Abstract
As the first of the songs of Ascents, Psalm 120 might be seen as key to understanding the whole corpus, but its content remains poorly understood. This study suggests that its author was a smith-poet committed to the Edomite/Qenite traditional worship of YHWH, here complaining about participating, through the fabrication of iron weapons, in the demise of Edom (553 BCE). On this reading, the poem becomes a lament on the irremediable demise of traditional (metallurgical) Yahwism after the rise of iron metallurgy and its transformation of war. Introducing the Ascents, this song might express the search for an alternative form of Yahwism emancipated from the original metallurgical dimension. Expressed in Israel, this alternative Yahwism becomes praised in the other songs of Ascents. This interpretation corroborates the rise of a group of Edomite poets (Ezrahites) in Jerusalem in the early Persian period and its integration within the temple staff.
1. Introduction
The corpus of Ascents is a cluster of 15 psalms (Psalms 120-134) that are quite homogeneous in their language, expression, and poetical craft. Together with their singularity in the Psalter, these characteristics suggest that the songs of Ascents emanate from a small atypical circle of poets. 1 The unity of this corpus also reflects their content. Évode Beaucamp assumes that the whole collection revolves around a single theme and that the songs all express the same theological views. 2 This general theme, if it truly exists, might constitute the key to reading and interpreting these elliptic compositions.
The first clue to the identity of such a theme is their dating. The linguistic characteristics concur in positioning the songs of Ascents in the early post-exilic period. 3 The mention of the temple in Psalm 122 reveals that they were not composed before the beginning of the Persian period (515 BCE), the time of its reconstruction. The reference to Psalm 132 in the Solomon prayer (2 Chr. 6.40-42) indicates that they already existed before the Chronicles redaction. 4 Scholars suggest that this corpus belongs to the period of Nehemiah. 5 Indeed, the identification of Psalm 122 as the song performed at the dedication ceremony for the city wall (Neh. 12.27-43) supports this view. 6
Beyond this consensus, opinions diverge concerning the theme, meaning, and authorship of this corpus. The songs of Ascents have been viewed by some as Zion songs composed for the celebration of religious festivals in the reconstructed temple of Jerusalem. 7 Their function as pilgrim songs was deduced by others from their heading, ‘Songs of Ascents’ 8 , and from the mention of people residing in far countries in the first song (Psalm 120) and standing in the courtyard of the temple in the last one (Psalm 134). 9 This approach suggests that the ranking of these songs is of importance for clarifying the general theme of the corpus. It also suggests devoting special attention to the message of Psalm 120, the opening song.
Psalm 120 is generally interpreted as a song expressing the eagerness of expatriate Israelites for a pilgrimage to the holy city. 10 Though an atmosphere of homesickness is perceptible in this song, the absence of Israelite markers (including Zion/Jerusalem) in Psalm 120 is unexpected for a pilgrim song. It is especially problematic for an opus opening a whole corpus organized around such a theme.
Alternative interpretations of Psalm 120 do, however, exist. For example, Seybold approached Psalm 120 as the story of a Jewish soldier unjustly accused of treason and looking for refuge in the tents of Qedar. 11 We may wonder, however, how such an anecdotal episode reached Jerusalem and how it became the opening work of the Ascents corpus. Goulder identified the whole cluster as a companion to the book of Nehemiah. Therefore, he traced a parallel between Psalm 120 and the beginning of Nehemiah (Neh. 1.1-11). 12 But here, again, the absence of a mention of Jerusalem/Zion contrasts with the centrality of this theme in Nehemiah 1.
In light of these problems, it is not surprising that scholars approach Psalm 120 as a general complaint about exile, lacking any reference to location or historical event. 13 However, the lack of allusions to the Exile and the land of Israel challenges this interpretation. 14 It is not surprising, therefore, to see this song sometimes considered a unique composition in the Psalter. 15 After decades of interpretations of Psalm 120 in the context of songs of Pilgrimages/Zion, the current state of confusion suggests that this context might be inappropriate for its elucidation. Indeed the present study suggests that we have missed something essential concerning this song which has prevented us from understanding its meaning, its pride of place in the song of Ascents, and even the central theme of this corpus. This possibility invites us to re-examine the content of this song.
2. The meaning of verse 4
Thanks to the absence of verbs, verse 4 is generally interpreted as an extension of verse 3. This verse (What shall give you, and what shall add to you, A deceitful tongue) looks like a call to YHWH to impose his justice upon the evildoers. 16 It is why many scholars identify, in verse 4, a divine reaction following the petition in verses 2-3. 17 They account for the explicit mention of arrows and coals as divine weapons in the Bible. 18 From this perspective, the divine use of arrows (v. 4) against the enemies of the psalmist becomes a punishment that mirrors (lex talionis) their warfare (vv. 2-3). 19 Extending this view, the glowing coals in 4b become another weapon accompanying the arrows’ use in 4a. 20 A problem arises, however. The divine intervention in verse 4 is expected to destroy the enemies and to transform the last verses into a song of praise and thanksgiving. But this situation is not observed in Psalm 120, where the psalmist’s tormenters are active before and after verse 4. This suggests that something of importance here remains undetected.
First, the central position of verse 4 transforms it into the core of a chiastic pattern of symmetry. 21 Albert Condamin long ago recognized that, in biblical poetry, the central verse of a whole chiastic pattern frequently expresses the main theme of the song. 22 Consequently, verse 4 is not necessarily the complement of the sentence formulated in verse 3. Rather, it may formulate a message of importance, standing on its own, and even constituting the key to understanding the entire song. In this context, the absence of verbs in verse 4 should not reflect the sentence’s incompleteness. It becomes rather a literary artifice highlighting its content, granting it a timeless and even oracular dimension.
Because we know that arrowheads were metallic in the Iron Age the mention of arrows and coals in verse 4 brings forth spontaneously the representation of a smith producing weapons. James Limburg already stressed this point in claiming that ‘“The glowing coals of the broom” likely refers to the fires used for shaping and sharpening the points of arrows used in warfare.’ 23 In this context, verse 4 focuses neither on YHWH avenging himself against his enemies nor on Jerusalem’s inhabitants defending their city against those besieging it. 24 It merely accounts for a smith producing arrowheads and deploring their misuse in verses 5-7. By means of its content, verse 4 invites us to identify the I-voice in Psalm 120 with a smith, and the tragedy inherent in his production of weapons as its central theme.
Verse 4 adds further information. The reference to broom trees (4b) emphasizes the high calorific value of the coal it produces, a consequence of the high density of its wood. 25 This detail is especially relevant for ironworking of small pieces, such as arrowheads. Their hardening requires a long series of quenching and carburization, and consequently, being worked around a small hearth preserving a high temperature for a long time. It is why the mention here of coals with a high calorific value probably refers to ironworking. The image of sharpening arrowheads is another indicator that they are iron because sharpening accompanies the gradual hardening by hammering of such iron-made artifacts.
These conclusions are not surprising. In the mid-first millennium BCE, iron largely replaced bronze in the production of offensive weapons. Indeed, it was the metal typically associated with warfare, violence, and cruelty. In Daniel’s vision of the four successive empires spreading terror on the earth, the last and most terrible one is explicitly associated with iron: ‘After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns’ (Dan. 7.7). In Greece too, iron was associated with warfare, felony, and lying. The way Hesiod accounts for the moral qualities of humankind living in the ‘Iron age’ illustrates the point: ‘Fist-law men; one will sack another’s town, and there will be no thanks for the man who abides by his oath or for the righteous or worthy man, but instead they will honour the miscreant and the criminal.’ 26 A few centuries later, the use of iron for making arrowheads is still considered by Pliny the Elder as one of the most devastating consequences of the spread of iron. After noting the positive uses of iron for agriculture and tool production, he adds: ‘…we likewise use it for wars and slaughter and brigandage, and not only in hand-to-hand encounters but as a winged missile, now projected from catapults, now hurled by the arm, and now equipped with feathery wings, which I deem the most criminal artifice of man’s genius, inasmuch as to enable death to reach human beings more quickly we have taught iron how to fly and have given wings to it.’ 27 It would not be surprising to find a complaint of a similar nature in Psalm 120.
3. The metallurgical ascendant of the I-voice
Considered alone, verse 4 does not necessarily identify the I-voice with a smith. After all, like Daniel, Hesiod, and Pliny, the author of this song might be a poet deploring iron misuse. However, further indications suggest the acquaintance of this author with metallurgy.
3.1. Marginality
The marginality of the poet is one of the most obvious features emanating from Psalm 120. Scholars report an atmosphere of continued defiance, homelessness, and the absence of a safe environment throughout the psalm. 28 Indeed, the outcast status of the author of Psalm 120 is made explicit in verse 5. For this reason, exegetes assumed that it was written by a Jerusalemite traveling in foreign countries, unattached to any community. 29 Others have conjectured that verses 2-3 relate to defamation unjustly afflicting the poet, thus transforming the entire psalm into a supplication for the recovery of a lost reputation. 30 Neither interpretation can, however, account for the content of verse 4 and its metallurgical connotations.
Marginality is easily explained in the context of metalworking. Anthropological studies of the social status of metalworkers in traditional African cultures reveal that smiths and smelters constituted endogamous groups whose members were scattered in villages and cities. These studies also reveal that smiths and smelters were typically regarded as marginal social groups and even aliens among the host populations. 31 Many parallels are identified between traditions, beliefs, and lifestyles of metalworkers from the Mediterranean area in Antiquity and Africa in more recent times. 32 These findings suggest that marginality was also experienced by metalworkers in the Iron Age, including in the Southern Levant. This conclusion is supported by the way these craftsmen (identified as Qenites and their affiliated clans, Qenizites, Rekhabites, Jerahmaelites) are mentioned in the Bible. 33 For example, as the I-voice of Psalm 120, the Rekhabites self-define as aliens (גֵר) in the land, a feature corroborated by their nomadic way of life and their taboo concerning agriculture (Jer. 35.7).
Further biblical testimonies suggest the coexistence of two lifestyles among the Qenites. Isolated families lived scattered among the local population: the Canaanites (Judg. 4.11), the Israelites (Judg. 1.16), the Amaleqites (1 Sam. 15.6), and the Midianites (Ex. 3.1). However, the author of Judg. 1.16 mentions a Qenite city located in the Arabah, an area where a substantial copper industry existed in the early Iron Age. Therefore, this area of copper production should be regarded as the region where the Qenites constituted a substantial part of the population. The origin of scattered families of Qenites from this area (Judg, 1.16; 4.11) even suggests that it constituted the homeland and the cradle of the Qenite culture. In the Iron Age, this region coalesced into an independent nation identified in the Bible as Edom.
3.2. Non-Israelite Yahwism
As we have noted, Israelite markers are lacking in Psalm 120. Consequently, only three indirect arguments may identify the I-voice as Israelite: (i) the inclusion of this song in the Psalter; (ii) its integration into the Ascent corpus, where markers of Israelite identity are visible; and (iii) the call to YHWH formulated in verses 1 and 2. However, none of these criteria are determinative. Some of the biblical authors are not Israelites. The author of Proverbs 30, Agur son of Yaqeh, the man of Massa, affiliates himself apparently with the sons of Qedem and not with Israel. 34 Also, the Ezrahite poets of Psalms 88 and 89 are of non-Israelite origin. 35 Identifying Psalm 122 (in which Jerusalem is explicitly mentioned) as the song performed in the Nehemiah ceremonial (Neh. 12.27-43) even suggests it was conceived by one of the Edomite poets and singers who reached Jerusalem in the early Persian period. 36 This is why the integration of Psalm 120 within the songs of Ascents is not enough to confirm the Israelite identity of its author.
The call to YHWH in Psalm 120 might serve as a marker of Israelite identity, but only in a situation of the YHWH-Israel relationship’s exclusiveness. However, this premise is unfounded. Balaam’s story (Numbers 22-24) suggests the existence of prophets of YHWH independent of Israel, and even opposing it. YHWH’s worship in Edom emanates from the divine attribution to Edom of Mount Seir, the region of YHWH’s origin (Deut. 2.5), and from the biblical prophecies concerning Edom. 37 The initially prominent status of Esau, the father of Edom, as firstborn (Genesis 27) confirms this view. Furthermore, traces of a Qenite worship of YHWH before Israel, identified in Exodus in the figure of Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, support the premise of a former association of YHWH with the metalworkers. 38 Thus, the mention of metalworking in verse 4, combined with the absence of Israelite markers, affiliates the poet of Psalm 120 to the corporation of Levantine metalworkers rather than Israel.
3.3. Neutrality in conflicts
The author of Psalm 120 claims his commitment to peace (v. 7), an attitude contrasting with a context which is promoting conflict and wars (v. 6). This ambivalent situation might well be expected among ancient smiths. On the one hand, the production of weapons constituted a substantial part of their activity and incomes. On the other, the marginality and endogamy of the smiths, a factor which facilitated a high degree of cohesiveness among scattered families of artisans, might be expected to preserve their neutrality in conflicts.
This situation is typically encountered in Africa. The taboo against violence in a smith’s workshop is an expression of their commitment to peace. 39 Their function as mediators between factions in conflicts confirms the neutrality accompanying their outcast status. 40 A similar neutrality in conflicts probably existed in antiquity. In the Bible, Saul’s call to the Qenites to leave Amaleq before the Israelite offensive (1 Sam. 15.6) might be an expression of this reality. The severe sanction applied to everyone wounding or killing a metalworker (a son of Cain, Gen. 4.21-22) similarly corroborates their neutral status and even their immunity in conflicts. 41
The ideal of neutrality finds an echo in Ps. 120.6-7 in the poet’s commitment to peace and conciliation. It invites us to interpret this song as the complaint of a smith who discovered that the weapons produced served to spread terror, violence, and injustice. The mention of the users as liars and hypocrites (vv. 2-3) is of particular importance here. It exonerates the smith of any responsibility for the misuse of the weapons he produced.
4. The interference between poetry and metallurgy
The structure, content, and mode of expression of Psalm 120 reflect the skill and experience of a mature poet. For this reason, we might be tempted, at first sight, to identify its author as a poet voicing the complaint of a metalworker. However, a high level of interference existed between metallurgy and poetry in the ancient Near East (and more recently in Africa). In Ugarit, the female singers’ appellation as Kotharot betrays their particular relation to the smith-god Kothar. 42 In Cyprus, the divine metallurgist, Kinyras, was a lyre-god and the patron of music and poetry. 43 In ancient Egypt, too, Hathor, the goddess of mines, was also the patroness of poetry and music. 44
A similar association between metallurgy and poetry is visible in the Bible, judging from the mention of Lamekh, the descendant of Cain and the first author of a poem (Gen. 4.23-24). That Jubal, another descendent of Cain, is the father of musicians (Gen. 4.21) confirms this association. The poetic skill of the Qenites is also explicit in the Bible. Qorah, the father of a corporation of Israelite musicians and poets, is identified as the son of Esau in Gen. 36.5, 14, a feature betraying their Edomite/Qenite origin. 45 Furthermore, two of the most famous poets acknowledged in the Bible, Heman and Etan (and their descendants among the Levites), belong to the Edomite sphere. Their appellation as Ezrahites reveals this (= sons of Zerah, the father of an Edomite lineage, see Gen 36:13, 17, 33), as well as their affiliation with the Qorahite clan (1 Chr. 26.19). 46 The mention of sons of Obed-Edom, a clan of Edomite origin, appointed for the musical worship of YHWH in Jerusalem (1 Chr. 15.21,31, and their integration into the clan of Qorahites attested to in 1 Chr. 26.1,8,19) confirms that song-poetry was, for the biblical authors, considered an Edomite specialty. 47
For these reasons, the complaint of the smith formulated in Psalm 120 might not be merely the composition of a poet devoting attention to the metalworkers and their problems. Rather, the distress expressed here may reflect the close circle of people surrounding the psalmist, potentially transforming him/herself into a smith-poet.
Elements from Psalm 120 strengthen this premise. Verse 4’s account of metallurgical activity also includes a few allusions to the poetical craft. The first one concerns the arrow, which is sometimes likened to the tongue in the Bible. Arrows may serve as images of defamation (e.g., Jer. 9.7-8; Pss. 64.4; 140.4), whose effect is likened to that of lethal weapons (Isa. 5.28; Prov. 25.18). Beyond this deleterious connotation, the mention of gībbȏr (Ps. 120.4a) is positive in the Bible. It designates the valiant king (Ps. 45.4), YHWH (Deut. 10.17; Jer. 20.11; 32.18; Isa. 9.5; 10.21; 42.13; Zeph. 3.17; Ps. 24.8), and his emissaries (Ps. 103.20). This appellation also applies to those people inspired by YHWH, including the psalmist. 48 This positive dimension is especially relevant here because it appears in combination with arrows in another song of Ascents: ‘Like arrows in the hand of a gībbȏr are the children of one’s youth’ (Ps. 127.4).
The arrows mentioned in verse 4 are not only the weapons of destruction. They may also represent poems, crafted in parallel with the production of arrowheads by metalworking. In this context, the adjective šĕnûnîm (4b) also reflects the craft of producing beautiful poetry. This interpretation finds confirmation in šnn’s (piel) meaning as to repeat diligently (Deut. 6.7), which especially fits the composition of songs as pieces of work designed to be performed again and again.
These considerations account for the absence of Israelite markers, which remains otherwise inexplicable in the classical context of the interpretation of the song of Ascents. They also indicate that the author of Psalm 120 might be a smith-poet expressing his marginality and distress arising from the misuse of the weapons he produces for spreading violence and destruction.
5. The reference to Meshekh and Qedar
In verse 5, the I-voice laments about having dwelt among peoples identified as Meshekh (5a) and Qedar (5b). This suggests that the deceitful tongue and lying lips mentioned in verses 2-3 concern these peoples first and foremost, for reasons to which we now turn.
5.1. The classical justification
In the Bible, Qedar is both the son of Ismael (Gen. 25.13) and the son of Qedem (Jer. 49.28). These affiliations enable us to identify the Qedarites as people living in the Arabian Peninsula in the first millennium BCE. Their designation as breeders with abundant herds in Ezek. 27.21 suggests that they lived in northwestern Arabia, especially in the area between the Southern Levant and the hyperarid region of central Arabia.
The book of Genesis identifies Meshekh as a son of Japhet (Gen. 10.2), then integrates it among the peoples inhabiting northern Mediterranean, Anatolia, and the shores of the Black Sea. Combining this reference with the mention of these peoples in Hittite and Assyrian documents, scholars have located Meshekh either in southeastern Anatolia (Cilicia, Cappadocia, upper Euphrates) 49 or on the southern or eastern shore of the Black Sea. 50
Meshekh and Qedar have no particular importance for the history of ancient Israel. They are neither well-known enemies of the Israelites nor an exilic destination after the fall of Judah or Israel. This is why their mention in Ps. 120.5 is especially difficult to justify in the traditional context of the interpretation of Psalm 120 as an Israelite pilgrim song. The Septuagint accounts for this problem, in translating mešek in 5a as a verb (ἐμακρύνθη, a third-person singular of the aorist passive of the verb μακρύνω, to prolong, to lengthen). This is possible if one interprets grty not as the first-person singular of the verb gwr (= to dwell), but as a substantive, my habitation (ἡ παροικία μου), the subject of the verb mšk. However, this interpretation is rejected today due to the parallel between Meshekh (5a) and Qedar (5b), which is undoubtedly a location.
In the absence of any relevant connection with Israel, scholars have suggested that the mention of Meshekh and Qedar symbolizes the barbarian peoples living beyond the boundaries of the civilized world. 51 For others, it even reflects the wandering of the Israelites scattered among hostile peoples. 52 However, the interpretation of the I-voice in Psalm 120 as a non-Israelite author encourages the exploration of an alternative interpretation.
5.2. The metallurgical dimension
The production of arrows in verse 4 provides another explanation for the reference to these two peoples. Qedar is a nation well known for its bows (Isa. 21.17) and Meshekh is a homonym of the verb mšk, also signifying (qal) to draw a bow in biblical Hebrew (1 Kgs. 22.34; Isa. 5.18; 66.19). The mention of these two nations typically associated with bowmanship (materially or semantically) extends the lament of a smith-poet producing arrowheads for their use (v. 4).
Meshekh is a people known for its bellicose character in Ezekiel (Ezek. 32.26; 38.1-4)—a connotation facilitating the contrast with the peaceful aspiration of the author of Psalm 120 (vv. 6-7). The pairing of Meshekh with Tubal (Ezek. 32.26) as vassals of the same king (Ezek. 38.2-3; 39.1) adds further information. According to Ezek. 27.13, both nations produced copper implements and distributed them through the Tyrian trade network. 53 These references emphasize two things of importance for understanding Psalm 120: many metalworkers dwelt in these regions in the Iron Age, and they were in close relation with the Levantine/Phoenician world. 54 Consequently, the idea of a smith of south Levantine origin (or cultural affiliation) located in these regions of eastern Anatolia and the Black Sea is not improbable.
The production of arrowheads in Ps. 120.4 suggests the working of iron rather than copper. This conclusion corroborates the importance of iron metallurgy in the mid-first millennium BCE in eastern Anatolia and on the southern and eastern shores of the Black Sea (modern Georgia), a region identified by the Greeks as Colchis. Iron production was so significant in this region that it acquired, in Greece, the reputation of being the land of origin of this metal. 55 Ancient documents indicate that the iron produced in this area was sent to Assyria or reached the Mediterranean shore in eastern Anatolia (Cilicia), from where it was transported to Tyre. 56 Iron was also produced in abundance in the mountains of southeastern Anatolia, identified with the land of Tubal. 57 Consequently, Tubal and Meshekh may designate the northern regions from where iron originated.
5.3. The Edomite connection
Unlike Meshekh, Qedar is not overtly associated with iron production. Thus, the production of iron and its derived tools is probably not the only motivation for the complaint expressed in Psalm 120. Another reality shared by these two countries probably justifies their mention in this poem. This reality is the involvement of these two nations in the destruction of Edom, the original homeland of the Levantine metalworkers, and the hearth of their Yahwistic traditions.
Nabonidus and his army conquered Edom in 553 BCE. 58 Thereafter, he conquered Dedan, Teyma, and most of the oases of northern and central Arabia. 59 Nabonidus also promoted religious reforms throughout his 13-year sojourn in the oasis of Tayma. 60 These events led to the definite destruction of Edom, the demise of its cultural influence in the Arabian Peninsula, and the collapse of its exploitation of precious metals (gold, silver) in this area. 61
That the Qedarites inherited the territory of Edom is suggested by Nehemiah’s book (Neh. 2.6, 6.1-2, 6) and inscriptions mentioning Geshem, the king of Qedar, ruling the southern area (northern Sinai, Negeb, Arabah) up to the coastland area south of Gaza. 62 This extension of the Qedarite domain up to the Mediterranean shore facilitated their control of the trade of precious items (incense, perfumes, precious metals) from southern Arabia to the Mediterranean. 63 The Qedarites were, therefore, the principal beneficiaries of the fall of Edom.
If the Qedarites inherited the territory conquered by Nabonidus and his army, we might confidently assume that their warriors participated in the military campaign conducted by the Babylonians in the Arabian peninsula. 64 In this context, Psalm 120 expresses the distress of a smith involved in the production of the weapons used by people participating in the destruction of Edom.
Also, Meshekh was directly involved in Nabonidus’s conquest of Edom because this region was traditionally the source of the iron weapons used by the Assyrians and Babylonians. 65 Beyond these general considerations, the Babylonian chronicles reveal that Nabonidus’ earliest military campaign, in the first year of his reign, targeted eastern Anatolia. It was apparently motivated by the desire to control iron production and secure the supply of iron weapons for his subsequent military conquest of Arabia. 66 Consequently, the mention of Qedar and Meshekh is especially significant in the lament of a blacksmith, who produced the instruments used to destroy his cultural homeland.
The mention of the deceitful tongue and lying lips (vv. 2-3) and the smith’s special commitment to peace (vv. 6-7) offers clarity. It becomes the defence of metalworkers living in Meshekh and Qedar against those charging them for contributing to the collapse of Edom. Also, the opening verse announcing that YHWH answered the psalmist (v. 1) exonerates these blacksmiths of the charge of involuntary collaboration with Edom’s enemies.
6. Discussion
6.1. The authorship of Psalm 120
The assumption of Psalm 120’s Israelite authorship clarifies neither its content nor the reference to Qedar and Meshekh. Nor does it help us to understand the motivation for positioning it as the first of the songs of Ascents. These features, together with the absence of Israelite markers in Psalm 120, invited us to examine the hypothesis of its non-Israelite authorship. This premise seemed especially plausible due to the mention of poets and singers of Edomite origin (Ezrahites) involved in the musical worship of YHWH in the Jerusalem Temple, in the early Persian period. 67 As suggested here, the idea of Ezrahite authorship of Psalm 120 finds support in the following considerations:
These observations, taken together, invite us to identify the author of Psalm 120 as a smith-poet living among foreign nations and probably attached originally to an Edomite form of Yahwism.
6.2. The message of Psalm 120
The mention of the production of iron weapons (arrowheads) in verse 4, combined with the pejorative mention of Meshekh and Qedar in the subsequent verse, is interpreted here as condemning the participation of Meshekh (as weapon producers) and Qedar (as weapon users) in the conquest and destruction of Edom by Nabonidus and his army. This reading reveals Psalm 120 as a bitter complaint of a smith-poet tormented by his involuntary participation (through the production of weapons) in the destruction of his cultural homeland.
At the same time, Psalm 120 looks like a confession intended to exonerate the psalmist of any accusation of voluntary cooperation with the fall of Edom. The call to YHWH and the persistent positioning of the poet in the camp of peace express this intention. The explicit mention of the deceitful tongue and lying lips (vv. 2-3) even invites us to believe that those weapon users hid their genuine motivations from the psalmist and his peers who produced them.
The oracular dimension of verse 4 expresses an even deeper meaning. It claims the irredeemable loss of the essential linkage between Yahwism and metallurgy, after the substitution of iron for copper as the main metal. This feature is especially interesting because iron and copper did not enjoy the same status. In the Bible, iron is absent from the Israelite sanctuaries (tabernacle and Solomon’s temple), in sharp contrast to the abundance of copper, silver, and gold in it (Exodus 25-28; 1 Kings 7). The explicit prohibition of iron tools in the construction of altars and sanctuaries (Deut. 27.5; Jos. 8.31; 1 Kgs. 6.7) denotes an exclusion of this metal from the holy sphere. 71 Thus Psalm 120’s linking of the demise of the metallurgical background of ancient Yahwism with the rise of iron reflects far more than the personal tragedy of the psalmist. The oracular dimension of verse 4 transforms YHWH into the promoter of this theological shift.
6.3. Psalm 120 as an introduction to the corpus of Ascents
If the songs of Ascents constitute a coherent corpus, we expect the first poem to comprise key elements for the interpretation of the whole cluster. In lamenting the demise of Edomite Yahwism, Psalm 120 lays the foundation for an alternative form, the one developed in Israel. Though the metallurgical background of YHWH remains visible in the Bible, 72 the transformation of the Israelites, mainly breeders and farmers, into the (new) people of YHWH minimized the original metallurgical component, relegating it to the rank of holy remnant. This renders the Israelite Yahwism especially attractive for people acknowledging the demise of their metallurgical traditions. Positioned at the start of the songs of Ascents, Psalm 120 serves as the plea of a group of worshippers originally from Edom, to join Israel and its worship of Yahweh, now disconnected from metallurgy.
This horizon might profoundly change our approach to the songs of Ascents. Instead of a corpus of pilgrim songs, it seems to have been composed by a small group of Edomite/Ezrahite people leaving their Yahwistic traditions for those of the Israelites. Such a perspective suggests that the whole corpus might relate their metamorphosis, starting with leaving their way of life and traditional worship of YHWH (Psalm 120) and achieving their full integration among the religious elite of the temple singers in Jerusalem (Psalm 134). Psalm 122, a song of Ezrahite composition for a ceremony celebrating the reconstruction of the city wall of Jerusalem, integrates into this scheme well.
It is noteworthy that the traditions and motifs expressed in the songs of Ascents do not reflect the classical Israelite theology. 73 For example, the theology of god-is-king, a classical feature in the Israelite liturgy, is replaced in this corpus by YHWH’s approach as the creator. 74 Furthermore, the songs of Ascents do not refer to Israel’s theological history and/or to the Israelite festivals commemorating them. 75 In this corpus, the us-group no longer self-defines as sons of Zion, of Jacob, or even of the Exile. 76 Combined with the many linguistic singularities specific to the songs of Ascents, 77 these observations invite us to seriously consider the probability that this corpus emanated from a group of non-Israelite Yahwists reaching Jerusalem in the early Persian period.
Footnotes
1.
Beaucamp 1979: 240-42; Hossfeld and Zenger 2011: 295. Due to their homogeneity and singularity, Viviers (1994: 288) and 
: 43) even suggested that one hand composed all of them.
4.
Viviers 1994: 288; Crow 1996: 167; Barker 2005: 110; : 294.
5.
Goulder 1998: 28; : 171.
7.
Beaucamp 1979: 248; Goulder 1997: 44; Booij 2010: 253; : 294.
8.
Seybold 1978: 73; : 245; Crow 1998: 182.
10.
Girard 1984: 292; : 200.
13.
For Buttenweiser (1938: 772), ‘Psalm 120 is another elegy which in a general way bears on the untoward conditions of those post-Exilic centuries, without referring to any distinct occurrence.’ See also : 292.
14.
For a review of these opinions, see Villanueva 2020: 479. For : 198), ‘Determination of both the genre and primary setting of Ps 120 is hampered by difficulty in assessing its time perspective and degree of metaphor.’
16.
The mention of lips (v. 2) and tongue (vv. 2-3) and the allusions to teeth in verse 4, through the adjective שְׁנוּנִים, are even considered as enhancing the cohesiveness of this cluster. See Dahood 1970: 197; : 303.
17.
Girard 1984: 291; Christensen 2005; : 307.
18.
Arrows: Deut. 32.23, 42; Ezek. 5.16; Hab. 3.11; Zech. 9.14; Ps. 18.15; 64.8; 77.18; 144.6; coals: Ezek. 10.2; Pss. 18. 9, 13-14; 140.11.
20.
Goulder 1998: 37; : 307.
24.
In light of the parallel with the Nehemiah memoirs, : 37) assumes that verse 4 refers to the defenders of Jerusalem dropping glowing coals on their assailants, who are opposing the reconstruction of the city wall. However, this interpretation does not find any substantial support in the text of this psalm.
25.
Dahood 1970: 197; Goulder 1998: 37; : 308.
26.
Hesiod, Works and Days, 189-94; translation M. West.
27.
Pliny the Elder, Natural History 34.39, translation H. Rackham.
28.
Limburg 2000: 421; Clifford 2003: 219; Brueggemann and Bellinger 2014: 524. For Richard Clifford (2003: 220), ‘The psalmist is suffering from a dysfunctional community that attacks and ostracizes rather than welcomes and listens.’ : 319) defends the same opinion.
29.
30.
Allen 2002: 201; : 218.
32.
McNutt 1990; .
34.
Clifford 1999: 260; : 518.
35.
37.
Blenkinsopp 2008: 149-51; : 39-42.
38.
40.
41.
This neutrality is even exploited as a stratagem in the war of Jehoshaphat and the Judeans against Edom, Moab and Ammon, reported in 2 Chr. 20.1-30 (see ). In view of this, the mention of Jael the Qenite killing Sisera in her domain (Judg. 5.24-27) is probably praised in the song of Deborah as an exception to this traditional neutrality of the Qenites in conflicts.
43.
Franklin 2016: 113-48, 321-36. This status of smiths as masters of poetry extends far beyond the ancient Near East and seems fundamental not only to Antiquity but also to traditional societies from Africa. See : 84.
45.
The Edomite ancestor of the Qorahite clan of Levites is confirmed by the Chronicler linking him to the Qenizites from Hebron (1 Chr. 2.43).
46.
Guthrie 1962; McMillon 1992; Tuell 2009. Concerning the Edomite affiliation of Zerah son of Judah (Gen 38.30), see : 28-29.
47.
48.
Judg. 5.13, 23; 2 Sam. 22.26; Ezek. 32.27; Joel 4.10. See Ps. 112.2 for the psalmist as gībbȏr.
49.
e.g. Allen 2002: 202; : 38.
51.
Weiser 1962: 743; : 308.
52.
See Girard 1984: 292. For Brueggemann and Bellinger (2014: 524), ‘References to “Meshekh” and “Kedar” are completely enigmatic but perhaps refer to exposed terrain of a wilderness variety that offers no safe place for one at the brink of “homelessness.”’ : 319) concurs: ‘In my opinion, it is futile to speculate about the historicity and geographical location of such hostile tribes.’
53.
Assyrian sources reveal the existence of important metallurgical activity in Tubal (and Meshekh) (see Maxwell-Hyslop 1974: 151). The name Tubal confirms this, through its association with the root ybl, designating the production of metal in ancient Hebrew. See : 298-99.
54.
These claims are confirmed by the bilingual Phoenician-Hittite inscriptions found in Anatolia, and especially in the region of Cilicia, some features of which denote a Phoenician expansion in Anatolia and eventually up to the shores of the Black Sea. See Lehman 2008: 151; .
55.
Blakely 2006: 207-8. Though this claim is unfounded, an archaeological survey in this area has identified more than 400 iron production sites during the first half of the first millennium BCE. See Blakely 2006: 204; : 137-38.
58.
60.
Ibid.: 184-86.
62.
Hübner 1998: 39-40; Blenkinsopp 2012: 94; Rainey 1969: 65. The existence of this Qedarite king and the expansion of his influence up to the Mediterranean is confirmed by the discovery of a votive bowl from Tell el-Maskhuta (near Ismailia), dated from the fifth century BCE and mentioning the donor’s name as ‘son of Geshem king of Qedar.’ See Rabinovitz 1956: 2, 6; Dumbrell 1971; : 9-10.
64.
Gadd 1958: 77-78; Lindsay 1976: 31-32; : 37.
66.
Albright 1950: 25; : 325.
67.
This foreign authorship of Psalm 120 is possible, as singers of Edomite origin, identified as Ezrahites or sons of Obed-Edom, reached Jerusalem in the early Persian period. See Amzallag 2015a. The Ezrahite authorship of Psalms 88 and 89 confirms the existence of psalms of non-Israelite origin in the Psalter; Psalms 92, 111, and 112 are further examples of this Edomite authorship (Amzallag 2015a: 197-220; ).
68.
Amzallag 2015a: 131-33. The wordplay between Adam and Edom is also evidenced through the parallel between the mention of Edom in Ezek. 35.1-15 and the parallel mentions of Adam in Ezek. 36.1-15. See Lust 2006: 394-95 and : 91-92 and 102-3.
71.
This taboo disappears from the Chronicler’s report about the construction of the Jerusalem temple, in which iron is included among the metals used. See 1 Chr. 22.14, 16; 29.2, 7; 2 Chr. 2.7.
72.
See for example Amzallag 2014, 2015b, c; .
75.
Viviers 1994: 279, 284; : 249.
77.
Beaucamp 1979: 240; Goulder 1998: 45; : 160-61.