Patrick

(eds.), The Land That I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor of J. Maxwell Miller (JSOTSup 343, 2001), pp. 69-91.

18.

Edelman

Diana V.

‘David in Israelite Social Memory’, in Edelman

Diana V.

Zvi

Ehud Ben

(eds.), Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods: Social Memory and Imagination (2013), pp. 141-57.

19.

Eissfeldt

Otto

. ‘Die Psalmen als Geschichtsquelle’, in Goedicke

Hans

(ed.), Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (1971), pp. 97-112.

20.

Flanagan

James W.

‘Genealogy and Dynasty in the Early Monarchy of Israel and Judah’, in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Division A: The Period of the Bible (1982), pp. 23-28.

21.

Gerstenberger

Erhard S.

Psalms: Part I with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry (FOTL 14, 1988).

22.

Gerstenberger

Erhard S.

Psalms: Part 2 and Lamentations (FOTL 15, 2001).

23.

Goldingay

John

. Psalms 1-41 (BCOTWP, 2006).

24.

Goldingay

John

. Psalms 42-89 (BCOTWP, 2007).

25.

Hossfeld

Frank-Lothar

Zenger

Erich

. Psalms 2 (trans. Maloney

Linda M.

, 2005).

26.

Hossfeld

Frank-Lothar

Zenger

Erich

. Psalms 3 (trans. Maloney

Linda M.

, 2011).

27.

Hutton

Rodney R.

‘Cush the Benjaminite and Psalm Midrash’, HAR, 10 (1986), pp. 123-37.

28.

Japhet

Sara

. I & II Chronicles (OTL, 1993).

29.

Kidner

Derek

. Psalms 1-72: An Introduction and Commentary on Books I and II of the Psalms (TOTC, 1973).

30.

Kleer

Martin

. ‘Der liebliche Sänger der Psalmen Israels’: Untersuchungen zu David als Dichter und Beter der Psalmen (BBB 108, 1996).

31.

Knowles

Melody D.

‘The Flexible Rhetoric of Retelling: The Choice of David in the Texts of the Psalms’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 67 (2005), 236-49.

32.

Kraus

Hans-Joachim

. Psalms 1-59 (trans. Oswald

Hilton C.

, 1993).

33.

Kraus

Hans-Joachim

. Psalms 60-150 (trans. Oswald

Hilton C.

, 1989).

34.

Lindström

Fredrik

. Suffering and Sin: Interpretations of Illness in the Individual Complaint Psalms (1994).

35.

Mays

James L.

Psalms (IBC, 2011).

36.

Mays

James L.

‘The David of the Psalms’. Interpretation, 40, no. 2 (1986), pp. 143-55.

37.

Meier

Samuel A.

‘The Heading of Psalm 52’, HAR, 14 (1994), pp. 143-58.

38.

Miller

J. Maxwell

Hayes

John H.

A History of Israel and Judah. 2 ed. (2006).

39.

Mowinckel

Sigmund

. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (trans. Ap-Thomas

D. R.

, vols. 2; 1967).

40.

Mroczek

Eva

. The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity (2016).

41.

Nogalski

James D.

‘Reading David in the Psalter: A Study in Liturgical Hermeneutics’, HBT, 23 (2001), pp. 168-91.

42.

Rendtorff

Rolf

. ‘The Psalms of David: David in the Psalms’, in Flint

Peter W.

Miller

Patrick D.

(eds.), The Book of Psalms: Composition & Reception (2005), pp. 53-64.

43.

Slomovic

Elieser

. ‘Toward an Understanding of the Formation of Historical Titles in the Book of Psalms’, ZAW, 91, no. 3 (1979), pp. 350-80.

44.

Tate

Marvin E.

Psalms 51-100 (WBC 20, 1990).

45.

Longman

Tremper

III , Psalms: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC 15-16, 2014).

46.

Tur-Sinai

N. H.

‘The Literary Character of the Psalms’, OtSt, 8 (1980), pp. 263-81.

47.

Vos

Cas J. A.

Theopoetry of the Psalms (2005).

48.

Waltke

Bruce K.

‘Superscripts, Postscripts, or Both’, Journal of Biblical Literature, 110, no. 4 (1991), pp. 583-96.

49.

Weber

Beat

. ‘Die doppelte Verknotung des Psalters: Kanonhermeneutische Erwägungen zu den “Schnittstellen” Psalm 18 // 2 Samuel 22 und Psalm 96; 105; 106 // 1 Chronik 16’. BZ, 60, no. 2 (2016), pp. 14-27.

50.

Weiser

Artur

. The Psalms: A Commentary (trans. Hartwell

Herbert

, OTL, 1962).

51.

Willgren

David

. ‘Antwort Gottes: Isaiah 40-55 and the Transformation of Psalmody’, in Andersson

Greger

Wasserman

Tommy

Willgren

David

(eds.), Studies in Isaiah: History, Theology, and Reception (LHBOTS, 2017a), pp. 96-115.

52.

Willgren

David

. ‘Did David Lay Down his Crown? Reframing Issues of Deliberate Juxtaposition and Interpretive Contexts in the “Book” of Psalms with Psalm 147 as a Case in Point’, in Pajunen

Mika S.

Penner

Jeremy

(eds.), Functions of Psalms and Prayers in Late Second Temple Period (BZAW 486, 2017b), pp. 212-30.

53.

Willgren

David

. The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms: Reconsidering the Transmission and Canonization of Psalmody in Light of Material Culture and the Poetics of Anthologies (FAT II 88, 2016).

54.

Wilson

Gerald H.

Psalms (2 vols, The NIV Application Commentary, 2002).

55.

Wilson

Gerald H.

The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS 76, 1985).

56.

Zenger

Erich

. ‘Was wird anders bei kanonischer Psalmenauslegung?’, in Reiterer

Friedrich V.

(ed.), Ein Gott, eine Offenbarung: Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese, Theologie und Spiritualitat: Festschrift für Notker Füglister OSB zum 60. Geburtstag (1991), pp. 397-413.

57.

Zenger

Erich

. Psalmen: Auslegungen in zwei Bänden (vols. 2, 2011).