Abstract
The publication of Gerald H. Wilson’s The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter in 1985 marked a distinct shift in approaches to Psalms research. This article reviews this shift from psalm to Psalter exegesis. North American scholarship tends to follow a synchronic approach and to describe the shape of the Psalter. German scholarship tends to use a diachronic perspective and trace the shaping of the Psalter to explain how it attained its final form. There are growing signs of dialogue and convergence between these two main approaches to the editing of the Hebrew Psalter, which overshadow form-critical and liturgical approaches to the editing of the Psalter. Adherents of the shape and the shaping approach tend to propose a specific theme, organizational principle, or redactional intent to explain the Psalter’s final form. The multi-faceted nature of the Psalter and its long and complex history imply that, in spite of a multitude of publications, the last word on editorial trends and redactional trajectories has not been spoken.
Keywords
Introduction
The publication of Gerald H. Wilson’s The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (1985a) marked a distinct shift in approaches to Psalms research. He opened ‘the floodgates of canonical criticism to Psalms study’ (Koh 2010: 177) and caused a shift from ‘Psalmenexegese’ (psalm exegesis) to ‘Psalterexegese’ (Psalter exegesis) (Millard 1996: 311-28). Formulated circumspectly, there emerged an approach including both psalm and Psalter exegesis (Zenger 2010b: 26). The approach enhances the exegesis of individual poems by contextual analyses of psalm groups or the Psalter as such. Adherents of this approach share the conviction that psalm groups and/or the Psalter display a definitive structural design that also reveals the intent of the redactors responsible for the book in its final form.
I review this development in Psalms research over the last thirty-five years. A review is desirable for two reasons. First, several general reviews of Psalter research have been published over the last two decades or so (Kuntz 1994: 77-106; Seybold 1998: 9-74; Howard 1999: 329-68; 2005: 23-40; Kuntz 2012: 321-78). The history of and literature on the shift from psalm to Psalter exegesis are well documented (Howard 1993a: 52-70; Zenger 1998: 1-58; 2000: 399-436; 2010b: 17-65; Weber 2010: 733-44; deClaissé-Walford 2014a: 1-11). However, a recent systematic review of major trends in this approach is lacking. Second, publications on editorial activities in the Psalter and proposed tradition circles responsible for these activities have proliferated. It is virtually impossible to keep track of all the nuances in the approach. My review maps and reflects on proposed editorial trends and redactional trajectories in the Psalter.
The following considerations contextualize the present study: First, I review trends in the shift from psalm to Psalter exegesis, not publications on the book of Psalms or trends in Psalms research as such. The Oxford Handbook of the Psalms, edited by William P. Brown (2014), provides an overview of trends in Psalms research. The research is constantly expanding. Readers are referred to the ‘Bibliography of the Psalms and the Psalter: In Conjunction with the History of Interpretation and Application of Psalms (since 1990)’ compiled and regularly updated by Beat Weber (Basel), available online (https://bienenberg.academia.edu/BeatWeber). Second, I review only a selection of publications in the field, concentrating upon major representatives of identified trends. Other proponents of a trend are mentioned only briefly or—regrettably—not at all. Third, the review focuses on the Masoretic Psalter. I touch upon the important theme of the relationship between the Masoretic Psalter and the Dead Sea Psalms scrolls only in passing. I pay no attention to the Septuagint’s important contribution to Psalms scholarship.
Reading the Masoretic Psalter as a Book: Preliminary Observations
The form-critical approach dominated Psalms research for most of the twentieth century. Hermann Gunkel classified individual psalms in various Gattungen (Gunkel 1929; Gunkel and Begrich 1933). His student, Sigmund Mowinckel, connected each Gattung with a specific Sitz im Leben in the Israelite cult, with an annual New Year festival as the main cultic event (Mowinckel 1921–24; 1962). Gunkel regarded the Psalter as a meditative prayer book of spiritual songs; for Mowinckel it was a practical hymn book of liturgical songs (Zenger 2000: 434). The Psalter is an anthology and the particular arrangement a matter of coincidence (Gunkel and Begrich 1933: 3).
Hans-Joachim Kraus’s two-volume Psalms commentary leans towards Gunkel’s approach (1989a; 1989b), as does Klaus Seybold’s commentary (1996). Arthur Weiser leans towards Mowickel’s approach (1987a; 1987b), as does Erhard Gerstenberger (1988; 2001). Samuel Terrien (2003) deviates from traditional form-critical categories by paying close attention to the literary structure of individual poems. He recognizes the broad structural contours of the Psalter, especially the division into five ‘books’ (2003: 16-24), but remarks ‘that the last compilers of the book of Psalms have not attempted to follow a chronological or thematic order. They chiefly thought to preserve’ (2003: 17). John Goldingay’s three-volume commentary (2006; 2007; 2008) pays some attention to the form of individual poems, but is mainly interested in a close reading of these poems. He is sceptical about endeavours to read the Psalter as a book. He states, ‘I am not enamored of this study. It seems to me to involve too much imagination in the connecting of too few dots’ (2007: 11).
In the early 1980s, the focus in Psalms research shifted to a contextual approach with emphasis upon intertextual links between successive poems, groups of poems, and upon the overall ‘architecture’ of the Psalter. The Psalter is read as a book with an intentional wisdom and (messianic) royal prologue (Pss. 1–2), a meaningful division into five ‘books’ (Pss. 3–41; 42–72; 73–89; 90–106; 107–45) demarcated by calls to praise and redactional notes (Pss. 41.14; 72.18-20; 89.53; 106.48), and an epilogue of praise (Pss. 146–50) rising to the crescendo of universal adoration of Yhwh in Psalm 150 (Zenger 1998: 26-32). Bernd Janowski (2010: 305) develops the ‘architecture’ metaphor when he describes the Psalter as a ‘temple, not built of stone, but of words (templum spirituale), with the introductory Pss 1–2 as an “entrance hall” and the closing hallel (Pss 146–150) as a sonorous “keystone”’.
The Psalter’s division into five ‘books’ reflects the division of the Pentateuch (Kratz 1996: 1-34; Levin 2004: 83-90; Weber 2007: 179-200), implying that the Psalter can be read as ‘the “Torah of David” …analogous to the five part “Torah of Moses”’ (Hossfeld and Zenger 2008: 25). The five-part Psalter becomes a theological reflection on the history of Israel (Kratz 1996: 21-28). Books I–III (Pss. 3–89) contain mainly Davidic psalms with emphasis upon lament and reflect the establishment, flowering, and ultimate failure of the Davidic monarchy. Book IV (Pss. 90–106) contains conspicuously few psalms with superscripts and focuses upon the universal kingship of Yhwh (Ps. 93–100). It reflects the situation of Israel in exile. Book V (Pss. 107–45) is concerned with the rebuilding of the postexilic community. In Books IV–V, the emphasis moves from lament to praise.
Adherents of the shift from psalm to Psalter exegesis argue that the form-critical approach reached the limits of its possible contribution to the study of the Psalter and that new avenues of investigation should be pursued (Zenger 2000: 409-16; 2010b: 19-24). Growing interest in literary approaches to the Hebrew Bible and the propagation of canonical readings of this literature provided a stimulus for contextual readings of the Psalter. Contextual approaches do not negate the possible origins and role of individual poems in the Israelite cult, but argue that these poems have gradually been imbedded in a literary corpus, which is ultimately ‘post-cultic’ (Stolz 1983: 19; Mays 1993: 18). Brevard S. Childs’s (1979: 82-83) propagation of canonical criticism provided the impetus for the new approach. He focuses upon the final shape of the Hebrew Bible and proposes a descriptive approach that seeks to understand the shapes and functions of texts in their final form (1979: 72), not the processes of growth and compilation (1979: 75-76). It is, in essence, an ahistorical approach. James A. Sanders (1984: xv), on the other hand, argues that the Bible as canon is intricately linked ‘to the believing communities which formed and shaped it and passed it on to their heirs of today’. The ‘true Sitz im Leben today of the Bible is in the believing communities—heirs to the first shapers of this literature—whatever the provenance’ and thus canonical criticism should also focus on ‘the original forms and early literary units’ that gave rise to the texts in their final form (1984: 19). Sanders’s approach implies that the shaping of the Psalter is crucial and thus has a historical point of departure.
For Walter Brueggemann (1993: 29-30), Childs’s shape and Sanders’s shaping approach should complement each other. Reading the Psalter from the perspective of the ‘book as context is a literary-canonical question’ that can be addressed by analysing the final form of the text. Reading it from the perspective of ‘history as context’ is a historical-critical endeavour that should be addressed ‘with reference to projected historical reality and not to the body of the book itself’ (Brueggemann 1993: 33). Childs’s methodology is inductive and describes the canonical shape of the Psalter. Sanders’s methodology is deductive and traces the canonical shaping of the Psalter. The shape of the Psalter can be described in broad outline without reference to historical development, while the shaping of the Psalter is per definition a historical process and is thus dependent upon (and subjected to) historical reconstruction and interpretation of available data.
My review of proposed editorial trends and redactional trajectories in the Psalter will reveal that North American scholars tend to focus on the shape of the Psalter, and their German counterparts on the shaping of the book. Over the past decade or so there are promising signs of dialogue and convergence between the two approaches. The shift in Psalms research has been labelled a ‘Neuansatz’ (new approach) (Millard 1996: 311; Weber 2010: 734). However, the general ‘architecture’ of the Psalter has been recognized long before being eclipsed by the prominence of the form-critical approach since the early decades of the twentieth century (Howard 1993a: 54-55). Franz Delitzsch, for instance, already in 1859–60 described the general structure of the Psalter in terms that are echoed in recent publications (Delitzsch [1859–60] 1973). Delitzsch already related the five-part Psalter to the Torah of Moses and noted the alternation between the divine names יהוה and אלהים in both literary corpora. He argued that the Psalter grew to its final form through various stages, with the final remark in Ps. 72.20 ‘(here) are ended the prayers of David the son of Jesse’ as ‘a significant mark for determining the history of the origin of the Psalter’. It is ‘without doubt the subscription to the oldest psalm-collection, which preceded the present psalm-pentateuch’ (Delitzsch 1973: 16). The overall structure of the Psalter displayed ‘the impress of one ordering mind. For its opening is formed by a didactic-prophetic couplet of psalms (Ps. i. ii)…and its close is formed by four psalms (Ps. cxlvi-cxlix) which begin and end with הללו־יה’ (Delitzsch 1973: 19-20). Psalm 150 occupies a special place ‘for this psalm takes the place of the beracha of the Fifth book… The opening of the Psalter celebrates the blessedness of those who walk according to the will of God in redemption…the close of the Psalter calls upon all creatures to praise this God of redemption’ (Delitzsch 1973: 19-20). David is the ‘chief composer’ of the Psalter and all important events ‘in sacred history’ find ‘some expression in the Psalter’. These two phenomena mark the Psalter’s prophetic nature, making it ‘the most important memorial of the progressive recognition of the plan of salvation’ (Delitzsch 1973: 65). Ultimately, the Psalter has an eschatological and messianic intention (Delitzsch 1973: 65-78).
Delitzsch addressed issues regarding the shape and shaping of the Psalter in the late nineteenth century. It took a century for these views to resurface and become prominent in Psalms research again. It attests to the dominance of the form-critical approach in twentieth-century scholarship and reminds us that the movement from psalm to Psalter exegesis is in fact a rediscovery and renewed appreciation of the Psalter’s design and intent.
Reading the Masoretic Psalter as a Book: Major Trends and Alternative Approaches
In my review of the movement from psalm to Psalter exegesis, I will discuss two main topics. First, I will review two basic points of departure and the dialogue between these approaches. Scholars influenced by canonical criticism tend to have a synchronic point of departure and focus on the shape of the Psalter. North American scholars dominate in this approach. Scholars schooled in classic historical-critical methodologies tend to have a diachronic point of departure and focus on the shaping of the Psalter. This approach is dominated by German scholarship. Second, I will briefly mention two alternative approaches to reading the Psalter as a book. Trends sometimes overlap, thus my classifications are not defined categories.
Two Points of Departure: The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter
Synchronic Readings: The Shape of the Psalter
Scholars influenced by a canonical approach engage in readings of the Psalter using the final text as represented in the Masoretic tradition as point of departure, and focus on its shape. The book of Psalms is read synchronically as a meaningful collection. Less attention is paid to historical phases in the growth of the Psalter and tradition circles responsible for the collecting and ordering of Israel’s religious poetry.
Departing from the canonical five-book structure of the Psalter, Childs argues that Psalm 1 as ‘Torah Psalm’ serves as an intentional introduction to the book. It indicates that Israel’s prayers were regarded as obedient answers to God’s words as expressed in the Torah and not as spontaneous or cultic poems. This is confirmed by poems being compiled from older, existing psalms (e.g., Ps. 108 as compilation of Pss. 57 and 60). Traditional cultic prayers of Israel became sacred scripture for later generations. Royal psalms reflecting ancient Near Eastern royal ideology are interspersed throughout the Psalter, but have been re-interpreted through their canonical placement as witnesses to the growing messianic hope of the postexilic community and the eschatological interpretation of the Psalter. In its canonical shape, the ‘I’ in the Psalter speaks on behalf of the community. Psalm superscripts, although later editorial additions, are important indicators of the transformation of the Psalter from cultic songs to sacred literature (Childs 1979: 511-22).
Childs’s ideas were expanded by a number of his students. Wilson was arguably the most influential of Childs’s students in this regard. His monograph (1985a), the published version of his 1981 doctoral thesis, is generally acknowledged as a prominent turning point in the movement from psalm to Psalter exegesis. Wilson maintains that the Hebrew Psalter shows clear signs of editorial shaping and organizational intent. It is apparent in the editorial comment in Ps. 72.20: ‘finished are the prayers of David son of Jesse’. Other signs of editorial activity are the ‘doxologies’ closing each of the first four books of the Psalter (cf. Pss. 41.14; 72.19; 89.53; 106.48); the placement of Psalm 1 as introduction and Psalms 146–50 as a final doxology to the Psalter; the placement of ‘royal’ and ‘untitled’ psalms at the ‘seams’ of the five books; the grouping of psalms with similar superscripts in clusters (e.g., predominantly ‘Davidic’ poems in Books I–III, but predominantly untitled and הללו־יה poems in Book IV–V); the grouping of poems with similar ‘genre’ indications in clusters (e.g., מזמור ‘psalm’ in Pss. 3–6, 19–24, 29–31, 38–41, 47–51, 62–68, 75–77, 82–85, 139–41, שיר המעלות in Psalms 120–34); the placement of ‘historical’ superscripts referring to the life of David in thirteen poems (cf. Pss. 3, 7, 18, 34, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 142), resulting in a re-application of cultic poems to specific (and exemplary) events in the life of David; and the juxtaposition of psalms with identical or similar phrases (e.g., ברכי נפשי את יהוה in Pss. 103.1, 22; 104.1, 35) (Wilson 1985a: 139-97). In numerous other publications, Wilson expanded upon these basic ideas (cf. Wilson 1984: 337-52; 1985b: 404-13; 1986: 85-94; 1992: 129-42; 1993a: 42-51; 1993b: 72-82).
Wilson concludes that the ‘final form of MT 150 is the result of a purposeful, editorial activity which sought to impart a meaningful arrangement which encompassed the whole’ (1985a: 199; original emphasis). Books I and II suggest that ‘the covenant which Yhwh made with David (Ps 2) and in whose promises David rested secure (Ps 41) is now passed to his descendants (Ps 72)’ (Wilson 1985a: 211), while Book III leaves the impression ‘of a covenant remembered, but a covenant failed. The Davidic covenant introduced in Ps 2 has come to nothing’ (Wilson 1985a: 213; original emphasis). Book IV with its distinctive presence of ‘untitled’ psalms functions as the editorial ‘center’ of the final form of the Hebrew Psalter. As such this grouping stands as the ‘answer’ to the problem posed in Ps 89 as to the apparent failure of the Davidic covenant with which Books One-Three are primarily concerned. Briefly summarized the answer given is: (1) Yhwh is king; (2) He has been our ‘refuge’ in the past, long before the monarchy existed (i.e., in the Mosaic period); (3) He will continue to be our refuge now that the monarchy is gone; (4) Blessed are they that trust in him! (Wilson 1985a: 215)
Book V, then, ‘was intended to stand as an answer to the plea of the exiles to be gathered from the diaspora. The answer given is that deliverance and life thereafter is dependent on an attitude of dependence and trust in Yhwh alone (107.12-13, 19, 28)’ (Wilson 1985a: 227).
Various synchronic perspectives on the canonical shape of the Psalter or smaller collections of poems have been published since the early 1990s. In 1992, an issue of the journal Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology (Volume 46/2) was devoted to the study of the Psalter. Four authors contributed to the final shape of the Psalter debate. J. Clinton McCann, Jr. (1992: 118-28) argues for the interpretation of the Psalter as instruction. Wilson (1992: 129-42) enumerates overwhelming evidence of intentional editorial shaping in the Psalter. Gerald T. Sheppard (1992: 143-55) argues that the Psalter’s editorial ‘shape’ and its intertextual function within Christian scripture provide prompts for a Christian, theological interpretation of the book of Psalms. Mark S. Smith (1992: 156-66) propagates a reading of the Psalter as a book for pilgrims.
McCann’s The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter (1993c) contains nine essays on the shape of the Psalter. The essays originated as papers read at meetings of a Society of Biblical Literature programme unit, running since 1989, on the shape of the canonical Psalter. The volume contains an exclusively American perspective on reading the Psalter as a book and attests to the immense influence of Childs’s canonical approach. David M. Howard (1993a: 52-70) provides a survey of studies on editorial activity in the Psalter. James L. Mays (1993: 14-20), Ronald E. Murphy (1993: 21-28), Walter Brueggemann (1993: 29-41), and Gerald H. Wilson (1993a: 42-51) contribute critical methodological reflections on the shift from psalm to Psalter exegesis. Wilson (1993b: 72-82) focuses on editorial linkage in the Psalter, Patrick D. Miller (1993: 83-92) on the introductory function of Psalms 1 and 2 and literary and thematic links between Psalms 1–2 and 3–10, J. Clinton McCann, Jr. (1993a: 93-107) on the role of Books I–III in the editorial purpose of the Psalter, especially the psalms at the beginning of the books (Pss. 1–2; 42–44; 73–74), and David M. Howard (1993b: 108-23) engages in a contextual reading of Pss. 90–94.
Subsequently, a number of North American scholars published monographs on the Psalter or groups of psalms, broadly following the approach set by Gerald Wilson. In the published version of his 1986 doctoral thesis, The Structure of Psalms 93–100, David M. Howard (1997) argues that Psalms 93–100 constitute a logically coherent unit within Book IV of the Psalter. There is coherency between the poems on various textual levels. The collection stands at the centre of Book IV, with Psalms 96–99 at the heart of the collection. The poems emphasize the kingship of Yhwh. They praise Yhwh as king and contrast his steadfastness with the transitory nature of human beings.
Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford, in the published version of her 1995 doctoral thesis, Reading from the Beginning: The Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter (1997), focuses on the Psalter as such. She argues that it can be read from the beginning to the end as a coherent book. She emphasizes the importance of the opening and closing psalms of each book of the Psalter and indicates the intricate links between these poems. She argues that the Psalter’s external shape was that of a constitutive charter of existence for the post-exilic community, but its internal form was that of traditional cultic material. The canonical Psalter exercised a dual role in the life of the community. Individual psalms and collections of psalms were still used at ceremonies and festivals. But the Psalter as a whole was read publicly to remind the Israelites of a story—the story of the majestic reign of King David, the dark days of oppression and exile, the restoration of the glorious reign of Yhwh, and the surety that Israel could continue to exist as a ‘nation’ in the ancient Near East. (1997: 120)
W. Dennis Tucker, Jr. argues in his Constructing and Deconstructing Power in Psalms 107–150 (2014) that Book V of the Psalter forms ‘a discrete unit within the Psalter’ (2014: 6) that constructs a subtle anti-imperial ideology in response to empires—past and present—posing a threat to Israel. He distinguishes two distinct sections in Book V. In the first (Pss. 107–18), ‘the psalmists continually portray the empires and nations negatively, suggesting that those in Yehud do not participate joyously with empires, both past and present’ (2014: 94). The second part (Pss. 119–45) ‘repeatedly undermine the dominant imperial ideology with their consistently negative portrayal of empires and foreign powers’ (2014: 135). Wisdom elements are present in the first (Ps. 107) and last (Ps. 145) poems of the collection and are also interspersed throughout the book (Pss. 111; 112; 119; 128; 139). This suggests ‘that the collection as a whole has an identity shaping function’ (2014: 168).
Synchronic readings of the Psalter as a book also appear in a number of German publications. Gianni Barbiero (1999) engages in a detailed synchronic analysis of Book I of the Psalter. He meticulously highlights the relationships between neighbouring poems and argues that these close links are indicative of deliberate ordering and composition. Similarly, Egbert Ballhorn (2004) argues that Books IV and V of the Psalter constitute a closely knit literary unit.
Synchronic readings of the Psalter as a book also appear to a greater or lesser extent in commentaries published since the mid-1990s. McCann (1996) consistently follows the contours of the canonical shape of the Psalter. In the introduction to the commentary, he meticulously describes the canonical shape of Books I–III and argues that this collection emphasizes the failure of the Davidic covenant (1996: 660). Books IV–V constitute a theological response to the crisis of exile. McCann interprets ‘exile’ not merely as a reference to a historical event, but as a metaphor for an ongoing theological crisis that ‘called for new understandings of God and of human faithfulness to God’ (1996: 662). Psalms 1–2 ‘set the interpretive agenda and provided an orientation for reading the whole book of Psalms’ (1996: 664), and that agenda is ultimately eschatological, ‘that is, God’s reign is proclaimed as a present reality, but it is always experienced by the faithful amid opposition. In this sense, the faithful live both with fulfilment and in waiting’ (1996: 665). McCann pays much attention to morphological and thematic links between adjacent psalms and smaller collections of psalms.
In 2002, Gerald Wilson published the first volume of a Psalms commentary (Pss. 1–72) in the New International Version Application Commentary series. His premature death did not allow his conceptualization of the entire Psalter as a book in the format of a commentary to come to fruition. The commentary on Books I and II attests to sound scholarship, but the series is, of course, intended for a general audience. The format of the series dictates that Wilson comments on each psalm in three sections: ‘Original Meaning’, ‘Bridging Contexts’, and ‘Contemporary Significance’. The commentary on individual psalms occurs under the overall headings, ‘The Shape of Book 1 (Psalms 1–41)’ and ‘The Shape of Book 2 (Psalms 43–72)’. Wilson deliberately follows the contours of his proposed shape of the Psalter. Curiously, he follows a thematic approach in the clustering of psalms. Wilson emphasizes the interpretative influence of a psalm’s placement within a pairing or group and sees a thematic development in Books I and II. Discerning readers will note clear differences between Wilson’s thematic grouping of poems and the redactional-compositional approach of Hossfeld and Zenger (1993: 12-16). Hossfeld and Zenger convincingly argued for four collections of poems in Book I (Pss. 3–14, 15–24, 25–34, 35–41), with the second and third groups displaying a clear concentric pattern around Psalms 19 and 29 (cf. Miller 1994: 127-42). Wilson’s thematic approach seems artificial and negates the structural patterns of apparently intentional psalm groups in Books I and II. W. Dennis Tucker, Jr. and Jamie A. Grant continue the pattern set by Wilson in the second volume of the Psalms commentary in the New International Version Application Commentary series (2018). Their introduction contains a detailed description of the shape of the Psalter. In the commentary on each psalm, they imitate Wilson’s thematic approach, but in fact their ‘themes’ are closer to a structural approach, clustering groups of poems together according to their description of the shape of Books III–V in the introduction. Discerning readers will notice a closer relationship to Hossfeld and Zenger’s redactional-compositional approach (cf. the introductions in Hossfeld and Zenger 2000; 2008).
Remarkably, commentaries written by authors who made significant contributions to the synchronic reading of the Psalter as a book trend do not rigorously reflect the canonical reading programme. Walter Brueggemann and William H. Bellinger’s Psalms commentary (2014) contains expositions of individual poems. The ‘Bridging the Horizons’ and ‘A Closer Look’ excursions concluding the commentary on each psalm are insightful. However, as a commentary written by authors who made significant contributions in the debates regarding the shape of the Psalter, their work is quite disappointing. In ‘Matters of Organization’ (2014: 1-3) the authors note the five-book structure of the Psalter, the presence of smaller collections and sub-structures, and the predominance of poems ascribed to David. The commentary, however, hardly ever displays any interest in the Psalter’s canonical shape or shaping.
Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth LaNeel Tanner’s commentary (2014) contains an excellent discussion on the canonical shape of the Psalter (2014: 21-38), concluding that the Psalter contains five books ‘that narrate the history of ancient Israel… Ancient Israel—emergent Judaism—survived in the world of which it found itself a part because it found in its past a way to make sense of the present and future’. Hence, the ‘story of the shaping of the psalter is the story of the shaping of survival. The Psalter was, along with the other texts that make up the Hebrew Scriptures, a constitutive document of identity for postexilic Israel’ (2014: 38). In the commentary, each of the five books receives an introduction on forms, themes, and structures. Only once a group of poems (the Songs of Ascents) are deemed worthy of a separate discussion of its themes and overall structure (2014: 887-90). Excellent expositions of individual poems are unfortunately not enhanced by discussions of these poems’ settings in their immediate and more remote literary contexts.
Diachronic Readings: The Shaping of the Psalter
The synchronic readings of the Psalter did not dominate the approach of commentaries. The situation is different when it comes to diachronic readings of the Psalter as a book. Here commentaries sparked interest in the movement. The scene is dominated by the joint efforts of Hossfeld and Zenger (1993; 2002; 2012) and especially their monumental commentaries on Psalms 51–100 (2000) and Psalms 101–150 (2008). Unfortunately, both authors passed away before the completion of their commentary on Psalms 1–50. Their basic premise is that the Psalter should be investigated from both a redactional-compositional perspective (i.e., the shaping of the book)—which is a historical-critical exercise—and a literary perspective (i.e., the shape of the book)—which is a canonical-critical exercise (1993: 23-24). They depart from three basic tenets: First, the Psalter developed in a series of redactional expansions from preexilic times until between 200 and 150 bce. Second, the current chronological order of the 150 poems reflects, in broad terms, their relative age. Third, the canonical Psalter and all its redactional predecessors show clear signs of design and intent.
As one example, Hossfeld and Zenger argue that in Book I (Pss. 3–41), a core of poems (individual laments/petitions and songs of thanksgiving; cf. Pss. 3–7, 11–14, 17, 18, 20–22, 26–28, 30–31, 35, 38, 41) is of preexilic origin. In late exilic/early postexilic times, the core was expanded by circles with a distinct group awareness. They identified themselves as ‘poor, persecuted, righteous’ people (Pss. 8, 15, 24, 29, 32, 36). This redactional group created four distinct collections of poems (Pss. 3–14; 15–24; 26–32; 35–41). The collection was expanded again in the fifth–fourth century bce in circles reflecting the so-called ‘Armenfrömmigkeit’, where ‘poor’ became a religious rather than a social category. The ‘poor’ regarded themselves as ‘true’ Israel. This redaction inserted Psalms 16, 19.1-7, 23, 25, 33, 34, 37, 39, 40, and expanded existing poems in the context of the ‘poor’ as ‘true’ Israel. They can be associated with developing wisdom traditions (cf. Pss. 18.26-32, 19.8-15, 25, 34, 37, 39). Finally, in Hellenistic times, Israel was collectively identified as the ‘poor’ by the addition of Psalms 9–10.
Since the early 1990s, numerous diachronic studies have adopted, adapted, and expanded Hossfeld and Zenger’s theories on the shaping and the shape of the Psalter. Noteworthy is the volume of essays edited by Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger (1994). The title of the book, Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung, already speaks to the ‘Neuansatz’ that the present study elucidates. The volume is important for three reasons. First, Erhard S. Gerstenberger (1994: 3-13) voices concerns about the ‘Neuansatz’. He regards the Psalter not as a book, but as a collection of exceptionally rich prayers and songs reflecting a wide variety of real-life situations. Second, contributors illustrate the value the Hossfeld-Zenger approach can add to our understanding of single poems, collections of poems, or the Psalter as a book. Hossfeld (1994: 29-44) points to intertextual links between Psalm 95 and the Asaphite Psalms 50 and 81. Klaus Seybold (1994: 143-56) and Erich Zenger (1994: 175-98), respectively, discuss the redaction and composition of the Asaphite and Korahite collections. Klaus Koch (1994: 243-78) argues that the synchronic description of the shape of the Psalter should be enhanced by a diachronic investigation of the shaping of the book and illustrates it with reference to Books IV and V of the Psalter. Third, Patrick D. Miller’s (1994: 127-42) study on Psalms 15–24, with its emphasis on the collection’s chiastic structure, points to a dialogue between the shape of the Psalter approach of North American scholars and the shaping of the Psalter approach of German scholars.
Christoph Levin (1993) emphasizes that complex processes were involved in the shaping of the Psalter. In terms of the history of traditions, the Psalter has the broadest scope of all the books of the Hebrew Bible, containing traces of pre-Israelite Syro-Canaanite religious traditions and notions of Jewish piety synonymous with the deuterocanonical literature of the second and first centuries bce (p. 355). Synchronic and diachronic readings of the Psalter as a book are often guilty of over-simplification. Some poems might be late, intentional redactional creations (e.g., Ps. 1 as a deliberate ‘Proömium’), but virtually all poems show signs of redactional reworking and reinterpretation (cf. Levin 1993: 359-70 for examples). From preexilic times right until the second century bce the Psalter is a successive chain of ‘Fortschreibungen’ (1993: 380). It does not display a carefully structured final redaction (Levin 2000: 17-18), but rather numerous signs of intentional redactional insertions in existing poems and groups of poems. For example, already in preexilic poems, the motif of Yhwh’s coronation as king was inserted into existing theophanies. They were expanded again in the early postexilic period to proclaim Yhwh as universal, cosmic deity. By framing Psalms 3–88 with Psalms 2 and 89, a Messianic flavour was added to an older poetic collection. By adding the Yhwh-is-king collection (Pss. 93–100), the Psalter proclaimed the triumph of the heavenly king enthroned in Zion over all the peoples of the earth.
Claudia Süssenbach (2005) provides a careful synchronic and diachronic reading of the Elohistic Psalter (Pss. 42–83). She regards it as the first collection of Psalter (contrary to the Hossfeld-Zenger hypothesis; cf. Hossfeld 2010b: 199-213), and thus as the basic building block for the book of Psalms. At the heart of the collection is the second group of a Davidic Psalter (Pss. 50–71), composed from two earlier groupings. The most likely compilers of this collection were the Asaphites, who appended Psalms 50 and 73–83 to their Davidic composition during the Persian period. Finally, a Korahite collection with a focus on Zion (Pss. 42–49) was added as an introduction to the collection. Curiously enough, Süssenbach chooses not to analyse the relationship between the Korahite collection, which now introduces the Elohistic Psalter, and the Korahite group in Book III of the Psalter (Pss. 84–85; 87–88), in spite of obvious thematic links (Gillingham 2006: 579).
Friedhelm Hartenstein (2010: 229-58) offers an excellent analysis of the profile of Psalms 3–14, the first group of poems in Book I. He emphasizes the importance of reading psalm compositions linearly to grasp overarching themes and compositional structures. Equally important is the question of how a psalm group grew over time to attain its final compositional structure. Hartenstein regards Psalm 8 as the (exilic) kernel of the psalm composition. Psalms 3–7 constitute a deliberate composition of older poems with its roots in preexilic times, while Psalms 11–14 are later poems dating from the postexilic period. Psalm 8 acts as a link between poems focusing on the frailty and uncertainty of human existence and poems focusing on Yhwh’s triumph over the wicked. In the Hellenistic period, Psalms 9–10 were added, and in the process reinterpreted the Persian composition to proclaim Yhwh’s judgement over the peoples of the earth and provide hope for his oppressed people.
The latest commentary produced by German scholarship develops the approach set out by Hossfeld and Zenger. Friedhelm Hartenstein and Bernd Janowski’s commentary is a work in progress, published in fascicles since 2012 (Hartenstein and Janowski 2012; 2015; 2018a; 2018b; 2020). In the first fascicle (2012), Janowski develops his notion of the Psalter as a temple of words (Janowski 2010: 305) by comparing the Psalter with a Gothic cathedral, whose entrance is decorated with scenes of biblical salvation history that initiate visitors to the secrets of faith (2012: 51). Psalms 1–2 are such scenes of salvation history preparing the reader for the ‘entrance’ into the Psalter, while in Psalms 146–50 the reader exits the Psalter through the final chorus of praise for a God who saves. By moving from entrance to exit, the reader is imbued with the ‘happiness’ introduced in Ps. 1.1 (2012: 54). Although much attention is paid to the gradual growth of individual psalms, to my mind more emphasis is placed on matters of composition than on redaction. In this sense, the commentary promises to represent a bridge between the shape approach of American scholarship and the shaping approach of German scholarship.
Convergence and Dialogue
Since 2005, there are growing signs of convergence and dialogue between the predominantly American shape approach and the German-dominated shaping approach. Additionally, scholars outside the traditional American and German circles have made contributions to this trend.
The 2005 collection edited by Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller comprises twenty-seven essays by scholars from Europe, North America, Asia, and Africa. The contributions represent ‘the spectrum of opinion in the current interpretation of the Psalter, over a wide range of subjects’ (2005: 1). At least eight essays contribute to the theme of the shape and shaping of the Psalter. Rendtorff (2005: 53-64) argues that David is not only a royal figure in the Psalter, but a suffering, lamenting, and hoping individual. For Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (2005: 139-52), the connectedness of Psalms 22–24 points to a deliberate cluster declaring trust in Yhwh. Harry P. Nasuti (2005: 311-39) reviews proposed editorial trends in the shape of the Psalter vis àvis the history of King David, Israel’s history, the point of view of the reader of the Psalms, the life of faith of the reader, and a movement from Torah to praise. J. Clinton McCann, Jr. (2005: 340-48) argues that beatitudes at the beginning (Pss. 1–2), middle (Pss. 33–34), and end (Pss. 40–41) of Book I are constitutive markers for its editorial shape. Michael D. Goulder (2005: 349-67) ascribes unity and diversity in Book II of the Psalter to a complex series of public rituals. Klaus Seybold (2005: 368-90) assigns the fifth Davidic Psalter (Pss. 138–45) to Second Temple Jerusalem and proposes that they were involved in some sort of juridical process to determine guilt or innocence. Gerald H. Wilson (2005: 391-406) asserts that the final shape of the Psalter strengthens his theory that royal psalms were inserted at the seams of Books I–III to shift the focus from trust in the Davidic kingship to trust in Yhwh as king. Erich Zenger (2005: 407-42) investigates the redactional function of Psalm 29 in the composing of Psalms 28–30 and 93–100.
Two edited volumes emanated from Psalm symposiums organized by Baylor University, the second in cooperation with the University of Bonn. The volumes illustrate the convergence between American and German scholarship. The volume edited by Joel S. Burnett, William H. Bellinger, Jr., and W. Dennis Tucker, Jr. (2007) has ten contributors from the United States, one from Germany, and one from the United Kingdom. Burnett (2007: 95-113) argues that the ‘Elohistic Psalter’ (Pss. 42–83) is a well-defined collection of exilic poems intended as a plea for the restoration of the temple. Bellinger (2007: 114-26) proposes that Psalms 1–2 serve as introduction to Book I of the Psalter, giving the entire book a didactic intent. The volume edited by W. Dennis Tucker Jr. and William H. Bellinger, Jr. (2017) has twelve contributions evenly divided between North American and German scholars. Underpinning the volume is the conviction that synchronic and diachronic approaches do not exclude each other, but are mutually beneficial. All the contributions to a greater or lesser extent address issues regarding the shape and shaping of the Psalter. Harry P. Nasuti (2017: 27-46) investigates the relationship between Psalm 113 and the Hallelujah and Hallel psalms to illustrate how the canonical context influences the interpretation of a single poem. Stephen B. Reid (2017: 47-62) argues that the figure of David is central to an anti-imperial political theology conveyed by the Psalter as book. W. Dennis Tucker, Jr. (2017: 87-99) proposes that the image of God in Book V has implications for diachronic and synchronic features of the book. Johannes Bremer (2017: 101-16) traces the language of the ‘poor’ in the Psalter and concludes that shifts in the ‘theology of the poor’ display traces of the Psalter’s diachronic literary development. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld (2017: 117-32) describes the synchronic shape of the Elohistic Psalter to argue that the combination of Davidic, Asaphite, and Korahite collections played a role in the diachronic shaping of the Psalter from the exilic period onwards. Joel S. Burnett (2017: 133-51) focuses on the same collection and argues that the Korahite psalms represent the final phase in the completion of the Elohistic Psalter. Finally, Egbert Ballhorn (2017: 155-69) argues that Psalms 1–3 serve as an overture to the Psalter and that the succession of doctrine, prophecy, and prayer provides the reader with a clue to the nature of the ensuing book, which is ultimately a book of wisdom that leads to prayer.
The published volume from a 2008 colloquium on the composition of the Psalter (Zenger 2010c) contains forty-four contributions by scholars from Germany, France, Great Britain, Switzerland, Israel, the United States, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Malta, Italy, South Africa, and Australia. The international team of authors is vivid proof that the debate regarding the shape and shaping of the Psalter is no longer an American-German affair. Firth (2013: 122-23) provides a very brief overview of the book’s content and concludes: ‘It will need to be considered by all who seek to interpret the book of Psalms’ (2013: 123).
A final example of the convergence and dialogue in the movement from psalm to Psalter exegesis is the volume edited by Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (2014b). The ten essays by American scholars were read at the 2011 Society of Biblical Literature sessions of the Book of Psalms Consultation and deliberately commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of Wilson’s The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (1985a). The volume contains another six essays by scholars from Germany, South Africa, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The book has an American bias towards the subject. Reflection on the work of Wilson is a main theme of the volume, as can be seen in the contributions of deClaissé-Walford (2014a: 1-11), Nasuti (2014: 13-20), McCann (2014: 21-26), Wallace (2014: 193-208), and Flint (2014: 209-30). Of special importance is Jacobson’s (2014: 231-46) reflection on the future of Psalms studies, a theme that I will address in the final section of this article.
Alternative Approaches to Reading the Masoretic Psalter as a Book
The psalm and Psalter exegesis approach has been dominated by the shape approach of American scholars and the shaping approach of their German counterparts. These are, however, not the only proposals to read the Psalter as a book. Two other attempts should be mentioned here.
Form-critical Reading(s) of the Psalter as a Book
Shape and shaping scholars often resist traditional form-critical categories and the form-critical tendency to focus on individual poems rather than on collections and/or compositions. Some, however, use form-critical arguments in their reading of the Psalter as a book.
Claus Westermann (1962: 278-84) is a pioneer in this regard, but his work pre-dates the timeframe of this review. Mathias Millard (1994) conducted a detailed investigation of the composition of the Psalter from a form-critical point of view. He pays special attention to psalm superscripts and observes that elements in the superscripts tend to group psalms of the same Gattung in clusters (‘Kleingruppen’), e.g., מזמור (Pss. 3–6; 19–24; 29–31; 38–41; 47–51; 62–68; 75–77; 82–85; 108–10; 138–40); משכיל (Pss. 52–55); שיר (Pss. 65–68). From his analysis of psalm clusters—e.g., the ‘Egyptian’ Hallel (Pss. 113–18); the ‘small’ Hallel (Pss. 146–50); the Songs of Ascents (Pss. 120–34); the psalms of Korah (Pss. 42–49; 84–85; 87–88); the ‘second’ Davidic Psalter (Pss. 51–65; 67–72); the psalms of Asaph (Pss. 50; 73–83)—and an analysis of traditional form-critical studies’ emphasis upon ‘pure’ Gattungen (1994: 47-62), Millard concludes that ‘die Folge von Klage-Orakel-Hymnus/Danklied’ can be regarded as ‘Anordnungsprinzip’ in the Psalter (1994: 162).
Millard argues further that the Elohistic Psalter (Pss. 42–83), containing three psalm groups (Korahite, Pss. 42, 44–49; Asaphite, Pss. 50, 73–83; Davidic, Pss. 51–70), a number of psalms with no or diverging superscripts (Pss. 43, 66, 71, 72), and spanning all of Book II and part of Book III, represents the oldest collection in the Psalter (1994: 169-88). The Asaphite cluster was constitutive for the collection, illustrated by the presence of Asaph-poems at the seams of the collection (cf. Pss. 50, 73–83). During the exile, this group of temple singers collected poems, some of them dating from preexilic times, with the purpose to lament the destruction of the temple and offer the exiles hope for a new pilgrimage to Jerusalem (1994: 188). Millard goes on to trace the remaining compositional process of the Psalter in detail through the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods.
Liturgical Reading(s) of the Psalter as a Book
Over a period of more than two decades, Michael D. Goulder (1975, 1982, 1990, 1998, 2005) has proposed that the Psalter has a predominantly liturgical character and has read the psalms in their chronological, canonical order as cultic songs utilized during religious feasts and/or commemorations, often also as intertexts for historical episodes described in the Deuternonomistic/Chronistic literature. For example, Goulder regards the ‘second’ Davidic Psalter (Pss. 51–72) as the oldest psalm collection and dates it to ca. 970 bce. The poems were composed as responses to the ‘Succession Narrative’ (2 Sam. 9–20; 1 Kgs. 1–2), and thus they ‘retell’ the story of David from the Bathsheba-Uriah incident (Ps. 51) to the ascension of Solomon (Ps. 72). They were chanted in a procession on one of the days of the New Year/autumn/enthronement festival in Jerusalem in response to a recital of the Succession Narrative. Through this liturgy, the community annually relived the experience of their founder-king. Book I contains other songs used during these rituals and is a ‘royal Jerusalem festival psalmody’ from the early monarchy (Goulder 1990).
Goulder’s approach is ingenious and he convincingly illustrates that groups of poems read in succession can tell a coherent ‘story’. He sensitizes scholars to the many intertextual links between the Psalter and the Deuteronomistic/Chronistic literature. However, his bias towards an annual enthronement festival as the social setting for almost all collections of poems is quite unconvincing (Becker 1975: 38-48; Howard 1997: 12-14).
Reading the Masoretic Psalter as a Book: Editorial Intent and Redactional Trajectories
The issue of the shape and shaping of the Psalter is inexorably linked with two other interpretive issues: 1) the identification of an organizing theme, principle, or editorial intent that guided the process; and 2) the explication of the redactional circles or trajectories that produced the editorial shaping. Many of the issues and proposals involved have already been touched upon in the previous section. I will avoid repeating them here, but I will briefly survey both of these additional interpretive issues.
Organizational Themes, Principles, and Editorial Intentions
A Single Theme Approach
With a synchronic approach as point of departure, Jerome F.D. Creach (1996) proposes ‘that the ideas expressed by ḥāṣâ/maḥseh and a related field of words (‘refuge’) represent an editorial interest that may be observed throughout the Psalter’ (1996: 17). The phrase וב יסוח־לכ ירשא ‘blessed are all who take refuge in him’ in Ps. 2.12 is an editorial note indicating that ‘refuge’-related terms are utilized as an intentional organizational principle of the entire Psalter. Torah was associated with Yhwh’s protection and ‘provides a clue as to how Yahweh’s instruction was understood and how the Psalter was meant to be read: the contents of the Psalter seem to be intended as a guide to a life of dependence; the most concrete way of expressing such reliance was in the study of tôrâ’ (1996: 73). Creach considers the implications of the חסה field for the growth of the Psalter. The fact that the חסה word field also occurs prominently is Isaiah 1–39 might indicate that Psalms 2–72 were collected and edited in circles influenced by the escape of Jerusalem and Hezekiah from the Assyrians. Psalms 73–89 were added later as a response to the events of 587 bce. Prominent intertextual links between Psalms 90–150 and Isaiah 40–55 suggest that this collection was added after 587 bce in reaction to the exilic crisis, which required new reflection on the concept of Yhwh as refuge (1996: 106-21).
A Single Organizational Principle Approach
Also using a synchronic approach, David C. Mitchell (1997) proposes that ‘the Hebrew Psalter was designed by its redactors as a purposefully ordered arrangement of lyrics with an eschatological message’ (1997: 15). Ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible, the Dead Sea Psalms scrolls, New Testament authors, and early rabbinic literature already understood the Psalter as messianic-eschatological songs (1997: 16-33). The final redaction of the Psalter should be placed between the end of the Babylonian exile and the translation of the Septuagint, a distinctly ‘eschatologically conscious milieu’ (1997: 82-83). As an example, the significant position of Psalm 2 as introduction to the Psalter together with Psalm 1, Psalm 72 as conclusion to Book II, Psalm 89 as conclusion to Book III, and Psalm 110 as introduction to the jubilant הי־וללה group in Psalms 111–17 all suggest ‘that the redactor understood them to refer to a future mashiah-king’ (1997: 86-87). In Ezekiel 34–48, Zechariah 9–14 and Joel 3–4, Mitchell identifies a specific eschatological programme developing in stages, namely the ingathering of Israel from exile, the ingathering of the nations against Jerusalem, and the ingathering of Israel and the nations to worship on Zion (1997: 128-65). This programme is reflected in the redaction of the Psalter, with the Psalms of Asaph reflecting the ingathering of Israel from exile and the gathering of the nations against Israel, while the Songs of Ascents reflect the nations ascending to worship at Sukkôt in Jerusalem (1997: 90-127; 166-98). Royal psalms highlight the role of the coming messiah in this eschatological programme (e.g., Psalm 2 announces his victory).
Also starting from a synchronic point of view, Gerald T. Sheppard (1980) argues for a deliberate and systematic ‘sapientializing’ of the Hebrew Bible. With reference to the Psalter, he concludes: Ps. 1 and 2 correlate the study of the Torah collection with the goal of attaining sacred wisdom like that found in the wisdom traditions… By his association with Ps. 2, David, who is, in canonical terms, the chief architect of the Psalter, is identified fully in accord with the ideals of Ps. 1. The entire Psalter…is made to stand theologically in association with David as source book of guidance for the way of the righteous. (1980: 142)
Rolf Rendtorff (2005: 53-64) studies the numerous psalm headings mentioning David, as well as the expanded superscriptions mentioning specific situations in his life that treat the ‘historical’ David as either a king or as an exemplary sufferer. Rendtorff then argues that these headings and superscriptions offer the earliest and organizing interpretations of these particular poems, and also relate to the text (body) of the psalms themselves.
A Single Editorial Intent Approach
Starting from a diachronic point of view, Christoph Rösel (1999) proposes that Psalms 2–89 represent a distinct and originally independent phase in the growth of the Psalter from individual, smaller collections to its final, canonical form. In its first phase, it consists of the Elohistic collection (Pss. 42–83) (1999: 29-54), which can be dated to the exilic period. The intention is to tell the exiles that, despite the loss of land and temple, the God of Israel still triumphs over the gods of the nations (1999: 32). The Elohistic Psalter is a combination of a Davidic group (Pss. 51–72), prefaced (Ps. 50) and followed (Pss. 73–83) by an Asaphite group. The Asaphites created the collection by incorporating the individual laments of David in their community-orientated collection. A Korahite group then added Pss. 42–49 as preface to the existing Asaph-David collection to emphasize the universal rule of Israel’s God. The Korahites are also responsible for the systematic Elohistic redaction of the new collection. During the second half of the sixth century bce, the Elohistic Psalter came into being as the oldest psalm collection. This collection has been thoroughly revised, edited, and expanded in circles with a distinctly Messianic interest. Its overall purpose was to reignite hopes for the restoration of the Davidic kingdom in postexilic times.
Martin Leuenberger (2004) argues that Books IV and V of the Psalter are intimately linked to the ‘Messianic Psalter’ (Pss. 2–89) identified by Rösel (1999) as the earliest postexilic psalm collection. These two books have a distinctly theocratic focus. They represent a development of the ‘royal-messianic’ conceptualization of Psalms 2–89 by focusing on the central meaning, place, and function of the conception of the kingship of Yhwh. Books IV and V thus contain a ‘Fortschreibung’ of the earlier collection and move the focus of the Psalter in its final form from the Davidic kingdom to the universal kingdom of Yhwh (2004: 391).
Martin Kleer (1996) argues that the most prominent characteristic of the Psalter is the depiction of David as the persecuted poet and supplicant. He regards the intentional ‘Davidizing’ of the Psalter as part of a broader tendency to depict David as the praying king. Already in the sixth and fifth centuries bce, poetic passages were appended to the books of Samuel illustrating this tendency. In successive stages, the tendency is clearly visible in the Psalter, which he dates between the sixth and the third centuries bce. In the process of assigning poems to David, David is also accorded with prophetic capabilities (1996: 320), and at the same time he becomes the ultimate example of a wise man (1996: 321). In similar fashion, Klaus Seybold (2010: 125-40) examines the early process of the ‘Davidizing’ of the Psalms. He analyses the role of David within the Psalms apart from the Psalm titles. Then he turns to the question of the origin of the Psalms in light of the recurrence of the phrase לדוד ‘of/from David’ in their titles. He focuses on the final form of the Psalter. The Qumran Psalter from 11QPsa, the Septuagint Psalter, and the Masoretic Psalter all mirror the latest stages of the intentional ‘Davidizing’ of the Psalms. Individual piety can be understood as the key category for the understanding of this process. The content of the poems ascribed to David contributed to the development of the ideal figure of the poet and singer.
For Joseph Reindl (1981: 333-56), the final redaction of the Psalter displays an intentional wisdom trend. He expresses the suspicion that the presence of these wisdom redactors is also detectable in numerous poems throughout the Psalter. These additions should not be regarded as glosses or errors, but as signs of an intentional reinterpretation of the entire Psalter from the perspective of its final redactors. Similarly, Reiner Kratz (1996: 1-34) argues that the addition of Psalm 1 as an intentional editorial prologue, as well as the redactional doxologies demarcating the Psalter as a five-part Torah of David, transform the Psalter into a book suitable for private meditation, public service in the temple, and as a prayer book for services in the synagogue.
Redactional Circles and Trajectories
It is no easy task to pinpoint the circle(s) responsible for the redaction and composition of the Psalter. Differences in content and order between the canonical Psalter and 11QPsa, especially with regard to Books IV and V (Füglister 1988: 320-25), suggest that the process of redaction and composition was on-going late in the Persian, and probably well into the Greek period (Auwers 2010: 67-89). Several of the redactional ‘trajectories’ that have been proposed to explain the shape and shaping of the Psalter may illuminate the circles and settings responsible for the process (Füglister 1988: 352-88). Ulrich Berges (2017: 11-33) emphasizes that a very small group of literate people was responsible for the final editing of the Hebrew Bible. Any consideration of redactional trajectories in relation to their origins and settings should take the development of scribal groups in the postexilic community into account (Van der Toorn 2007). The trajectories identified in Psalm scholarship do not necessarily each imply a different redaction, but should be interpreted as particular emphases important for different postexilic (possibly Levitical) groups among the temple personnel responsible for the final shape and shaping of the Psalter.
I have already mentioned the following trajectories in connection with proposed organizing themes and/or different approaches to the shape and shaping of the Psalter (I will not repeat their description but simply note them here to be considered as related to the question of the editorial circles and redactional origins of the composition of the Psalter):
1) A sapiential tendency in the Psalter that goes hand in hand with the theme of Torah obedience and the notion that the Psalter is to be read as Torah (see Reindl 1981: 333-56; Gosse 2008: 11-12; Mays 1987: 3-12; McCann 1993b: 20-21).
2) A prophetic and eschatological tendency emphasizing future implications and connected to a Messianic emphasis and the role of David in various psalms (see Childs 1979: 517-18; Mitchell 1997; Rösel 1999; Füglister 1988: 370).
3) A ‘Davidizing’ and historicizing tendency with a focus on David and the reinterpretation of the history of Israel (see Walton 1991: 21-31; Kratz 1996: 21-28).
4) A movement from the kingdom of David to the universal rule of Yhwh, especially through royal and messianic motifs (see Leuenberger 2004: 389).
To these previously discussed proposals, I now add a proposed redactional trajectory towards collective (re)interpretation(s). The Psalter displays a tendency towards collective (re)interpretation of poems by groups within the Judean community who regarded themselves as ‘true’ Israel, while the ‘enemies’ are compatriots hindering them from serving Yhwh (Füglister 1988: 377-84; Ro 2002; Marttila 2006; Bremer 2016). It goes hand-in-hand with a process of ‘democratization’ where royal poems were re-interpreted from a collective messianic perspective (Tucker 2003: 161-78). In numerous recent studies, it has been argued that the literary heritage of these groups can be seen in successive redactional layers in the Psalter as they give shape to its final form. Christoph Levin (1993: 370-72) argues that the צדיקים/רשעים duality in the psalms signifies a separatist tendency in the postexilic community. Ulrich Berges (2000a: 153-78; 2000b: 1-18) regards the יהוה/ישרים עבדים/ענוים/יראי as a single group whose redactional activity can be seen in Isaiah (cf. Isa. 56–66) and the Psalter. They regarded themselves as true successors of the extinct Davidic monarchy, show special interest in the return from exile and the diaspora, are interested in the reconstruction of Jerusalem/Zion, and display a universalistic openness to the nations. Chronologically they belong to the period of Nehemiah. Levin (1993: 377-79) proposes that the חסידים were responsible for the last redaction of the Psalter towards the middle of the second century bce (cf. also Ro 2002: 200-206; Marttila 2006: 205-10). They are the direct predecessors of the group known as the συναυωγή ἀσιδαιων in 1 Macc. 2.42, an anti-Hellenistic party supporting the Maccabean revolt (Füglister 1988: 382; cf. קהל חסידים in Ps. 149.1, 4).
One other redactional trajectory should be added here in more detail: a focus on Jerusalem/Zion. Closely linked with the previous tendency is the special focus of these collective re-interpreters/redactors on Jerusalem/Zion (Berges 2000a: 153-55, 165-67). The centrality of Jerusalem/Zion has been recognized in many studies (Ollenburger 1987; Körting 2006). The social milieu of these groups is sought in Levitical circles that operated from late Persian to early Maccabean times. These Levites were expelled from their privileged position in the temple by the late postexilic temple aristocracy in Jerusalem who tended to support the process of Hellenization. Hence, they perceived themselves as marginalized and ostracized, and expressed a deep longing to experience the presence of Yhwh in his temple (Füglister 1988: 381). It is often argued that the book of Chronicles stems from the same social groups and displays similar interests (Gosse 2008: 277-83). Similarly, Gillingham highlights the role of these Levitical groups in the editing of the Hebrew Psalter (2007: 308-41; 2010: 91-123; 2014: 201-12; 2017: 35-59). She identifies the social group responsible for the editing of the Psalter with its particular focus on the centrality of Jerusalem/Zion as postexilic ‘Temple singers’. They were responsible for bringing together the entire Psalter. Gillingham proposes that her hypothesis explains several of the previously identified trajectories in the Psalter, namely ‘the liturgical presentation of David, the interest in the Torah (and the king’s status as it relates to the Torah), the more general didactical emphases, the redefining of cultic practice as (essentially) sacred song, the emphasis on the poor and the needy, and the interest in prophecy’ (2010: 119).
Pitfalls and Prospects
The shift from psalm to Psalter exegesis has not yielded a consensus concerning the shape and shaping of the Psalter or the possible organizing themes and editorial circles. There are a number of potential pitfalls and prospects for future research in this area.
Pitfalls
In the shift from psalm to Psalter exegesis, it is often simply stated as a fact that the Psalter is ‘post-cultic’ and therefore a ‘book’ to be read and meditated upon, rather than a collection of poems to be sung in sorrowful, meditative, or joyful worship (Wilson 1985a: 207). Harry P. Nasuti (2014: 17) reminds us that the Psalter’s appropriation in Judaism and Christianity indicates simultaneous appreciation for the Psalter as a book displaying an ordered literary unity with a particular theological orientation and as a collection of individual songs used in a variety of settings, especially in liturgical contexts.
This tendency exposes the shortcomings of the efforts to elevate a single theme, editorial principle, or redactional trajectory as the only lens that can and will explain the editorial shape and/or shaping of the Psalter. Klaus Seybold (2013: 168-81) warns that the processes involved in the collection of individual poems (possibly to preserve them for posterity), their gradual compilation and editing, and their final edition in the form of a Psalms scroll were extremely complex and transpired over centuries. These processes spanned the preexilic, exilic, Persian, and Greek epochs. Erhard Gerstenberger (1994: 3-13) is correct when he argues that the Psalter contains an anthology of extremely rich, theologically and anthropologically profound, and far-reaching prayers and songs reflecting a wide variety of real-life situations. His passionate plea (Gerstenberger 2007: 81-92) that individual poems should not be dislodged from the variegated real-life situations that gave life to them or their liturgical use in ancient and modern times (Gerstenberger 2014: 333-45), should be heeded. Attention to these matters can only enrich efforts to read the Masoretic Psalter as a book (Gillingham 2014: 202).
Norman Whybray (1996: 118) is also critical of attempts to reduce the 150 individual poems of the Psalter ‘in such a way as to present a single comprehensive message’. Any attempt to reduce the editing of the Psalter to a single trend is bound to fail, because there ‘is no evidence that there was a systematic and purposeful redaction of the whole Psalter in any of the suggested ways’ (1996: 119). Similarly, S. Jonathan Murphy (2008: 283-93) cautions that the choice for a single principle that would explain the complex nature of the Psalter’s growth and content inevitably amounts to selectivity and subjectivity. Interpreters should consciously ask ‘whether what is helpful, appealing, interesting, and engaging is enough to consider it accurate and true’ (2008: 292). Roland E. Murphy (1993: 21-28) warns that positing a redactional trajectory or editorial intent for the Psalter is not more ‘objective’ than any historical-critical methodology applied to the book. Both are inevitably dependent upon hypothetical historical construction (1993: 21). Those engaged in interpreting a complex book like the Psalms should be open to the possibilities afforded by allowing a ‘pluriformity of contexts’ (1993: 27) to simultaneously play a role in the interpretive process.
David Willgren (2016) is equally critical of singling out one specific ‘setting for the collection as a whole’ (2016: 400). He argues that it is important to define what is meant by ‘book’ in the often-used phrase ‘to read the Masoretic Psalter as a book’. What kind of a book is the Psalter? For Willgren, it is ‘an anthology of psalms’ that ‘does not tell a (linear) story, but rather spins an intricate web of multiple traditions that are preserved and put in dialogue with each other despite (or perhaps because of) the tension of perspective created by such a compilation’ (2016: 400).
After thirty-five years, Psalms research should embrace the shift from psalm to Psalter exegesis (Millard 1996: 311-28). This shift, however, should not be an over-simplified process. It should include ‘Psalmenexegese’ and ‘Psalterexegese’ (Zenger 2010b: 26), and the two perspectives should enhance each other in such a way that different, often contradictory voices, emotions, moods, and settings can be superimposed and the Psalter can be allowed to communicate its shape and shaping through a symphony of voices.
Prospects
Hossfeld and Steiner (2013: 240-58) and Jacobsen (2014: 231-46) have made proposals for future research on the shift from psalm to Psalter exegesis. I will add four suggestions.
First, over the last fifteen years or so, there were encouraging developments towards dialogue and convergence between those (primarily North American) scholars emphasizing the shape of the Psalter and those (primarily German) scholars emphasizing the shaping of the collection. However, room exists for developing more synergy between the two approaches (Hossfeld and Steiner 2013: 247-49).
Second, the two ‘schools’ approach the genre of commentary writing from different angles. In German scholarship, the influential commentaries of Hossfeld and Zenger set the tone. Virtually all German monographs and other studies referred to in this review are in fact a detailed explication of Hossfeld and Zenger’s insights into the shaping of the Psalter. The situation is quite different in North American scholarship. The tone is set in monographs, edited volumes, and articles in influential journals. Not a single specialist commentary from these circles has exploited the possibilities of the shape of the Psalter approach.
Third, the prominence of the Jerusalem/Zion motif in the Psalter and a nuanced investigation of the function and meaning of the motif for the shape and shaping of the entire book have not received adequate attention. A more nuanced analysis of the circles responsible for the emphasis on Jerusalem/Zion is also lacking. The general assumption is that postexilic Levitical singers attached to the temple were responsible for this editorial trajectory, and they can also be associated with the circles that produced the book of Chronicles. However, this is an over-simplified assumption if one takes into account that ‘Zion’ appears only twice in Chronicles, but thirty-eight times in the Psalter. Berges (2017: 18-22) mentions the possibility of tension between Levitical and priestly groups in the postexilic period. Likewise, the spatial story of the Psalter still needs to be told. In two studies (Prinsloo 2005: 457-77; 2006: 739-60), I investigated the significance of space in the Songs of Ascents and the Egyptian Hallel psalms. These elements need further elucidation (Hossfeld and Steiner 2013: 255).
Fourth, several studies reviewed here suggest that the Psalter should be read successively from beginning to end. It implies a reading of the Psalter as a narrative of some sort ‘to be read in a lectio continua as a composed book’ (Hossfeld and Steiner 2013: 240). It also implies that the Psalter should be read intertextually. I use ‘intertextuality’ in this context in the sense of inner-biblical allusion and inner-biblical exegesis (Fishbane 1985). Important work has indeed been done on intertextual relations between adjacent psalms, groups of psalms, and between the Psalter and the Deuteronomistic, Chronistic, and wisdom corpora (cf. Botha 2014; 2017: 131-54). However, very little has been done on the fact that three corpora in the Hebrew Bible tell a similar ‘story’ of the demise of the Israelite/Judean kingdoms, the experience of exile, and the return from exile and longing for an eschatological future. I refer to the Psalter, Isaiah, and the Book of the Twelve. Attention has been paid to intertextual links between and similar redactional trajectories in Isaiah and the Psalter (Berges 2017: 11-33; Blenkinsopp 2019), but there is ample room to investigate these parallel ‘narratives’ in future research.