The Psalter as Living and Dynamic

I’ve posted a few times on the Psalter in the last week or so, noting how the psalms were written and slowly collected somewhere between the period 1400 and 400 BCE, give or take.  This might be sort of a new concept for many Christians, but rather than detract from our view of Scripture it adds to it, in my opinion.  Here’s one good point by Tremper Longman along these lines.

“The key is to see the Psalter as a living, open book during the whole Old Testament period.  The Psalter was in constant use individually and corporately from its very beginning.  In addition, new psalms were constantly added” (How to Read the Psalms, p. 43).

Though I think “constantly added” is an overstatement (150 psalms collected over 1000 years is not constant addition!), Longman’s point is well noted.  Bernard Anderson, in Out of the Depths (another great study of the psalms), said it this way.

“A closer look at the fivefold structure of the Hebrew Psalter reveals that this symmetrical organization was superimposed upon previously circulating collections of psalms, just as modern hymn books are based upon previous editions” (he cites and explains the “editorial notice” at the end of Psalm 72 here; it is found on page 11).

I’ll continue this thought later…

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Titles of the Psalms (II): Canonical?

A few days back, I posted on the topic of whether the Psalm titles are original.  The conclusion there was that they are not necessarily original to the particular psalm but were most likely added by a scribe at a latter date.  Now, we turn to a few reasons why Futato says they are canonical (i.e. part of the divine scriptures).

1) The NT treats the titles as scripture and cites them as such (Mk 12.35-37; Acts 2.29-35; 13.35-37).

2) The title of Psalm 18 is found in 2 Samuel 22.1.  We should take both together as canonical.

3) The title phrase “to/for the director of music” is found in Habakkuk 3.19; both Hab. 3.19 and this titular phrase (“to/for the director of music”) should be considered canonical.

Again, this is a widely discussed and debated issue.  Some scholars of differing schools/traditions agree that the titles might even be a sort of footnote to the previous psalm.  One thing is clear: the discussion of the titles in the Psalter is no simple issue!  Futato’s conclusions about his thesis (that the titles are not original but are canonical) are also helpful: 

“Therefore, we seem to be left with a certain ambivalence toward the historical information of the titles: it is canonical but cannot play much of a role in the interpretive process other than illustrating in a general way the kind of situation in which a given psalm arose.”

In other words, the psalms are in a way time-bound yet in another way are timeless.  Though I’ll save the details for a later post, we might start to think of the psalms as part of the wisdom genre.  The proverbs, for example, grew out of a particular situation but the ambiguity of that situation allows them to “make wise” the believer from any age, location, and circumstance of life.  Most likely, the wise authors anticipated this.  Perhaps we can say the same of the Psalter.

The above quotes can be found in chapter three of Futato’s introduction to the Psalter.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Titles of the Psalms: Original?

I’ve gone back and forth while contemplating and studying the titles of the psalms (i.e. Ps. 18’s For the choir director [NLT]).  Were these titles written by the original author of the psalm?   Are they original or later additions?  Are they canonical and inspired?  By way of summary, here are what a few psalm scholars say.

Goldingay doubts the canonicity of the titles (Psalms 1-41 in the Baker OT commentary series p. 26-29).  Longman says they are historical and reliable, but not canonical (How to Read the Psalms, p. 41; cf An Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 215).  Westermann wrote that the titles were part of the dynamic and ongoing tradition of Israel (Praise and Lament in the Psalms, p.257-258; several other authors say the same).  Mays says the titles “were not part of the original text, and were probably built up rather than prefixed in toto” (Psalms, p. 11).   Many “higher” critics say the titles are midrashic additions and absolutely not part of the canon.   While many of these above authors have made some solid comments concerning the origin of the titles, I think Mark Futato’s approach is the best (in Interpreting the Psalms: An Exegetical Handbook, pages 119-122).  Here it is – I’ll deal with the canonical aspect in a later post.

“The titles are canonical although not necessarily original.  It seems that at least some of the titles to individual psalms are not original to the text but were added later.”

He gives these reasons for his view that they are not necessarily original but later editorial additions.

1) The titles are written in the third person and thus have an editorial bent (he cites Kidner’s Psalms 1-72, p. 33).  Furthermore, I (spl) might add, they all have a similar grammatical style while the psalms themselves do not always have a similar style.

2) Only 116 psalms have titles in the MT (the Hebrew Bible) while the LXX (the Septuagint – not to mention other OT translations/collections) has titles for all but two psalms, proving that there was a certain “fluidity” in the titles even during the later stages of scribal collections of the psalms.

3) Psalms 14 and 53 are most likely two different versions of the same psalm - they are nearly identical in content, and the titles are almost the same.  The differences can be attributed to an editor of some sort.  ”The difference in titles suggests that the titles were added independently and, therefore, that at least one of the two was added after the original composition of the psalm.”

4) This one is an additional reason for the non-original view of the titles, found in Goldingay’s commentary (cited above).  Goldingay notes well that using titles was not the norm in the ANE; furthermore, he writes, using titles is not something we really see elsewhere in the OT.

I think Futato (and others with this view of some sort) is on to something.  If any book/collection in the OT has clear editorial work, it is the Psalter!  For example, while Psalm 69 has “to/of David” in its title, in 69.35 there is a pretty clear postexilic theme.  Also, Ps 72.20 is a clear editorial note: The prayers of David son of Jesse are ended (NRSV).  Finally, we can be pretty certain that the earliest and latest psalms span around 1,000 years – the collection was an ongoing thing at least to some extent.  There are of course more things to note as far as the editing of the psalter, these are but a few.

This shouldn’t trouble us too much, for this kind of editorial work is also found in the Pentateuch (and elsewhere) which talks about Moses’ death and the approximate location of his grave (Deut 34.5ff).  Therefore, I agree with Longman when he (with the late Ray Dillard) says the Psalter “was a dynamic, growing, and changing book during the canonical period” (An Introduction to the Old Testament, 219).  This is part of its beauty!  It is quite time bound on the one hand, on the other it in a way transcends time.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Literary Structure of the OT

I posted on this excellent book earlier.  I also just noticed that the WSC bookstore now carries it – priced competitively with Amazon.  I’ll review this more later as I use it, but as many of you said earlier, it is a great work!  It is worth the 30 some bucks if you are studying or teaching the OT.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

OT Hebrew Literary Structure

This is an oustanding resource: David Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the OT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999). It is a literary commentary on the OT.  Dorsey breaks down many sections of the OT into literary outlines, which helps the OT student see the narrative/literary “shape” of many OT stories and sections.

The first few chapters are introductory material, covering topics such as the arrangement of literary units in the OT, the structure and meaning of the units, and the importance and value of structural analysis.  After this, Dorsey goes through the books of the law, the historical books, the poetic books, and the major/minor prophets; he then outlines major parts of each.  This is a great help when preaching and teaching the OT.

Here are a few quotes which give a nice taste of Dorsey’s emphasis.

“The pages of the Old Testament reflect a keen interest in literary structure.  Hebrew authors and editors generally took great pains to arrange their compositions in way that would help convey their messages” (p. 15).

“The blandness of an ancient text’s appearance reflects… the cultural reality that ancient texts were written primarily to be heard, not seen.  Texts were normally intended to be read aloud, whether one was reading alone or to an audience.  Accordingly, an ancient writer was compelled to use structural signals that would be perceptible to the listening audience.  Signals were geared for the ear not the eye, since visual markers would be of little value to a listening audience” (p. 16).

“To investigate structure in the Hebrew Bible, the reader must lay aside Western expectations and watch for these less familiar structuring conventions that were indigenous to ancient Israel – much as modern linguists must do when working with unwritten tribal languages” (p. 16).

Here’s a statement that is one of the reasons why Dorsey emphasises structure: “The organization of a literary work contributes to and is an integral part of the work’s meaning” (p. 17).

I’ll write more on this later as I read more.  So far, so good; wish I’d have found it a few years ago!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Childs and Brueggemann: Canonical Text or Canonical Interpreter?

I’ve appreciated much of Brevard Childs’ work in terms of biblical theology and his discussion of the canon.  I’ve also enjoyed reading some of Walter Brueggemann.  In an adaptation of Childs’ Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, namely Biblical Theology: A Proposal, Childs notes Brueggemann’s criticism of his canonical proposal.  This is pretty fascinating, but also rather involved, so I’ll do my best to summarize it in clear terms (the quotes are from Biblical Theology: A Proposal, pages 40-44).

First, Brueggemann says that Childs focuses on the theological aspect of Scripture using only the text as the authority instead of the theological content.  Brueggeman says the authority should be in the theological context rather than the text itself.

Second, Brueggemann parts ways with Childs by suggesting that the “canonical interpreter” is the decisive thing that hands over (tradent) the theological norm.  In other words, Brueggemann says the interpreter is engaged in the ongoing process of actualizing the text to recover the freeing concerns God has in the world.  Childs would disagree.

Third, Brueggemann emphasizes the need to read the theological substance of the Bible from the point of view of the oppressed in society, like Israel often was (or those within Israel were).  Basically, the theological substance of the Bible has to do with the oppressed being freed from alternative power structures.  Childs, of course, wouldn’t highlight this the way Brueggemann does.

Childs says that Brueggeman, in these critiques and differences, misses his main point: “The whole point of focusing on scripture as canon in opposition to the anthropocentric tradition of liberal protestantism is to emphasize that the biblical text and its theological function as authoritative form belong inextricably together” (p. 42).   Sharply, Childs notes that though Brueggemann would cringe at this suggestion, his (Brueggemann’s) hermeneutical move is identical to that of the Enlightenment.

Why or how?  Because, writes Childs, Brueggemann separates the text and the norm (content).  Brueggemann focuses on the norm or content within a certain community in which the text begins to work.  Childs describes Brueggemann’s method: “The inert text…receives its meaning when it is correlated with some other external cultural force, ideology, or mode of existence” (p. 42).  Childs says this  proposal of Brueggemann is radically different than his own.

Here’s Childs’ punch line, so to speak.  “The saddest part of the proposal is that Walter Brueggemann is sincerely striving to be a confessing theologian of the Christian church, and would be horrified at being classified as a most eloquent defender of the Enlightenment, which his proposal respecting the biblical canon actually represents” (p. 44).

Wow! That’s pretty significance.  If you’re interested on some background layers of this discussion (the “text v norm” or “text v interpretation”) you’ll have to voyage through Hans Frei’s Eclipse of Biblical Narrative .  Also, let me note, I’m pretty sure the serious student of the OT would find bigger sections of Brueggemann’s Theology of the Old Testament helpful, as I have, though some of his methodology  might make you scratch your head (if you agree with Childs as I do).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Exodus: A Book/Commentary List

I’ve been preaching through Exodus the last six months or so, and have found the following commentaries and books to be helpful, each in its own way.  The first part is the commentary list, the second is a list of books that contain parts of Exodus themes.  Note: I’ve printed out and used hundreds (literally!) of articles from CBQ, JETS, JSOT, etc., but for obvious reasons I’m not going to list them.  It is, however, more helpful at times to refer to specific journal articles than the commentaries.  Just for fun, I did the “star” rating (5 being tops).

An Exodus Book List (in no specific order)

Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus in the OTL series. *****

Nahum Sarna, Exodus in the JPS Torah series (Jewish Publication Society) *****

Peter Enns, Exodus, in the NIV Application Commentary Series *****

Terrence Fretheim, Exodus in the Interpretation series ***

John Calvin, Harmony of the Books of Moses ***

Nancy Ganz, Herein is Love – a children’s commentary on the book of Exodus ***

Phil Ryken, Exodus in the Preaching the Word series *****

Walter Kaiser, Exodus, in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary ***

Selections from the following books: (again, in no specific order)

Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology *****

Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation*****

Meredith Kline, Kingdom Prologue and God, Heaven, and Har-Magedon *****

Tremper Longman, Immanuel in Our Place in The Gospel According to the OT series ****

Vern Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses ****

Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament ***

Various, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (IVP) *****

Various, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament ****

Jon Levenson, Sinai and Zion *****

G. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission***

Victor Matthews, etc. Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the ANE ****

—

Enjoy – and feel free to add more; I certainly have left some out.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Difficulty of Ex 24: Childs’ Proposal

Ex 24 is anything but easy with regard to clear connection in and style of the text.  Even a quick read makes a person scratch his/her head, wondering why it is a bit choppy.  One example: not only is this section of Exodus out of chronological order, even this chapter is “dischronologized.”  It seems as if vv 3-8 interrupt the flow of vv 1-2 and 9ff.  Of course, the author(s) no doubt had a reason for this order, but that’s tough to discern.  Here’s how Childs handles the tension.

He speaks about two ways this tension has been approached.  One (the LXX and the Targums) “attempted to fill in the missing gaps in the ongoing narrative and to harmonize the difficulties.”  The weakness of this approach “lies in its failure to deal seriously enough with the given text, substituting one’s own opinion of what the text should have said.”

The second approach, found in the “recent critical commentaries,” abandoning all effort to obtain a coherent account.”  Thy point out all the discrepancies in the text and focus solely on historical reconstructions of the text.  The weakness of this approach “lies in its complete atomizing of the narrative in disregard of the final stage of the text, and its failure to realize that the whole is more than its parts.”

“What is needed (Childs’ approach) is a synthetic approach which, while recognizing the historical dimension of the text, will seek to describe as objectively as possible what the final editor actually accomplished with his narrative.  In this way the expositor does not himself go beyond the witness of the text (something which both above approaches do).  He is also able to offer some value judgments on how successfully the last literary stamping has dealt with the older material of the tradition which was reworked into a new form.”

I agree with Childs here; neither the first nor the second approach is laudable.  Possibly people in the “conservative” camp would fall into the first group, the “liberals” would fall into the latter (to generalize terribly!).  There’s a better way, however, as Childs notes.

I do have a question with Childs’ final sentence there.  I could be reading it incorrectly, but it seems to me as if Childs stumbles a bit.  Notice how he said the reader offers “value judgments” on how the final editor  reworked the old material into a new form.  I believe that we should say that the editor was successful in reworking the older material into new form, because he did it! The judgment should be on us: how successful we are in seeing how he reworked the older material into new form.

Again, just some thoughts.  I could be wrong.  If “value judgments” means “humble guesses,” then I don’t have a problem with it.  Also, I’m not sure how we can know the “older material of the tradition.”  Let me know if you have some ideas!  I could use them!

Quotes from page 503 of Childs’ commentary on Exodus (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1974).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Historiography….and Eisenhower

Andrew and I have been discussing OT history and historiography.  We’re wrestling through hermeneutical questions such as “What and how does the text tell us about history?”  We’re finding, as many others have already noted in various ways, that these are some tough questions because there are a thousand things to consider when answering them.

Let me explain with some excerpts and comments from a biography on Dwight Eisenhower by Michael Korda, namely, Ike: An American Hero (New York: HarperCollins, 2008).  Two things in this book are worth thinking about as we consider histories and historiography, or writing history.  I’ll mention just the first one in this post (the second to follow in a day or two).

First, here’s Korda: “It is not easy to get military ranks correct in dealing with several nations over a long period of time.  To avoid confusion, therefore, I have attempted throughout to give the people mentioned in the book their correct rank at the time about which I am writing” (xviii; emphasis his).  Korda also talks about how he deals with name changes due to change in rank and terminology over the years.

This begs many questions for those of us thinking of OT history and history writing.  From what period in Israel’s history did the author, when writing, utilize the the weights, city names, people names, measurements, numbering, ranks, etc.?  Would he use the standard terminology at the time he wrote, or of the time about which he wrote?  Would the original audience just pick up on these things because there was a “normal” way that people wrote back then, some sort of conventional way to write history that we don’t have much information about?  What if he didn’t follow the conventional way of writing, but it was so obvious to the readers that they understood the breach – but we don’t?  What about those parts of the OT that had editors/redactors (like the person(s) who finished the Pentateuch after Moses died)?  Which conventions did they follow when writing or editing?

In the OT, the author didn’t always give us the clues that Korda did; the project becomes more difficult when asking these types of questions.   Considerations like these should make us pause or at least hesitate when answering certain questions of historiography in the OT.  These types of questions and the difficulty in answering them results in less “I’ve-got-the-text-nailed-down” thinking and more amazement at the depth of OT text which portrays history.  It is not a boring scientific endeavor to make all the pieces fit like a mathematical 1 to 1 ratio; rather, it is a rich and thick mosaic that we just won’t “nail-down” as pilgrims.  Of course, we don’t have to throw up our arms in skepticism because the text we have is sufficient and accurate, able to instruct, teach, admonish, reprove, save, and so forth.

In theological terms, we don’t have some sort of univocal perspective on history/historiography, yet neither do we have an equivocal one.  Ours is the pilgrim one: analogical.

Stay tuned for part II next time – we’ll ask some questions on “rules” of history writing along with chronological history writing.  This book on Eisenhower, by the way, is a great read if you’re a history buff!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

What is the Septuagint?

Since we just mentioned Everett Ferguson’s new book on baptism in the early church (the first 5 centuries), it may be helpful to mention his other work on the early historical context of the church: Backgrounds of Early Christianity. This is an awesome resource for NT studies – a 650 page treasure full of great info on the Roman, Greek, Christian, and Jewish government, society, religions, and traditions.  In the second section, Ferguson talks about (among tons of other things Jewish) Jewish literature, including the Septuagint.  Here’s a summary of his discussion of it.

The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the OT Hebrew.  The name Septuagint is Latin for “seventy;” hence the abbreviation of the roman numeral 70: LXX.   Ferguson talks about the legend that 70 (or 72) Jewish scholars translated the OT into Greek, resulting in the LXX.  However, he notes, there are some reasonable arguments against this legend.  Ferguson also discusses the different editions and recensions of the LXX, which the early Christian church used.  In fact, it was used so much, that “the number of manuscripts of the Septuagint, complete and fragmentary, reaches nearly 2,000, a total greater than for any other Greek work except the New Testament” (p. 434).

There are differences between the LXX and the Hebrew OT for the same reasons that there are differences between the NIV or ESV and the Hebrew OT, for example.  Some translation requires interpretation, some translation is a result of the socio-political concerns of the translators, some translation is nearly impossible because of the difficulty of the Hebrew.  Also, different translators of the LXX had different techniques of translation – literal, moderately literal, and also free rendition.  In other words, the LXX was translated by real people – brilliant scholars – but real people who were working in the context of their culture, scholarship, and personalities, which is why the LXX looks like it does.  It is a brilliant translation, but is not without its flaws and blemishes.

Here’s Ferguson’s take on the importance of the LXX (he advises that NT students get one!).

“The putting of Hebrew religious ideas into the Greek language was an important transitional step that prepared the way for Christian preaching.  Moreover, most of the NT citations of the OT follow the Septuagint.  The Bible of the early church, except for some Jewish believers and a few scholars, was the Greek OT.  The Septuagint was the most important literary event, perhaps the most important single development of any kind in the Hellenistic period, for the background of early Christianity” (p. 436).

For a great and in-depth study of the LXX, you need to get Invitation to the Septuagint by Karen Jobes and Moises Silva.  Enjoy!

shane lems

sunnyside wa