The Psalmists’ Use of the Motif

A Close Reading and Intertextual Analysis of Selected Exodus

Thesis Submitted for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

by

David Emanuel

Submitted to the Senate of the Hebrew University

December 2007

This work was written under the supervision of

Professor Yair Zakovitch

CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS ...... VIII INTRODUCTION ...... 1 RESEARCH IN RELATED FIELDS ...... 3 General Psalms Research ...... 3 Inner-Biblical Interpretation and Allusion ...... 6 Juxtapositional Interpretation ...... 8 METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 10 SCOPE AND STRUCTURE ...... 17 Scope ...... 17 Structure ...... 18 CHAPTER 1: PSALM 78 ...... 21 STRUCTURE ...... 21 CLOSE READING ...... 24 MEANING ...... 94 DATE ...... 96 SOURCES ...... 98 Process of Selection ...... 100 ALLUSIONS ...... 101 Desert Provision ...... 101 The ...... 105 The Plagues ...... 107 JUXTAPOSITION ...... 110 —78 ...... 110 Psalm 78—79 ...... 112 Psalm 77—79 ...... 113 CHAPTER 2: ...... 115 STRUCTURE ...... 115 CLOSE READING ...... 118 MEANING ...... 156 DATE ...... 157 SOURCES ...... 159 Process of Selection ...... 161 ALLUSIONS ...... 162 Israel in ...... 162 The Plagues ...... 163 The Wilderness Wandering ...... 167 JUXTAPOSITION ...... 170 Psalm 104–105 ...... 170 CHAPTER 3: PSALM 106 ...... 173 STRUCTURE ...... 173 CLOSE READING ...... 177 MEANING ...... 220 DATE ...... 221 SOURCES ...... 223 Process of Selection ...... 225 ALLUSIONS ...... 226 Deliverance from Egypt ...... 226 Cravings in the Desert ...... 227 Dathan’s Rebellion ...... 229 Refusal of Land ...... 230 ...... 232 Baal Peor ...... 234

Waters of ...... 236 Reordering ...... 237 JUXTAPOSITION ...... 240 Psalms 105—106 ...... 240 Psalms 106—107 ...... 244 Psalms 105—107 ...... 246 EXCURSUS 1 - THE BOOK OF ...... 248 CHAPTER 4: PSALM 135 ...... 250 STRUCTURE ...... 250 CLOSE READING ...... 252 MEANING ...... 273 DATE ...... 274 SOURCES ...... 276 Process of Selection ...... 277 ALLUSIONS ...... 278 Israel’s Selection ...... 278 Plagues Against Egypt ...... 279 Transjordanian Conquest ...... 280 JUXTAPOSITION ...... 281 Psalm 134—135 ...... 281 CHAPTER 5: PSALM 136 ...... 283 STRUCTURE ...... 283 CLOSE READING ...... 285 MEANING ...... 301 DATE ...... 302 SOURCES ...... 304 Process of Selection ...... 306 ALLUSIONS ...... 307 Transjordanian Conquest ...... 307 Deliverance at the Sea ...... 308 ...... 309 JUXTAPOSITION ...... 310 Psalm 135—136 ...... 310 Psalm 136—137 ...... 311 CONCLUSIONS ...... 313 THE PSALMISTS ’ SOURCES ...... 314 Biblical Sources ...... 314 The ...... 315 The Arrangement of the Source Material ...... 316 ASPECTS OF INTERPRETATION ...... 317 Removal of Derogatory Information ...... 318 Exalting the Role of ...... 320 Addressing Perceived Discrepancies in the Source ...... 321 Evidence of Editorial Activity in Arrangement ...... 322 Motivations for Juxtaposing Psalms ...... 323 THE PSALMISTS ’ USE OF THE EXODUS MOTIF ...... 326 Shared Conceptions of the Exodus ...... 326 The Relationships between the Psalmist and the Exodus ...... 326 Implications of the Exodus ...... 327 The Exodus as a Didactic Motif ...... 328 Restricted Usage of the Exodus Motif ...... 330 Relationships between Creation and Exodus ...... 330 Rejected Traditions ...... 332 CONTRIBUTIONS TO PSALMS RESEARCH ...... 335 APPENDIX A—PSALM 78 ...... 338 APPENDIX B—PSALM 105 ...... 341

APPENDIX C—PSALM 106 ...... 343 APPENDIX D—PSALM 135 ...... 345 APPENDIX E—PSALM 136 ...... 346 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 347 א ...... HEBREW SUMMARY

Abbreviations

ABBREVIATIONS

1. JOURNALS AND LEXICAL TOOLS

AB The Anchor ABD D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols., 1992) BDB F. Brown, C. Briggs, and S. R. Driver, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the BHS R. Kittel (ed.), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia . CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago CBQ Quarterly DBI Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses GHAT Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament GKC E. Kautzsch (ed.), A. E. Cowley (tr.), Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament HCOT Historical Commentary on the Old Testament HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual ICC International Critical Commentary IEJ Israel Exploration Journal ITL International Theological Library JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JM P. Joüon and T. Muraoka (tr.), A Grammar of JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTS Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series KB L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament

Page Abbreviations

LSJ H. Liddell, H. Scott, and H. S. Jones (eds.), A Greek-English Lexicon NCB New Century Bible NIB The New Interpreter’s Bible OTL The Old Testament Library RQ Revue de Qumran TDOT G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament TLOT E. Jenni and K. Westermann (eds.), Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament VT Vetus Testamentum VTS Supplements to Vetus Testamentum WBC The Word Biblical Commentary ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

2. GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS

ABC Archaic Biblical Hebrew IH Israelian Hebrew LBH Late Biblical Hebrew Ms(s) Manuscript(s) MT SBH Standard Biblical Hebrew Tg(s) (s)

Page Introduction

INTRODUCTION

Throughout the , an array of prominent motifs and allusions to literary-historical events appear. Creation constitutes one such motif; 1 sometimes only a single verse vaguely alludes to it (s. Ps 24:2 and 102:26), 2 and in other instances it dominates entire works (s. Psalms 8 and 104). Similarly, the exile of Judah to in 586 BCE surfaces in numerous psalms (s. for example Pss 79 and 137), as does the Davidic kingship, though it is far less prevalent. The latter receives attention in Psalm 132, which re-emphasizes God’s promise to to establish his descendants as perpetual heirs to the throne, and echoes events narrated in 2Sam 7 and 8. 3 Aspects of the Davidic covenant also appear in Psalms 78 (s. vv. 70-72) and 89 (s. vv.4, 21, 36, and 50). Another common tradition recurring in the Psalter is the Exodus, the account of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt through YHWH’s miraculous signs and mighty works, and their journey through the desert to the . This account, which effectively recalls the formation of the Jewish people, represents the most important tradition in Israel’s history, and is undoubtedly the most prevalent 4 and influential tradition recorded in . It appears in all of the prominent biblical genres: laws, prophetic literature, historiographical writings, and poetry, and influences a significant number of psalms. Two important questions arise concerning this tradition in the Psalter: upon which sources did the psalmists depend, and how did they redeploy their sources into the compositions we possess today. The latter question raises three further questions: did the psalmists rearrange the material at their disposal, did they alter the traditions in their source texts, and if they did what would motivate them to do so? This study seeks to answer these questions, and additionally seeks to investigate how the editors and arrangers of the Psalter used the Exodus psalms. 5 Concerning this issue, the study hopes to reveal whether they were

1 Among those psalms referring to Creation are: 8, 24, 33, 65, 74, 89, 102, 121, 134, 147, and 148. 2 All biblical references in the present study are in accordance with the . 3 Psalm 89:19-39 similarly displays knowledge of the Book of Samuel. 4 Exodus 1-18 first recalls the events, and Numbers presents a detailed narrative of the desert itinerary. Moreover, both Leviticus and Deuteronomy are set within the context of the desert sojourn and frequently allude to it. In addition to the , prophetic literature frequently alludes to various parts of the tradition (e.g., Jer 7:22, 31:32, Ezek 20:6). The motif is also pervasive in the (s. , Heb 11:27, and Jude 1:5), and pseudepigraphic material (s. for example Judith 5:10-17, Baruch 1:19-22, and 4Ezra 9:26-37; as well as the 4Q422). Zakovitch (1991) discusses the overall concept of the Exodus in the Bible in detail. 5 In certain instances, because the Exodus psalms reproduce earlier texts and traditions, the work of the psalmist is very similar to that of the later writers of Aggadaic . The function of these later exegetes was

Page <1> Introduction influenced by the contents of the psalms whilst arranging them, and if they sought to create new meanings from these psalms via their arrangement. When completed, the study will shed new light on how the psalmists and editors of the Psalter interpreted the material available to them. For the purposes of this study, the terms “Exodus motif” and “Exodus tradition” relate to the sequence of events from Israelite literary history that record how YHWH actively brought the children of Israel from Egypt into the land he had promised their forefathers. The time span begins from Israel’s oppression in Egypt, and ends when Israel arrives at the River Jordan. Within this definition of the motif, the study identifies numerous smaller events and motifs that it considers the more important sub-motifs and events defining the aforementioned period. 6 In total, twenty psalms relate to the Exodus tradition in one form or another, 7 and due to this relatively large number, further limitations must be implemented in order to define a working corpus for analysis. Because a number of Exodus psalms only contain vague or fleeting references to the tradition, they will be excluded from our corpus. 8 Similarly, even though Psalm 114 reflects certain Exodus events, it is rejected because it does not recall YHWH’s active involvement in leading Israel out of Egypt (see definition above). 9 The remaining psalms (77, 78, 81, 95, 105, 106, 135, and 136), however, still present a corpus too large for the present study, and so it places a further restriction on potential psalms. The study only accepts psalms unambiguously narrating at least three incidents associated with the Exodus motif, as defined above including its sub-motifs. The latter adjustment enables a richer analysis because it raises the possibility of detecting sequencing transpositions the psalmists may have effected. This final constraint further disqualifies Psalms 77, 81, and 95. After applying the criteria, the following psalms remain available to the study: 78, 105, 106, 135, and 136.

primarily to explain texts, and their tasks included filling out lacunae, supplying interpretations of discrete texts, and providing concrete applications of abstract texts; s. Sarason (1999). 6 These motifs are as follows: entering Egypt, multiplication of Jacob’s descendants, oppression from Egypt, deliverance via the plagues, deliverance at the sea, bitter waters at , the provision of , water from the rock, the battle against , the provision of meat, the giving of Torah, the golden-calf idolatry, and Miryam’s rebellion, the initial rejection of the Promised Land, ’s revolt, the bronze , the early conquest battles (with Og and Sihon etc.), and the account of Bilaam and . 7 Psalms 22, 44, 66, 68, 74, 77, 78, 80, 81, 98, 99, 103, 105, 106, 107, 111, 114, 135, 136, and 147. 8 The psalms disqualified at this point are: 22, 44, 66, 68, 74, 80, 98, 99, 103, 107, 111, and 147. 9 This peculiarity in Psalm114’s portrayal of events has been noted by other scholars. Concerning this remarkable feature, Weiss states, “This absence of any theocentric interpretation of the historical event…is surprising in the case of the psalmist,…because such an anthropocentric account of the exodus from Egypt has no parallel in the Book of Psalms…” (1984:357).

Page <2> Introduction

RESEARCH IN RELATED FIELDS

The current study intersects with the development of Psalms research overall, in addition to the field of Inner-biblical Interpretation and Allusion, and the following paragraphs provide some background to these areas of research with particular regard to how the present study relates to earlier research. 10 Because part of this study focuses on the relationships between juxtaposed psalms, which falls under the broader category of Canonical Criticism, a terse summary of related research performed within this specific field is included.

GENERAL PSALMS RESEARCH The most significant development in Psalms research emerged at the start of the 20 th century with the work of Hermann Gunkel. 11 As a guiding methodological principle, he stressed the importance of studying psalms on the background of their Ancient Near Eastern context— associating the psalms with other Canaanite and Mesopotamian ceremonies and festivals. As part of this process he established Form Criticism and applied the form-critical approach to the psalms. Using this approach, he determined each psalm’s life setting ( Sitz im Leben ), determining how ancient Israel used them in their original contexts. Gunkel’s most important contribution to Psalms study was his classification of the psalms into five major genres (Gattungen ): Individual Laments, Communal Laments, Hymns, Royal Psalms, and Individual Thanksgiving Songs (he also defined minor groups: Pilgrimage Songs, Wisdom Poetry, Communal Thanksgiving, and Liturgy). The determination of each psalm’s form, structure, and setting constituted an integral part of his approach. The Exodus psalms selected for the present study do not fall into any single category within Gunkel’s form-critical taxonomy, though he generally refers to historiographic psalms as Legends ( Legenden ). 12 Psalms 105, 135, and 136 13 are Hymns; Psalm 106 constitutes a Lament, 14 and Psalm 78 best fits into Gunkel’s category of Wisdom Poetry. 15

10 The following survey of Psalms study is not intended to be comprehensive for two reasons: first, space does not permit such a survey; second, much of the earlier research based on Form Criticism is not pertinent to the present study. For a more comprehensive survey on the modern developments in Psalms study see Eaton (1999) and Johnson (1951:162-209). 11 Gunkel’s primary form-critical work on psalms was completed by his student Joachim Begrich ( Einleitung in die Psalmen: die Gattungen der religiosen Lyrik Israels , Gottinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament, 1933); the fourth edition ( 41985) of which was translated into English by James Nogalski, see Gunkel and Begrich (1998). 12 See Gunkel and Begrich (1998:247ff.). 13 The definition of these psalms is unanimous; see for example Allen (2002:53, 292, and 294), Weiser (1965:673, 789, and 792), and Terrien (2003:723).

Page <3> Introduction

Since Gunkel established the form-critical approach, most modern commentaries (and major works on the psalms) continued in a similar direction with various adjustments. Sigmund Mowinckel 16 specifically pursues the relationships between Israel’s cult and the psalms. He reconstructed a theoretical Israelite New Year festival, utilizing the Babylonian Akitu festival as a paradigm, and subsequently related many psalms to this event. The remaining psalms he attributed to various other Temple services. Similarly, Artur Weiser’s commentary on the psalms 17 reflects an affinity with Gunkel’s form-critical approach with respect to establishing the Sitz im Leben ; however, he relates many psalms to a Covenant Renewal Festival, a hypothetical festival derived from his study of the Law and . Kraus, 18 like Gunkel, determines each psalm’s Sitz im Leben but refines and advances much of Gunkel’s work by taking into consideration modern archaeological findings, especially those relating to Ras Shamra .19 The 1950s and 60s witnessed numerous scholars deviate from the form-critical principles established by Gunkel. 20 In 1969 James Muilenberg’s seminal work, Form Criticism and Beyond ,21 sparked a new direction in Psalms study, Rhetorical Criticism. Instead of focusing on the psalm’s historical function within the specific background of ancient Israelite cultic institutions, and the wider context of the Ancient Near East, he

14 Some questions arise concerning Psalm 106, but it is generally interpreted as a Communal Lament, see Gunkel and Begrich (1998:82), although a hymnal element is also recognized; see Allen (2002:133) and Hoffman (1999:133). 15 A degree of scholarly disunity exists concerning the precise genre of this psalm. Kraus (1988b:125) understands it as a didactic sermon, whereas Tate (1990:284) suggests it is between a Hymn and a Wisdom Psalm. In any event, the psalm’s wisdom qualities are always acknowledged; see also Terrien (2003:564) and Brin (1999:32). 16 Mowinckel (1962); originally published in Norwegian as Offersang og Sangoffer (Oslo: H.Aschehoug, 1951), this work was later revised and translated into English in 1962. 17 Weiser (1965); originally published in German as Die Psalmen (Das Alte Testament Deutsch 14/15, 1935), and translated into English from the fifth revised edition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 51959). 18 Kraus (1988a; 1988b); originally published in German in two parts, Psalmen (Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament Band XV/1 and 2, Neukirchen-Vlugn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1966); translated into English in 1988 (from the fifth edition, 51978). 19 Of the more recent commentaries, the Word Biblical Commentary adopts an eclectic approach to Psalms study utilizing the methods described above, acknowledging the proposed New Year and Covenant Renewal Festivals. Additionally it includes a cursory analysis of poetic forms found within the psalms. It still, however, directs most of its efforts towards determining the Sitz im Leben , and the commentary depends heavily on establishing form, structure, and setting. 20 With the discovery of the Ugaritic language, a number of scholars have studied parallels between Ugaritic poems and the poetry of the Hebrew Bible, especially the psalms. Avishur (1989) and Cassuto (1973) have compared a number of archaic poems from the Bible with Ugaritic literature. Perhaps the most relevant research in this field to Psalms study, however, has been the work of Dahood (1981) in ABD: The Psalms . The latter work largely consists of an interpretation and reconstruction of the psalms through the lens of Ugaritic literature. Though this line of research does not directly pertain to the present study, the works of the aforementioned scholars occasionally shed light on the interpretation and understanding of the selected psalms. 21 See Muilenberg (1969).

Page <4> Introduction advocated an holistic and text-centered approach to analyzing biblical texts. His methodology aims at uncovering the meaning of individual textual units, which could consist of psalms or other pericopae, and shows how individual verses and stanzas 22 all contribute to that meaning. Muilenberg recovered a new appreciation for the poetics employed in biblical compositions, demonstrating how poetic features contributed to the meaning and purpose of a given text. 23 At approximately the same time Muilenberg birthed Rhetorical Criticism, Meir Weiss pioneered Total Interpretation, 24 a development of Werkinterpretation and New Criticism that similarly sought an holistic understanding and interpretation of each work. Like Muilenberg, Weiss stressed the importance of the literary work as a whole and the close reading of biblical texts; he likewise emphasized the importance of understanding how all aspects of a literary work contribute towards its meaning: words and phrases, images, sentences and verses, and literary units. 25 Supplementing the methodological direction of the aforementioned scholars is Wilfred Watson’s outstanding contribution to Biblical Hebrew poetry, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques .26 Watson not only classifies an array of poetic techniques, but also demonstrates their function, explaining how each one contributes to the meaning and purpose of poetic units. 27 To date, few scholars have exposed any of the selected psalms to a verse-by-verse poetic analysis implementing the principles established by Muilenberg and Weiss. 28 One

22 Concerning terms for the division of Psalms, I have primarily adopted those outlined by Watson (2001:11-15) whereby “Stanza” defines larger textual divisions, “Strophe” constitutes smaller divisions that make up stanzas, and “Colon”, which constitutes a half line of text. 23 Trible (1994) built on the work of Muilenberg by formulating methodological processes for applying Rhetorical Criticism to specific texts. 24 The original work was published in Hebrew ( HaMiqra Kidemuto , [The Bible and Modern Literary Theory], 11962), and the second edition published soon after that was almost identical, with the addition of work on Psalm 46 (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 21967). The English version constitutes a revised, enlarged and fully updated edition of this work ( The Bible from Within: The Method of Total Interpretation , [Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1984]). See also (Weiss [2001]) where his principles are demonstrated with a number of worked examples. 25 Even though the focus of this dissertation is not on the historical reality of the Exodus tradition or its diachronic development, three works falling into this category deserve a mention because at some stage in their research they collect and analyze groups of Exodus psalms: Loewenstamm (1992), Norin (1977), and Hoffman (1983). Each of these works isolates and examines a number of Exodus psalms in order to glean from them their renditions of the Exodus motif. In each case, the fundamental purpose is to reconstruct various aspects of the tradition as a whole, recreate the historical setting, or trace the motif’s diachronic development. As a consequence of their approaches, any concept of each psalm’s unity is ignored, and the Exodus content alone is deemed most important. 26 See Watson (2001), in addition to the companion volume (1994). 27 Two other scholars who have contributed to an improved understanding of Hebrew poetry deserve mention: Schökel (1988), and Alter (1985). The present study periodically draws upon both of these works. 28 Zakovitch represents one of the rare exceptions because he has conducted such an analysis on Psalms 78, (1997); Psalm 82, (2004); and Psalm 137, (2001). Another scholar deserving a mention is Ceresko (1994), who treated Psalm 105 to some detail, but did not perform a line-by-line analysis.

Page <5> Introduction possible explanation for this reticence relates to the borrowed nature of historiographic psalms. Psalms recounting and retelling Israelite literary history could be viewed as less poetic than other psalms, and more akin to biblical narrative, thus less likely to yield rich results. The present study aims to fill this lacuna by poetically analyzing each of the selected psalms.

INNER -BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION AND ALLUSION To varying degrees, biblical scholarship has long recognized the idea of scripture reworking scripture. 29 Numerous commentators, including Gunkel himself, mention textual relationships in their analysis of biblical psalms, even if the attention afforded such connections is somewhat limited. Overall, such associations appear with no further comment or examination. Perhaps the first scholar to collect examples of this phenomenon and systematically order, analyze, and classify them was Michael Fishbane. 30 In his seminal work, he collected numerous examples of inner-biblical interpretation and classified them into four broad categories: Scribal Comments and Corrections, Legal Exegesis, Aggadic Exegesis, and Mantalogical Exegesis. Methodologically, Fishbane’s first task was to identify an older source text, traditum , before questioning how the interpreters reused this material in creating an interpretation, traditio . In certain respects, Fishbane’s work represents a development of the tradition-history approach to . Instead of studying the development of oral and written folk traditions into a recognizable and broadly accepted , he traces the development of an existing canon into a broader canon inclusive of interpretational expansions. Soon after Fishbane’s contribution to the field of Inner-biblical Interpretation, Zakovitch 31 and Sommer 32 produced works on the same subject. Zakovitch approached the topic from a very different perspective. He focused on interpretation instigated by redactors and editors of the Bible as they created new meanings from the texts they were responsible for arranging. Whereas Fishbane predominantly viewed the authors of the individual biblical books as interpreters working on earlier biblical texts as their source, Zakovitch leaned more

29 A wide range of commentaries—such as Hacham (1981), McCann (1996), Tate (1990), and Allen (2002)— note the various associations certain psalms bear with other biblical texts. None, however, continues to analyze further the relationships between the texts and sources. The topic is broadly treated with regards to biblical and extra-biblical contexts in a volume dedicated to Barnabas Lindars; s. Carson and Williamson (1988). 30 See Fishbane (1985) and (1989). 31 See Zakovitch (1992). 32 See Sommer (1998).

Page <6> Introduction to viewing the redactors as the interpreters with completed sections of text as their sources. His work collects numerous examples from the Bible but categorizes them differently, arranging them into groups such as songs interpreting prose, redactional layers interpreting each other, and speeches interpreting narrative. Sommer’s work on biblical allusion builds, in many respects, on the work of Fishbane. For example, Sommer also first establishes an older work from which a later author drew, before analyzing the changes effected. Unlike the previous two scholars, however, Sommer examines in detail a smaller corpus of biblical literature, Isaiah 40-66. His methodological approach is firmly based on modern literary theory, especially the work of Ben-Porat. 33 Sommer’s work discusses numerous biblical allusions between Isaiah 40-66 and the Torah, 34 Prophets, and Writings. Due to the variances in his methodology, Sommer’s taxonomy of inner-biblical allusion differs from both Zakovitch and Fishbane, classifying the associations as echo, exegesis, influence, revision, and polemic. 35 Each of the aforementioned works recalls, at some stage, isolated allusions involving the psalms. Zakovitch predominantly addresses them in his chapter on poetry interpreting narrative, and Fishbane occasionally mentions instances in which psalms reuse material from other biblical books. Because Sommer’s work adopts Isaiah 40-66 as a working corpus, it predominantly views the psalms as sources, as opposed to texts that reuse older material. Of these scholars, none of them has dedicated efforts to investigating the inner-biblical relationships with a group of psalms as a working corpus. Consequently, the field of inner- biblical interpretation and allusion from the perspective of the psalms has, until now, been a neglected topic.

33 See Ben-Porat (1976). 34 At this point, I would like to clarify that my use of the term “Torah” throughout the present study is somewhat flexible. The reader should note that the term does not always refer to the whole of the printed Torah editions in our possession today, and may simply refer to a text an author may have had that reflects the text in today’s Torah. 35 See Sommer (1998:20-30). In addition to the authors mentioned here, others have investigated further the exegetical aspects of intertextual relationships. Among these are Day (1997), who analyzed the relationship between Isaiah and Hosea; Schoors (1998), who discusses textual relationships involving Qohelet (); and Sarna (2000), who addressed intertextual relationships involving Psalm 89.

Page <7> Introduction

JUXTAPOSITIONAL INTERPRETATION Research concerning the juxtaposition of psalms 36 has predominantly developed along two lines: the general composition and structure of the Psalter, and juxtaposition of individual works through various principles of association. 37 Concerning the general composition of the Psalter, scholars such as McCann have recognized that the arrangers designed the book for a sequential reading that addresses the theological difficulties raised by the Exile. Thus, the first three books reflect the failed Davidic kingship, culminating in Psalm 89, which laments the Babylonian exile; and the latter two books, beginning with Psalm 90, a song of Moses, reflect the desire to return to the desert model, a theocracy, as a response to the failed Davidic covenant. 38 This line of investigation primarily focuses on determining the rationale for arranging larger groups of psalms, and the placement of individual units, though addressed in certain instances, 39 does not constitute a primary concern. Wilson’s work on the arrangement of the Hebrew Psalter falls in line with this approach, 40 and he further asserts that titled and non-titled psalms played a role in determining the location of smaller psalm groups. Numerous scholars have recognized principles of association as the guiding force motivating the editors of the Psalter in their placement of individual psalms. Two of the earliest scholars to address the issue seriously were Keil and Delitzsch. 41 They determined that the psalms were generally arranged through similarities of themes, common vocabulary,

36 Broadly speaking, this category falls under the semi-recognized rubric of Canonical Criticism, a discipline that seeks to shed light on the formation of the . For further discussions on this topic, see Sheppard (1992). 37 With no specific reference to the Psalter, others have posited theories concerning the relationships between biblical sections. Cassuto (1973b) predominantly focused on association as a motivation for juxtaposition, noting that apparently random textual units, such as prophecies and laws, are grouped together by associated words or expressions (and sometimes ideas). He shows that the apparently unrelated laws concerning the eating of blood ” איש איש “ in Lev 17 and uncovering a father’s nakedness in Lev 18:6 are in fact related by the common phrase appearing in 17:13 and 18:6. He similarly explains the positioning of the minor Joel and Amos. וַ יֹּאמַ֓ ר׀ יְהוָה֙ מִצִּ יּ֣ וֹן “ and in Amos 1:2 we see ,” וַ יהוָ֞ ה מִצִּ יּ֣ וֹן יִשְׁאָ֗ ג וּמִ ירוּשָׁלַ֖ יִם יִתֵּ ֣ ן קוֹל֔ וֹ… “ In Joel 4:16 we see the phrase Cassuto (1973a) also applies the principle of association to Ezekiel among other .” יִשְׁאָ֔ ג וּמִ ירוּשָׁלַ֖ יִ ם יִתֵּ ֣ ן קוֹל֑ וֹ ... books. 38 Perhaps most representative of this view are McCann (1996:660-64), and Wilson (1993a), though Terrien (2003:23) recognizes the pivotal nature of Psalm 89, depicting the failure of the Davidic dynasty, and the direction change that begins in Psalm 90. An eschatological agenda is also espoused by some, whereby the message of the Psalter points to a coming son of David (s. Mitchell [1997]). 39 For example, McCann (1996:659-65) notes that , in addition to serving as a Wisdom Psalm, functions as an interpretive gateway into the Psalter itself. Other scholars such as Fohrer (1974:295) and Eissfeldt (1965:449) have observed this characteristic. 40 See, for example, his work on the function of Royal Psalms in the assembly of Books I-III, Wilson (1977), s. also Wilson (1985a, 1985b, 1993b). 41 See Keil and Delitzsch (1982).

Page <8> Introduction or common genres—referring to the and not Gunkel’s formal definition. 42 McCann’s work 43 devotes some attention to the principle of association in his interpretation of psalms. Similarly, Howard, 44 though dealing with a limited number of psalms, addresses how they develop certain themes when read consecutively. 45 One of the shortcomings of juxtaposition via association, however, is that it generally fails to answer adequately why certain psalms appear together in a specific order: why is A next to B, and not the other way round? 46 The present study adopts a more detailed look between the selected psalms and their neighbors; in so doing, it hopes to uncover other rationales for the juxtaposition of psalms. The study aims to shed some light on why the editors placed certain psalms after others. It also seeks to uncover interpretive strategies present in the work of the arrangers and editors of the Psalter. In the same way that the psalmists may have viewed their historiographical sources as semantic units that could be carefully selected and arranged to reflect an independent agenda, so too the arrangers of the Psalter could have viewed each of the psalms with which they worked as similar semantic units which could be arranged to address specific

42 Their taxonomy of association identifies three categories: External Association, constituting lexical similarities in which the arranger juxtaposes two psalms because they share a relatively rare word or phrase. Internal Association, depicting the similarity of subject matter between two psalms, a strategy concerned with common ideas expressed through semantic equivalences as opposed to lexical similarity. An example appears in Psalms 50-51, where both songs concern themselves with animal . The third strategy, Community of Species, operates on a larger scale whereby the arranger assembles psalms according to their genre—not that defined by As an . מכתם and מזמור Hermann Gunkel’s form-critical approach, but the type according to subscripts such as in Psalms 52-55. Much of משכיל grouped together in Psalms 62-68, and מזמור example, we see psalms entitled the scholarly literature on the psalms that address the issue of juxtaposition concentrates on these three guiding principles. 43 See McCann (1994). 44 See Howard (1997) and (1993a). 45 In addition to associative ideas, Goulder (1998) suggests a model with respect to the positioning of the Songs of Ascent, whereby each psalm is sequentially arranged according to events in Neh 1:1-12:42. Thus, he raises the possibility that sequences of psalms may have received their order from corresponding events, or books, in the Bible. A related phenomenon concerns the Psalter’s division into five books, which according to Jewish tradition corresponds to the five books of Moses. 46 Although not directly related to the psalms, the work of Alexander Rofé deserves some mention here because he raises additional possibilities for why psalms appear together in a specific order. Rofé (1988) recognizes the possibility of texts organized according to chronological sequencing, the chronology expressed in the contents of certain books determines the order in which they appear. As an example, he adduces the ordering of the Torah and Deuteronomic history, which reflects a historical continuity from Creation to the Exile (in the Hebrew Bible). This historical continuity does not necessarily reflect the dates when the individual compositions were composed, but the historical content contained therein. Another strategy he identifies is that of sequencing according to size, from large units to small (or the opposite). The ordering of the classical prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets demonstrate this strategy. Rofé also elaborates upon what is best described as a consideration, rather than a strategy. He recognizes a propensity among biblical authors to close sections of texts with words of comfort. We can see this principle at work in the . The first nine chapters condemn Israel’s behavior and speak of their judgment, but the last chapter speaks words of hope concerning their future. The present study’s analysis of juxtaposition considers all the aforementioned principles discussed by Rofé. More recently, Nasuti (2005) discusses a range of potential sequencing strategies for the Psalter.

Page <9> Introduction issues. Concerning this potential layer of interpretation between psalms, Zakovitch 47 has treated the matter in his work on the psalms, as have Hossfeld and Zenger. 48

METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Methodologically, when analyzing various forms of , two possible approaches exist: diachronic and synchronic. The first approach relies on the determination of an older source text that lay before an author whilst compiling his composition. Consequently, the inner-biblical associations appearing within the author’s work generally constitute the result of his purposeful and cognizant work (thus an author-centric approach). Fishbane, 49 Sommer, 50 and Zakovitch 51 each adopt a diachronic approach. The second approach, synchronic, disregards consideration for date and chronological authorship, and is thus ahistorical . Within these broader confines, an older text can influence the reading of more recent texts and vice versa, depending on the reader’s interpretation (thus constituting a reader-centric approach). 52 The present study predominantly 53 adopts a diachronic approach to inner-biblical allusion and exegesis, 54 and primarily refers to this approach as “biblical

47 With respect to the psalms, Zakovitch (1997) applies more of an interpretive approach to his treatment of the relationship between Psalm 78 and its neighbors. The idea of interpretive juxtaposition receives further treatment in his work on inner-biblical interpretation (1992). Concerning other biblical texts, Zakovitch’s analysis of the narratives follows similar principles (1995). 48 See Hossfeld and Zenger (2005). 49 Throughout Fishbane’s monumental work he relies on the two terms traditum and traditio to refer to a source text and its reworked form, respectively; s. Fishbane (1985:6f.). 50 See Sommer (1998:20-31). 51 For the majority of Zakovitch’s important work on inner-biblical exegesis (1992) he assumes the principle of a redactor, instead of an author, working with a pre-established text (see esp. 7-11). In principle, this constitutes a diachronic approach since it recognizes a composer working with an older established text. In addition to these authors, Schoors (1998) adopts, and emphatically endorses, a diachronic approach, in which the determination of a source in relation to the author’s work is essential. 52 Nielsen (1998) and Tanner (2001) are proponents of this approach. In the first part of her four recommendations for responsible exegesis, Nielsen states, “…that responsible exegesis involves not only a responsibility towards the possible intentions of an ‘original author’ or ‘editor’, but also a willingness to include meanings that were not intended but which arise in the dialogue with later intertexts” (p.31). Further in the fourth recommendation she says, “…that future texts will have consequences for textual interpretation” (p.31). Though Tanner’s work involves the psalms, her methodology differs from the present research, as does her working corpus. 53 Certain intertextual readings of a more synchronic nature are performed during the close reading, at a stage when the dates for the psalms in question remain undetermined. 54 For the present study, the primary difficulty involved relates to the successful determination of the sources for a specific text. Although this is relatively straightforward with many other biblical texts, it proves somewhat problematic with respect to the psalms in particular. Eslinger (1992) rightfully raises this concern in his criticism of Fishbane (1985). His ultimate response, however, is to abandon any attempt at determining the source in favor of following “…the sequence of the Bible’s own plot”. Sommer (1996), who ultimately proposed that any difficulties in establishing a borrower–borrowed relationship should be resolved by careful argument as opposed to abandonment, subsequently challenged Eslinger’s criticism of Fishbane’s work and his proposal to abandon

Page <10> Introduction allusion”. 55 For the sake of this paper, the latter term describes the phenomenon of both inner- biblical allusion and inner-biblical interpretation. In light of the methodology adopted by the study, isolating and dating the sources of the selected psalms is essential. Consequently, it conducts four stages of investigation for each psalm: first, a close reading of the psalm in question; second, a determination of the psalm’s date; third, isolation of potential sources employed by the psalmist; and fourth, the analysis of inner-biblical allusions. The following paragraphs detail each phase. Each of the latter three stages is dependent upon it predecessor. The close reading, among other things, raises evidence concerning the date; unless the date is determined, it is impossible to establish if a psalmist appropriated material from a source or vice versa. Only after the sources are established can the study analyze how the psalmists reused them. The close reading examines each psalm as an independent work written with a specific purpose in mind. Within this analysis, the methodology of Weiss plays an essential role. 56 After dividing each psalm into stanzas, the study shows how each stanza contributes to the meaning of the whole work. The analysis similarly conducts a verse-by-verse examination of the psalm revealing how each verse contributes towards the psalmist’s overall scheme. During the close reading, understanding the psalm as a unique literary unit takes precedence over analyzing inner-biblical associations. This stage in the analysis concentrates on highlighting poetic features found within each psalm. The identification of repetition plays a key role in this part of the study, focusing on how the psalmist utilizes it in developing the psalm’s meaning. In addition, the close reading explores the images adopted by the psalmists, comparing each author’s deployment of words and phrases in the psalms with their use in other parts of biblical literature. The diachronic nature of the present study demands a date for each of the selected psalms in order to determine the direction of borrowing between texts; however, numerous difficulties arise when dating psalms. 57 Perhaps the greatest problem is that very few psalms specifically mention people, events, or places that can be concretely located to a specific time

any quest to establish the direction of borrowing between texts. As far as the evidence permits, the present research adopts Sommer’s recommendation. 55 This term is in accordance with Sommer’s use of “influence and allusion”; s. Sommer (1998:6-10). He contrasts this phrase with “intertextuality”, a model adopting the synchronic approach. 56 In addition to Weiss, the work of Watson (2001) plays an important role in the rhetorical analysis of the psalms in question. Various studies in the field of poetics in biblical narrative have also proved useful to the present study (s. for example Sternberg [1985] and Berlin [1994]). 57 It is interesting to note here that due to the specific difficulties in the dating of psalms, Sommer mostly avoids addressing instances of inner-biblical allusion with regards Isaiah and the psalms.

Page <11> Introduction period. To assist in alleviating the inherent complexities in dating, the current research primarily seeks to establish a relative date for the core 58 of each psalm. The term relative date refers to the date of a psalm in relation to the Exile. Thus, in determining the relative date, the study locates each psalm in the pre-exilic, exilic, or postexilic eras; and if the data permits, a further placement of the psalm is determined within the confines of its relative date. In addition to the psalms, dates must be found for the potential sources, and for the purposes of this study, the consensus of contemporary scholarship provides an adequate resource from which to work. 59 Due to the complicated redactional history of certain psalms, conflicting evidence concerning the date may arise revealing both early and late origins. Recognition of each psalm’s earliest stratum is, therefore, important to this study for correctly assessing each work’s dependencies. The study divides evidence for dating the psalms into two tiers, primary and secondary , in order to resolve potential conflicts in dating evidence. Primary evidence constitutes more conclusive data and overrules secondary evidence when conflicts arise between the two; the primary evidence consists of linguistic data, and datable people, places, and events found in the psalms. A psalm specifically mentioning the divided kingdom would thus be deemed later than the event itself. Linguistically, the study compares each psalm’s words and phrases with lexical elements appearing in Archaic Biblical Hebrew (ABH) corpuses, 60 or Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) corpuses. 61 Concerning the latter, the study also adopts Hurvitz’s methodology for identifying LBH style and vocabulary. According to this methodology, words and phrases are only accepted as being late if they comply with three criteria: distribution, whether the lexical item appears in biblical books known to be late; extra-biblical sources, evidence of the item’s use in post-exilic, extra-biblical literature; linguistic equivalence, identifying an equivalent word or phrase used in SBH that the later item replaced. 62

58 Here I refer to the oldest unified section of the psalm, as opposed to the psalm as a whole, including glosses, verses, and even stanzas that a later redactor may have added. 59 Current scholarly research may prove insufficient when addressing instances in which one of the selected psalms sources material from another one. In such instances, the study attempts to determine the later of the two works involved. 60 Here, I depend on works such as Sáenz-Badillos (1993), Freedman (1980), and Kutscher (1982) for identifying ABH. 61 For the determination of LBH vocabulary, syntax, and morphology, I primarily rely on the work of a selection of scholars who have assembled lists of late features: Polzin (1976:123-50), Rooker (1990), Sáenz-Badillos (1993:56-63), Hurvitz (1972), and Kutscher (1982); though lexicons such as BDB, and KB (1995) also prove useful. 62 See Hurvitz (1972, 1998).

Page <12> Introduction

Even though scholars generally consider linguistic dating as an objective methodology for determining the date, it also poses a number of pitfalls. An example of which concerns isolated cases of late features within a large psalm. The identification of an isolated late word or phrase does not necessarily reflect the date of an entire work. For example, instances arise in which redactors alter earlier texts; thus, the final work appears late, but in reality bears relatively early origins. Throughout the present study, care is taken to avoid this lexical pitfall by considering the broadest range of dating evidence, and refraining from jumping to quixotic assumptions based on a single word or phrase, especially in the longer psalms. The secondary evidence consists of evidence such as datable customs reflected in psalms; correspondence between the psalm’s message and a political, cultural, or religious reality from the psalmist’s era; 63 and thematic similarities between a psalm and other texts with established dates. 64 Though the present study considers secondary evidence less compelling than the primary evidence, the importance of the secondary evidence rises when the psalm in question offers no primary evidence. In such instances, a preponderance of secondary evidence is used to locate the psalm to a specific era. In determining the sources for the selected psalms, the study first determines the lexical associations, or markers, 65 between each psalm and other locations in biblical literature, irrespective of the direction of borrowing. After determining the associations between texts, it is then possible to establish the direction of borrowing between the psalm and text in question via the pre-established date, and thus establish the sources from which the psalm borrowed. 66 Three factors play an important role in identifying associations between the psalms and other texts: lexical and semantic correspondences, contextual correspondences and

63 An example of this appears in Psalm 95, which speaks of coming into YHWH’s presence in v.2, and kneeling and bowing before the Lord in v.6. Verses such as these reflect the probability of an extant temple at the time the psalm was written. Such evidence eliminates the possibility of an exilic date for the psalm because during the Exile the Temple lay in ruins. 64 More general guidelines for determining a psalm’s date were adopted from Steck (1998). 65 A concept borrowed from Sommer (1998:11), who in turn adopted it from Ben-Porat (1976), referring to an identifiable element or pattern in one text belonging to another independent text. A marker could consist of a poetic line, a sentence or phrase, a motif, a rhythmic pattern, or an idea. 66 Hays (1989:29-32), in his work on biblical echoes in the writings of Paul, proposes seven heuristics for determining biblical allusion: 1) availability, was the proposed source available to the author; 2) volume, the degree of correspondence between the two texts; 3) recurrence, the frequency with which the author cites from the source; 4) thematic coherence, how well does the allusion fit into the author’s argument; 5) historical plausibility, could the author have intended the allusion and could the readers have understood it; 6) history of interpretation, have other readers recognized the claimed allusion; 7) sense, does the proposed reading make sense, and does it shed light on the reading. He additionally advises general satisfaction, with or without lucid confirmation from all of the above criteria. Even though I have not formally adopted these as guiding principles in the current research, they have played a role in determining the sources for the selected psalms.

Page <13> Introduction multiple references. For our study, lexical and semantic correspondences constitute the most valuable evidence, and may consist of a rare word or root appearing in a limited number of texts, or a combination of words similarly limited in their distribution. It may also consist of a sequence of semantically corresponding ideas, even if the association lacks precise lexical correspondence. 67 The second criterion, contextual correspondences, analyzes the degree of correspondence between a psalm’s use of a word or phrase, and the source’s use of the same appears in the psalm and a proposed source צור word or phrase. As an example, if the word within the context of God’s provision of water in the wilderness, then the case for the proposed allusion is strengthened. On the other hand, if the same word appears in the context of the Exodus in the psalm, but in the context of an individual’s deliverance in the proposed source, then the case for an allusion is weakened. 68 This criterion reinforces instances in which weak lexical correspondences occur. The contextual correspondences are not essential to the determination of associations because in certain instances the lexical correspondence’s precision negates the need for further confirmation. Moreover, instances may arise in which an author deliberately borrows from a source in order to transform it into a new setting, consequently creating unharmonious contexts. 69 The third criterion, multiple references, similarly solidifies lexical and semantic correspondences between texts. If the study reveals a potential marker, and a previous association has already been established between the psalm and this same potential source text, then the likelihood stands that the psalmist borrowed twice from the same location. As a result, the study would consider the potential source as a definite source. 70 Even after the study has identified the associations according to the criteria above, a need still exists to eliminate pseudo allusions —sources creating the impression of literary borrowing. The stock formula ,71 a common phrase utilized by poets in specific situations,

67 Day (1997) exemplifies this method of establishing a marker in his work on Isaiah’s dependence on Hosea. 68 This corresponds with Hays (1989) second criterion. With the .” ותחשב לו לצדקה “ An example of this is apparent in Psalm 106:31, which contains the phrase 69 exception of the psalm, the phrase only occurs in Gen 15:6. Though in this instance the lexical association is unquestionable, the contexts in which the verses occur differ significantly (even if they both contain the idea of reward). 70 This principle has been adapted from Jeffrey Tigay’s work on literary borrowing. Though his article primarily focuses on parallels between the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern literature, and methods of identifying if parallel material recorded in the Bible is borrowed from Canaanite or Mesopotamian literature, he argues that if a biblical text apparently refers to two separate locations in a body of Ancient Near Eastern literature, then this strengthens the notion of the biblical author borrowing from the Ancient Near Eastern text; s. Tigay (1993). Hays (1989:30) also recognizes the principle; see his third rule, recurrence. 71 For more on this concept, see Watson (2001:74f., 81)—who relates the formation of such phrases to the possible oral origins of Biblical Hebrew poetry.

Page <14> Introduction

which appear in , טוב and , כי , יהוה , ידה constitutes an example of this phenomenon. The words both Ezra 3:11 and Jer 33:11, exemplify the notion; even though lexical agreement exists between the two, and Ezra 3:11 bears the later signature, any notion of Ezra directly borrowing from Jeremiah proves invalid because the phrase additionally appears in a variety of other places. Rather, at some stage in the development of Israelite oral or literary tradition, the phrase became a stock formula for opening songs of praise, and both authors subsequently adopted the formula. As a means of avoiding this methodological snare, the study exercises meticulous care to ensure the markers identified do not represent widely used stock formulas. Another potential pitfall arises when we consider that certain psalmists worked with sources, either written or oral, that were familiar to them and their contemporaries but not reflected in biblical literature. In instances like these, the differences between the wording of a tradition in the psalm and that in the Torah tradition may simply reflect an alternate tradition from which the psalmist borrowed. Though the possibility for such occasions is relatively high, proving the existence of such alternate traditions presents a more complex problem. One method of establishing if such traditions existed is to search for signs of them in other biblical texts. Theoretically, oral traditions employed by the psalmists may be absent from the Torah, but reflected in other biblical books. In addition to other biblical traditions, extra-biblical accounts and ancient Bible translations may also contain traces of alternate traditions. Consequently, the discipline of proves useful to the study. In certain instances, a Greek or Aramaic text could reflect an alternate Hebrew rendering that echoes or reproduces an alternate tradition. 72 Additionally, the possibility exists that oral sources and traditions may have been considered illegitimate for the Bible and excluded from MT, but committed to later writings such as pseudepigraphic texts from the Second Temple period, sectarian texts from Qumran, Ben Sira, the works of Josephus and , and Rabbinic literature. 73 Consequently, such texts are considered important to the present study. As part of the source analysis, the study briefly attempts to reconstruct the process of selection undertaken by each psalmist when he chose his sources. This part of the study uncovers the potential factors influencing the respective psalmists either to adopt or reject

72 Tov (1992:313-50) discusses Textual Criticism’s contribution to literary criticism. Within this discussion, he reveals numerous examples of the ’s vorlage representing texts differing from MT. Such sources could potentially echo, or even recount in full, alternate traditions. 73 Rabbinic literature is also consulted throughout the present study since it occasionally sheds useful interpretive light on the selected psalms.

Page <15> Introduction specific aspects of the Exodus tradition. Of particular interest here are the rejected aspects of the motif that ostensibly comply with the psalm’s central purpose. Part of the analysis of biblical sources involves identifying the Pentateuchal sources with those of the proposed documents of the Documentary Hypothesis. Because it is not the intention of the present study to redefine these documents in any way, the study relies on the work of earlier scholars to establish which texts are associated to which sources. For the purposes of this research, the study tests each Pentateuchal source by comparing it to the work of two scholars who have independently determined the sources 74 of the Documentary Hypothesis. When the two selected scholars agree, the study accepts the indicated source. In instances where the selected scholars disagree, the study widens its scope to include additional scholars 75 to assist in identifying the source. As an example, if the two selected scholars agree that Ex 14:16 belongs to the P document, then the study adopts this decision. If one scholar claims it is P and the other JE, then additional scholars are introduced to aid the decision process. Due to the difficulties in identifying and separating the J and E sources, they are treated in the present study as a single document. After all of the aforementioned analytical procedures are completed, the study investigates aspects of inner-biblical allusion and interpretation appearing within the psalm. To accomplish this, the study poses a series of questions, such as: what did the psalmist add, what did he omit, does reading the psalm affect the reading of the source, has the order of events been altered by the psalmist, how does the source affect the meaning of the psalm, does the author employ multiple sources to retell a single event, why has the psalmist added or taken elements away from his source’s tradition? When analyzing the allusions, unlike the close reading, a greater emphasis falls on the source text. The close reading understands each psalm as an independent entity with its own unique purpose; however, when examining the allusions, the psalm’s meaning is compared with the meaning of the source. The primary aim of analyzing the juxtaposition of the Exodus psalms is to uncover interpretive strategies the redactors of the Psalter may have implemented. 76 Methodologically, the first task is to isolate common words or phrases appearing in neighboring psalms.

74 The primary works selected for the study are Driver (1972:22-75), and Anthony and O’Brien (1993). The later work depends on ’s A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans: B. W. Anderson [Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1972]). 75 For the most part, Fohrer (1974) is referenced in disputed cases, although commentaries such as Tate (1990) are occasionally used. 76 The present study does not claim that the editors and redactors employed all of the potential strategies raised therein.

Page <16> Introduction

Obviously, certain words, like prepositions, frequently appear throughout the Psalter, and do not indicate a purposeful relationship. Other words, however, may only appear a limited number of times in the Psalter. In such instances, the likelihood exists that such words played an important role in the arranger’s rationale for positioning the psalms. After identifying common key words and phrases between psalms, the study analyzes how each of the respective psalmists utilizes them. 77 When this is completed, the study attempts to uncover interpretative rationale for the positioning of the psalms. A slightly higher degree of conjecture and subjectivity enters into the discussion at this point, since ultimately no living or written witnesses survive that explain the redactor’s thought processes as he worked.

SCOPE AND STRUCTURE

SCOPE Since the number of selected psalms still constitutes a relatively large body of material, the study further narrows the scope of the proposed analysis. Within the close reading section, though a thorough analysis is performed, the study limits itself to focusing on poetics that directly contribute to the psalm’s meaning. Consequently, it overlooks issues pertaining to formal poetic features, such as meter, and ballast variants. 78 Concerning the dating, as previously mentioned, the objective in the present study is to discover the relative date 79 of each work, and as a result avoids any attempts to determine an absolute composition date for each psalm. The primary goal for the determination of sources is to establish the biblical sources employed by the psalmists in their retelling of the Exodus. In a number of instances, the selected psalms may contain allusions to texts other that those related to the Exodus narrative. 80 Even though these cases present interesting opportunities for investigating intertextual relationships, this study limits itself to determining sources for the Exodus motif alone. This restriction bears implications for analysis of Pentateuchal traditions relating to the Documentary Hypothesis because only those relating to the Exodus tradition are identified,

77 Ideally, the work on juxtaposition would not be complete without an exhaustive list of all common words and phrases appearing between neighboring psalms, along with a discussion on their relevance. Unfortunately, however, due to space restrictions, I have omitted such material and only opted to discuss the more obvious common words and phrases. 78 For more on these topics see Watson (2001:87-143, 344-48). 79 See pp.11-12 for a definition of this term. 80 Psalm 105, for example, bears obvious associations with the patriarchal narratives and episodes from ’s life. Such instances, though intriguing, fail to fall within the scope of the present study.

Page <17> Introduction thus limiting the breadth of data. On the whole, it must be made clear from the outset that due to space restrictions the discussions on the relationships between individual psalms and Pentateuchal sources has been restricted. Occasionally, during the close reading, however, the study does pursue the relationships between the psalm and other biblical texts. Another interesting area, overlapping the work on sources, concerns the relationships between the selected psalms and from the Ancient Near East. At various points in the research, associations arise in which certain motifs from Ugaritic and Mesopotamian literature echo in the selected psalms. 81 Such cases are not analyzed to any great length in the present study. Regarding the sections on allusions and juxtaposition, two more constraints need mentioning. The former section limits itself to discussing the connections between the Exodus motif as it appears in the psalm and its appearance in the proposed source. Because the present study relies on diachronic methodology, establishing how the psalmists use their sources, it avoids investigating the relationships between the psalms and later texts that may have appropriated material from them. 82 The study, however, in certain instances, does briefly discuss alternate traditions relating to the Exodus motif identified in the section on sources, comparing them with the Torah. With respect to the analysis on juxtaposition, the primary concern for the present study is for the close relationships between individual psalms. Even though the psalms themselves may indeed contribute to much larger arrangement strategies, such strategies do not constitute the primary objectives here.

STRUCTURE The present study contains five chapters and a concluding section, where each chapter corresponds with one of the selected psalms: 78, 105, 106, 135, and 136. For the sake of simplicity, the psalms are ordered according to their appearance in the Hebrew Bible. Each chapter is subsequently divided into seven sections. First a short section discusses the structure of the psalm. Due to the nature of the selected psalms, subject matter constitutes the primary criterion for dividing each composition. Because most of the selected psalms retell the Exodus account, points at which changes occur in time, space, or speaker form natural places for dividing the work. In addition to this, other formal elements are considered, e.g., structural markers such as refrains and repetition. The close reading, section two, performs a

81 An example of this phenomenon occurs in Psalm 106’s portrayal of YHWH splitting the sea by rebuking it; s. close reading for Ps 106:9. 82 An example of this arises with 1Chronicles 16’s probable reuse of Psalm 105; s. Dirkson (2005) and Klein (2006). For more on the relationship between the two works, s. Butler (1978) and Hill (1983).

Page <18> Introduction verse-by-verse analysis of the work in question and constitutes a significant part of the research. At this stage of the proceedings, the study concentrates on a poetic analysis of the psalm and devotes particular attention to repetition, images, and associations that verses may have with other biblical literature. Attention is devoted to revealing how each verse contributes to the meaning of the psalm. By way of conclusion, section three ties in the main elements of the close reading and structure to define a primary purpose for the psalm under investigation. This section also attempts to reveal how the psalm’s important themes contribute to furthering the main purpose. 83 After the meaning is determined, sections on dating and sources are presented respectively. The date, as mentioned earlier, is primarily determined via the identification of LBH within each psalm, although other means are also employed. Upon completion of this stage, the study determines a relative date for the psalm. Only upon successful completion of determining a relative date for the psalm can the sources be determined. For the most part, the discussion on the sources focuses on clarifying instances in which multiple possibilities arise concerning a psalm’s source. Cases in which the lexical associations are easily identified appear in the appendices and consequently not discussed at length. The final objective in this section is to crystallize a list of potential sources, biblical and alternate, employed by the psalm. In certain instances, it may not be possible to identify a verse’s specific source unambiguously, when cases like these arise, the study does not pursue such verses in its analysis of allusions. An important underlying assumption concerning this part of the analysis is that psalms written after the Exile are generally considered to postdate Torah traditions. After identifying the Pentateuchal sources, the study associates them with their respective documents according to those defined in the Documentary Hypothesis (JE, P, and D). With the sources established, the section on allusions further questions the relationships between the psalm and its sources. A detailed look at the two contexts is performed here, and the study investigates how the psalmist has removed, added, or reordered his source material to conform to the meaning and strategy of his composition. The final section on juxtaposition adopts a wider view of each composition, evaluating the relationships between the psalms and their neighbors. The first task in this section is to identify any possible signs of editorial activity in the arrangement of the psalms, as determined via lexical similarities between juxtaposed psalms. The section then analyses the

83 The underlying assumption for this section is that each psalm was composed with a single primary intention by the author. Even though certain psalms may have experienced varying degrees of redaction, the works as they appear in MT still display a single purpose in writing.

Page <19> Introduction semantic relationships between the psalms—those apparent from common words, and those created from the key themes of juxtaposed works. In this second phase, the primary goals is to determine how the meaning of the psalm changes from being read as a single independent work, to its meaning and function as part of a larger selection of compositions. The conclusions at the end of the study directly return to the questions posed in this introduction, i.e. how the psalmists of Exodus psalms used their sources, and how the editors of the Psalter arranged them. To address these matters, the conclusions discuss the sources employed by the psalmists, the arrangement of these sources in their respective works, and the motivations the psalmists had to alter or preserve data from their source texts. Following this, more general conclusions are drawn from the study concerning the psalmists’ relationship to the Exodus tradition, and their use of the motif. To close, the study briefly discusses its contributions to the fields of Psalms and Biblical Studies.

Page <20> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

CHAPTER 1: PSALM 78

With the exception of , Psalm 78 constitutes the longest poem within the Psalter. Though scholars generally refer to it as a historical psalm, recalling incidents in Israel’s literary history, Psalm 78’s primary concern is to influence those living in the present, helping them learn from previous failures. As with the other historiographic psalms, the psalmist selected and arranged Psalm 78’s material predominantly to teach future generations, instructing them on how they can avoid the judgment of God. Another important motivation the psalmist had was to ratify his present political situation. One consequence of the psalmist’s primary intention to teach is that the notion of chronological order in the psalm becomes subservient to ordering events in a way that best conveys his message. 1

STRUCTURE

Psalm 78’s structure can approximately be divided into an introduction followed by two recitals of Israel’s history that are separated 2 by a short interlude. We can outline the sections as follows:

1Similar to a large proportion of biblical psalms, Psalm 78 may indeed have undergone a complicated redactional development process. Many scholars have noted this development (s. for example Hossfeld and Zenger [2005:287-90], who provides a detailed, and conjectural, analysis of the psalm’s redaction). The primary objective of this analysis, however, is to examine the work as it appears in MT. 2 Though very little consensus exists on the detailed structure of Psalm 78, the approximate pattern of an introduction followed by two historical recitals from Israel’s literary history constitutes the prevailing structure recognized by the majority of biblical scholars. Among those recognizing the twofold arrangement are McCann (1996), Campbell (1979:59f.), and Clifford (1981:129). Hoffman (1983:98f.) differs slightly in his analysis, recognizing an important insertion between the two narratives. Though I too recognize a literary pause between the sections, the precise details and character of the two recitals in his analysis differ considerably from the analysis posed above. Hacham (1981:40) breaks the psalm down into four major sections (1-8, 9-39, 40-55, and 56-72), in which the middle two constitute the two major recitals. Scholars such as Keil and Delitzsch (1982) and Weiser (1965:534-38) divide the psalm without drawing particular attention to the two historical recitations within. Zakovitch’s analysis of the structure differs significantly from the mainstream approach. He suggests a seven-part structure (1-8, 9-16, 17-31, 32-39, 40-55, 56-67, 68-72) containing an all important middle section (1997:168).

Page <21> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

I. 1-8 – Introduction: the importance of passing down the memory of YHWH’s deeds II. 9-11 – Ephraim’s unfaithfulness to God’s covenant III. 12-33 – First recital: Israel’s rebellion in light of YHWH’s kindness a. 12-16 – YHWH’s kindness: splitting the sea, guidance, and provision b. 17-20 – Rebellion: Israel requests food with ignoble motives c. 21-33 – YHWH’s judgment and kindness: Israel punished and food provided IV. 34-41 – Pattern of Israelite rebellion and YHWH’s response V. 42-66 – Second recital: Israel and Ephraim’s rebellion in forgetting YHWH’s past acts a. 42-55 – YHWH’s kindness recalled: he delivers Israel from Egypt b. 56-58 – Rebellion: Ephraim and Israel Provoke YHWH via idolatry c. 59-66 – YHWH’s judgment and kindness: deliverance and rescue of Israel VI. 67-72 – Conclusion: Ephraim’s rejection and Judah’s selection.

The beginning of Psalm 78, section one, introduces and emphasizes the importance of transmitting traditions concerning the law and YHWH’s deeds in history from generation to generation. In transmitting this knowledge, the future generations will be reminded of his works and laws, and as a result will remain obedient to his laws and faithful to his covenant. Section two, verses 9-11, continue by describing the Ephraimites, who failed to adhere to the principle established in the introduction. They were not faithful to God’s covenant because they had forgotten the works he performed for them. The third section of the psalm enumerates the works that God had done for Israel in the past, in addition to their response to them. Through his kindness, he split the Reed Sea and led them through it, and also provided them with water to drink in the desert. Their response was to question his ability to provide them with bread and meat to eat in the desert. Even though they had seen him miraculously provide water, they now tested him further to see what else his could do. As a response to their demands, YHWH both punishes them by killing some of their number with fire, and provides them with an overwhelming abundance of bread and meat. Just like the description of the water provision, the portrayal of YHWH providing food is laced with hyperbole. All of the acts recorded in the third section should have been remembered by the Ephraimites Had these events been faithfully relayed to subsequent generations, then presumably the Ephraimites would have been faithful to YHWH’s laws.

Page <22> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

The eight verses following the first recital (vv.34-39, section four) constitute a general behavioral description of Israel and YHWH. Whenever he punished them they would feign returning to him, in an attempt to deceive him, thus proving themselves unfaithful. In spite of this, YHWH continued being faithful to them by removing their sin and showing them mercy. In light of the mercy show to them, however, Israel would continue to rebel against him. The portrayal of Israel’s and YHWH’s behavior in these verses is exemplified both in the previous section and the one that follows. The second recital (vv.42-66, section five) corresponds with the first (section three), and similarly opens with a picture of YHWH’s kindness towards his people (vv.42-55). This description of his kindness differs from the first because it does not just depict a picture of his power over creation, but includes a portrayal of him causing destruction to man: he frees Israel from the Egyptians via a series of plagues that injure and kill them. In addition to this, the section tells of YHWH leading his people into , where he then establishes them. As a response to this, they forget his deeds performed on their behalf and provoke him to by setting up high places and worshipping idols (vv.56-58). As a result of their unfaithfulness, YHWH punishes them by allowing their enemies to defeat them. More importantly, he allows his sanctuary, which was located in Ephraim’s territory, to be delivered into enemy hands. Just like the first recital, the final act of judgment is mixed with mercy, and YHWH eventually comes to the aid of his people, fighting for them against the enemy. In the final section (vv.67-72) YHWH explicitly rejects the tribe of Ephraim and selects the land of Judah as the location for his new dwelling on earth, YHWH himself is portrayed as constructing his dwelling in . He additionally selects a new leader for his people, David, from the tribe of Judah. David’s description by the psalmist in this section focuses on his abilities as a shepherd, and his task is to continue shepherding God’s people. The task of shepherding and leading is particularly apt because throughout the psalm God is portrayed as the one who led his people from Egypt to Canaan (see for example vv.15, 52). After the introduction, the second and sixth sections create an inclusion for the remainder of the psalm. Both of these sections contain explicit references to Ephraim. The second section portrays them as being unfaithful to God’s laws, forgetting his past deeds performed on behalf of Israel. The sixth stanza demonstrates the result of their unfaithfulness and forgetfulness: they are rejected by God. Within this inclusion, the psalm outlines Israel’s history of rebellion in light of God’s mercy, and it also shows that his restraint will only go so far, after which he will punish his people. Ephraim apparently did not learn from the past acts

Page <23> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 depicted in the psalm, and the implicit question at the end of the psalm is “now that Judah has been selected, will they learn from Israel’s past”.

CLOSE READING

1 מַשְׂ כִּ֗ יל לְאָ֫סָ ֥ ף הַאֲ זִ ָ ֣ינה 8ַ֭מִּ י תּוֹרָתִ ֑ י הַטּ֥ וּ אָ֜ זְנְכֶ֗ ם לְאִמְרֵ י־פִֽ י׃

3A maskil of Asaph: Listen my people to my instruction; incline your ear to the utterance of my mouth

identify it as part of a collection, including ,” משכיל לאסף “ ,The opening words of Psalm 78

Psalms 73-83, associated with the biblical figure Asaph. 4 Though these words do not ,”meaning “to be wise” or “skillful , שכל constitute an integral 5 part of the psalm, the root could relate to the psalm with respect to its purpose—it was written that one might learn, and consequently become wise, from its contents. Repetition via strict parallelism in the opening verse reiterates the importance of the often appears as an האזינה forthcoming message in the body of the psalm. The poetic word introduction to songs (s. Gen 4:23 and Jud 5:3) and prophetic oracles, as in Bilaam’s words to Num 23:18; s. also Is 1:2, 32:9, Jer 13:15, and) ”…קוּם בָּלָק֙ וּֽשֲׁמָ֔ ע הַאֲזִ֥ינָ ה 8ָדַ ֖ י בְּ נ֥ וֹ צִ פֹּֽ ר׃ “ ,Balak

my Torah”, with the first-person“ , תורתי Hos 5:1). The object of the injunction to listen is suffix presumably referring to the speaker of the psalm. “Torah” often relates to the laws given at Mt. Sinai (s. Ex 18:20 and Lev 6:2 for example), however, the reference here more probably possesses a less defined nuance, that of instruction or guidance, relating to the שְׁמַ ֣ ע בְּ֭נִ י מוּסַ ֣ ר אָבִ ֑ יB וְאַ ל־תִּ֜ טֹּ֗ שׁ “ ,psalm’s contents. An example of this usage appears in Pr 1:8

where no discernible allusion to the Sinai laws exists (s. also Pr 4:2 and 6:20). 6 ,” תּוֹרַ ֥ ת אִמֶּ ֽ B׃

frequently appears in wisdom texts (s. Pr 5:13 and ” נטה אזנ ים “ the parallel phrase , האזינה Like

3 All of the translations in the present work are mine, except where explicitly indicated. 4 Though Asaph himself would have lived at the time of David, a liturgical school bearing his name evidently operated in the postexilic era (see Neh 12:46, 1Chr 16:5, and 2Chr 29:30). 5 Unlike Psalm 32:8, this same root does not appear in the body of Psalm 78. 6 The meaning and nuance of this phrase may indeed between these two interpretations and could refer to the instruction of the speaker, which in itself relates to the Sinai laws; s. Zakovitch (1997:121).

Page <24> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

.(the words of my mouth” (Pr 4:5, 5:7, and 6:2“ ,” אמרי פי “ as does the expression ,(22:17

These correspondences generate a recognizable association between Psalm 78 and Israel’s wisdom traditions. The opening prepares the reader to interpret the whole psalm with the aim of gaining insight and learning. The explicit association of the Exodus tradition with Israelite sapiential literature constitutes one factor that makes Psalm 78 unique among the selected psalms. The opening line of Psalm 78 contains various similarities with the beginning of Both underlined .” האֲ זִ֥ינוּ הַשָּׁמַ ֖יִם וַאֲדַבֵּ ֑רָ ה וְתִשְׁמַ ֥ ע הָאָ ֖רֶ ץ אִמְרֵ י־פִֽ י׃ “ ,Moses’ Song in Deut 32:1 phrases appear at the beginning of their respective works and both recall God’s works of mercy wrought on Israel’s behalf in the desert, together with the nation’s ungrateful response. 7

2 אֶפְתְּ חָ ֣ ה בְמָשָׁ ֣ ל פִּ ֑ י אַבִּ֥ י8ָ ה חִ֜ יד֗ וֹת מִ נִּ י־קֶ ֽדֶ ם׃

For I will open my mouth with a proverb, I will utter utterances from of old

After calling for the listeners to hear and take heed, the psalm now explains why they need to Parable” or“ 8 .” אפתחה במשל פי “ listen: the psalmist is about to open his mouth with a parable

—a word that further connects the psalm to Israel’s wisdom tradition 9— משל ,”proverb“ usually relates to a saying or altruism deployed in imparting wisdom; an example of such an

.” כּאֲשֶׁ ֣ ר יֹאמַ֗ ר מְשַׁ ל֙ הַקַּדְ מֹנִ֔ י מֵ ְ רשׁ8ִָ ֖ ים יֵ ֣צֵ א רֶ ֑שַׁ ע וְיָדִ ֖ י לֹ֥ א תִֽהְ יֶה־בָּ ֽ F׃ “ ,utterance appears in 1Sam 24:14

aptly characterizes the contents of the psalm because it contains words from משל The word

bearing some relevance to the , משל which the reader can become wise. Another nuance of psalm, is “a byword” or “word of warning”. In Ps 44:14-15, a people becomes a byword, serving as a warning for passersby (s. also 2Chr 7:20). Similarly, as will be witnessed later on,

7 It would appear that the extent of the similarities between these two works led the Septuagint writers to pen .( האזינו =) ” προσέχετε“ 8 For the use of a cohortative as a purpose clause see JM§116 b. 9 Though the concentration of wisdom vocabulary ends here, scattered throughout the psalm are various words כסל ,[v.7] נצר ,[v.5] עדות ,[v.4] כחד :and phrases possessing positive affinities with this literary style (such as .([v.36] כזב v.33], and] הבל ,[v.21] התעבר ,[v.7]

Page <25> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 our psalm also reflects this nuance. As with the first verse, v.2 consists of a parallel couplet that, via repetition, generates an emphasis on the importance of the opening words.

.( חידה ) ”Parallel to opening his mouth with a parable, the psalmist utters an “utterance

usually denotes a saying with a hidden meaning, 10 only revealed to those with חידה The word special insight (we could also understand it as a saying with a deeper meaning that needs further explanation and/or contemplation). Perhaps the best example of such a saying appears in Jud 14:14, Samson’s riddle to the Philistines, which consists of a short saying that only he properly understood because of his secret knowledge. 11 Perhaps the best way, however, to understand this word is “utterance”, since this best describes the psalmist’s actions: he speaks utterances that have their origins in days of old, i.e., during the days of the Exodus events. 12

3 אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר שָׁ֭מ8ְַ נוּ וַנֵּד8ֵָ ֑ם וַ֜אֲ בוֹתֵ֗ ינוּ סִפְּ רוּ־לָ ֽ נוּ׃

Which we have heard and have known, and our fathers have told us

10 KB (vol.1, 309) interprets it as “the description of something by enigmatic allusions”. Similarly, Kraus (1988b:125) understands it as a riddle song that conceals secret facts within itself. 11 The relevance of depicting Psalm 78 in this way forces the reader to seek a deeper meaning and significance to the words of the psalm, not simply viewing it as a recapitulation or summary of historical events. The final relate to the historiographic content of the psalm: the hidden sayings the psalmist is about , מני קדם ,words of v.2 to expound have their roots from “ages past” (s. 2Ki 19:25, Ps 44:2), within the historical traditions of ancient Israel. Numerous scholars have further developed this nuance in an attempt to explain the meaning of this word in the context of the psalm. RaDaK, at numerous points in the psalm, cleverly links notions of hiddeness as a reference to this word. Thus, the bread of angels (v.25) was a hidden thing, as was the day Ephraim turned in battle (v.9)—since the tradition that records this event is no longer available to us. Similarly, the whereabouts of the Ark, after the Philistines captured it, were unknown to the ; s. Cohen (2003:23). In a similar way, Hacham (1981:41) relates the hiddeness to the magnificent deeds mentioned in the psalm: the wonders of God revealed to Israel. Zakovitch holds a more conservative view; he sees the traditions of the past as hidden through forgetfulness and revealed by the psalmist (1997:122). For Tate, the enigma in Israel’s inability to trust God’s great acts of deliverance even though they have constantly been repeated throughout history (1990:281). McCann understands the overall message of the psalm as an answer to the question: “How can the recollection of a history of failure lead to a future of hope” (1996:992). Berlin (2003), who reads Psalm 78 as a relatively late work, says: “The ‘historical review’ is selective and is calculated to provide a negative answer to the question: Will history repeat itself? More specifically, will the history of Ephraim be repeated in the case of Judah? This is the ‘riddle,’ the wisdom lesson, that the psalm poses to the current generation…” The Tgs. apparently avoid a .(joy”; assuming the translators were not looking at another vorlage“) חדון number of difficulties by translating Similarly, Clifford (1981:121) simply translates it as a “lesson”, relieving any tension created by the nuance of a hidden meaning. As an alternative to forcing a literal connection between the notion of a hidden saying and the psalm, the reader should be sensitive to the possibility of the psalmist simply selecting a known poetic B-word .(s. also Ezek 17:2) ” לְהָבִ ֣ ין מָ֭ שָׁ ל וּמְ לִ יצָ֑ ה דִּ בְרֵ ֥ י חֲ֜ כָמִ֗ ים וְחִ ידֹתָ ֽ ם׃ “ ,as witnessed in Pr 1:6 , משל for more probably derives חידה Held (1985:93-96) directs our attention to the probability that the Hebrew word 12 This simpler understanding . אחידה from the Akkadian hittu (s. CAD vol. 6: 28, 208) as opposed to the Aramaic of the word removes the burden of seeking a more hidden meaning to the psalm.

Page <26> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

Verse 3 constitutes a relative clause that continues detailing the previously mentioned utterances and parables. These sayings are not new to the listeners, but have previously been heard by them. Unlike v.2, the psalmist now speaks in the first-person plural, including himself in the following words. Four phrases, in this verse alone, single out the present

Such an emphasis reiterates that the reciting .ל נו and , ואבותי נו ,ונ דעם , שמע נו :generation generation has heard the “utterances” from their fathers and consequently has no excuse for failing to transmit what they have heard to future generation. The third verse introduces an important theme, the retelling of events from generation

... וְאַ יֵּ ֣ה כָ ֽ ל־נִפְלְ אֹתָ֡ יו “ ,to generation, a theme echoed throughout biblical literature. In Jud 6:13

Gideon speaks of his generation’s ,” אֲשֶׁ ר֩ סִפְּ רוּ־לָ֙נוּ אֲ ֜ בוֹתֵינוּ לֵ אמֹ֗ ר הֲ לֹ֤ א מִמִּצְרַ ֙ יִם֙ ה8ֱֶלָ ֣נוּ יְ הוָ֔ ה ... fathers recounting the marvelous deeds wrought by God when he delivered Israel from Egypt, and employs this as part of a complaint with respect to YHWH’s concern for his people. Perhaps more relevant to this psalm is Psalm 44:2, which bears a close relationship to vv.1-3, Both psalms recall God’s .” אֱ Nהִ ֤ ים׀ בְּאָ זְנֵ֬ ינוּ שָׁמ8ְַ֗ נוּ אֲ בוֹתֵ ֥ ינוּ סִפְּ רוּ־לָ ֑נוּ פּ8ַֹ֥ ל פּ8ַָ ֥לְתָּ בִ֜ ימֵ יהֶ֗ ם בִּ ֣ ימֵ י קֶ ֽדֶ ם׃“ deeds performed on behalf of his people, in addition to the importance of retelling such works, and both use similar phrases in the openings of their respective works.

4 לֹ֤ א נְכַ חֵ֙ ד׀ מִבְּנֵ יהֶ֗ ם לְד֥ וֹר אַחֲ ר֗ וֹן מְ֭סַפְּרִ ים תְּהִ לּ֣ וֹת יְהוָ ֑ה ו8ֱֶ זוּז֥וֹ וְ֜נִפְלְ אוֹתָ֗ יו אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר 8ָשָׂ ֽ ה׃

We will not conceal (them) from their children, telling the next generation of YHWH’s deeds of renown, his acts of might and mighty works which he has done.

Here, the reciting generation proclaims that they will not withhold from their children the acts as a semantic reminder נכחד parables and sayings told to them by their fathers. The word

in v.2. 13 The people claim that they will not hide 14 anything from their sons, and the חידות of

could potentially signify a hidden saying, one needing further . In the חידות word

the“ ,” דור אחרון “ refers to “children”, and corresponds with the phrase בנים ,present context

13 An additional connection between the two is forged through the similarity between the words, the repetition of the het and daleth . 14 See 1Sam 3:18 for a similar instance of “hiding” words.

Page <27> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

לדור “) ספר next generation” (s. Deut 29:21, Ps 48:14, and 102:19). Repetition of the root

.in this verse reiterates the idea of retelling from one generation to the next (” אחרון מספרים

The second half of the verse reveals that which the reciting generation promises to , נפלאות recount to their children: the mighty works that YHWH has done. Each of the words

.typically portray magnificent deeds YHWH wrought on behalf of his people תהלות and , ועזוזו

describes awe inspiring works worthy of praise, and more importantly , תהלות ,The latter

מִ י־כָ מֹ֤כָ ה בָּ ֽאֵ לִם֙ יְהוָ֔ ה מִ֥ י כָּ מֹ֖כָ ה “ ,appears elsewhere in the context of the Exodus, in Ex 15:11

,Throughout biblical literature . פלא together with the root ,” נֶאְדָּ ֣ ר בַּ קֹּ֑דֶ שׁ נוֹרָ ֥ א תְהִ P֖ ת 8ֹ֥שֵׂ ה פֶ ֽלֶ א׃

regularly specifies God’s work in delivering Israel from Egypt, as Ps 106:7 testifies נפלאות

s. also Ex 3:20, in reference to the plagues; Ps) 15” ֨ אבוֹתֵ ֤ ינוּ בְמִצְרַ ֙ יִם׀ לֹא־הִשְׂ כִּ֬ ילוּ נִפְלְ אוֹתֶ֗ יB ...“

105:2, 5 and Neh 9:17; in addition to Ex 15:11, quoted above). More importantly, the last which also ,” זִכְר֗ וּ נִפְלְ אוֹתָ ֥ יו אֲשֶׁ ר־8ָשָׂ ֑ ה מֹ֜ פְתָ֗ יו וּמִשְׁ פְּטֵ י־פִֽ יו׃ “ ,three words of v.4 recall Psalm 105:5 contains the notion of remembering and reciting YHWH’s magnificent deeds. 16 The meaning in the context of this verse reaches beyond a simplistic portrayal of God’s power. It is עזוזו of better to understand the phrase as God’s mighty power as specifically demonstrated in his ability to fight (for his people) and to deliver them. Such a nuance is evident from Psalm 24:8, relating YHWH’s might with him fighting ,” מִ֥ י זֶה֘ מֶ ֤לֶ F הַ כָּ֫ב֥ וֹד יְ֭הוָ ה 8ִ זּ֣וּז וְגִבּ֑ וֹר יְ֜הוָ֗ ה גִּבּ֥ וֹר מִלְחָמָ ֽ ה׃“ battles. Overall, it is possible to understand from v.4 that the utterances and parables first mentioned in v.2 relate to the past acts of God and the power he displayed in delivering Israel.

15 In modern terms, the nifal feminine plural form denotes the phenomenon known as a “miracle”, a supernatural act of God when he intervenes in the realms of man, and accomplishes tasks too difficult for them. For more on this concept and its representation in biblical literature see Zakovitch (1987a) and Yaron (1997). Regarding describe the miracles God wrought against the נפלאות divine intervention, the most common occurrences of are mentioned in biblical literature, an allusion נפלאות Egyptians when he delivered Israel. Consequently when to Exodus events often accompanies the meaning (s. Ex 3:20, Jud 6:13, Ps 106:7). The act of deliverance is not restricted to Exodus events and may refer to personal intervention against evildoers (see 5:9ff. and Ps 71:17). and intervention, when Israel is threatened by נפלאות Jeremiah 21:2 epitomizes the connection between ... אוּלַי֩ י8ֲַשֶׂ֙ ה יְ הוָ֤ ה אוֹתָ֙ נוּ֙ כְּכָ ל־נִפְלְ אֹתָ֔ יו “ ,Nebuchadnezzar there is a hope God will work wonders to deliver them is in נפלאות the hope is that God would intervene to save them. The other prominent aspect of ,” וְי8ֲַלֶ֖ ה מ8ֵָלֵ ֽינוּ׃ connection with Creation. This not only includes God’s involvement in the original creation of the world as in Psalm 136:4-9, which details God’s wonders in Creation (see also Job 9:9-10), but also his involvement in sustaining the created order (s. Job 5:9-10, 37:14ff., Ps 139:14). For a further discussion, see Brueggemann (1995:40). 16 The possibility of an allusion between these two works is discussed in the section on sources.

Page <28> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

Even though at this moment the exact identification of these acts remains somewhat obscure, the remainder of the psalm supplies specific details.

5 וַיָּ ֤ קֶ ם 8ֵד֙ וּת׀ בְּֽ י8ֲַ קֹ֗ ב וְ תוֹרָ ה֘ שָׂ ֤ ם בְּ יִשְׂרָ ֫אֵ ֥ ל אֲ ֶ ֣ שׁר צִ֭וָּ ה אֶ ת־אֲ בוֹתֵ ֑ ינוּ לְ֜ הוֹדִ י8ָ֗ ם לִבְנֵ יהֶ ֽ ם׃

For he established an ordinance for 17 Jacob, and a law he placed on Israel, which he commanded our fathers to make them known to their sons

As a continuation from v.4, v.5 details more of God’s past works and explains the origins of the injunction of retelling from generation to generation: YHWH has established it as an ,often appears in connection to the laws given at Sinai 18 (Ex 31:18 עדות ordinance. The word

34:29, and Ps 119:88), and even though such an interpretation corresponds with the present context, it may also be interpreted more generally as “a divine instruction for repeated execution” (s. Ps 81:6). In the context of the psalm, especially in light of the preceding verses, this ordinance consists of retelling God’s works of deliverance from generation to generation.

,Unlike v.1 .” הַאֲזִ ֣ינָ ה 8ַ֭מִּ י תּוֹרָתִ ֑ י... “ ,here recalls the psalmist’s words in v.1 תורה Repetition of

in this verse does not simply constitute the words of a man, but ordinances תורה however, the instituted by God himself. The second colon supplies further information concerning these ordinances: he commanded the forefathers of the reciting generation to retell them to their sons. A chiastic

. ונדעם : ואבותינו :: אבותינו : להודיעם :relationship exists between this, the second colon, and v.3

The chiasmus links the verses together, and hints that the command instituted by God, to retel from generation to generation (v.5), was performed by the reciting generation: the fathers of the current generation have faithfully recited God’s laws and acts to their sons.

6 לְמַ ֤ 8ַ ן יֵדְ ע֙ וּ׀ דּ֣ וֹר אַ֭חֲ רוֹן בָּנִ ֣ים יִוָּלֵ ֑דוּ יָ֜קֻ֗ מוּ וִֽ יסַפְּר֥ וּ לִבְנֵ יהֶ ֽ ם׃

In order that the next generation of sons will know, those that will be born will rise and tell their sons

.see JM§133 c ,ב For this understanding of 17 18 A few scholars, such as Dahood (1970:239), adopt this stance.

Page <29> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

Verse 6 provides a rationale for the previous verses: the constant retelling was ordained so that the generations to come will persist in recounting God’s deeds to their sons. Numerous

לֹ֤ א נְכַחֵ֙ ד׀ מִבְּנֵ יהֶ֗ ם לְד֥ וֹר אַחֲ ר֗ וֹן מְ֭סַפְּרִ ים תְּהִ לּ֣ וֹת “ ,words in this verse have been repeated from v.4

and ספר forging an important link between the two verses. Additionally, repetition of ,” יְהוָ֑ ה ...

The blatant repetition .” אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר שָׁ֭מ8ְַ נוּ וַנֵּד8ֵָ ֑ם וַ֜אֲ בוֹתֵ֗ ינוּ סִפְּ רוּ־לָ ֽ נוּ׃ “ ,strengthen links with v.3 ידע within these verses, vv.3-6, unify them and emphasize the importance of remembering God’s דור ) them down from generation to generation ( מספרים ) acts of might and his laws, passing

the deeds and mighty ( ידע ) of future generations will know ( בנים ) so that the children ( אחרון

a practice to be ,” וַיָּ ֤ קֶ ם 8ֵד֙ וּת׀ בְּֽ י8ֲַ קֹ֗ ב... “ ,acts of YHWH. He established an ordinance in v.5 performed by all future generations, and here a vague reference appears regarding its .” ... יָ֜קֻ֗ מוּ וִֽ יסַפְּר֥ וּ לִבְנֵ יהֶ ֽ ם׃ “ ,fulfillment

7 וְ יָשִׂ֥ ימוּ בֵ ֽ אNהִ֗ ים כִּ֫סְ לָ ֥ ם וְ ֣ ל ֹא יִ֭שְׁ כְּ חוּ מַ 8ַֽלְלֵ י־אֵ ֑ ל וּמִצְ וֹתָ ֥ יו יִנְ צֹֽ רוּ׃

So that they may put their confidence in God, and not forget the deeds of El and keep his commands

Verse 7 continues the reasoning that that began in v.6. As a result of retelling from generation also ” לשים כסל “ to generation the future generations will put their trust in God. The phrase

where Job denies putting his ,” אִ ם־שַׂ ֣ מְתִּ י זָהָ ֣ ב כִּסְלִ ֑י וְ֜לַכֶּ֗תֶ ם אָמַ ֥רְתִּ י מִבְטַחִֽ י׃ “ ,appears in Job 31:24

recalls v.5. Just as YHWH שים hope in or precious stones. Repetition of the verb

v.5), so the future generations would) ” ... וְ תוֹרָ ה֘ שָׂ ֤ ם בְּ יִשְׂרָ ֫אֵ ֥ ל ... “ ,established his Torah in Israel

as a result of hearing about his past ,” וְ יָשִׂ֥ ימוּ בֵ ֽ אNהִ֗ ים כִּ֫סְלָ ֥ם... “ ,put their confidence in him deeds. The second part of the first colon interprets the first part: in putting their trust in God, they will not forget his deeds. The implications of remembering God’s deeds, or in this case not forgetting, often appear in the context of obedience in biblical literature; conversely, the direct result of forgetting is usually sin. The link between the two activities, forgetting and הִשָּׁ ֣מֶ ר לBְ֔ פֶּ ן־תִּשְׁכַּ ֖ ח אֶ ת־יְהוָ ֣ה אֱ Nהֶ ֑ יB לְבִלְתִּ֙ י “ ,disobeying, is lucidly characterized in Deut 8:11

Page <30> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

in forgetting YHWH, the people would fail to keep his commands (s. also ,” שְׁ מֹ֤ ר מִצְ וֹתָ יו ...

Deut 4:23, Jud 3:7). ,here refer to his majestic works first mentioned in v.4 ,” מעללי אל “ ,YHWH’s deeds

תורה and the עדות alludes to the מצותיו ,Similarly .” ... תְּהִ לּ֣ וֹת יְהוָ ֑ה ו8ֱֶ זוּז֥וֹ וְ֜נִפְלְ אוֹתָ֗ יו אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר 8ָשָׂ ֽ ה׃“

וְשָׁמַרְ תָּ֞ “ ,that God commanded in v.5, and can likewise refer to the law code given at Sinai

Deut 4:40; s. also 26:17). Within vv.3-7, a clear) ” אֶ ת־חֻקָּ ֣ יו וְאֶ ת־מִ צְ וֹתָ֗ יו אֲשֶׁ֙ ר אָ נֹכִ ֤ י מְצַוּBְ֙ הַ יּ֔ וֹם ... emphasis on the retelling of God’s mighty acts for Israel together with his laws and instructions is revealed. Here, v.7 further forges the important link between the act of retelling, and obedience.

8 וְ לֹ֤ א יִהְי֙ וּ׀ כַּאֲ בוֹתָ֗ ם דּוֹר֘ סוֹרֵ ֪ ר וּמֹ֫רֶ ֥ ה דּ֭ וֹר לֹא־הֵכִ ֣ ין לִבּ֑ וֹ וְ לֹא־נֶאֶמְנָ ֖ה אֶ ת־אֵ ֣ ל רוּחֽ וֹ׃

And not be like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation that never prepared its heart, and its spirit was not faithful with El.

Contrasting an idealistic hypothetical situation, in which a knowledge of YHWH is passed on to future generations leading to them trust in him, v.8 introduces a real example of the desert generation, made up from , אבות ,unfaithfulness in this matter, Israel’s forefathers

The alliteration and chiastic .” דור סורר ומורה דור “ ,stubborn and rebellious individuals arrangement of this phrase accentuates the rebellious nature of this generation. Moreover, the .(contrasts the two previous instances in which the word was used (vv.4, 6 דור repetition of

Previously it depicted an attitude of obedience to God, but here the psalmist credits an earlier often appears in descriptions of the desert מרה generation with disobedience. The root

... וַ יֹּ֣אמֶ ר לָהֶ֗ ם שִׁמְ עוּ־נָא֙ הַ מֹּרִ ֔ ים הֲמִ ן־הַסֶּ ֣לַ ע הַ זֶּ֔ ה נוֹצִ֥ יא לָכֶ ֖ם “ ,generation, as witnessed by Num 20:10

s. also Deut 1:26). Additionally, Psalm 106 employs it to portray Israel’s rebellion at) ” מָ ֽ יִם׃ the Reed Sea (106:7), as well as their behavior after they entered the Promised Land (106:43).

appear in Deut 21:18 as the description of a rebellious son who refuses סרר and מרה ,Together

a ,” כִּֽ י־יִהְ ֶ י֣ה לְאִ֗ ישׁ בֵּ֚ ן סוֹרֵ ֣ ר וּמוֹרֶ ֔ ה אֵ ינֶ ֣נּוּ שֹׁמZֵַ֔ בְּ ק֥ וֹל אָבִ ֖ י ... “ ,to comply with his parents requests

Page <31> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 situation similar to this verse in which the behavior of the rebellious son is analogous to that of the fathers who refuse to listen to God. 19 The second colon continues detailing the negative and disobedient attitude of the expresses an inward preparation to trust and obey 20” הכין לב “ forefathers. The expression

,” מִשְּׁ מוּ8ָ ֣ה ר8ָָ֭ ה לֹ֣ א יִ ירָ ֑ א נָכ֥ וֹן לִ֜בּ֗ וֹ בָּטֻ ֥\ַ בַּ יהוָ ֽה׃ “ ,God. 21 Psalm 112:7 illustrates this idea well which, similar to our context, corresponds with a word implying “trust” (s. also 2Chr 12:14). Thus the rebellious behavior of the forefathers, mentioned in the previous verse, amounts to a failure to trust in YHWH’s ability. Because of their failure, their spirit—which is to say their will, and what they desired to do (s. Ex 35:21 and Num 14:24)—was unfaithful to (lit. draws our אל with” 22 ) him, i.e. they did not respond appropriately to his acts. Repetition of“

The notion of .” מעללי אל“ ,attention to both YHWH and his deeds, as recalled from v.7 unfaithfulness, introduced in v.8, dominates the remainder of the psalm. Though the Israelites were conscious of God’s ability in the past to intervene and deliver, they did not prove faithful to him, failing to act in a way that reflected their experience of him.

9 בְּֽנֵ י־אֶפְ רַ ֗ יִם נוֹשְׁ קֵ ֥ י רוֹמֵ י־קָ ֑שֶׁ ת הָ֜פְכ֗ וּ בְּ י֣וֹם קְרָ ֽ ב׃

The sons of Ephraim, being armed and carrying bows, turned back on the day of battle

A clearer identification of these “forefather” appears in v.9, the sons of Ephraim. In using the

the psalmist continues the frequent repetition of the term “sons” from the ” בני אפרים “ phrase previous section (s. vv.4, 6). Scholars generally recognize “Ephraim” as a reference to the Northern Kingdom, 23 since they constituted the largest and most dominant 24 of the northern

19 Another instance occurs in Jer 5:24-25, portraying people who neither fear God nor do what he says. .s. BHS ), implying the Israelites somehow failed to understand God in some way) ” הבין לב “ Certain Mss read 20 This interpretation mollifies the verse’s impact, suggesting they were not wholly responsible for rebelling, since they did not understand their responsibilities towards God. Such an idea of “innocence through ignorance”, however, is foreign to the remainder of the psalm. ... וְהָכִ֙ ינוּ לְבַבְכֶ֤ ם “ The phrase here raises the possibility of the verses dependence on 1Sam 7, where v.3 reads 21 .Associations with 1Sam also appear later in the psalm .” אֶ ל־יְהוָה֙ ו8ְִבְדֻ ֣ הוּ לְבַדּ֔ וֹ ... meaning “with” is extremely rare in late books of the Bible, thus its usage here could indicate a את The use of 22 relatively early date. See the section on dating for a comprehensive look at the remaining evidence. 23 This is by far the most popular understanding that finds support from scholars such as Campbell (1979:60) and Dahood (1970:232). 24 See for example Tate (1990:289).

Page <32> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

וַיֻּגַּ֗ ד לְבֵ ֤ ית דָּ וִד֙ “ ,tribes. Numerous locations in biblical literature support such a view, e.g., Is 7:2

s. also Jer 31:9 and Ezek 37:16). Notwithstanding the dominant) ” לֵ אמֹ֔ ר נָ ֥חָ ֽ ה אֲרָ ֖ ם 8ַ ל־אֶפְרָ ֑יִם ... view, it is also possible to understand Ephraim here as simply denoting the individual tribe, that which descended from Joseph. 25 Contextually, this understanding presents itself as the best interpretation because it ties in well with v.67, which describes Ephraim’s rejection. ” נושקי רומי קשת “ Spawning an array of difficulties in its interpretation is the phrase because the first two words in this construct state fundamentally have the same meaning, is often viewed as a later explication to the נושקי ,bearing” or “carrying”. 26 Consequently“

bearing (arms)”. An example of this“ , רום verse because it constitutes a later equivalent of

וּמִ֙ ן־בִּנְיָמִ֔ ן גִּבּ֥ וֹר חַ ֖ יִל אֶ לְ יָדָ ֑ ע “ ,meaning occurs with regard to the sons of Benjamin in Chronicles

2Chr 17:17). 27 Notwithstanding this interpretation, the) ” ו8ְִמּ֛ וֹ נֹֽשְׁקֵ י־קֶ ֥שֶׁ ת וּמָגֵ ֖ ן מָ אתַ ֥ יִם אָ ֽלֶ ף׃ phrase’s grammatical structure is in fact acceptable, if a little tautological, and a comparable ,which has a similar context ,” ...מגֵ֔ ן וְ לוּדִ֕ ים תֹּפְשֵׂ ֖ י דֹּ֥רְ כֵ י קָ ֽשֶׁ ת׃ “ ,construction appears in Jer 46:9 depicting the warriors of Kush and Put as bearing and drawing the bow (Deut 33:19 also

Consequently, it is possibly to accept .(” ... וּשְׂ פוּנֵ ֖י טְמ֥ וּנֵ י חֽ וֹל׃ “ ,contains the same construction the whole phrase as it stands, viewing the repetition as a poetic device designed to create a degree of intensity, highlighting their ability with the bow. 28 Another problem appears in v.9, where the psalm reports that Ephraim turned back on

here describes a retreat in battle, it corresponds with the הפכו—(” ביום קרב “) a day of battle

,in Jos 7:8, when laments the Israelites’ defeat at Ai ” הפך ערף “ longer expression

With this understanding, an important .” ... מָ ה אֹמַ֔ ר אַ֠חֲרֵ י אֲשֶׁ֙ ר הָפַ ֧ F יִשְׂרָאֵ ֛ ל 8ֹ֖רֶ ף לִפְנֵ ֥י אֹיְבָ ֽ יו׃“

25 Genesis 48:13 recalls that he was Joseph’s younger son who received a greater blessing than his brother, Manasseh, just as Jacob, the younger son, obtained the blessing of the . suggests the idea of deception, leading one astray, saying one thing and רומי The very presence of the word 26 doing another (s. Gen 29:25, Jos 9:22, and Pr 26:19). Accepting the allusion in the similarities of the words introduces a decidedly negative slant to the actions of Ephraim. 27 See Zakovitch (1997:128). Similarly, the addition here may not stem from a purposeful editorial comment, but an accidental insertion from scribal interpretations made in the margins of certain Mss (s. Talmon [1960] for more on this phenomenon). וְהָיָ֖ ה בַּ יּ֣ וֹם הַה֑ וּא וְשָׁ ֽבַרְתִּי֙ אֶ ת־קֶ ֣ שֶׁ ת יִשְׂרָ אֵ֔ ל “ ,to Hos 1:5 ” רומי קשת “ Stern (1995:49) sees an allusion in the phrase 28 and 2:20. If this allusion indeed exists, then there would be strong justification to interpret ,” בּ8ְֵ֖ מֶ ק יִזְרְ 8ֶ ֽ אל׃ “Ephraim” as the Northern Kingdom.

Page <33> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 question remains, “Upon which day of battle were Ephraim forced to retreat?” If we understand “Ephraim” as a reference to the Northern Kingdom, then this could refer to a series of military defeats in the latter half of the eighth century that led to the conquest of Israel in 722 BCE. 29 Alternatively, some are of the opinion that it refers to an unrecorded battle in Israel’s history involving the tribe of Ephraim or the Northern Kingdom. 30 During this battle, the tribe of Ephraim, even though they were evidently fearsome warriors who were skilled with the bow, were defeated before their enemies. 31 Certainly within the context of the psalm, the battle in question is the alluded to in vv.60-64, against the Philistines when the Ark was lost. Perhaps the best solution offered to the mystery of the battle involving the as a simile ” נושקי רומי קשת “ Ephramites comes from Ibn Ezra. He suggests reading the phrase

has been omitted. 32 Thus the day of battle is simply part of a ”כ “ in which the particle metaphore. By reading it this way, we understand that Ephraim behaved like fearsome warriors who turned away from battle. This imagery metaphorically describes the way in which the tribe of Ephraim rebelled and turned away from God’s laws. Adopting this view ties in well with v.67, which also specifically references the tribe of Ephraim.

10 לֹ֣ א שָׁ֭מְ רוּ בְּרִ ֣ ית אֱ Nהִ ֑ ים וּ֜בְ תוֹרָת֗ וֹ מֵאֲ נ֥ וּ לָלֶ ֽכֶ ת׃

They never kept God’s covenant and in his instruction they refused to walk

The transgressions of Ephraim are further developed in v.10, which offers a theological often occurs with respect to obeying the ” שמר ברית “ rationale for their behavior. The phrase

וּשְׁ מַרְ תֶּ֗ ם אֶ ת־דִּ בְרֵ י֙ הַבְּרִ ֣ ית הַ זֹּ֔ את ו8ֲַשִׂ יתֶ ֖ ם “ ,laws God instituted at Sinai, as Deut 29:8 illustrates

A negative example of this phrase, similar to our context, appears concerning .” אֹתָ ֑ ם ...

29 See Clifford (1981:132) for more on this view. 30 Numerous commentators further suggest, with good reason, that the battle being referred to here is that recorded in 1Sam 4, when the Ark of the Lord was captured; s. Campbell (1979:60f.), Weiser (1965:540), Zakovitch (1997:129), and Terrien (2003:566). This account, however, does not single out Ephraim. 31 Another tradition appears in the Tgs., and is mentioned by a number of medieval commentators (such as Ibn Ezra, , and RaDaK). In this account, the tribe of Ephraim left Egypt thirty years too early to begin the conquest of Canaan. As a result of their premature actions that contravened God’s command, they suffered a וּבְנֵ֥ י אֶפְרַ ֖ יִם שׁוּתָ ֑ לַ ח וּבֶ ֤ רֶ ד “ ,.defeated in battle (s. Cohen [2003:22f.]). This tradition is loosely based on 1Chr 7:20f בְּ נוֹ֙ וְתַ ֣ חַ ת בְּנ֔ וֹ וְאֶ ל8ְָדָ ֥ ה בְ נ֖ וֹ וְתַ ֥ חַ ת בְּ נֽ וֹ׃ וְזָבָ ֥ ד בְּ נ֛ וֹ וְ שׁוּתֶ ֥ לַ ח בְּ נ֖ וֹ ו8ְֵ֣ זֶ ר וְאֶ ל8ְָ ֑ ד וַהֲרָ ג֗ וּם אַ נְשֵׁ י־גַת֙ הַ נּוֹלָדִ ֣ ים בָּאָ֔ רֶ ץ כִּ֣ י יָרְ ד֔ וּ לָ קַ ֖ חַ ת Hoffman posits that the verse relates to an event closer to the psalmist’s era involving one of the .” אֶ ת־מִקְנֵ יהֶ ֽ ם׃ battles between the Northern and Southern Kingdoms just after they divided (1983:101). 32 See Cohen (2003:22f.); and for a similar example of an unmarked simile, see Job 20:17.

Page <34> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

” וַ יֹּ֙ אמֶ ר יְהוָ֜ ה לִשְׁ Nמֹ֗ ה י8ַַ֚ ן אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר הָ ֽ יְתָ ה־זֹּ֣את 8ִמָּ֔ F וְ לֹ֤ א שָׁמַ֙רְ תָּ֙ בְּרִ יתִ ֣ י וְחֻ קֹּתַ֔ י ... “ ,Solomon’s disobedience

(1Ki 11:11). The psalmist levels this same charge against Ephraim; they failed to keep the ordinances mentioned in vv.5, 7. The emphasis on failing to obey YHWH’s covenant לא שמרו : ברית :: ) stipulations is emphasized by the verses’ semantic chiastic structure

The identification of the Torah in this verse can be ascertained from its .( בתורתו : מאנו ללכת

תורה שם “ ,appearance in v.5, which relates it to the Torah 33 that God himself gave to Israel

which ,” מאנו ללכת “ is the phrase ” לא שמרו “ Corresponding to the opening words .” בישראל intensifies the severity of their actions. Ephraim did not disobey through forgetfulness or any mistake in understanding; rather, they deliberately and purposefully refused to obey. The

כִּ ֛ י אִ ם־מָאֵ ֥ ן אַתָּ ֖ ה לְשַׁלֵּ ֣\ַ “ ,nuance of consciously disobeying is apparent from Exodus 10:4

,describing Pharaoh’s stubborn refusal to release the Israelites. Genesis 37:35 ,” אֶ ת־8ַמִּ ֑ י ...

similarly depicts an instance in which Jacob ,” וַיָּקֻ מוּ֩ כָ ל־בָּנָ֙ יו וְכָ ל־בְּ נֹתָ֜ יו לְנַחֲמ֗ וֹ וַיְמָאֵן֙ לְהִתְ נַחֵ֔ ם…“ consciously refuses comfort for the loss of his son.

11 וַ יִּשְׁ כְּח֥ וּ 8ֲלִ ילוֹתָ ֑ יו וְ֜נִפְלְ אוֹתָ֗ יו אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר הֶרְאָ ֽ ם׃

And they forgot his works and the magnificent deeds that he showed them

The list of accusations against Ephraim continues in v.11; in addition to disobeying his laws, they forget his deeds—failed to respond correctly to all he did for them. The opening words here draw our attention to v.7, initiating a comparison between the ideal set out by the psalmist and the rebellious Ephraimites. In the ideal scenario, people pass on the traditions of

.which leads to faithfulness ,” ... וְ לֹ֣ א יִ֭שְׁ כְּ חוּ מַ 8ַֽלְלֵ י־אֵ ֑ ל ... “ , ,God, and do not forget his work

which leads to ,” וַיִּשְׁ כְּח֥ וּ 8ֲלִ ילוֹתָ ֑ יו “ ,Contrasting this situation, Ephraim forget his acts

here in a historiographic context represents a sure תורה According to Kraus (1988b:126) the appearance of 33 sign of Deuteronomic influence. Additionally, Campbell (1979:52) argues that a Deuteronomistic editor reworked the whole of the verse. Though the appearance of such Deuteronomic terms is not critically important for the close reading, their relevance increases with respect to dating the psalm. Weinfeld (1972:334) further .is a recognized Deuteronomic formula ” ללכת בתורת יהוה “ notes that the phrase

Page <35> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 unfaithfulness. Though no explicit reference appears, the plagues in Egypt are probably being in the context of Exodus psalms frequently refers to them. 34 נפלאות alluded to here since

12 נֶ ֣ גֶ ד אֲ֭ ָ בוֹתם 8ָ ֣שָׂ ה פֶ ֑לֶ א בְּאֶ ֖רֶ ץ מִצְרַ ֣יִם שְׂדֵ ה־צ8ַֹֽ ן׃

Before their fathers he did wonders in the land of Egypt in the region of Zoan

A change in focus begins in this verse as the psalm moves from the Ephraimites transgressions to those of their forefathers. The verse records how YHWH had performed wonderful acts in the presence of their forefathers, and it was these same acts that the ”that which is conspicuous or “in the sight of , נגד Ephraimites had forgotten. The preposition

in v.11, both emphasize that the rebellious ראה s. Ps 88:2), corresponds with the hifil of)

possesses a plural פלא forefathers 35 witnessed YHWH’s works firsthand. The singular noun

יְהוָ ֤ה אֱ ַי֙ Nה אַתָּ֔ ה אֲרֽ וֹמִמBְ֙ אוֹדֶ ֣ה שִׁמBְ֔ כִּ֥ י 8ָשִׂ ֖ יתָ “ ,meaning, as attested in passages such as Is 25:1

Like its 36 .” ( אַ זְכִּ יר ) [ אֶ זְכּ֥ וֹר ] מַ 8ַֽלְלֵ י־יָ ֑הּ כִּֽ י־אֶ זְכְּרָ ֖ ה מִקֶּ ֣דֶ ם פִּלְאֶ ֽ B׃“ ,and Psalm 77:12 ,” פֶּ ֑לֶ א ...

it too alludes to YHWH’s acts of judgment in , נפלאות ,counterpart in the previous verse redeeming Israel from the Egyptians (s. Ps 88:13), and creates a degree of continuity. Its

נפלאותיו : עשה :: ) .appearance additionally contributes towards a chiastic relationship with v.4

Verse 12 provides additional detail to God’s acts of deliverance by specifying the .( עשה : פלא location in which they occurred: the land of Egypt. The psalm continues to define the location in which the wonders took place by mentioning the region of Zoan, a term corresponding with Egypt. 37

34 See v.4. 35 The Tgs., followed by Rashi, suggest that the reference to the fathers applies to the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; s. Cohen (2003:24). 36 JM §135 a-c further enumerates the concept of a plurality expressed by the collective singular. 37 According to Dahood (1970:240), Zoan (Greek Tanis ) was the name of Egypt’s capital at the time of the Exodus; additionally, Lauha (1945:66) suggests the psalmist refers to a tradition in which Zoan was the residence of Pharaoh. This location, however, never appears in the Torah, or anywhere else in the Bible, as the site of the signs and wonders God performed for Israel—though Gen 47:11 describes Egypt as the land of Ramses. Consequently, it would appear that the psalmist is privy to an older tradition no longer available to us.

Page <36> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

13 ָ בּ֣קַ ע יָ֭ם וַיַּ 8ֲֽבִ ירֵ ֑ ם וַ ֽ יַּצֶּ ב־מַ ֥ יִם כְּ מוֹ־נֵ ֽד׃

He split the sea and brought them through and he stood the water up like a heap

Though a few faint allusions to the plagues have appeared thus far, no specific details are supplied at this point. Instead, the psalm recalls events occurring at the Sea of Reeds. Because the sea in , בקע ,it appears immediately after v.12, the miracle depicted in v.13—God splitting order to bring his people through—is associated with one of the wonders YHWH performed here alludes to the splitting of the Reed Sea בקע ,before the eyes of the forefathers. Primarily

but additionally ,”וְאַתָּ֞ ה הָרֵ ֣ ם אֶ ֽ ת־מַטּBְ֗ וּנְטֵ ֧ ה אֶ ת־יָדְ B֛ 8ַ ל־ הַ יָּ ֖ם וּבְק8ֵָ ֑הוּ... “ ,as recorded in Ex 14:16

בְּ֭דַ 8ְ תּוֹ תְּ הוֹמ֣ וֹת “ ,evokes images of God expressing his dominance over the waters of Creation

Pr 3:20). Unlike the aforementioned quote from Exodus, the psalm) ” נִבְ קָ ֑ עוּ וּ֜שְׁחָקִ֗ ים יִרְ 8ֲ פוּ־טָ ֽ ל׃ fails to recall the intermediary Moses in its rendition of events; the psalmist’s priority is to portray a God who alone works wonders for his people. 38 His direct action is also apparent in .lucidly indicating that he brought them through the waters , עבר the causative hifil of

וּבְר֤ וּ\ַ אַפֶּ֙ יB֙ נֶ 8ֶ֣רְ מוּ מַ֔ יִם נִצְּב֥ וּ “ ,The second colon reminds us of events recorded in Ex 15:8

in hifil , as opposed to qal in נצב however, the psalm casts , עבר Like the root .” כְ מוֹ־נֵ ֖ד נֹזְלִ ֑ים...

Exodus, further highlighting the psalmist’s creativity and YHWH’s domination over the ... מֵ ֤ י הַ יַּרְדֵּן֙ יִכָּ ֣רֵ ת֔ וּן הַמַּ ֥ יִם הַ יֹּרְדִ ֖ ים “ ,waters: he caused them to stand up in a heap. 39 Josh 3:13

also describes the splitting of the Jordan in similar terms. In addition ,” מִלְמָ 8ְ֑לָ ה וְי8ַַמְד֖ וּ נֵ ֥ד אֶחָ ֽ ד׃ to recording the sea splitting, the second colon echoes God’s dominance over Creation. Psalm uses similar language in portraying his power over ,” כֹּנֵ ֣ס כַּ֭נֵּ ד מֵ ֣ י הַ יָּ ֑ם נֹתֵ ֖ ן בְּ אֹצָר֣ וֹת תְּ הוֹמֽ וֹת׃ “ ,33:7 the sea. For the psalmist, it would thus appear that the most critical event (at this point) that transpired at the Sea of Reeds was its division, rather than the destruction of the Egyptians, which occurred at the same time and is attested in other Exodus psalms (s. Pss 106:11 and 136:15).

38 Unfortunately, the Tgs. addition, “with the their teacher”, though explanatory, ruins the psalmist’s emphasis on YHWH’s unique works. 39 See :11 for this meaning, where it describes a heap of rubbish in this way. The Septuagint and Tgs. ,”skin for storing wine“ , נאד respectively, both of which suggest a Hebrew equivalent of זיק translate ασκον and or “bottle”. In this instance, however, the reading of MT is more than adequate.

Page <37> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

14 וַיַּנְחֵ ֣ ם בּ8ֶָנָ ֣ ן יוֹמָ ֑ ם וְכָ ל־הַ֜ לַּ֗ יְלָ ה בְּא֣ וֹר אֵ ֽ שׁ׃

And he led them with a cloud daily and all night with the light of a fire

Chronological continuity is approximately 40 maintained with the events recorded in v.14, after

נחה bringing them through the sea, YHWH led Israel in the desert. Within the Torah, the verb primarily depicts divine guidance at an individual level, as with Abraham’s servant in Gen 24:27, 48; more importantly, it additionally refers to YHWH leading his people (s. Ex 13:17, 32:34, and Deut 32:12). Verse 14 also contains this nuance and alludes to events narrated in In the .” וַ ֽיהוָ֡ ה הֹלFֵ֩ לִפְנֵ יהֶ֙ ם יוֹמָ֜ ם בּ8ְַמּ֤ וּד 8ָנָן֙ לַנְ חֹתָ ֣ ם הַדֶּ֔רֶ F וְלַ ֛יְלָ ה בּ8ְַמּ֥ וּד אֵ ֖ שׁ לְהָאִ ֣ יר לָהֶ ֑ ם...“ Ex 13:21, 41 context of the psalm, the verse expresses God’s benevolence, revealing his love and care to his people. Accentuating the consistent nature of his benevolence towards his people is the merismus “day” and “night”, which is to say constantly (s. also Ps 42:4).

15 יְבַקַּ ֣ ע צֻ֭רִ ים בַּמִּדְבָּ ֑ר וַ֜יַּ֗שְׁ קְ כִּתְ הֹמ֥ וֹת רַבָּ ֽ ה׃

He split the rocks in the desert and watered them 42 abundantly 43 with springs

Following the Torah account, with respect to order, the psalm now records an instance in never appears בקע which God provided water in the desert for the Israelites to drink. The verb in the Torah as a description of either Moses or God splitting a rock to provide the Israelites with water. The psalmist’s word choice here was probably influenced by his selection of the

The repetition .” בָּ ֣קַ ע יָ֭ם וַיַּ 8ֲֽבִ ירֵ ֑ ם... “ ,same word in v.13 for portraying the splitting of the sea reveals YHWH’s ability both to dry up the sea and conversely to saturate the desert with 45, צרים ,water. The durative yiqtol here, 44 together with the piel stem and multiple objects

40 Strictly speaking, the cloud first appears before the sea is split in Ex 13:22. echoes the same ,” וּב8ְַמּ֣ וּד ן8ָ נָ֔ הִ נְ חִ יתָ ֖ ם יוֹמָ ֑ ם וּב8ְַמּ֥ וּד אֵשׁ֙ לַ֔ יְלָ ה לְהָאִ ֣ יר לָהֶ֔ ם אֶ ת־הַדֶּ ֖ רֶ F אֲשֶׁ ֥ ר יֵ ֽלְ כוּ־בָ ֽ הּ׃ “ ,Nehemiah 9:12 41 event. always has a direct object (e.g., Jer 9:14, Ps 36:9, and Pr 25:21), the להשקות Because the Hebrew use of 42 rendering of the Septuagint is preferred here, ἐποτισεν αὐτοὺς. should be interpreted רבה Here Keil and Delitzsch (1982:366) are probably correct when they assert that 43 .needs no further qualification תהמות adverbially, since 44 See JM §113 d-g.

Page <38> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 create a picture of God habitually breaking open rocks to provide water for Israel throughout their desert sojourn. Understanding the noun and verb forms in this way corresponds with the hyperbole found in the second colon. the second colon again highlights YHWH’s provision , וישק ,Reverting to a hifil stem

can delineate a shepherd’s care for his flocks in providing them וישק for his people. The term

,” ... ויִּגַּ ֣שׁ י8ֲַ קֹ֗ ב וַיָּ ֤ גֶ ל אֶ ת־הָאֶ֙בֶן֙ מ8ֵַ ל֙ פִּ ֣ י הַבְּאֵ֔ ר וַיַּ֕שְׁ קְ אֶ ת־ צֹ֥ אן לָבָ ֖ ן אֲחִ֥ י אִמּֽ וֹ׃ “ ,water, as in Gen 29:10 where Jacob waters the flock of ; additionally, Ex 2:16 speaks of ’s daughters וּלְ כֹהֵ ֥ ן מִדְ יָ ֖ ן שֶׁ ֣בַ ע בָּ נ֑ וֹת וַתָּ בֹ֣ אנָ ה וַתִּ דְ לֶ֗ נָ ה וַתְּמַ לֶּ֙אנָה֙ אֶ ת־הָ ֣רְ הָטִ֔ ים לְהַשְׁק֖ וֹת צֹ֥ אן “ ,watering their flocks

Its appearance here furthers the psalmist’s cause of picturing YHWH as Israel’s .” אֲבִ יהֶ ֽ ן׃ shepherd, especially throughout the desert period. The verb also alludes to Num 20:8, which is the only place in the ,” ... וְ הוֹצֵ אתָ֙ לָ הֶ ֥ ם מַ֙ יִם֙ מִ ן־הַסֶּ֔ לַ ע וְהִשְׁקִ יתָ ֥ אֶ ת־ה8ֵָדָ ֖ ה וְאֶ ת־בּ8ְִ ירָ ֽ ם׃“

Pentateuch where it appears in the context of God providing the Israelites with water. Unlike Numbers 20:8, however, neither Aaron nor Moses appear here. Notable also is that the Torah’s rendition of the water provision constitutes an act resulting from the people’s complaints, whereas here it is simply a gracious provision of God that the Israelites never requested. possesses a number of acceptable nuances in the context 46” בתהמות רבה “ The phrase

כִּ י יְהוָ ֣ה “ ,of this psalm. It could simply imply springs of water from the ground, or a rock

Deut 8:7; s. also Ezek) ” אֱ Nהֶ֔ יB מְבִֽ יאֲ B֖ אֶ ל־אֶ ֣רֶ ץ טוֹבָ ֑ה אֶ֚רֶ ץ נַ ֣חֲ לֵ י מָ֔ יִם 8ֲ יָנֹת֙ וּתְ הֹמֹ֔ ת יֹצְאִ֥ ים בַּבִּק8ְָ ֖ה וּבָהָ ֽ ר׃

31:4). Literally, this would suggest springs of water from the desert ground that provided the can additionally represent vast bodies of water such as the תהמות .Israelites water to drink

,Ps 148:7), or the primeval waters of Creation) ” הַ ֽלְל֣ וּ אֶ ת־יְ֭הוָ ה מִ ן־הָאָ ֑רֶ ץ תַּ֜ נִּ ינִ֗ ים וְכָ ל־תְּ הֹמֽ וֹת׃ “ ,sea

Gen 1:2). 47 A reference to such an expanse of) ” וְהָאָ֗רֶ ץ הָ יְתָ ֥ ה תֹ֙ הוּ֙ וָ בֹ֔ הוּ וְ חֹ֖שֶׁ F 8ַ ל־פְּנֵ ֣י תְה֑ וֹם ...“

45 The plural form implies multiple incidents, which suggests the possibility of the psalmist harmonizing the splitting of the rock recorded in Ex 17, the first year in the desert, with Num 20, the fortieth year in the desert. represents a singular צרים This would explain the durative yiqtol and piel stem. Dahood (1970:240) argues that form with an enclitic mem , even though no compelling reason exists to read it this way. Emerton (1996:321-38) questions the widespread assumption of enclitic mem , especially in instances where the original meaning of MT is reasonable. 46 Here I opted for the rendering offered by a number of Hebrew Mss, reading a beth instead of a kaph . This interchange is common with the transmission of graphically similar letters, see Tov (1992:248). 47 See also KB (vol. 4, 1690).

Page <39> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 water in this verse creates an instance of hyperbole, depicting the excessively abundant provision of water that YHWH supplied to the Israelites during their desert sojourn. Thirdly,

,could hint towards the Reed Sea that was split by God after Israel escaped from Egypt תהום

Ps 106:9, s. also Is 63:13). With this) ” וַיִּג8ְַ ֣ר בְּ יַם־ס֭ וּף וַ ֽ יֶּחֱרָ ֑ ב וַ יּוֹלִ יכֵ ֥ם בַּ֜תְּ הֹמ֗ וֹת כַּמִּדְבָּ ֽ ר׃“ understanding, the psalmist creates a further link to the sea crossing in v.13, previously the

. בקע psalm had repeated the stem

16 וַ יּוֹצִ ֣ א נוֹזְלִ ֣ים מִסָּ ֑לַ ע וַיּ֖וֹרֶ ד כַּ נְּהָר֣ וֹת מָ ֽ יִם׃

And he brought forth flowing water from a rock, and brought down rivers of water

Dwelling on the sentiment of the previous verse, the portrayal of the abundant water flow continues here, reflecting God’s generous provision to his people that was motivated by his mercy and love for them. In the context of the Exodus, one would normally expect the verb

to express Israel’s divine deliverance from Egypt (s. 105:43 and 136:11; in addition to 48 יצא

Exodus contexts outside of the psalms such as Deut 4:20, and 2Ki 11:12). Contrary to the expected portrayal, v.16 employs the root to depict the extraction of water from a rock. The יִשְׁלַ ֣ח דְּ בָר֣ וֹ וְיַמְסֵ ֑ ם יַשֵּׁ ֥ ב ר֜ וּח֗ וֹ “ ,frequently characterizes abundantly flowing waters נזל root

Ps 147:18; s. also Song 4:15). The image of water gushing from a rock produced by) ” יִזְּ לוּ־מָ ֽ יִם׃

וְ לֹ֣ א צָמְא֗ וּ בָּחֳרָ בוֹת֙ הֽ וֹלִ יכָ֔ ם מַ ֥יִם מִצּ֖ וּר הִזִּ ֣יל “ ,the psalmist here recalls the same image in Is 48:21

.” לָ ֑מוֹ וַיִּ֙בְקַע־צ֔ וּר וַיָּזֻ ֖בוּ מָ ֽ יִם׃

The second colon repeats the idea of the first, depicting streams of water flowing to position YHWH as the , ויורד , down from the rock. Yet again, the psalmist employs the hifil instigator of the flowing rivers. The notion of abundant water, and God’s control over it, demarks an מים overtly distinguishes the four verses of this section. In addition to the fact that

, תהום , ים :inclusion for the section, a variety of other words indicates the presence of water

.cloud”, which consists of water“ , ענן and even , נוזלים

48 This is a defective spelling of the hifil that Psalm 105:43 additionally adopts in a description of God bringing Israel out of Egypt (s. also 2Ki 11:12).

Page <40> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

17 וַ יּוֹסִ ֣ יפוּ 8֖ וֹד לַחֲ טֹא־ל֑ וֹ לַ ֽמְר֥ וֹת 8ֶ֜ לְ י֗וֹן בַּצִּיָּ ֽה׃

But they continued to sin against him, to rebel against Elyon in the desert

The following four verses catalog the Israelites’ response to YHWH’s abundantly gracious provision of water in the wilderness. As previously noted, the Israelites never requested this provision; according to the psalm’s version of events, YHWH recognized the need and graciously provided for it. The appropriate response to such a benevolent act was simply to trust God to supply all future needs, but this is not what happens. Instead, the Israelites proceed to rebel against him.

,can simply denote repetition, as in Ps 10:18 ” ויוסיפו עוד “ Even though the phrase

s. also Is 51:22), it is better understood here) ” לִשְׁ פֹּ֥ ט יָת֗ וֹם וָ֫ דָ ֥ F בַּ ל־יוֹסִ֥ יף 8֑ וֹד ל8ֲַ רֹ֥ ץ אֱ֜ נ֗ וֹשׁ מִ ן־הָאָ ֽרֶ ץ׃“

וַיַּחֲ ֤ Nם יוֹסֵף֙ חֲל֔ וֹם וַיַּגֵּ ֖ד לְאֶחָ ֑ יו וַ יּוֹסִ ֥ פוּ 8֖ וֹד “ ,as a phrase signifying intensification. In Genesis 37:5

.Joseph’s brothers hated him more intensely after he reported his dream to them ,” שְׂ נֹ֥ א אֹתֽ וֹ׃

Similarly, the forefathers here sinned more intensely against God. In light of his graciousness—in the provision of water that was recorded in the previous section—any rebellious behavior at this point reflects severe ingratitude and should thus be viewed as an

recalls the subject of this verse, the rebellious and למרות intensification of sin. The verb

.” ...דוד סורר ומרה דור... “ ,disobedient generation first mentioned in v.8

provides some clarification for the עליון In the second colon, the appearance of

and creates an instance of delayed identification. The presence , לו pronoun on the preposition

עליון .of this particular name for God possibly heightens the severity of Israel’s rebellion implies the “most high God”, which suggests the most high authority. Defying him thus desert”, recalls the“ 49, ציה constitutes the highest expression of rebellion. The poetic word

in v.15, 50 which records YHWH’s kindness in splitting the rock and מדבר semantic equivalent

.s) ”… הַ מּוֹלִ֙ יF אֹתָ֜ נוּ בַּמִּדְ בָּ֗ ר בְּ אֶ֙ רֶ ץ 8ֲרָבָ ֤ ה וְ שׁוּחָה֙ בְּאֶ֙ רֶ ץ֙ הצִיָּ֣ … “ ,This word only appears in poetic texts such as Jer 2:6 49 also Is 35:1, Zeph 2:13, and Job 30:3). ישֵׂ ֣ ם מִ֭ דְ בָּ ר לַ ֽאֲ גַ ם־מַ ֑ יִ ם “ ,As a parallel pair, these words appear together in numerous places such as Ps 107:35 50 .(also Is 41:18, and Hos 2:5) ” וְאֶ ֥ רֶ ץ צִ֜ יָּ֗ ה לְ מֹצָ֥ אֵ י מָ ֽ יִ ם׃

Page <41> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 providing water. This association heightens the contrast between the forefathers’ stubbornness and rebellion and YHWH’s mercy, and abundant provision.

18 ַ ויְנַ סּוּ־אֵ ֥ ל בִּלְבָבָ ֑ם לִֽשְׁאָ ל־אֹ֥כֶ ל לְנַפְשָׁ ֽ ם׃

They tested El in their hearts, requesting food for their appetites

Verse 18 continues from v.17, detailing the nature of the previously mentioned sin and rebellion. After receiving a miraculous supply of water, the people’s first response is to

recalls numerous instances in which the Israelites test נסה request food. In the Torah, the root

God. It appears in relation to the waters of Meribah in Ex 17:7, and Num 14:22 additionally employs the root to recall ten instances of the Israelites testing God in the desert. Typically, in וְזָכַרְתָּ ֣ “ ,biblical literature one tests another to find out that which is unseen. In Deut 8:2

אֶ ת־כָּ ל־הַדֶּ֗רֶ F אֲשֶׁ֙ ר הֹלִֽ יכBֲ֜ ָ יְהו֧ה אֱ Nהֶ ֛ יB זֶ ֛ה אַרְ בּ8ִָ֥ ים שָׁ נָ ֖ה בַּמִּדְבָּ ֑ר לְ ַ֙ מ8ַ ן 8ַ נֹּֽתְ B֜ לְנַסֹּֽתְ B֗ לָד8ַַ֜ ת אֶ ת־אֲשֶׁ ֧ ר בִּֽ לְבָבBְ֛

,God tests Israel to find out what is on their heart. Similarly ,” הֲתִשְׁ מֹ֥ ר ( מִצְ וֹתוֹ ) [ מִצְ וֹתָ יו ] אִ ם־לֹֽ א׃

to know what ,”…עזָב֖ וֹ הָ ֽאֱ Nהִ ֑ ים לְנַ֙ סּוֹת֔ וֹ לָדַ 8ַ֖ ת כָּ ל־בִּלְבָבֽ וֹ׃ “ ,he tests Hezekiah in 2Chr 32:31 wisdom is in his heart. 51 In the context of v.18, the Israelites test God because even though they have no real need of food, they seek to discover the extent of his abilities. The chiasmus

לבו : אל :: אל : ) between v.18 and v.8 creates an important association between the two verses

(Verse 18 presents a practical example of individuals not preparing their hearts (s. v.8 .( בלבבם and being unfaithful to YHWH. Israel tests YHWH, according to the second colon, by requesting food for their appetites. 52 The request in this context could be seen either as a polite entreaty, as in 2Sam

also Ex 11:2), or as an impatient demand. 53) ” ... וַיָּב ֹא֙ אֶ ל־בֵּ ית֔ וֹ וַיִּשְׁאַ֕ ל וַ יָּשִׂ֥ ימוּ ל֛ וֹ לֶ ֖חֶ ם וַ יֹּ אכַ ֽ ל׃ “ ,12:20

לִֽשְׁאָ ל־אֹ֥כֶ ל “ Either way, the request stems from ill-conceived motives. In employing the phrase

the psalm apparently combines two traditions: the request for manna together with ,” לְנַפְשָׁ ֽ ם

51 For more on the concept of “testing” in the Bible see Licht (1973). 52 The New Testament account of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness, a reflection of the Israelites’ wilderness experience, highlights the Israelites’ error in requesting food, (for more on the concept of reflection stories, s. Zakovitch [1995]). In light of Satan tempting Jesus to turn stones into bread to satiate his hunger, Jesus is faithful, and, unlike the Israelites, trusts in God to provide his needs (s. Matt 4:1-11). 53 Keil and Delitzsch (1982:367) asserts this position and it is well suited to the context (s. also Ps 106:15).

Page <42> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

refers to an “appetite” or נפש ,the request for meat. Within the present context of sustenance

.” כִּ י־הִ֭שְׂ ִ בּיZַ נֶ ֣פֶ שׁ שֹׁקֵ קָ ֑ ה וְנֶ ֥פֶ שׁ רְ 8ֵ֜בָ ה מִ לֵּ א־טֽ וֹב׃ “ ,hunger”, 54 a meaning well reflected in Ps 107:9“

do not appear together in the Torah traditions concerning a provision of שאל and נפש Though

וַיִּתֵּ ֣ ן לָ֭הֶ ם “ ,food in the desert, Psalm 106:15 utilizes them in its depiction of the same event

.” שֶׁאֱ לָתָ ֑ ם וַיְשַׁלַּ ֖ח רָ ז֣ וֹן בְּ נַפְשָׁ ֽ ם׃

19 וַ ֽ יְדַ בְּר֗ וּ בֵּ ֽ אN֫הִ֥ ים אָ֭מְ רוּ הֲ י֣וּכַ ל אֵ ֑ ל ל8ֲַ רֹ֥ F שֻׁ֜ לְחָ֗ ן בַּמִּדְבָּ ֽ ר׃

And they spoke against God saying, “Can El prepare a table in the desert”

From the wicked desires of their hearts, the Israelites now speak out against God (s. Job וַיְדַבֵּ ֣ר “ ,recalls Israel’s complaining for food in Num 21:5 ” וידברו באלהים “ The phrase .(19:18

ה8ָָ֗ ם בֵּ ֽ אNהִ ים֘ וּבְ מֹשֶׁ ה֒ לָמָ ֤ ה הֶ 8ֱֽלִ יתֻ֙ נוּ֙ מִמִּ צְרַ ֔ יִם לָמ֙ וּת בַּמִּדְבָּ ֑ר כִּ ֣ י אֵ ֥ ין לֶ֙חֶם֙ וְאֵ ֣ ין מַ֔ יִם וְנַפְשֵׁ ֣ נוּ קָ֔ צָ ה בַּלֶּ ֖חֶ ם

which appeared in the previous verse, reinforces the allusion , נפש The appearance of .” הַקְּ N קֵ ֽ ל׃ to Numbers. Moreover, Numbers reveals the sentiment of v.19 because in Numbers the Israelites do not have a pressing need for food since YHWH had already provided them with manna; they complain because they are tired of it and desire variety. are ,” ...הַטּ֥ וּ אָ֜ זְנְכֶ֗ ם לְ אִמְרֵ י־פִֽ י׃ “ ,The words of wisdom from the psalmist’s mouth in v.1 here contrasted with words testing YHWH’s ability. The Bible does not elsewhere record the exact phrase appearing in this quote of the Israelites, which leads to two possible conclusions: the psalmist is quoting from another source; he is putting into words his perception of the situation, thus interpreting the events. Of the two aforementioned possibilities, the latter is more probable since the psalmist in numerous other instances in the psalm interprets the people’s actions. Similar to the abundant provision of water that God had already provided for the people in the desert, the Israelites here request an abundant provision of food as a test for suggests a table prepared with a range of foods, a veritable ” לערך שלחן “ YHWH. The phrase

it helps delineate ,” תַּ 8ֲ רֹ֬ F לְפָנַ֙ י׀ שֻׁ לְחָ֗ ן נֶ ֥ גֶ ד צֹרְרָ ֑ י דִּשַּׁ ֖נְתָּ בַשֶּׁ ֥מֶ ן רֹ֜ אשִׁ֗ י כּוֹסִ֥ י רְ וָיָ ֽה׃ “ ,feast. In Psalm 23:5

.in the first colon ,( לב ) ”Dahood (1970:240) prefers rendering it “gullet”, as a parallel to “heart 54

Page <43> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

טָבְחָ ֣ ה טִ֭בְחָ הּ מָסְכָ ֣ה “ ,a picture of abundance. This idea of a feast is similarly apparent in Pr 9:2

.(a description of a banquet prepared by wisdom (s. also Ezekiel 23:41 ,” יֵינָ ֑הּ אַ֜ ֗ ף 8ָ ֽרְ כָ ֥ ה שֻׁ לְחָ נָ ֽהּ׃

It is nothing less than an abundant (and varied) provision that the Israelites request in the barren landscape of the desert. The same location in which YHWH miraculously split a rock

v.15), is now the site in which the people test) ” יבקע צרים במדבר “ ,to provide Israel with water

The placement of .” הי֣ וּכַ ל אֵ ֑ ל ל8ֲַ רֹ֥ F שֻׁ֜ לְחָ֗ ן בַּמִּדְבָּ ֽ ר׃ “ ,him to see if he can prepare a feast for them

. ידברו at the end of the verse creates an inclusion via a play on words with מדבר

20 הֵ ֤ ן הִכָּ ה־צ֙ וּר׀ וַיָּז֣וּבוּ מַ יִם֘ וּנְחָלִ ֪ ים יִ֫ שְׁ טֹ֥ פוּ הֲ גַ ם־לֶ֭חֶ ם י֣וּכַ ל תֵּ ֑ ת אִ ם־יָכִ ֖ ין שְׁאֵ ֣ ר ל8ְַמּֽ וֹ׃

Behold, he struck a rock and out flowed water, and wadis were flooded; however, is he able to give bread, can he prepare meat for his people?

is a הן , הנה Verse 20 continues the direct quotation that began in v.19. In a similar way to particle that calls specific attention to that which follows: an irreverent request. 55 Though refer back to v.15 when God ” הכה צור “ the words , נכה ,another root appears here for strike struck the rock causing water to flow from it. 56 An abundant flow of water is represented by

both repeating the same idea, and the repetition of this idea ;” יזובו מים “ and ” נחלים ישטפו“ recalls the repetition in vv.13-16 emphasizing the same abundance. In placing these words in the mouths of the Israelites, the psalmist confirms that they were aware of his generous provision. In spite of this, they still responded ungratefully by testing YHWH further. Based on what they had seen, with respect to the provision of water in the desert, the Israelites now test God by questioning if he can provide a selection of food also. Linking the Verse 20, however, expands . יוכל request for food in v.19 with the present demand is the verb the original request, clarifying that the desire is not just for food, but specifically for bread,

relates this testing of YHWH’s ability to the הכין The repetition of . שאר ,and meat , לחם

... דּוֹר֘ סוֹרֵ ֪ ר וּמֹ֫רֶ ֥ ה דּ֭ וֹר “ ,stubborn and rebellious generation that did not prepare their hearts

55 See BDB 243. 56 Just like v.15, the psalmist replaces Moses here with God in his rendition of events. Exodus 17:6 evidently .” ... וְהִכִּ֣ יתָ בַצּ֗ וּר וְיָצְא֥ וּ מִמֶּ ֛ נּוּ מַ ֖ יִ ם וְשָׁתָ ֣ ה ה8ָָ ֑ ם ... “ ,portrays Moses as the one who strikes the rock

Page <44> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

the psalmist has adopted the relatively rare word , לחם v.8). As a parallel to) ” לֹא־הֵכִ ֣ ין לִבּ֑ וֹ ...

אם־אַחֶ ֖רֶ ת יִֽ קַּ ֽ ח־ל֑ וֹ שְׁאֵרָ ֛ הּ כְּ סוּתָ ֥ הּ “ ,which carries the similar meaning of “food” in Ex 21:10 , שאר

וַאֲשֶׁ ֣ ר אָ כְ לוּ֘ שְׁאֵ ֣ר 8ַמִּ י֒ וְ עוֹרָ ם֙ מ8ֲֵלֵ יהֶ ֣ ם הִפְשִׁ֔ יטוּ “ ,and “meat” in Mic 3:3 ,” וְ עֹנָתָ ֖ הּ לֹ֥ א יִגְרָ ֽ ע׃

.” וְאֶ ת־8ַצְ מֹֽתֵ יהֶ ֖ ם ...

21 לָכֵ ֤ן׀ שָׁמַ ֥ ע יְהוָ֗ ה וַ ֽ יִּתְ 8ַבָּ ֥ ר וְ֭אֵ שׁ נִשְּׂ קָ ֣ ה בְ י8ֲַ קֹ֑ ב וְגַ ם־ אַ֗ ֜ ף 8ָלָ ֥ ה בְ יִשְׂרָאֵ ֽ ל׃

Therefore, YHWH heard and was enraged, and fire was kindled against Jacob, and also anger was raised against Israel

Before the psalmist continues to recount God’s response to the Israelites’ request, he first inserts two verses enumerating God’s feelings and the attitude of the Israelites. YHWH is angered at their request because they did not fully trust in him to provide all their needs. Contrasting the ideal situation in which Israel hears what their fathers tell them and recount it v.3), God hears Israel’s complaints and becomes) ” אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר שָׁ֭מ8ְַ נוּ וַנֵּד8ֵָ ֑ם “ ,to their children

,only occurs in Deut 3:26 התעבר infuriated. With respect to the Exodus motif, the verb

In this context however, unlike the psalm, YHWH .” וַיִּתְ 8ַ ֵ֙ בּר יְהוָ ֥ה בִּי֙ לְמַ 8ַ֣נְכֶ֔ ם וְ לֹ֥ א שָׁמַ ֖ ע אֵלָ ֑י ...“ directs his anger against Moses and not the people. 57 As a final result of God’s anger being aroused in the first colon, a fire kindles against Jacob. may be understood figuratively or literally. It figuratively אש ,In the context of v.21

as it does ,” 8ַ ד־מָ ֣ ה יְ֭הוָ ה תִּסָּתֵ ֣ ר לָנֶ ֑צַ ח תִּ ב8ְַ ֖ ר כְּ מוֹ־אֵ ֣שׁ חֲמָתֶ ֽ B׃ “ ,represents God’s wrath in Ps 89:47 in Ezek 21:36. This sense of the word suits the context of vv.21-22 because it downplays any punitive actions, and instead dwells on the emotional buildup of God’s anger at this point. as a physical punishment leveled against the people for אש Alternatively, it is possible to read their words. Even though the psalmist obscures the initiator of this fire via the passive verb, the juxtaposition of the sentences strongly suggests that YHWH sent the fire as a , נשקה

57 At this point in the psalm, it is possible to note the psalmist’s apparent fondness for “seeing” and “hearing”. The speaker in v.1 calls on the listeners to hear the words of his instruction, the people hear the instruction and make them known in v.3, God shows them, literally makes them see , his deeds in v.11, and here God hears their complaint.

Page <45> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

וַיַּנְחֵ ֣ ם בּ8ֶָנָ ֣ ן יוֹמָ ֑ ם “ ,punishment against Israel. That which first served as an aid to them in v.14

as אש now transforms into a punishment. The literal understanding of ,” וְכָ ל־הַ֜ לַּ֗ יְלָ ה בְּא֣ וֹר אֵ ֽ שׁ׃

“fire” creates an allusion to Numbers 11:1, recalling how God responds to the people’s וַיְהִ ֤ י ה8ָָם֙ כְּמִתְ אֹ֣ נְנִ֔ ים רַ ֖ ע בְּאָ זְנֵ ֣י יְהוָ ֑ה וַיִּשְׁמַ ֤ ע יְהוָה֙ וַיִּ ֣חַ ר אַפּ֔ וֹ וַתִּ ב8ְַ ר־בָּם֙ אֵ ֣ שׁ יְהוָ֔ ה וַ תֹּ֖ אכַ ל “ ,complaints

a situation similar to the context in v.21. Unlike Numbers 11:1-3, Psalm 78 ,” בִּקְצֵ ֥ה הַ ֽמַּחֲ נֶ ֽה׃ directly links this event with the people’s request for meat. Parallel to fire being kindled against Jacob, the verse states that God’s anger rose up against Israel. The parallel phrases here create an instance of repetition that dwells on YHWH’s anger against his people. The where ,” וַיָּ ֤ קֶ ם 8ֵד֙ וּת׀ בְּֽ י8ֲַ קֹ֗ ב וְ תוֹרָ ה֘ שָׂ ֤ ם בְּ יִשְׂרָ ֫אֵ ֥ ל “ ,additionally recall v.5 ישראל and יעקב word pair

YHWH establishes his ordinances with them.

22 כִּ ֤ י ֣ ל ֹא הֶ֭אֱמִ ינוּ בֵּ אNהִ ֑ ים וְ לֹ֥ א בָ֜טְח֗ וּ בִּֽ ישׁוּ8ָתֽ וֹ׃

Because they were not loyal to God, and never trusted in his saving power

Here the psalmist interprets the people’s actions in vv.19f.: their request for food was based on a lack of trust in YHWH to save them. The people were not faithful to God, just as they are a direct link with אלהים With the repetition of .” ... וְ לֹא־נֶאֶמְנָ ֖ה אֶ ת־אֵ ֣ל רוּחֽ וֹ׃ “ ,described in v.8

v.19). The) ” וַ ֽ יְדַ בְּר֗ וּ בֵּ ֽ אN֫הִ֥ ים אָ֭מְ רוּ ... “ ,another verse enumerating the people’s sin is forged

אַ ל־תַּאֲמִ ֣ ינוּ בְרֵ Zַ֔ אַ ֽ ל־תִּבְטְח֖ וּ “ ,additionally appears in Micah 7:5 בטח and האמין parallel pair

.and further highlights the close correspondence between believing and trusting ,” בְּאַ לּ֑ וּף ...

This indictment against Israel for failing to trust God after he had performed many acts of ... וּבַדָּבָ ֖ ר הַ זֶּ ֑ה אֵ ֽ ינְכֶם֙ “ ,deliverance for them is often reflected in the Torah, such as Deut 1:32

God’s power) ישועה s. also Deut 9:23). 58 The only locations in which) ” מַאֲמִ ינִ֔ ם בַּ יהוָ ֖ה אֱ Nהֵ יכֶ ֽם׃ to deliver, s. 1Sam 2:1) occurs in relation to the Exodus motif are Ex 14:13, and 15:2, and both of these instances relate to the crossing of the Reed Sea. From this, one can assume that

58 In reciting this instance of the people failing to believe and trust in God after seeing his works of deliverance, the psalmist obscures the one positive incident in Exodus when Israel sees God’s hand at work, and at least for a ,Ex 14:31. Psalm 106:12 ,” ... וַיִּֽירְ א֥ וּ ה8ָָ ֖ ם אֶ ת־יְהוָ֑ ה וַיַּ ֽאֲמִ֙ ינוּ֙ בַּ ֽ יהוָ֔ ה וּבְ מֹשֶׁ ֖ ה 8ַבְדּֽ וֹ׃ “ ,short while trusts in their deliverer .echoes this statement of belief ,” וַיַּאֲמִ֥ ינוּ בִדְ בָרָ ֑ יו יָ֜ שִׁ֗ ירוּ תְּהִלָּתֽ וֹ׃“

Page <46> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 the psalmist has the deliverance at the Reed Sea in mind. After seeing YHWH split the sea, the Israelites should have had ample cause to trust in him for the provision of food. In Psalm 78, the splitting of the sea was an act performed without request; God saw the need and attended to his people. Similarly, there should have been no need to question God concerning food, since he had shown himself capable of meeting Israel’s needs without them asking.

23 וַ יְצַ ֣ו שְׁחָ קִ ֣ ים מִמָּ 8ַ֑ ל וְדַ לְתֵ ֖ י שָׁמַ ֣יִם פָּתָ ֽ ח׃

He commanded the clouds above and he opened the doors of heaven

The following seven verses once again highlight God’s longsuffering stance towards his people. In spite of his anger being aroused in the previous two verses, his response is now one of mercy towards his people. Instead of immediately punishing their acts, 59 he answers their request, exceeding their expectations, but does not give them what they deserve. In v.5 וַיָּ ֤ קֶ ם 8ֵד֙ וּת׀ “ ,YHWH commands ordinances to be transmitted from generation to generation

but here he commands elements ,” בְּֽ י8ֲַ קֹ֗ ב וְ תוֹרָ ה֘ שָׂ ֤ ם בְּ יִשְׂרָ ֫אֵ ֥ ל אֲ ֶ ֣ שׁר צִ֭וָּ ה אֶ ת־אֲ בוֹתֵ ֑ ינוּ לְ֜ הוֹדִ י8ָ֗ ם לִבְנֵ יהֶ ֽ ם׃

is a less common word for heavens than its counterpart in this שחקים .in Creation: the heavens

הר8ְִ ֤ יפוּ שָׁמַ֙ יִם֙ “ ,but the word pair is recognized elsewhere in biblical literature , שמים ,verse

Is 45:8). Similarly, the Bible is familiar with the notion of God) ” מִמַּ֔ 8ַ ל וּשְׁחָ קִ ֖ ים יִזְּ לוּ־צֶ ֑דֶ ק ... commanding elements in Creation to serve his purposes. In Job 36:32 he commands the and in Is 5:6 he orders the clouds to ,” 8ַ ל־כַּפַּ ֥יִם כִּסָּ ה־א֑ וֹר וַיְצַ ֖ו 8ָלֶ ֣יהָ בְמַפְגִּֽ יZַ ׃ “ ,lightning to strike withhold their rain (s. also Is 45:12 and Job 36:32). The psalm accentuates YHWH’s change from v.21. The latter verse records עלה from judgment to mercy via the repetition of the root the kindling of his anger, whereas here it expresses his goodness towards Israel, as he begins to act in their favor. As a parallel to the “heavens” in the first colon, the psalm now speaks of “the gates of a term absent from the Pentateuch that represents a poetic rendering 60,” דלתי השמים“ ,”heaven of events. The picture of heaven’s doors opening evokes an image of unlimited abundance,

59 Here we would assume that the “fire” mentioned in v.21 represents a metaphorical rising of anger. 60 Though it is unique in the Bible, this expression was known in Egyptian religion where it describes the sanctuary of large Egyptian temples; s. Wente (1992:408).

Page <47> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 with all of heaven’s resources flooding down to the realms of man. In Gen 7:11 a similar portrays the unlimited flows of water that barraged the earth during the ” ארבות שמים “ phrase great deluge. The same phrase also occurs in Mal 3:10 depicting the abundant blessing God was willing to bestow on the remnant of Israel if they were first willing to give to him. 61 The picture of abundance reflected here corresponds with the plentiful supply of water YHWH at the end of the verse the psalmist פתח gave to his people in vv.15f. In positioning the verb creates an instance of delayed identification: he begins by stating that God commanded the heavens, but it is only at the end of the verse that the nature of the command is revealed. 62

24 וַיַּמְטֵ֬ ר 8ֲלֵ יהֶ ֣ם מָ ֣ ן לֶאֱכֹ֑ ל וּדְ גַ ן־שָׁ֜מַ֗ יִם נָ ֣תַ ן לָ ֽ מוֹ׃

Then he rained on them manna to eat, the grain of heaven he gave them

As a result of the heavens opening, God rains down manna 63 for the Israelites to eat, answering part of Israel’s irreverent request in v.19. Verse 24 lucidly recalls the same event in Ex 16:4). In choosing the) ” וַ יֹּ֤אמֶ ר יְהוָה֙ אֶ ל־מֹשֶׁ֔ ה הִ נְנִ֙ י מַמְטִ֥ יר לָכֶ ֛ם לֶ ֖חֶ ם מִ ן־הַשָּׁמָ ֑יִם... “ ,the Torah

to rain”, the psalmist may also have had Num 11:9 in mind since this verse relates“ , מטר root

המטיר the verb ,” דלתי שמים “ to the manna as coming down with the dew. Like the phrase additionally suggests an abundant outpouring. Genesis describes Sodom and Gomorrah’s אכל judgment as fire and brimstone raining down from heaven. 64 Repetition of the stem

.” לשאל אכל לנפשם “ ,recalls v.18 when the Israelites originally requested food

The second colon continues to dwell on the idea of the food provided by God, and the “corn”, or “grain” of heaven. This term, unique in ,” דגן שמים “ further describes it as biblical literature, reflects both the manna’s shape, like a seed and thus compared with grain (Ex 16:31 and Num 11:7), and more importantly, its heavenly origin. On one hand, “heaven”

... וַ יֹּאמַ ר֒ הִנֵּ֣ ה יְהוָ֗ ה עֹשֶׂ ֤ ה אֲרֻ בּוֹת֙ בַּשָּׁמַ֔ יִ ם הֲ יִהְיֶ֖ ה “ ,With respect to food, the same phrase also appears in 2Ki 7:2 61 which envisages a hypothetical situation whereby even an unlimited supply of food from heaven would ,” הַדָּבָ ֣ ר ... fail to quell the effects of a famine. 62 Poetically, an instance of syntactic chiasmus also exists, verb : object :: object : verb, that serves to open this stanza centering on God’s provision. 63 Outside of the Torah, only Jos 5:12 and Neh 9:20 recall the name of this heavenly food. י8ֲַ רֹ֤ ף “ ,Deuteronomy 32:2 also adopts this verb to depict something other than water raining down from heaven 64 .” כַּמָּטָר֙ לִקְחִ֔ י תִּ זַּ֥ ל כַּטַּ ֖ ל אִמְרָתִ ֑ י ...

Page <48> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 could simply refer to the firmament ever the earth, whose opening permitted water to fall to the earth. Understanding it this way resonates with the sentiment in Ex 16:13-14 and Num 11:9 that depict the manna falling with the dew. On the other hand, “heaven” also relates to the extreme abode of YHWH. 65 Understanding it like this emphasizes the divine origins of the sustenance YHWH provided. These divine origins are further emphasized if we understand the term heaven as referring to the dwellers of heaven, as the following verse suggests. 66 By the people heavenly sustenance at this point, the psalmist , נתן ,explicating that God had given

in ,” הֲ גַ ם־לֶ֭חֶ ם י֣ וּכַ ל תֵּ ֑ ת אִ ם־יָכִ ֖ ין שְׁאֵ ֣ר ל8ְַמּֽ וֹ׃ “ ,again echoes the fulfillment of the request in v.20 spite of their testing him. 67

25 לֶ ֣חֶ ם אַ֭ ִ בּירִ ים אָ ֣כַ ל אִ ֑ ישׁ צֵ ידָ֬ ה שָׁלַ ֖ח לָהֶ ֣ם לָ שֹֽׂ בַ ע׃

The bread of angels each man ate, and he sent them provision for satisfaction

The account of God’s gracious provision continues as the psalmist once again dwells and expands upon God’s profuse generosity towards his people. 68 The people’s request for bread is explicitly fulfilled here, a situation emphasized by the ,”...הֲ גַ ם־ לֶ֭חֶ ם י֣וּכַ ל תֵּ ֑ ת... “ ,in v.20

,Verse 25 further explicates the nature of the food: not just ordinary bread . לחם repetition of but “the bread of the mighty”, or perhaps more accurately, “the bread of angels”. 69 Though ,(Job 24:22) ” וּמָשַׁ ֣ F אַבִּ ירִ ֣ ים בְּ כֹח֑ וֹ יָ֜ק֗ וּם וְֽ לֹא־יַאֲמִ֥ ין בַּ ֽחַ יִּֽין׃ “ ,usually refers to men of strength אבירים or the strength of bulls (s. Is 34:7 and Ps 22:13); here it is better understood as “angels” (s. Ps ... וּדְ גַ ן־שָׁ֜מַ֗ יִם “ ,since their dwelling is in heaven and that is where the bread originated (103:20

links this verse both with the previous one, which also אכל v.24). Repetition of) ” נָ ֣תַ ן לָ ֽמוֹ׃

65 See Reddish (1992). 66 See also Zakovitch (1997:139). .in v.20 ” לעמו “ constitutes a reminder of ” למו “ Here, it is possible to suggest that the form 67 68 See also the abundant picture of the giving of water in vv.15f. 69 In addition to the Septuagint, which translates it as αγγελων , “angels” (s. LSJ 7), a number of commentators support this position. Briggs (1969:185) claims the bread was, “…probably of the angels, conceived as having their food in this divine ambrosia”. Unfortunately, he furthers this notion suggesting that it serves as evidence for a late date because the word “ambrosia” represents a late Greek conception. Kraus (1988b:128) sees a potential reference to God here, under the influence of verses such as Gen 49:24, Is 1:24, and Ps 132:2; additionally, s. Terrien (2003), and Hacham (1981:48). The very notion of men eating the bread of angels here suggests the psalmist may have been quoting a more mythological tradition concerning the provision of bread in the wilderness (s. Zakovitch [1997:139], and also Cassuto [1973d] for more on the relationship between biblical and Canaanite literature).

Page <49> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

is best איש describes supernatural sustenance, and the original request in v.18. The word understood distributively, emphasizing that each man, i.e. everyone, 70 received from YHWH’s supernatural storehouse. The second colon informs the reader that God’s provision was more than enough to often simply means to satisfy (s. Pr 13:25 and Ruth שבע meet the Israelites’ needs. Though

2:18), it may also have the nuance of “abundance”, i.e. more than enough for one’s needs. Genesis 41 speaks of seven years of abundant crops that exceeded the Egyptians’ requirements, to the point that they could collect it into storehouses. Proverbs 30:22 also bears With respect to God’s provision in the .” תַּ ֽחַ ת־8ֶ֭בֶ ד כִּ ֣י יִמְ ל֑ וֹF וְ֜נָבָ֗ ל כִּ ֣ י יִֽשְׂבַּ ֽ ע־לָ ֽחֶ ם׃ “ ,this nuance

וַ יֹּ֣אמֶ ר מֹשֶׁ֗ ה בְּתֵ ֣ ת “ ,wilderness, Israel’s satisfaction is only noted once in the Torah, Ex 16:8

.and this in relation to bread and meat ,” יְהוָה֩ לָכֶ֙ ם בּ8ֶָ֜רֶ ב בָּשָׂ ֣ ר לֶאֱכֹ֗ ל וְלֶ ֤חֶ ם בַּ בֹּ֙קֶ ר֙ לִשְׂבּZַֹ֔ ...

26 יַסַּ ֣ ע קָ֭דִ ים בַּשָּׁמָ ֑יִם וַיְנַהֵ ֖ ג בּ8ְֻ זּ֣וֹ תֵ ימָ ֽ ן׃

He brought out an east wind from heaven and led with his strength a south wind

The picture created in v.26 is that of YHWH mustering his agents, the winds, before performing another miraculous act on behalf of his people. After sending the Israelites “angels’ food”, God continues his divine activity for their satisfaction: he brings out an east וְר֜ וּ\ַ נָסַ ֣ ע׀ “ ,reflects the same incident in Numbers 11:31 נסע wind from 71 heaven. The root

Unlike the Numbers quote, however, Psalm 78 recasts the verb .” מֵאֵ ֣ ת יְהוָ֗ה וַיָּ ֣ גָ ז שַׂ לְוִ ים֘ מִ ן־הַ יָּם֒ ...

in hifil , an alteration directly attributing the event to God. Additionally, the psalm adds נסע the direction from which the wind came, east. Though an east wind can strictly be understood as a natural occurrence of wind from a particular direction (s. Gen 41:6 and Ezek 17:10), it ... וַיּ֣וֹלֶ F יְהוָ ֣ה׀ “ ,may also depict an agent of YHWH executing his commands. Exodus 14:21

;suggests it plays a role in the Israelites’ deliverance at the Reed Sea ,” אֶ ת־הַ֠ יָּם בְּר֙ וּ\ַ קָדִ ֤ ים 8ַ זָּה֙ ...

.appears in Amos 4:3 and Gen 47:20; s. also JM 147 d איש An example of this use of 70 71 Here I have sided with the Septuagint’s interpretation, εξ ουρανου (=from heaven), for an improved represents a known phenomenon (s. Tov מ and ב contextual match. The graphical interchange between but still reads it as “from” since this translational possibility ב Dahood (1970:242) preserves the .([1992:284) exists in Ugaritic.

Page <50> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

... וַ ֽיהוָ֗ ה נִהַ ֤ ג ר֥ וּ\ַ קָדִ ים֙ “ ,similarly, it is called upon to bring the plague of locust in Ex 10:13

The heavenly associations continue in this verse with its depiction of the wind’s .” בָּאָ֔רֶ ץ ...

... וְדַ לְתֵ ֖ י שָׁמַ ֣יִם “ ,Previously, the doors of heaven were opened . משמים , origin from heaven

” ... וּדְ גַ ן־שָׁ֜מַ֗ יִם נָ ֣תַ ן לָ ֽ מוֹ׃ “ , v.23), in order to provide the Israelites with the grain of heaven) ” פָּתָ ֽ ח׃

(v.24). This association closely links the two instances of provision in the desert. The second colon primarily constitutes a parallel couplet repeating and emphasizing a south wind 72, ינהג ,he leads out , בעזו ,God’s activity in mustering the winds; by his strength

לֹ֤ א נְכַחֵ֙ ד׀ מִבְּנֵ יהֶ֗ ם לְד֥ וֹר “ ,the psalmist recalls v.4 , בעזו ,s. Song 4:16). In mentioning his strength)

creating a connection between the two verses that casts this ,” אַחֲ ר֗ וֹן מְ֭סַפְּרִ ים תְּהִ לּ֣ וֹת יְהוָ ֑ה ו8ֱֶ זוּז֥וֹ incident as a mighty act of God that should have been recounted from generation to generation. In v.26, the psalmist employs an instance of delayed identification: the result of God mustering his strength and resources remains hidden until v.27.

27 וַיַּמְטֵ֬ ר 8ֲלֵ יהֶ ֣ם כּ8ֶָפָ ֣ר שְׁאֵ ֑ ר וּֽכְח֥ וֹל יַ֜מִּ֗ ים 8֣ וֹף כָּנָ ֽ ף׃

Then he rained down upon them meat like dust, and winged birds like the sand of the sea

As a result of YHWH leading the wind, bread and meat rain down on the Israelites like dust. Just as God .” וַיַּמְטֵ֬ ר 8ֲלֵ יהֶ ֣ם מָ ֣ ן לֶאֱכֹ֑ ל... “ ,recalls the miracle of the manna in v.24 המטיר The verb poured down manna from heaven, so now he also provides his people with meat. The simile intensifies the image of abundant meat, signifying an uncountable multitude. God’s כעפר promise to multiply Abraham’s seed is portrayed in similar terms emphasizing an וְשַׂמְתִּ֥ י אֶ ֽ ת־זַרְ Bֲ8֖ כּ8ֲַפַ ֣ר הָאָ ֑רֶ ץ אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר׀ אִ ם־יוּכַ ֣ל אִ֗ ישׁ לִמְ נוֹת֙ אֶ ת־8ֲפַ ֣ר הָאָ֔רֶ ץ “ ,innumerable quantity

Gen 13:16; s. also 2Chr 1:9). By inference, just as the quantity of meat is) ” גַּ ֽם־זַרְ B ֲ8֖ יִמָּנֶ ֽה׃ immeasurable, so too is God’s abundant mercy towards his people. He meets their expectation In spite of the .” ...הֲ גַ ם־לֶ֭חֶ ם י֣וּכַ ל תֵּ ֑ ת אִ ם־ יָכִ ֖ ין שְׁאֵ ֣ר ל8ְַמּֽ וֹ׃ “ ,that was first enumerated in v.20 rebellion they displayed in their request, he is faithful and merciful in his provision.

72 Though the object of this verb is not “his people”, it creates another reminder of the “God as shepherd” motif, which echoes throughout this psalm.

Page <51> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

With .” כחול ימים “ The second colon re-emphasizes the abundance with the phrase

וַיִּצְ בֹּ֙ ר יוֹסֵ ֥ ף בָּ ֛ר כְּח֥ וֹל הַ יָּ ֖ם “ ,respect to food, Gen 41:49 invokes a similar picture of amplitude

in which Joseph amasses grain like the sand of the ,” הַרְבֵּ ֣ה ְ מאֹ֑ ד 8ַ ֛ד כִּ י־חָדַ ֥ ל לִסְ פֹּ֖ ר כִּ י־אֵ ֥ ין מִסְפָּ ֽ ר׃

winged“) ” עוף כנף “ ,is absent from our text שלו seashore. Even though the specific word bird” 73 ) undoubtedly refers to the quail sent to the Israelites during their desert sojourn. Such an addition may simply stem from a difference in vorlage, but more likely reflects the

.” כעפר… עוף כנף “ ,psalmist’s poetic freedom in creating a degree of alliteration

28 וַ֭יַּפֵּ ל בְּ קֶ ֣רֶ ב מַחֲ נֵ ֑הוּ סָ֜בִ֗ יב לְמִשְׁ כְּ נֹתָ ֽ יו׃

And he made it fall in the midst of his camp and around his dwelling

The description of YHWH’s mercy in the provision of meat for the Israelites continues in this of the camp, suggesting an aspect of , בקרב ,verse. YHWH causes the birds to fall in the midst kindness since the Israelites hardly had to exert themselves to gather it. The falling of the וְר֜ וּ\ַ נָסַ ֣ ע׀ “ ,of the camp reflects the same tradition as Numbers 11:31 ( בקרב ) birds in the midst

God’s benevolence towards Israel is further .” מֵאֵ ֣ ת יְהוָ֗ ה וַ ָ יּ֣ גָ ז שַׂ לְוִ ים֘ מִ ן־הַ יָּם֒ וַיִּטֹּ֙ שׁ 8ַ ל־הַ ֽמַּחֲ נֶ֜ ה ... expressed in the psalm’s portrayal of their encampment. Unlike the Torah, the psalmist refers to the camp of the Israelites as “his camp”, i.e. God’s camp. This indication of ownership suggests a close relationship between Israel and God. create a merismus, indicating the totality of the provision of בקרב and סביב Together meat; it fell both inside and outside the encampment. The winged birds falling around the ... יָּ ֣ גָ ז שַׂ לְוִ ים֘ מִ ן־הַ יָּם֒ “ ,camp’s outskirts also reflects the aforementioned record in Num 11:31

the , מחנה As a word pair for 74 .” וַיִּטֹּ֙ שׁ 8ַ ל־הַ ֽמַּחֲ נֶ֜ ה כְּדֶ ֧רֶ F י֣וֹם כֹּ֗ ה וּכְדֶ ֤רֶ F יוֹם֙ כֹּ֔ ה סְבִ יב֖ וֹת הַ ֽמַּחֲ נֶ ֑ה...

dwelling place”, 75 (s. Num 24:5, Jer 51:30) to depict the Israelite“ , משכנות psalmist employs

mentioned in v.12: even though the birds had wings, they did not fly from פלא For RaDaK, this is one of the 73 the Israelites; s. Cohen (2003:27). 74 Zakovitch (1997:41) posits that there could be an effort here to harmonize the two quail traditions of Numbers and Ex 16:13. 75 The plural form here has a singular meaning, a phenomenon indicative of the psalm’s northern origins; s. Rendsburg (1990:78).

Page <52> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 camp. Though it is absent from any of the Torah accounts, its inclusion here suggests an instance of poetic improvisation.

29 וַ יֹּאכְל֣ וּ וַיִּשְׂ בּ8ְ֣ וּ מְ אֹ֑ ד וְ֜תַ ֽאֲ וָתָ֗ ם יָבִ֥ א לָהֶ ֽ ם׃

They ate, and were very satisfied, because 76 he brought 77 them their desires

לֶ ֣חֶ ם אַ֭בִּ ירִ ים אָ ֣ כַ ל “ ,The same results are achieved with the meat here as with the manna in v.25

the Israelites ate and were satisfied. Unlike v.25, however, v.29 :” אִ ֑ ישׁ צֵ ידָ֬ ה שָׁלַ ֖ח לָהֶ ֣ ם לָ שֹֽׂ בַ ע׃

the Israelites were very satisfied with their provision. The , מאד includes the intensifier addition of this intensifier constitutes an interpretive element absent from the Torah. YHWH completely and adequately provided them with their desires, even though they stemmed from ,can bear a positive nuance of a “wish”, or “desire”, as in Pr 13:12 תאוה .evil intentions

וַיִּתְאַ וּ֣ וּ “ ,but it can also reflect a negative context ,” תּוֹחֶ ֣לֶ ת מְ֭מֻשָּׁ כָ ה מַחֲ לָ ה־ לֵ ֑ב ו8ְֵ ֥ץ חַ֜ יִּ֗ ים תַּאֲוָ ֥ה בָאָ ֽ ה׃“

Ps 106:14; s. also Num 11:4). Contextually the former is better) ” תַ֭אֲ וָ ה בַּמִּדְבָּ ֑ר וַיְנַ סּוּ־אֵ֗ ֜ ל בִּֽ ישִׁ ימֽ וֹן׃ since the verse speaks of YHWH graciously providing their needs. It is possible to read this statement detailing God’s provision in two ways. On one hand, he gave them their desire for meat in the provision of winged birds; on the other hand, he fulfilled their secret desires: to perform a miraculous sign as proof of his abilities.

30 לֹא־זָר֥ וּ מִתַּאֲ וָתָ ֑ ם ע֜ ֗ וֹד אָכְלָ ֥ ם בְּפִ יהֶ ֽ ם׃

They never turned aside from their craving (however) even while the food was in their mouth

Though YHWH graciously provided for the people, he did not forget their sin and judgment is imminent. Verse 30 noticeably swings from YHWH’s provision and the satisfaction of the Israelites, to the wanton nature of Israel’s desire for food. Even after the Israelites received the in all likelihood 78 זרו meat they craved, their craving continued. The selection of the word

76 For this understanding of the waw , see GKC §158 a. .also occurs in Ecc 12:14, Song 8:11, and Dan 11:8 , יָבִ א , The defective form of the hifil 77 The . זרא derives from זרו Hacham (1981:50) argues that the two words share the same root, and that the verb 78 Septuagint reads στερεω , “to deprive something from somebody”, as God holding back honor in Num 24:11.

Page <53> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

8ַ ֣ד׀ חֹ֣דֶ שׁ “ ,constitutes a deliberate reminder of the quail incident as reported in Num 11:20

This association provides some insight into the .” ִ֗ יָמים 8ַ ֤ד אֲשֶׁ ר־יֵצֵא֙ מֵ ֽאַ פְּכֶ֔ ם וְהָ יָ ֥ה לָכֶ ֖ם לְזָרָ ֑ א... nature of the evil desires mentioned in our psalm. In light of the association with Numbers 11, the desire was for the Israelites to return to Egypt, thus reversing all YHWH had done for

תאוה them on the way and distrusting his ability to save. Unlike the previous verse in which

תאוה and אכל could have been construed positively, here it is decidedly negative. The roots

This .( ויאכלו : תאותם :: מתאותם : אכלם) create a chiastic arrangement between vv.29 and 30 arrangement reflects the change in perspective between the two verses. The former reflects YHWH’s gracious compassion in fulfilling the Israelites’ desire for food, whereas the latter reveals Israel’s evil intent when they requested meat. and 79 ,” הבָּשָׂ֗ ר עוֹדֶ֙ נּוּ֙ בֵּ ֣ין שִׁ נֵּ יהֶ֔ ם טֶ ֖רֶ ם יִכָּרֵ ֑ ת ... “ ,The second colon alludes to Num 11:33 similarly marks the food still being in their mouths as a turning point from sin to punishment. In addition to the previously mentioned attention the psalmist devotes to seeing and hearing, v.30 includes a repeated reference to the mouth. Twice in a positive context, it refers to the reciting generation with respect to words of wisdom. In v.1, the psalmist calls for his listeners

similarly in v.2 he speaks of the ,” ... הַטּ֥ וּ אָ֜ זְנְכֶ֗ ם לְאִמְרֵ י־פִֽ י׃ “ ,to hear the utterances of his mouth

,With respect to the forefathers in v.30, however .” אֶפְתְּחָ ֣ ה בְמָשָׁ ֣ ל פִּ ֑ י ... “ ,parable of his mouth the context is negative; rather than providing a source of wisdom, the mouth constitutes a wellspring of sin.

31 וְאַ ֤ ף אֱ Nהִ֙ ים׀ 8ָ֨לָ ֤ה בָהֶ֗ ם וַ֭יַּהֲ רֹג בְּמִשְׁמַ נֵּ יהֶ ֑ ם וּבַ חוּרֵ ֖ י יִשְׂרָאֵ ֣ל הִכְרִֽ יZַ ׃

And the anger of God rose up against them and he killed some of their mighty ones and humbled their young men

Though the meaning is essentially the same, “they never held back from their lust”, it would produce a Hebrew ,cf. the Septuagint’s rendering in Gen 30:2, Ps 21:3 [20:3]). Though this type of marker) מנע equivalent of occurring through lexically similar forms, is ostensibly criticized by Noble (2002), in this instance the similarity is not the only factor initiating the connection between the texts. Both the psalm and Numbers refer to the same instance of provision. their lust became“ ,” לזרה תאותם “ In line with Numbers, Briggs (1969:194) suggests amending the text to 79 loathing”.

Page <54> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

From the Israelites’ sin, the psalm now turns to their punishment. Because of their continued evil desire, God’s anger is aroused. This is the second instance in which YHWH punishes the

... וְגַ ם־ אַ֗ ף 8ָלָ ֥ה “ ,Israelites. After hearing their wicked thoughts, God’s anger is raised in v.21

after he provides their needs. 80 These ,” וְאַ ֤ ף אֱ Nהִ֙ ים׀ 8ָ֨לָ ֤ה בָהֶ֗ ם“ ,Here, it is again raised .” בְ יִשְׂרָאֵ ֽ ל׃ two instances of God’s anger create a frame for the account of his generous provision to them. הבָּשָׂ֗ ר “ ,The people’s sin arousing God’s fury is also reflected in Numbers’ rendition of events

,Unlike the Numbers account, however .(11:33) ” עוֹדֶ֙ נּוּ֙ בֵּ ֣ין שִׁ נֵּ יהֶ֔ ם טֶ ֖רֶ ם יִכָּרֵ ֑ ת וְאַ ֤ ף יְהוָה֙ חָרָ ֣ ה ב8ָָ֔ ם ... the psalm’s continued enumeration of the punishment differs considerably. 81. משמניהם ,As a result of God’s anger being raised, he kills the mighty ones of Israel

which implies ,” בחורי ישראל “ Supporting this understanding is the corresponding phrase young, select men that are still in their prime (1Sam 9:2). With this understanding, it is possible to detect an instance of paronomasia with v.25, which speaks of the “bread of the ,”can bear the nuance of “fat” 82 or “healthy ones משמן ,Alternatively .” לחם אבירים “ ,”mighty

where it contrasts ,” וְהָ יָה֙ בַּ יּ֣וֹם הַה֔ וּא יִדַּ ֖ ל כְּב֣ וֹד י8ֲַקֹ֑ ב וּמִשְׁמַ ֥ ן בְּשָׂר֖ וֹ יֵרָ זֶ ֽה׃ “ ,as witnessed by Is 17:4

thin”. In this light, YHWH vents his wrath against the greediest among the“ , דלל with

Israelites; he slew the fat ones who gorged themselves on bread and meat. The addition of this specific sector of Israelites, the fat or mighty ones, has no parallel in the Torah’s rendition of events. Similarly, the subduing of their young men is also omitted. Usually attested in a subdue”, describes the fate of the survivors of an enemy’s“ , הכריע context of war, the verb onslaught: they are subsequently humbled and subjected to a foreign authority (s. 2Sam 22:40). Because of Israel’s disobedience to God, some of them 83 are killed, as in battle, and he subdues the remainder.

.later in this verse creates a further association with v.21 ישראל The repetition of 80 strong man”; s. Jastrow“ , גיברא/ גיבר from , גיבריהון The Tgs. support this understanding by translating 81 (1984:234). 82 The Septuagint lends to this idea in its rendering of πιων , “fat” or “plump”. .with the meaning of “some of” or “among”, see BDB 246 ב For the use of 83

Page <55> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

32 בְּכָ ל־זֹ֭ את חָ ֽטְ אוּ־8֑ וֹד וְ לֹֽ א־הֶ֜אֱמִ֗ ינוּ בְּ נִפְלְ אוֹתָ ֽ יו׃

In spite of this, they continued sinning, and never trusted in his mighty acts

Rather than describing a specific event, the continuation in v.32 reflects upon the Israelites’ in spite of this”) relates to all that has“) 84 ,” בכל זאת “ ,attitude. The concluding formula transpired and sums up the forefathers’ attitude to both seeing all God had accomplished among them and suffering under his punishment. Though they experienced both scenarios, they continued to sin. The forefathers’ repetitive inclination to sin recalls v.17 via the chiastic

After YHWH provided his people with .( חטאו : עוד :: עוד : לחטא) חטא and עוד repetition of

,v.17). Here) ” וַ יּוֹסִ ֣ יפוּ 8֖ וֹ ד לַחֲ טֹא־ל֑ וֹ ... “ ,water from the rock, they continued to sin against him after he provides them with food, their response is the same. 85 The second colon explicates the nature of the continued sin in the first colon: they neither believed nor trusted in his miraculous power to deliver. This repetitive charge against the forefathers was first witnessed

,” לא נאמנה את אל רוחו “ ,in v.8 as the principal indictment against the rebellious generation

Just as the forefathers had .” כּי לֹ֣ א הֶ֭אֱמִ ינוּ בֵּ אNהִ ֑ ים ... “ ,and is further mentioned in v.22

,” וַ יִּשְׁ כְּח֥ וּ 8ֲלִ ילוֹתָ ֑ יו וְ֜נִפְלְ אוֹתָ֗ יו אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר הֶרְאָ ֽ ם׃ “ ,in v.11 , נפלאות ,forgotten God’s magnificent deeds here—where the term relates to the giving of bread and meat—they do not trust in them. YHWH’s repeated acts of deliverance have failed to illicit the desired response. 86

33 וַיְכַ ל־בַּהֶ ֥בֶ ל יְמֵ יהֶ ֑ ם וּ֜שְׁ נוֹתָ֗ ם בַּבֶּהָלָ ֽ ה׃

So he ended their days in vain and their years with disturbing fear

As a continuation of v.31, the current verse enumerates YHWH further punishing his people: bears the meaning of “to end”, or “to destroy”, as in Ex כלה he ends their days in vain, where

,The specific mention of days .” ... כִּ י֩ לֹ֙א אֶ 8ֱֽלֶ֜ ה בְּקִרְ בּBְ֗ כִּ ֤ י 8ַ ם־קְשֵׁ ה־עֹ֙רֶ ף֙ אַ֔תָּ ה פֶּ ן־אֲכֶלBְ֖ בַּדָּ ֽרֶ F׃ “ ,33:3

84 It has a similar usage in Is 9:11, Jer 3:10, and Job 1:22; s. also Clifford (1981:128). 85 Even though it is not specifically mentioned, Keil and Delitzsch (1982:369) relate the continuation of sin here to the Israelites’ refusal of the land God had promised them. 86 At this stage, it is worth noting that the primary sin committed by the forefathers is not so much their propensity for chasing after foreign and worthless idols, as in Psalm 106, but in their lack of trust in God, and his ability to save.

Page <56> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

draws our attention to v.9 and Ephraim’s unfaithfulness that is portrayed as retreating , ימיהם

More than just ending the days of the forefathers, the .” הפכו ב יום קרב “ ,on a battlefield psalmist further depicts the way in which it occurs, vainly, i.e. without meaning or purpose— literally like a breath or vapor that comes, and in an instant is gone. Ecclesiastes repeatedly employs the phrase in describing the futility of man’s life (s. for example 3:19 and 11:8). Though no specific mention appears here, the psalm most probably alludes to the Israelites’ initial refusal to enter the land promised to them, and their subsequent condemnation to wander in the wilderness for forty years until all of the generation that refused YHWH’s initial plans to conquer Canaan were dead (s. Num 32:13). This instance fits the context of v.32 in which the people are accused of not trusting in God’s power to save, even though they The forty years of wilderness . בהבל had seen it, and additionally explains the phrase wandering, from the perspective of the Israelites, was pointless since they had no final destination. In addition to the futility of their remaining days, the psalmist suggests they would die occurs in the Bible, it is בהלה anguish” or “sudden terror”. 87 Usually, when“ , בהלה in

Jer 15:8; s. also Lev) ” ... הִפַּ ֤לְתִּ י 8ָלֶ֙ יהָ֙ פִּתְ אֹ֔ ם 8ִ ֖ יר וּבֶהָ לֽ וֹת׃ “ ,instigated by God as a punishment

though absent from the Torah’s , בהלה Thus, it can be assumed that the addition of .(26:16 rendition, forms an interpretive element that further intensifies Israel’s punishment, and in the first colon. 88 בהבל additionally creates a wordplay with

34 אִ ם־הֲרָ גָ ֥ם וּדְרָשׁ֑ וּהוּ וְ֜שָׁ֗ בוּ וְשִֽׁחֲ רוּ־אֵ ֽ ל׃

When 89 he killed them, they would seek him, and return, and diligently seek El

In the following eight verses, the psalmist presents a general pattern of Israel’s persistent disobedience and God’s response. A degree of continuation from the previous section appears as punishment for a lack of trust. Verse 31 reported how YHWH , הרג here in the repetition of

87 See BDB 246. 88 For a similar instance of paronomasia involving words at the beginning and end of a line see v.19. as “when”. Numbers 21:9 prescribes the process for אם Though unusual, biblical literature attests to the use of 89 .s) ” ... וְהָ יָ֗ ה אִ ם־נָשַׁ ֤ F הַ נָּחָשׁ֙ אֶ ת־אִ֔ ישׁ וְהִבִּ ֛ יט אֶ ל־נְחַ ֥ שׁ הַ נְּחֹ֖ שֶׁ ת וָחָ ֽ י׃ “ ,healing when a had bitten one of the Israelites . בזמן also Gen 38:9 and Jud 6:3). The Tgs. similarly reflect this meaning by translating

Page <57> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 had slain certain members of the desert generation, and here the psalmists states that whenever God struck them in punishment they would seek him, i.e. repent, seek to do his

וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּ ֥ ם מִשָּׁ ֛ ם אֶ ת־יְהוָ ֥ה “ ,.will, and act appropriately to his miraculous acts. Deuteronomy 4:29f

records the same attitude of repentance after ,” אֱ Nהֶ ֖ יB וּמָצָ ֑אתָ כִּ ֣י תִדְרְ שֶׁ֔ נּוּ בְּכָ ל־לְבָבBְ֖ וּבְכָ ל־נַפְשֶׁ ֽ B׃ ... a hypothetical situation occurs and Israel is exiled by God. The fact that the psalm mentions that reflect an attitude of repentance suggests, at least ( שחר and , שוב , דרש ) three words here for a short period, the Israelites were sincere in their turning to God. The last of these words, to seek diligently”, is certainly the most forceful, implying a search of desperation in“ , שחר

אNהִ ֤ ים׀ אֵלִ֥ י אַתָּ֗ ה אֲשַׁחֲ֫רֶ ֥ךָּ “ ,which life and are at stake, as the context of Ps 63:2 suggests

It was with this desperation that those .” צָמְאָ֬ ה לBְ֙ ׀ נַפְשִׁ֗ י כָּמַ ֣ הּ לְ B֣ בְשָׂרִ ֑ י בְּאֶ ֽרֶ ץ־צִיָּ ֖ה ו8ְָיֵ ֣ ף בְּלִ י־מָ ֽ יִם׃ who survived YHWH’s judgment would apparently seek him.

35 וַ֭יִּזְ כְּ רוּ כִּֽ י־אֱ Nהִ ֣ ים צוּרָ ֑ ם וְאֵ ֥ ל 8ֶ֜ לְ יוֹן גֹּאֲלָ ֽ ם׃

They would remember that God was their rock, and El Elyon was their redeemer

Only because YHWH would destroy some of their number did the Israelites remember that he ,”they would remember“ , ויזכרו ,in v.7 ” לא ישכחו “ is their rock. Similar to the phrase represents here more than a mental act; instead, it signifies a thought that inspires action and obedience. Within the context of the psalm, the image of YHWH as a rock is a specific reminder of his splitting the rock in vv.15, 20 to provide his people with water in the wilderness, thus delivering them from death. Elsewhere in biblical literature, the image of YHWH as a rock similarly appears metaphorically for his provision of protection. An

אין־קָד֥ וֹשׁ כַּ יהוָ ֖ה כִּ ֣י אֵ ֣ ין בִּלְתֶּ ֑ B וְאֵ ֥ ין צ֖ וּר “ ,example of this appears in Hannah’s Song, 1Sam 2:2

which celebrates YHWH’s ability to save and refers to him as a rock. 90 ,” כֵּ אNהֵ ֽ ינוּ׃

קרן “ and , מפלט , מצודה ,See also Ps 18:3 where it appears in the context of other words with a similar meaning 90 .” ישע

Page <58> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

אל “ the second colon employs the name , אלהים As a parallel expansion to the term

which, outside of the present context, only occurs in Genesis. 91 Its appearance here ,” עליון

וַ יּוֹסִ ֣ יפוּ 8֖ וֹד לַחֲ טֹא־ל֑ וֹ לַ ֽמְר֥ וֹת “ ,reminds the reader of the rebellion against him recorded in v.17

The image of a rock as a symbol of deliverance is further strengthened by its .” 8ֶ֜ לְ י֗ וֹן בַּצִּיָּ ֽה׃

In addition to other contexts .” ... יהוה צורי וגאלי “ ,a pair also attested in Ps 19:15 , גאל ,parallel within biblical literature, 92 the image of YHWH as a redeemer, a primary theme in Psalm 78, is well documented in the Exodus motif. In Ex 6:6 God himself says that he will redeem Israel ... וְהִ צַּלְתִּ֥ י אֶתְכֶ ֖ם מ8ֲֵ בֹדָתָ ֑ ם וְ גָאַלְתִּ ֤ י אֶתְ כֶם֙ בִּ זְר֣ וֹZַ נְ טוּיָ֔ה וּבִשְׁ פָטִ ֖ ים “ ,from the hand of the Egyptians

Moreover, the psalmist in Ps 77:16 recognizes God’s work as redeemer for the same .” גְּ דֹלִֽ ים׃

.” גָּאַ ֣לְ תָּ בִּ זְר֣ וֹZַ 8ַמֶּ ֑ B בְּנֵ י־י8ֲַ קֹ֖ ב וְ יוֹסֵ ֣ ף סֶ ֽלָ ה׃ “ ,act of deliverance

36 וַיְפַתּ֥ וּהוּ בְּפִ יהֶ ֑ ם וּ֜בִלְ שׁוֹנָ֗ ם יְכַזְּ בוּ־לֽ וֹ׃

But they deceived him with their mouths, and with their tongues lied to him

Verse 36 now casts a negative light on the previous two verses. Whenever Israel diligently sought YHWH and remembered his ability to deliver, their repentance was never genuine, and they were basically lying to him. The repentance recorded in the previous verses turns out to be merely lip service, saying one thing, and doing another, even as Saul accused Abner of יָד8ְַ֙תָּ֙ אֶ ת־אַבְנֵ ֣ר בֶּ ן־נֵ֔ ר ִ֥ כּי לְפַ תֹּתְ B֖ בָּ ֑א וְלָד8ַַ֜ ת אֶ ת־מוֹצָ ֽאBֲ֙ וְאֶ ת־( מְ בוֹאֶ B ) [ מ֣ וֹבָאֶ֔ B ] וְלָד8ַַ֕ ת “ ,deceiving him

2Sam 3:25). Recalling v.30, where the Israelites again sinned with) ” אֵ ֛ ת כָּ ל־אֲשֶׁ ֥ ר אַתָּ ֖ ה עֹשֶׂ ֽ ה׃

In v.30, they sin through their eating, and here they sin via . פיהם their mouths, is the phrase

an organ from which a great deal of evil , לשון in the second colon is פה their words. Parallel to stems in biblical literature. 93 Because the psalmist is interpreting events here in order to depict a pattern of behavior, no lexical markers appear between this verse and any renditions of the

91 Cross (1973:52 n.29) suggests that its appearance here reflects the psalm’s earliness. 92 In addition to the Exodus, Unterman (1995:400) names two other areas in which God is identified as a redeemer: with regard to God saving individuals and groups from unspecified enemies (s. Gen 48:16, Pss 69:19 and 107:2); and eschatological deliverance from exile (s. Is 52:9, Jer 31:11, Hos 13:14, and Mic 4:10). 93 Such as: subversion, Pr 10:31; lying, Pr 6:17; and falsehood, see above.

Page <59> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

( ויפתוהו : בפיהם :: ובלשונם : יכזבו) Exodus tradition. 94 The semantic chiasmus in this verse reflects the Israelites’ reversal in attitude, from repentance to lying.

37 וְ֭לִבָּ ם לֹא־נָכ֣ וֹן 8ִמּ֑ וֹ וְ לֹ֥ א נֶ֜אֶמְ נ֗ וּ בִּבְרִ יתֽ וֹ׃

And their heart was not right with him, and they were not faithful to his covenant

Repeated words between vv.37 and 8 link the Israelites deceptive attitude to the rebellious ... דּוֹר֘ סוֹרֵ ֪ ר וּמֹ֫רֶ ֥ ה דּ֭ וֹר “ ,generation (later identified as Ephraim in v.9) first mentioned in v.8

The general attitude of unfaithfulness mentioned here .” לֹא־הֵכִ ֣ ין לִבּ֑ וֹ וְ לֹא־נֶאֶמְנָ ֖ה אֶ ת־אֵ ֣ל רוּחֽ וֹ׃ recalls a practical example mentioned earlier. Previously the psalm recounted Israel’s v.22; s. also v.8 above), and his mighty) ” כי לא האמינו באלהים ... “ ,unfaithfulness to God

in light of ברית v.32). Understanding the term) ” ולא האמינו בנפלאותיו “ ,works of deliverance

further relates the Israelites’ continual ,” לֹ֣ א שָׁ֭מְ רוּ בְּרִ ֣ ית אֱ Nהִ ֑ ים וּ֜בְ תוֹרָת֗ וֹ מֵאֲ נ֥ וּ לָלֶ ֽכֶ ת׃ “ ,v.10 unfaithfulness to the laws given at Sinai.

38 וְה֤ וּא רַח֙ וּם׀ יְכַפֵּ ֥ ר 8ָ וֹן֘ וְֽ לֹא־יַ֫שְׁחִ֥ ית וְ֭הִרְ בָּ ה לְהָשִׁ ֣ יב אַפּ֑ וֹ וְ לֹֽ א־י8ִָ֜ יר כָּ ל־חֲמָתֽ וֹ׃

But he is compassionate, removing iniquity, not destroying, repeatedly returning his anger, not awakening his fury

The following two verses provide an explicit statement concerning God’s response to Israel’s rebellion and unfaithfulness: he is compassionate, removing iniquity, and slow to anger. The ,recalls Ex 34:6 , רחום ,”psalmist’s portrayal of YHWH as “compassionate” or “merciful

.when he reveals himself to Moses ,” ... וַיִּקְרָ א֒ יְהוָ ֣ה׀ יְהוָ֔ ה אֵ ֥ ל רַ ֖ חוּם וְחַ נּ֑ וּן אֶ ֥רֶ F אַפַּ ֖יִם וְרַ ב־חֶ ֥סֶ ד וֶאֱמֶ ֽ ת׃“

Similar to our psalm, Ex 34:6 is staged after the Israelites have transgressed God’s covenant, and as a result, in both instances, he reveals his mercy instead of punishing them. Together

94 If v.33 refers to God condemning the Israelites to wander in the wilderness for forty years after they initially refused to conquer the land, then this verse could refer to their feigned repentance in Num 14:39-40. This show of repentance is immediately followed by their transgression of the Lord’s command (14:41) when they subsequently attempt to conquer the land even though God, through Moses, had warned them against it. In this instance, their repentance was not genuine because they did not earnestly seek to obey God’s command.

Page <60> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

often עון with being merciful, Psalm 78:38 depicts God as one who removes iniquity. Though

Ps 51:7; s. also Deut) ” הֵ ן־בּ8ְָ ו֥ וֹן חוֹלָ ֑לְתִּ י וּ֜בְחֵ֗טְ א יֶ ֽחֱמַ ֥תְ נִ י אִמִּֽ י׃ “ , חטא appears as a parallel pair with

19:15), it also carries a stronger nuance of deliberate sin and transgression. In 2Sam 22:24 it depicts an act the speaker has power to prevent himself from doing. Because of his merciful nature, God does not always punish Israel. Also as an ... והרב ה להשיב “ ,expression of his mercy, v.38 recalls how he repeatedly returned his anger

a statement that partially conflicts with vv.21 and 31, which previously recall two 95 ,” אפו ...

לָכֵ ֤ן׀ “ ,occasions in which he punished them for their sin. In v.21 he sends fire against Israel

וְאַ ֤ ף “ and in v.31 he kills a number of their choice ones ,” שָׁמַ ֥ ע יְהוָ֗ה וַ ֽ יִּתְ 8ַבָּ ֥ ר וְ֭אֵ שׁ נִשְּׂ קָ ֣ ה בְ י8ֲַ קֹ֑ ב ...

,however ,” ולא יעיר כל חמתו “ ,The continuation of v.38 .”אֱ Nהִ֙ ים׀ 8ָ֨לָ ֤ה בָהֶ֗ ם וַֽ֭יַּהֲ רֹג בְּמִשְׁמַ נֵּ יהֶ ֑ ם ... helps resolve the conflict. In this phrase, it is evident that not all of YHWH’s anger was unleashed against Israel, but only a portion of it. Presumably, had he unleashed it all, he would have destroyed the entire nation. The contrast produced in this verse, when compared with the previous three, is that of a people who are deceptive, unfaithful, and wayward, and a God who is constantly merciful and longsuffering.96

39 ְ וַ֭יִּזכֹּר כִּ י־בָשָׂ ֣ ר הֵ ֑מָּ ה ר֥ וּ\ַ ה֜ וֹלֵ֗ F וְ לֹ֣ א יָשֽׁ וּב׃

For he remembered that they are flesh, a spirit that goes but does not return

In failing to unleash the fullness of his anger, God remembered they were but flesh, a further encourages a זכר practical demonstration of his previously mentioned mercy. The verb comparison between God and his people. When they remembered that he was their rock, v.35), it was only for a brief moment, and constituted part of a) ” ויזכרו כי אלהים צורם ...“ deceptive act. God, on the other hand, remembers their weakness and spares them as a result.

in this verse represents a sign of limited capability and weakness. Genesis 6:3 , בשר ,Flesh

,to indicate continuity is reflected by Hannah’s repetitive prayers in 1Sam 1:12 להרבות The adverbial use of 95 .” וְהָ יָה֙ כִּ֣ י הִרְ בְּתָ֔ ה לְהִתְ פַּלֵּ֖ ל לִפְנֵ֣ י יְ הוָ֑ ה ו8ְֵלִ֖ י שֹׁמֵ ֥ ר אֶ ת־פִּֽ יהָ ׃“ 96 Unlike the previous verse, this one reflects the golden-calf incident more than the spies’ story. McCann (1994:991) draws our attention to numerous similarities such as God’s mercy and compassion (Ex 34:6), iniquity (34:7), and restraint (32:12).

Page <61> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

which ,”… ה֣ וּא בָשָׂ ֑ ר וְהָ י֣וּ יָמָ֔ יו מֵאָ ֥ ה ו8ְֶשְׂרִ ֖ ים שָׁ נָ ֽה׃ “ ,as an expression of man’s mortality בשר uses

God limits to one hundred and twenty years (as an image of weakness, see also Is 31:3). ,in vv.20, 27 , שאר ,additionally recalls the request and provision of meat בשר ,Semantically an expression of his mercy and compassion. The imagery of a “spirit that goes and does not

signifies mortality: when he dies, a man’s spirit leaves him and goes , בשר return”, like that of

זְ֭כֹר כִּ י־ר֣ וּ\ַ חַ יָּ֑ י “ ,to the underworld never to return again. A similar phrase appears in Job 7:7

here, Job pleads with God to remember his mortality. The second ,” לֹא־תָשׁ֥ וּב 8ֵ֜ ינִ֗ י לִרְ א֥ וֹת טֽ וֹב׃ colon exhibits various lexical reminders of Israel’s unfaithfulness: their unfaithful spirit, ” ובתורתו מאנו ללכת “ ,v.8), refusal to walk according to his laws) ” ...ולא נאמנה את אל רוחו“

.(v.34) ” ... ושבו ושחרו אל “ ,v.10); and their feigned repentance)

40 כַּ֭ מָּ ה יַמְר֣ וּהוּ בַמִּדְבָּ ֑ר י8ֲַ֜צִ יב֗ וּהוּ בִּֽ ישִׁ ימֽ וֹן׃

How they defied him in the desert, and grieved him in Yeshimon

Verses 40-41 return to focusing on Israel’s continual inclination to rebel against God. Though he is merciful and longsuffering, they continually push the limits of his kindness. The

,accentuates 97 the repetition of Israel’s defiant behavior during the desert period כמה emphatic

The result of their perpetual .” וַ יּוֹסִ ֣ יפוּ 8֖ וֹד לַחֲ טֹא־ל֑ וֹ לַ ֽמְר֥ וֹת 8ֶ֜לְ י֗וֹן בַּצִּיָּ ֽה׃ “ ,a theme recalled in v.17

עצב Though the root . יעציבוהו ,disobedience is that YHWH both is saddened and disappointed in hifil is rare 98 in biblical literature, its meaning here as a causative of the qal is easily understood. In light of YHWH’s gracious and merciful response to the people’s rebellion (s. vv.38, 39), the psalmist now recounts effect on God. Instead of angering him (s. vv.21 and 31) they sadden and disappoint him. The psalmist introduces a new poetic word for “desert” here, יִמְצָאֵ֙ הוּ֙ בְּאֶ ֣רֶ ץ … “ ,in other Exodus contexts. Deut 32:10 מדבר which corresponds with , ישימון

employs it in a context of benevolence, alluding to the ,”…מִדְ בָּ֔ ר ְ וּבתֹ֖ הוּ יְלֵ ֣ל יְשִׁ מֹ֑ ן יְסֹֽבְבֶ֙ נְ הוּ֙ יְב֣ וֹנְנֵ֔ הוּ

as a rhetorical question, “how many times…”, to which the implicit כמה The emphasis stems from the use of 97 .” כַּמָּ ֤ ה׀ נֵ ר־רְ שָׁ֨ 8ִ֤ ים יִדְ F ָ֗8 וְיָבֹ֣ א 8ָלֵ֣ ימוֹ אֵ ידָ ֑ ם ... “ ,answer is “innumerable times”. A similar usage appears in Job 21:17 98 The only other occurrence is in Jer 44:19, where the meaning is entirely different.

Page <62> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 location where YHWH first found Israel and compassionately took them into his care. Similar utilizes it to depict the ,” וַיִּתְאַ וּ֣ וּ תַ֭אֲ וָ ה בַּמִּדְבָּ ֑ ר וַיְנַ סּוּ־אֵ֗ ֜ ל בִּֽ ישִׁ ימֽ וֹן׃ “ ,to this psalm, Psalm 106:14 location in which the Israelites sinned against God.

41 וַיָּשׁ֣ וּבוּ וַיְנַסּ֣ וּ אֵ ֑ ל וּקְד֖ וֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵ ֣ ל הִתְ ווּ׃

They continually tested El, and the holy one of Israel they provoked

Opening v.41 is another adverb emphasizing the repetitive nature of Israel’s ingratitude.

v.32 recounts how they ;” ויוסיפו עוד לחטא לו ... “ ,Verse 17 recalls how they continued to sin

and v.40 enumerates how many times they defied him in ;” בכל זאת חטאו עוד ... “ , sinned again

here they repeatedly test 99 El. Verse 18 recounts one ;” כמה ימרוהו במדבר ... “ ,the desert

but v.41 implies that such behavior was repetitive and ,” וינסו אל בלבבם “ ,instance of testing El

in the first colon, specifically אל corresponding to ,” קדוש ישראל “ commonplace. The phrase relates YHWH to his people, Israel. In spite of this close relationship, however, they provoke here in hifil , usually means “to mark”. Ezekiel is instructed to mark the 100, תוה him. The root

... וְהִתְ וִ֙ יתָ תָּ֜ ו 8ַ ל־מִצְח֣ וֹת “ ,foreheads of those who hate the abominations performed in the city

.( s. also 1Sam 21:14 101 ;9:4) ” הָאֲ נָשִׁ֗ ים הַנֶּ ֽאֱ נָחִ ים֙ וְהַנֶּ ֣אֱ נָקִ֔ ים 8ַ֚ ל כָּ ל־הַתּ֣ וֹ8ֵב֔ וֹת הַ ֽנּ8ֲַשׂ֖ וֹת בְּ תוֹכָ ֽ הּ׃

Contextually, however, it is better to interpret it as meaning “to set a bound/boundary”. 102 as a phrase depicting how the התוו With this meaning, it is therefore possible to understand

Israelites tested the boundary of YHWH’s power, as they did in v.20. It is easy to see how the

99 This constitutes an instance of hendiadys, and the first verb should be read adverbially (s. JM §177 b). The root only occurs four times in the psalm, and each occurrence appears in a centralized location, between vv.34 שוב and 41. In v.35 the Israelites repent and seek God; the subject is God in v.38, there he repeatedly returns his anger; the focus falls on man in v.39, claiming that his spirit goes out but does not return ; and here it highlights Israel’s repetitive testing of God. All of these verses appear as part of an inclusion between vv.34 and 41, where .create a frame אל and שוב the words 100 Here, the Septuagint reads παροξυνω (=to provoke, irritate), an equivalent that is neither reflected in 1Sam as attested by Num 16:30, Deut) נאץ nor Ezek 9:4. The lexical equivalent of παροξυνω would either be 21:14 s. Deut 1:34, 9:7f., and 19). Both of these alternatives correspond well with the) קצף and 2Sam 12:14), or ,31:20 in the first colon, and may have constituted the original wording. As mentioned above, the likelihood is נסה root that the replacement was made under the influence of vv.29f. 101 Only one other occurrences of the verb appears in the Bible, 1Sam 21:14. 102 See Tate (1990:283).

Page <63> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

which recount ,( מתאותם ) and v.30 ( תאותם ) selection of this rare word recalls both vv.29 instances of Israel testing YHWH with their wanton appetites. 103 The parallelism found within this verse further accentuates, via the repetition of the same idea, the trying nature of God’s own people.

42 ל ֹא־זָכְר֥ וּ אֶ ת־יָד֑ וֹ י֜וֹם אֲשֶׁ ר־פָּדָ ֥ ם מִ נִּ י־צָ ֽ ר׃

They never remembered his act of deliverance, the day he redeemed them from the enemy

Verse 42 begins the second recital of Israel’s transgressions against God and their forgetting his deeds. A significant difference between this recital and the first is that the role of Ephraim וַיִּשְׁ כְּח֥ וּ 8ֲלִ ילוֹתָ ֑ יו וְ֜נִפְלְ אוֹתָ֗ יו “ ,is more prominent. The present verse reminds the reader of v.11

where forgetting his mighty acts, v.11, equates to not remembering his hand of ,” אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר הֶרְאָ ֽ ם׃ deliverance in v.42. The link between these verses further indicts Ephraim for failing to here symbolizes his , ידו ,remember YHWH’s works since v.11 refers to them. God’s hand strength (to deliver). In a context similar to ours, Ex 14:31 records how Israel had seen the וַיַּ֙רְ א יִשְׂ רָאֵ֜ ל “ ,great works of God after he delivered them from the Egyptians at the Reed Sea

likewise, the men of Ai had no power to flee from the ;” אֶ ת־הַ יָּ ֣ד הַ גְּ דֹלָ֗ ה אֲשֶׁ֙ ר 8ָשָׂ ֤ ה יְהוָה֙ בְּמִצְרַ ֔ יִם...

The forgetfulness in this verse .” ...וְ לֹא־הָ יָ֙ ה בָהֶ ֥ ם יָדַ ֛יִם לָנ֖ וּס הֵ ֣ נָּ ה... “ ,Israelites in Jos 8:20 specifically points forward in the psalm, relating to the forthcoming acts of might. 104 God’s has numerous attestations in , פדה deliverance of Israel from Egypt, characterized by the term

הוֹצִ ֧ יא יְהוָ ֛ה אֶתְכֶ ֖ם בְּיָ ֣ד חֲ זָ קָ ֑ ה וַ ֽ יִּ פְדְּ B֙ מִבֵּ ֣ית 8ֲבָדִ֔ ים מִ יַּ ֖ד פַּרְ 8ֹ֥ ה “ biblical literature, such as Deut 7:8

s. also 9:26, 15:15, and Mic 6:4). Even though the psalmist fails to mention a) ”…מֶ ֽלֶ F־מִצְרָ ֽ יִם׃ specific enemy here, one can assume that the context in question concerns the deliverance

.” מני צר “ and מצרים from Egypt. One indication of this stems from the wordplay between

with an uncertain etymology. Since the hifil only תו KB (vol. 4, 1696) claims it is a demonstrative from 103 appears here, they derive the meaning from the Septuagint and , interpreting “to distress”, or “to hurt”. 104 Notwithstanding this, the context possesses some relevance for the previously mentioned deeds.

Page <64> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

43 אֲשֶׁ ר־שָׂ ֣ ם בְּ֭מִצְרַ יִם אֹֽ תוֹתָ ֑ יו וּ֜ מוֹפְתָ֗ יו בִּשְׂדֵ ה־צ8ַֹֽ ן׃

His signs which he wrought against Egypt, And his wonders in the fields of Zoan

The following nine verses (44-51) concentrate on the plagues’ narrative, and while the Torah 105 may form the basis of the account, a number of significant alterations appear. Outside of the Torah, the only other detailed account of the plagues wrought against Egypt appears in Psalm 105. Unlike the latter account, however, Psalm 78 depicts a far more severe picture of the plagues, heightening the effect of divine judgment. 106 provides continuity from v.42 and relates to the time when אשר The relative pronoun

YHWH redeemed Israel from the enemy. Much of v.43’s wording echoes throughout the Bible in reference to the plagues God sent 107 against the Egyptians to redeem Israel. Exodus ,” וּלְמַ֡ 8ַ ן תְּסַ פֵּר֩ בְּאָ זְ ֵ֙ ני בִנBְ֜ וּבֶ ן־בִּנBְ֗ אֵ ֣ ת אֲשֶׁ ֤ ר הִתְ 8ַלַּ֙לְתִּי֙ בְּמִצְרַ ֔ יִם וְאֶ ת־ אֹתֹתַ ֖ י אֲשֶׁ ר־שַׂ ֣מְתִּ י בָ ֑ם... “ ,states 10:2

,Chronologically 108 .(105:27) ” שָׂ ֽ מוּ־בָ֭ ם דִּ בְרֵ ֣ י אֹתוֹתָ ֑ יו וּ֜מֹפְתִ֗ ים בְּאֶ ֣רֶ ץ חָ ֽ ם׃ “ ,and the psalms recall the psalm now moves backwards at this point, and details events preceding those first

נגֶ ד “ ,recalls v.12 ” שדה צען “ and מצרים mentioned in v.13, the splitting of the sea. Repetition of

Through this association, v.43 develops and details .” אֲ֭ בוֹתָ ם 8ָ ֣שָׂ ה פֶ ֑לֶ א בְּאֶ ֖רֶ ץ מִ צְרַ ֣יִם שְׂדֵ ה־צ8ַֹֽ ן׃

denotes a visible sign of an unseen אות the nature of the aforementioned wonders. Usually phenomenon (s. Gen 4:15, for example, where Cain’s sign constitutes a visible representation however, in the Exodus context, it , מופת of God’s promise to protect him). Together with

וַאֲנִ֥י “ ,often specifically refers to the plagues YHWH employed to deliver Israel. Exodus 7:3

105 Though other possibilities exist, such as alternate traditions; s. Lauha (1945:53), who posits that the author of Ps 78 depends on a plagues’ tradition more congruent with J. For the time being I shall assume the psalmist read from the Book of Exodus. The section investigating the sources pursues this matter further. 106 For more on this notion, s. Lee (1990:83). appears in the psalm, and on each occasion, its meaning differs. Verse 5 refers to the שים This is the third time 107 ordinances God instituted to Israel, and v.7 speaks of the trust the psalmist’s generation put in God. 108 Of course I should note here that in Psalm 105 it is Moses and Aaron who send the plagues as opposed to God.

Page <65> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

exemplifies such a usage (s. also ,” אַקְשֶׁ ֖ ה אֶ ת־לֵ ֣ב פַּרְ 8ֹ֑ ה וְהִרְ בֵּ יתִ ֧ י אֶ ת־אֹתֹתַ ֛ י וְאֶ ת־מוֹפְתַ ֖ י בְּאֶ ֥רֶ ץ מִצְרָ ֽ יִם׃

Deut 29:2, 34:11, and of the Exodus psalms, Ps 105:27 and 135:9). 109

44 וַיַּהֲ ֣ פFֹ לְ֭דָ ם יְאֹרֵ יהֶ ֑ם וְ֜ נֹזְלֵ יהֶ֗ ם בַּ ל־יִשְׁתָּ יֽוּן׃

He changed their waters to blood, and their rivers they could not drink

Details of the signs and portents mentioned in the previous verse are now explicated. Verse 44 ... הִ נֵּ֙ ה “ ,primarily alludes to Moses striking the River in Ex 7:17 and turning it into blood

this event is similarly echoed in Ps) ” אָ נֹכִ֜ י מַכֶּ ֣ה׀ בַּ מַּטֶּ ֣ ה אֲשֶׁ ר־בְּ יָדִ֗ י 8ַ ל־הַמַּ ֛יִם אֲשֶׁ ֥ ר בַּ יְאֹ֖ ר וְנֶהֶפְכ֥ וּ לְדָ ֽ ם׃

most likely refers to the Nile here (s. Gen 41:1-3 for a similar יאריהם Though .(105:29 reference), it also carries the nuance of “rivers” in a more general sense (s. Dan 12:5-7).

in this verse reminds the reader of a former instance of , נזל ,Another word depicting water deliverance YHWH wrought through this medium, the river that flowed from the rock in v.16, The outcome in v.44, however, even though it aids in the .” וַ יּוֹצִ ֣א נוֹזְלִ ֣ים מִסָּ ֑לַ ע וַיּ֖וֹרֶ ד כַּנְּהָר֣ וֹת מָ ֽ יִם׃“ process of deliverance, is the opposite of that recorded in v.16: instead of providing water to a thirsty people, he creates thirst, via an inability to drink water, for Israel’s oppressors, the Egyptians. Two notable alterations are apparent here between the psalmist’s rendition of events and those recorded in Exodus. In keeping with the psalmist’s overall projection of YHWH’s omnipotence, the psalm portrays him as the one who changes the water into blood, without the help of an intermediary, Moses. Similarly, the psalmist has omitted references to the death of the fish in Egypt’s rivers, as recorded in Exodus as well as Psalm 105:29.

45 יְשַׁ לַּ֬ ח בָּהֶ ֣ם 8ָ֭ רֹב וַ יֹּאכְלֵ ֑ם וּ֜צְפַרְדּZֵַ֗ וַתַּשְׁחִ יתֵ ֽ ם׃

He sent against them swarms that 110 consumed them, and frogs that destroyed them.

109 See especially Deut 26:8 where this phrase parallels a “strong hand” and “outstretched arm”, both possessing the connotation of “God’s mighty deeds”. Zakovitch (1987b:16f.) additionally recognizes these words as the language of miracles employed by the Bible; s. also Yaron ( 1997 :14-34) for a discussion on the vocabulary of miracles. 110 For the use of waw as a relative pronoun see GKC §155 n.

Page <66> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

As a continuation of the plagues’ account, v.45 ostensibly combines two plagues into a single The first colon refers to events recorded in Ex . צפרדע ,”and “frogs , ערב ,”verse: “swarms

In spite of .” ... הִ נְנִי֩ מַשְׁ לִ֙ י\ַ בּBְ֜ וּב8ֲַבָדֶ ֧ יB וּֽב8ְַמְּ B֛ וּבְבָתֶּ ֖ יB ֶ את־ה8ֶָ רֹ֑ ב וּמָ֙ לְא֜ וּ בָּתֵּ ֤ י מִצְרַ ֙ יִם֙ אֶ ת־הֶ 8ָ֣ רֹ֔ ב ... “ ,8:17 the initial appearance, however, it is better to understand these as separate plagues. Similar to the way v.44 was linked to a previous act of deliverance, v.45 also possesses associations with שלח and אכל an earlier account of Israel’s rescue that is recorded in the psalm. The two roots

YHWH provided the .( אכל : שלח :: ישלח : ויאכלם ) recall events in v.25 via distant chiasmus

Israelites with food in the wilderness to save them from death; the Egyptians become food for is a somewhat , ערב ,swarms”, sent by him. 111 Though the exact nature of the swarms“ , ערב the disputed issue, 112 unlike the account in Exodus, here the individual elements of the swarm are people. Exodus presents the swarms more ( אכל ) aggressive and posses the ability to consume as a nuisance to the Egyptians rather than an entity causing physical damage. With respect to into the , ערב ,the order of the plagues, Psalm 78:45 has apparently moved the fourth plague second position. 113 ... הנֵּ ֣ה אָ נֹכִ֗ י נֹגֵ ֛ ף “ ,appears as a single plague in Ex 7:27 , צפרדע The plague of frogs, 114

Similar to the swarms, the frogs . ערב ,but is here joined with swarms ,” אֶ ת־כָּ ל־גְּ בוּלBְ֖ בַּ ֽצְפַרְדּ8ְִֽ ים׃ in the psalm serve a slightly different function. In Exodus, they present themselves again as a nuisance, entering Egyptian homes and even Pharaoh’s palace; their mere presence causes

( השחית ) ”inconvenience. The psalm, on the other hand, casts them as “spoiling” or “ruining

repeat throughout this psalm. In v.18 Israel tests God in their ( אכל ) ”Notably, the notion of “food” and “eating 111 request for food ; in response to their ignoble request, God provides them with heavenly food to eat in v.24; whilst eating the food God provided they are punished in v.30; similarly, v.45 records another context of punishment. simply means “swarms”, BDB 786, referring to an admixture of some description involving ערב The word 112 ערב incessant involved movement, without any specific notion of the content therein. The Septuagint interprets as κυνομυια , “dogfly” or “shameless fly”, a vicious fly that sucks blood (s. LSJ 1010; the Septuagint translation probably represents a contemporary interpretation). This understanding suits the context here because they have a mixed group of wild animals (this is derived from ,” עירבובי חיות “ the ability to consume. The Tgs. translate s. Jastrow , ערובא in Exodus 8:18, s. Sperber [1959:101]; for the interpretation of ערובא identical usage of [1984:1114]). Similarly, this notion suits the context, since such wild animals are able to consume. 113 With respect to the order of plagues in this psalm, one could simply claim an instance of “liturgical license”, (Hoffmeier [1992:374]); however, because it is more likely that the psalmist had a logical reason for reordering material, we should assume an instance of interpretation. The section on allusions examines this issue. 114 Though written in the singular, here it should be understood as a noun of species (s. JM §135 c).

Page <67> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

which does not appear in , משחית property, presumably that belonging to Egypt. The word

וַ יֹּ֣אמֶ ר הַ גֹּאֵ֗ ל לֹ֤ א אוּכַ ל “ ,Exodus with respect to frogs, can simply mean “to spoil”, as in Ruth 4:6

Alternatively, however, it may additionally imply the .”( לִגְ אוֹל־ ) [ לִגְאָ ל־ ] לִ֔ י פֶּ ן־אַשְׁחִ ֖ ית אֶ ת־נַחֲ לָתִ ֑ י destruction of human life; it appears in the Exodus narrative depicting the angel of death’s

draws a השחית Ex 12:23). Repetition of) ” ... וְ לֹ֤ א יִתֵּן֙ הַמַּשְׁחִ֔ ית לָ בֹ֥ א אֶ ל־בָּתֵּ יכֶ ֖ם לִנְ גֹּֽ ף׃ “ ,function contrast between the mercy YHWH showed the Israelites and the lack of mercy shown to the Egyptians. Verse 38 recalls how YHWH did not destroy his people, but repeatedly returned ,Contrasting this scenario .” יכַפֵּ ֥ ר 8ָ וֹן֘ וְֽ לֹא־יַ֫שְׁחִ֥ ית וְ֭הִרְ בָּ ה לְהָשִׁ ֣ יב אַפּ֑ וֹ וְ לֹֽ א־י8ִָ֜ יר כָּ ל־חֲמָתֽ וֹ׃ “ ,his anger no such restraint appears here.

46 וַיִּתֵּ ֣ ן לֶחָסִ ֣ יל יְבוּלָ ֑ם וִ֜ יגִ י8ָ֗ ם לָאַרְ בֶּ ֽ ה׃

And he gave to the young locust their produce, the work of their hands to the locust

from the eighth , ארבה ,In another apparent sequential alteration, the psalm promotes locust position in Exodus to the third position in the psalm; the presumed reference in Exodus being

Similar to the two .” כִּ ֛ י אִ ם־ מָאֵ ֥ ן אַתָּ ֖ ה לְשַׁלֵּ ֣\ַ אֶ ת־8ַמִּ ֑ י הִ נְנִ֙ י מֵבִ ֥ יא מָחָ ֛ ר אַרְבֶּ ֖ה בִּגְבֻלֶ Bֽ׃ “ ,10:4 aforementioned plagues, the psalmist again relates the sending of the locust to the provision appears in Israel’s questioning YHWH’s ability to נתן of food in the wilderness. The verb

v.20), and) ” ...הֲ גַ ם־לֶ֭חֶ ם י֣ וּכַ ל תֵּ ֑ ת אִ ם־יָכִ ֖ ין שְׁאֵ ֣ר ל8ְַמּֽ וֹ׃ “ ,provide them with food in the wilderness

v.24). Here in v.46, instead of giving) ” דגן שמים נתן למו “ ,in God’s response to that challenge the Egyptians food, YHWH gives their food over to the locust: Israel’s blessing becomes is not mentioned in Exodus, it is well attested as a poetic 115 חסיל Egypt’s curse. Even though

.(and does not necessarily imply an alternate source (s. :4 and 2:25 , ארבה parallel to

Notwithstanding the fact that the psalmist may have adjusted the position of this plague, the destruction brought by the locust reflects the Torah account: YHWH delivers the produce of

115 These are apparently locusts at an early developmental stage; s. Palmoni (1976:520-26). The word derives to destroy”, and adds emphasis to the destruction they caused; additionally, it creates a“ , חסל from the root .in the previous verse השחית literary link with

Page <68> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

over to the locust. Unlike the previous verse, the , יגיע ,and the Egyptians’ labor , יבול ,the land

116 psalmist reverts here to using two cola per plague.

47 יַהֲ רֹ֣ ג בַּבָּרָ ֣ ד גַּפְנָ ֑ם וְ֜שִׁקְ מוֹתָ֗ ם בַּ ֽחֲ נָמַ ֽ ל׃

And he killed with hail their vines, and their sycamore with frost

וְאַ ֤ ף “ ,recalls God’s anger against the Israelites when he punished them in v.31 הרג The verb

Unlike the Israelites’ punishment, however, at this stage .” אֱ Nהִ֙ ים׀ 8ָ֨לָ ֤ה בָהֶ֗ ם וַ֭יַּהֲ רֹג בְּמִשְׁמַ נֵּ יהֶ ֑ ם ...... in the recitation of the plagues, it is not human life being destroyed. This constitutes an

describes the destruction of plant life. It is הרג extremely rare instance in which the verb occasionally used to portray the destruction of animals (s. Num 22:29 and Is 22:13), but is mostly reserved for the slaying of people. Its appearance here, thus, adds a degree of severity to the plague, once again implying the destruction of human life. Even though the plague of

Ex 9:22), its) ” ... ויהי ברד בכל ארץ מצרים ... “ ,appears in the Torah’s plague tradition , ברד ,hail

נָתַ ֣ ן גִּשְׁמֵ יהֶ ֣ם בָּרָ ֑ ד ... וַיַּ ֣ specific effect of destroying the vines is only recorded in Ps 105:32f., “ F

,The primary danger of the hail in the Pentateuch’s rendition is posed to men .” גַּ֭פְ נָ ם וּתְאֵ נָתָ ֑ ם ... cattle, and plants (s. Ex 9:19, 22), as opposed to plant life alone. Similarly, sycamore trees are not specifically mentioned in the Torah, although their presence can be assumed from Ex The chiastic arrangement of the .” ...וְאֵ֙ ת כָּ ל־8ֵ ֤שֶׂ ב הַשָּׂדֶה֙ הִכָּ ֣ה הַבָּרָ ֔ ד וְאֶ ת־ כָּ ל־8ֵ ֥ ץ הַשָּׂדֶ ֖ ה שִׁבֵּ ֽ ר׃ “ ,9:25

Thus, it is reasonable to translate this . ברד possesses a meaning similar to חנמל verse implies hapax legomenon as “frost”. 117 Its presence here can thus be seen as a poetic complement to the hail. As with the previous plague, the sequence of this one differs, from seventh in Exodus to fifth in the psalm.

116 With respect to the locust, this is not the case with Ps 105, which represents the plague with four cola. 117 This complies with the Septuagint’s rendering of πάχνῃ, “hoarfrost”, and certain commentators such as Keil and Delitzsch (1982:371), and Briggs (1969:195). The Tgs.—followed by Rashi, (s. Cohen [2003:23])— which describes a type of locust, Jastrow (1984:665), linking this verse with the , כרזובא alternatively translate previous one. Ibn Ezra, under the influence of Jos 10:11, interprets it as “large stones”, since this same word .”in Joshua. Contextually, this proposition presents a viable and acceptable alternative to “frost ברד parallels

Page <69> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

48 וַיַּסְגֵּ ֣ר לַבָּרָ ֣ ד בּ8ְִ ירָ ֑ ם וּ֜מִקְ נֵ יהֶ֗ ם לָרְשָׁפִֽ ים׃

Then he delivered their beasts to hail and their livestock to fire

Ostensibly, v.48 is a continuation of the hail that began in v.47; in addition to the trees, usually takes הסגיר livestock also succumbs to the destructive forces of the hail. The verb people as its object (s. Deut 23:16 and 1Sam 23:12), but here portrays the fate of beasts,

.a word absent from the Exodus tradition, but appearing here as a poetic variation— בעיר

as hail, continuing from v.47. Interpreting it this ברד Technically, it is possible to understand way develops the plot and reflects the Torah tradition which, as previously mentioned, primarily associates the plague of hail with the destruction of beasts. Additionally, Exodus Ex 9:23); a picture) ” ... וַ ֽיהוָ֗ ה נָתַ ֤ ן קNֹת֙ וּבָרָ ֔ ד וַתִּ֥הֲ לַ F אֵ ֖ שׁ אָ ֑רְ צָ ה ... “ ,recalls fire mingled with the hail

could be ברד ,flame” or “fire”. 118 Alternatively“ , רשפים reflected in the second colon with

whereby the daleth has been transposed to the final , דבר rendered here as a corruption of position. 119 Such an alteration reflects a reading of the Septuagint, Symmacus , and bears a significant amount of scholarly support. 120 Additionally, in biblical literature the two words

are known to occur in the same contexts. As a picture of God marching forth in דבר and רשף

which is similar to the psalm ,(3:5) ,” לְפָנָ ֖יו יֵ ֣לֶ F דָּ ֑בֶ ר וְיֵצֵ ֥א רֶ ֖שֶׁ ף לְרַ גְלָ ֽ יו׃ “ ,judgment, Hab records since here too God judges the Egyptians for oppressing his people. Exodus also recalls the הִ נֵּ֙ ה יַד־יְהוָ֜ ה הוֹיָ֗ה בְּמִקְ נBְ֙ אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ ה בַּ סּוּסִ ֤ ים “ ,in its rendition of events ( דבר ) plague of pestilence

Ex 9:3). Throughout the plagues’ narrative in this) ” בַּ ֽחֲ מֹרִ ים֙ בַּגְּמַ לִּ֔ ים בַּבָּ קָ ֖ ר וּ בַ צֹּ֑ אן דֶּ ֖בֶ ר כָּבֵ ֥ ד מְ אֹֽ ד׃ psalm, a noticeable repetition of the third-person plural suffix is apparent, here manifested in

This emphasis singles out the Egyptians, thus accentuating YHWH’s . בעירם and מקני הם mercy towards Israel since they were not affected by the plagues (s. Ex 8:18).

118 Scholars such as Keil and Delitzsch (1982:371) and Tate (1990:283) prefer to maintain MT for reasons similar to those mentioned above. 119 This type of error is a known phenomenon in biblical literature; s. Tov (1992:250). 120 Among those who prefer this reading are Zakovitch (1997:181), Loewenstamm (1992:80), and Greenstein (1990:206). Hacham (1981:55) takes a more flexible approach in his interpretation and opts to allow for both possibilities. Due to the strong case for both of these options, there is much wisdom in his decision.

Page <70> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

49 יְשַׁ לַּ ח־בָּ֙ ם׀ חֲ ר֬ וֹן אַפּ֗ וֹ 8ֶבְ ָ ֣ רה וָזַ 8ַ֣ ם וְצָרָ ֑ ה מִ֜שְׁ לַ֗חַ ת מַ לְאֲכֵ ֥ י ר8ִָֽ ים׃

He sent out against them his burning fury, wrath, anger, and distress as a detachment of evil angels

In the following two verses the psalmist refrains from listing the plagues and instead dwells on God’s anger that was aroused against the Egyptians. The verses create a degree of suspense, breaking away from the main plagues’ narrative and delaying the final outcome. 121 Neither of the two verses has a parallel in the Exodus account and should be understood as an

ישלח “ ,interpretive insert. The verse opens with a reminder of the swarms and frogs in v.45

in this instance, however, it is not a specific plague being released, but ;” בהם ערב ויאכלם ...

YHWH’s fury. Verse 38 recalls that when God’s anger was released against Israel it was somewhat restrained, and he did not punish them according to the fullness of his anger. 122 The

here suggests an absence of any restraint he may have זעם and , עברה ,(also in v.38) אפו use of shown to Israel. Each of these words expresses the similar ideas of anger, indignation, and fury, 123 and their repetition contributes to understanding the full measure of God’s anger in distress” (s. Gen“ , צרה this situation. Together with the expressions denoting fury is the word

35:3 and Ps 120:1), which is the resulting effect of God’s anger being unleashed. Jointly, YHWH’s anger and the distress it causes constitute a detachment of evil angels. The relatively where it refers to a ,” ... ואין משלחת ב מלחמה ... “ ,only occurs in Ecc 8:8 משלחת rare noun

“band” or “detachment”. The band of evil angels 124 mentioned here refers both to the various expressions of God’s anger listed in this verse, and the plagues sent among the Egyptians. With respect to the tradition in Exodus, however, it is only the last plague that is ascribed to

121 Lee (1990:84) sees in this verse a series of allusions to Is 10:5-7, describing God’s commissioning of an angel and they relate to an angel being ; עברה and , חרון , אף , שלח to strike Assyria; both texts contain the markers commissioned by God to punish. 122 See close reading for v.38. Is 13:9, Ps) עברה and חרון אף :These expressions for anger often appear in close proximity to each other 123 .(Ps 69:25) חרון אף and זעם ;(Ezek 21:36, 22:31) עברה and זעם ;(Is 10:5, 30:27) אף and זעם ;(85:4 ... חַ לּוֹנֵ֖ י “ ,This is a rare instance of a genitive noun in construct with an adjective, it also occurs in 1Ki 6:4 124 is itself vaguely reminiscent of v.25, recounting how the Israelites ate מלאך s. JM §121f.). The word) ” שְׁקֻפִ֥ ים ... .” לחם אבירים “ ,the food of angels

Page <71> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

Ex 12:23). This) ” ...וְ לֹ֤ א יִתֵּן֙ הַמַּשְׁחִ֔ ית לָ בֹ֥ א אֶ ל־בָּתֵּ יכֶ ֖ם לִנְ גֹּֽ ף׃ “ ,the hand of an angel, the destroyer notion of a destroying angel has apparently been expanded here applying to all of the plagues.

50 יְפַלֵּ ֥ס נָתִ֗ יב לְאַ֫פּ֥ וֹ לֹא־חָשַׂ ֣ F מִמָּ ֣וֶ ת נַפְשָׁ ֑ ם וְ֜חַ יָּתָ֗ ם לַדֶּ ֥בֶ ר הִסְגִּֽ יר׃

He cleared a path for his anger and never withheld from death their life and gave up their life to pestilence

The topic of YHWH’s anger continues in this verse as a picture is presented of all possible

so that nothing stands in the way of ,” יפלס נתיב “ ,obstructions being cleared from a path

YHWH’s destructive wrath. Dahood (1970:244f.) relates this phrase to the previous verse depicting a band of angels going before God to prepare his way. As previously mentioned, לפָנָ ֖יו יֵ ֣לֶ F דָּ ֑בֶ ר “ ,Hab 3:5 portrays a similar picture of pestilence and plague going before God

The result of this unhindered destructive anger is that Egyptian lives are 125 .” וְיֵצֵ ֥א רֶ ֖שֶׁ ף לְרַ גְלָ ֽ יו׃

is absent from Psalm 78, a reminder of , חֹשֶ ך ,not spared. Even though the plague of darkness

which contains a degree of graphical similarity. The ,” לא חשך“ it appears in the expression

here should be interpreted as “life”, as attested in 1Ki 19:4 with regards to ’s נפש word

the meaning is also ;” ... וַיִּשְׁאַ ֤ ל אֶ ת־נַפְ שׁוֹ֙ לָמ֔ וּת וַ יֹּ֣אמֶ ר׀ רַ ֗ ב 8ַתָּ ֤ ה יְהוָה֙ קַ ֣ ח נַפְשִׁ֔ י ... “ ,desire to die

in this verse. Up until this point in the חי ascertained from the poetic correspondence with plagues’ narrative, the lives of the Egyptians have been spared, even if the plagues have caused them a degree of injury and discomfort. All of this, however, changes at this point. The last two words in the verse formulate an instance of resumptive repetition, 126 .” ויהרג ב ברד “ ,continuing the chain of thought from the last mention of the plagues in v.47

Just as the beasts and livestock were given up to hail in v.47, the Egyptians are now delivered to pestilence. Unlike Exodus, however, the pestilence destroys human life, as opposed to just the cattle. The picture of pestilence as a means by which God exacts justice and takes human life is well documented in biblical literature. David’s actions in taking a census of Israel’s

An alteration similar to this is possible in . לפניו to לאפו Improvement of this imagery is possible by changing 125 Is 13:3. 126 For more on this phenomenon, see Berlin (1994:126).

Page <72> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 fighting men was judged with a plague in 1Chr 21:12, and as a punishment for disobeying the law a plague is similarly threatened against Israel (Lev 26:25, Deut 28:21; but see also Jer 14:12).

51 וַיַּ ֣ F כָּ ל־בְּ כ֣ וֹר בְּמִצְרָ ֑יִם רֵ אשִׁ֥ ית א֜ וֹנִ֗ ים בְּאָהֳ לֵ י־חָ ֽ ם׃

And he struck all the firstborn in Egypt, the first strength among the tents of Ham

After the buildup of God’s anger in the previous two verses, it is now unreservedly unleashed

הֵ ֤ ן “ ,against the Egyptians. Just as the striking of the rock was a means of saving Israel in v.20

the striking of the Egyptians delivers them. Verse 51 apparently refers ,” הִכָּ ה־צ֙ וּר׀ וַיָּז֣ וּבוּ מַ יִם֘ ...

which records the ,” וַ יְהִ ֣ י׀ בַּחֲצִ ֣ י הַ לַּ֗ יְלָ ה וַ ֽיהוָה֘ הִכָּ ֣ה כָ ל־בְּ כוֹר֘ בְּאֶ ֣רֶ ץ מִצְרַ יִם֒ “ ,to events in Ex 12:29

וַיַּ ֣ F כָּ ל־בְּכ֣ וֹר בְּאַרְ צָ ֑ם “ ,same event. With respect to the selection of words, however, Ps 105:36

here recalls מצרים contains more similarities to Psalm 78. 127 Repetition of ,” רֵ ֜ אשִׁ֗ ית לְכָ ל־אוֹנָ ֽם׃ v.12, enumerating the wonders performed in the land of Egypt. Though v.12 provides no further explication of the wonders, from the association created via the repetition it is possible to link the plagues’ account here with God’s magnificent deeds mentioned in v.12.

.here creates an inclusion with v.43 demarcating the plagues’ account מצרים ,Additionally

which represents a man’s firstborn son as ,” ראשית אונ ים “ is the phrase בכור Parallel to a symbol of his generative power, 128 as seen from Ps 105:36 above (s. also Gen 49:3, Deut is unique in the Bible. A ,” אהלי חם “ ,The final designation of Egypt in the verse 129 .(21:17

s. also) ” וַיָּבֹ֣ א יִשְׂרָאֵ ֣ ל מִצְרָ ֑יִם וְ֜י8ֲַ קֹ֗ ב גָּ ֣ר בְּאֶ ֽרֶ ץ־חָ ֽ ם׃ “ ,similar term, however, appears in Ps 105:23 v.27). 130 Of all the terms referring to Egypt in this psalm, this one appears to be the most a son of Noah remembered for ignoble deeds (s. Gen , חם derogatory since it recalls the name

127 Though an instance of literary borrowing here is evident, we cannot ascertain the direction of borrowing until we establish a date for Psalm 78. Other instances in biblical literature depict the same event with different words, such as Num 3:13, Ps 135:8, and 136:10. 128 The plural form employed here could simply result from poetic variance, s. Berlin (1985:44f.), or may represent an intended intensification (s. JM §136 f). 129 Moreover, the phrase recalls the “choice ones” of Israel who were slain in v.31. In this instance, the punishment meted out to both Israel and Egypt is the same. 130 At this point one cannot say for sure whether an instance of literary borrowing occurred since we have not established the psalm’s date.

Page <73> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

9:22). 131 With the destruction of the firstborn, the psalmist omits any mention of animals, and instead focuses on the damage to people. A similar omission of animals also occurred in v.44 concerning the death of the fish. 132

52 וַיַּסַּ ֣ ע כַּ צֹּ֣ אן 8ַמּ֑ וֹ וַ ֽ יְנַהֲגֵ ֥ם כּ8ֵַ֜֗דֶ ר בַּמִּ דְבָּ ֽ ר׃

Then he led his people like a flock, and guided them like a flock in the desert

From the plagues in Egypt, the following four verses concentrate on the wilderness wandering. Since the psalm has already mentioned this phase in Israel’s travels, this short section is far more abbreviated. Because of this association, the psalmist does not need to recall the whole account of the provision in the wilderness. Once again, in v.52, the psalmist omits any role that Moses played in leading Israel out of Egypt. Though Ex 15:22 recalls .here YHWH alone bears this responsibility ,” וַיַּסַּ֙ ע מֹשֶׁ ֤ ה אֶ ת־יִשְׂרָאֵ ל֙ מִ יַּם־ס֔ וּף ... “ ,Moses as leader

creates an association , וינהגם ,and led them , ויסע ,The fact that YHWH brought his people out

In v.26, however, it is not Israel he leads out, but .” יַסַּ ֣ ע קָ֭דִ ים בַּשָּׁמָ ֑יִם וַיְנַהֵ ֖ ג בּ8ְֻ זּ֣ וֹ תֵ ימָ ֽ ן׃ “ ,with v.26

, צאן an east wind that is responsible for bringing meat to his people. The appearance of

“flock”, reinforces the imagery of God as a shepherd to his people, a picture that typically

Ps 80:2). The) ” ר8ֵֹ֨ ֤ה יִשְׂרָ אֵ֙ ל׀ הַאֲ זִ֗ ינָ ה נֹהֵ ֣ג כַּ צֹּ֣ אן יוֹסֵ ֑ ף ... “ ,emphasizes his compassion towards them

in the second colon reinforces this imagery. The importance of ” וינהגם כעדר “ parallel phrase establishing the image of YHWH as Israel’s shepherd sheds an interpretive light on the final in v.52, the psalm recalls the location in which God , מדבר ,verses. By mentioning the desert

” וּבְנֵ֖ י חָ ֑ ם כּ֥ וּשׁ וּמִצְרַ ֖ יִ ם וּפ֥ וּט וּכְנָ 8ַֽ ן׃ “ ,The table of nations in Gen 10 details the ancestry from Ham to the Egyptians 131 (Gen 10:6). 132 With respect to the sequence of the plagues listed here, Zakovitch (1997:153) divides them into four groups: vv.44, 45; vv.46, 47; vv.48-50; and standing alone, v.51. Greenstein (1990:207) claims the psalmist’s sequence makes no rhetorical sense, and should be explained as a “take-off” on the Torah. He further asserts that in the psalm the plagues begin with an assault on Egypt’s water (blood), then moves on to land and vegetation (flies, frogs, locust, and hail). Finally, they escalate in severity by attacking livestock (cattle plague) and then people (killing the firstborn). Though it is not my intention to examine the plagues in light of the Documentary Hypothesis, we should note that all of the plagues listed in this psalm can be derived from the J tradition; s. Lauha (1945:51) and Jirku (1917:110). For the purposes of dating the psalm, this information is useful because it suggests the origins of the psalm are archaic, because the J tradition is commonly considered the oldest of the Torah sources. For a detailed examination of the relationships between the Exodus tradition as recorded in this psalm and the Documentary Hypothesis, see Lauha (1945) and Jirku (1917).

Page <74> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

יְבַקַּ ֣ ע צֻ֭רִ ים “ ,performed a miracle for Israel when he split a rock to provide them with water

,v.15); however, it also recalls the place in which they defied him) ” בַּמִּדְבָּ ֑ר וַ֜יַּ֗שְׁקְ כִּ תְ הֹמ֥ וֹת רַבָּ ֽ ה׃

.(v.40) ” כַּ֭ מָּ ה יַמְר֣ וּהוּ בַמִּדְבָּ ֑ר י8ֲַ֜צִ יב֗ וּהוּ בִּֽ ישִׁ ימֽ וֹן׃“

53 וַיַּנְחֵ ֣ ם לָ֭ בֶטַ ח וְ לֹ֣ א פָחָ ֑ דוּ וְאֶ ת־א֜ וֹיְבֵ יהֶ֗ ם כִּסָּ ֥ ה הַ יָּ ֽם׃

And he led them safely, and they were not afraid for the sea covered their enemy

which is the third expression indicating “leading” in two verses, reinforces , וינחם The phrase

reminds the reader that נחה the picture of YHWH guiding his people. Repetition of the root

וַיַּנְחֵ ֣ ם “ ,the leading took place by means of a pillar of cloud by day, and a pillar of fire at night

v.14). YHWH’s loving protection finds further expression) ” בּ8ֶָנָ ֣ ן יוֹמָ ֑ ם וְכָ ל־הַ֜ לַּ֗ יְלָ ה בְּא֣ וֹר אֵ ֽ שׁ׃

which functions adverbially 133 in v.53, accentuating that whilst in his , לבטח through the term care the Israelites were led safely out of Egypt. Reinforcing the image of security is the phrase implying the Israelites had no fears when they left Egypt. Such a picture suggests ,” ולא פחדו“ they entirely trusted YHWH, and accentuates his role in maintaining his people’s safety. Contrary to this idea, however, is the picture presented in Exodus which records a great deal of anxiety raised when the Egyptian army pursued the slaves it had prematurely emancipated,

.(Ex 14:10) ” וּפַרְ 8ֹ֖ ה הִקְ ִ ֑ ריב וַיִּשְׂ אוּ֩ בְנֵ ֽי־יִשְׂרָ אֵ֙ ל אֶ ת־8ֵ ינֵ יהֶ֜ ם וְהִ נֵּ ֥ה מִצְרַ ֣יִם׀ נֹסֵ Zַ֣ אַחֲרֵ יהֶ֗ ם וַיִּֽירְ אוּ֙ מְ אֹ֔ ד ...“

The enemies mentioned in the second colon refer to those Egyptians covered by the sea whilst in pursuit of the Israelites. Though this is clear from the context, it is still notable or any other synonyms. In doing so, he , מצרים that the psalmist refrains from using the word hints towards God’s ability to deliver from the hands of all enemies. Some overlap exists .” בָּ ֣קַ ע יָ֭ם וַיַּ 8ֲֽבִ ירֵ ֑ ם וַ ֽ יַּצֶּ ב־מַ ֥יִם כְּ מוֹ־נֵ ֽד׃ “ ,between this verse and v.13, which records the same event

Verse 13, however, is more concerned with demonstrating YHWH’s dominance over Creation—his ability to stand the sea up in a heap—and the deliverance he executed without destroying human life. The added information presented here is that of the Egyptians’

,” בְּשָׁ ל֣ וֹם יַחְדָּ ו֘ אֶשְׁ כְּבָ ֪ ה וְאִ֫ ישָׁ ֥ ן כִּֽ י־אַתָּ ֣ ה יְהוָ֣ ה לְבָדָ ֑ ד לָ֜ בֶ֗ טַ ח תּוֹשִׁ יבֵ ֽנִ י׃ “ ,The adverbial use of this phrase occurs in Ps 4:9 133 where God causes the psalmist to dwell safely (s. also Lev 25:18 and Deut 33:12; and BDB 105).

Page <75> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 annihilation, when God covered them with the sea, thus punishing Israel’s enemies. 134 Within this second occurrence, we witness an emphasis on YHWH’s compassion towards Israel; he was willing to destroy human life for the sake of his people.

54 וַ֭יְבִ יאֵ ם אֶ ל־גְּב֣ וּל קָדְשׁ֑ וֹ הַ ר־זֶ֗ ה קָ נְתָ ֥ ה יְמִ ינֽ וֹ׃

Then he brought them unto his holy hill, the mountain that his right arm acquired

Temporally, at this point in the psalm it skips details of events in the desert, though much of this has already been enumerated earlier in the psalm. Here, YHWH brings the Israelites to a The latter could refer either to the .” גבול קדשו “ ,specified destination, his holy region, or land

אָ֭מַ ר וַיָּבֹ֣ א “ ,land” 135 of Canaan, in a similar way the land of Egypt is referenced in Ps 105:31“

s. also 105:33). Theoretically, it could also refer to a “hill” or) ” 8ָ רֹ֑ ב כִּ֜נִּ֗ ים בְּכָ ל־גְּ בוּלָ ֽ ם׃

in this verse, and its relation to gbl in הר mountain”, as inferred from its correspondence with“

Ugaritic. 136 Thus, God led them to the territory of his holy hill, 137 in all likelihood a reference to Mt. Zion. The reference to the Temple mount is clearer when we take the psalmist’s split of ק֭ וֹלִ י אֶ ל־ יְהוָ ֣ה “ ,into consideration. In verses such as Ps 3:5 ” הר קדשו “ the composite phrase

s. Pss 48:2 and 99:9), this composite phrase readily refers to the) ” אֶקְרָ ֑ א וַיַּ 8ֲֽ נֵ֙ נִ י מֵהַ ֖ ר קָדְשׁ֣ וֹ סֶ ֽלָ ה׃ mountain on which the Temple stood. 138 A clear connection appears here with the Song of the תְּ בִאֵ֗ מוֹ וְתִטּ8ֵָמ֙וֹ֙ בְּהַ ֣ ר נַחֲלָ ֽתְ B֔ מָ כ֧ וֹן “ ,Sea, where YHWH similarly brings Israel to his holy site

Ex 15:17). 139 The second colon expands the word) ” לְשִׁ בְתְּ B֛ פּ8ַָ ֖לְתָּ יְהוָ ֑ה מִקְּדָ֕ שׁ אֲ דֹנָ ֖י כּוֹנְנ֥ וּ יָדֶ ֽ יB׃

serving as a relative particle. 140 The mountain standing in the זה in the first, with קדשו territory God brought the Israelites into is none other than that which he acquired with his

134 Among the Exodus psalms, Psalms 106:11 and 136:15 also record this event. 135 The Septuagint concurs with this understanding in its use of οριου . 136 See Segert (1984:82); for more on the semantic relationship between these two words, s. Dahood (1964). . as “sanctuary”, see the Septuagint’s rendering of αγιασμα קדש For the understanding of 137 refers to the mountainous land characteristic הר Briggs (1969:189) disagrees with this analysis, arguing that 138 of much of Israel (supporting this he adduces Num 13:17, Deut 1:7, and Jos 11:2). 139 Within this conception, the whole land of Canaan adopts the holy and exalted status of the mountain upon which the Temple was built. ” י8ֲל֣ וּ הָ֭ רִ ים יֵרְד֣ וּ בְקָ 8֑ וֹת אֶ ל־מְ֜ ק֗ וֹם זֶ֤ ה׀ יָסַ֬ דְתָּ לָהֶ ֽ ם׃ “ ,as a relative pronoun, see Ps 104:8 זה For further evidence of 140 (additionally Job 19:19 and JM §145 c).

Page <76> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 right hand. In the context of Exodus, the only other acquisition made by God is that of his Ex 15:16). Here, however, the focus falls) ” ... 8ַ ד־י8ֲַ בֹ֤ ר 8ַמּBְ֙ יְהוָ֔ ה 8ַ ֽ ד־י8ֲַ בֹ֖ ר 8ַ ם־ז֥וּ קָנִֽ יתָ ׃ “ ,people squarely on the land. 141 The acquisition of this territory was accomplished by God’s right a well known symbol of strength and source of deliverance as Ps 20:7 lucidly , ימינו ,hand

s. also Ex) ” 8ַ ָ ֤ תּה יָד8ְַ֗תִּ י כִּ ֤י הוֹשִׁ֥ יZַ ׀ יְהוָ֗ ה מְשִׁ֫ יח֥ וֹ י8ֲַ֭ נֵ הוּ מִשְּׁמֵ ֣י קָדְשׁ֑ וֹ בִּ֜גְבֻר֗ וֹת יֵ ֣שַׁ ע יְמִ ינֽ וֹ׃ “ ,demonstrates

15:6, 12, Lam 2:3). An example of this strength at work appears in the following verse.

55 וַ יְגָ ֤ רֶ שׁ מִ פְּנֵ יהֶ֙ ם׀ גּוֹיִ֗ם וַ֭יַּפִּ ילֵ ם בְּחֶ ֣בֶ ל נַ חֲלָ ֑ה וַיַּשְׁכֵּ ֥ן בְּ֜אָהֳ לֵ יהֶ֗ ם שִׁבְטֵ ֥ י יִשְׂרָאֵ ֽ ל׃

And he drove out nations before them, and apportioned them an inheritance, and caused the tribes of Israel to dwell in their tents

Verse 55 reveals that God not only led the forefathers to the land, but additionally acts on their behalf when they arrive. According to the psalm, he drove the nations out before Israel,

The 142 .” וַיְגָ֙רֶ שׁ יְהוָ֜ ה אֶ ת־כָּ ל־ה8ַָמִּ֗ ים וְאֶ ת־הָאֱ מֹרִ ֛ י יֹשֵׁ ֥ ב הָאָ ֖רֶ ץ מִפָּנֵ ֑ינוּ ... “ ,an act recorded in Jos 24:18

means “to divide” or “assign by lot” (s. Jos 17:5 and Ps 16:6). After ” להפיל חבל “ expression driving the Canaanites out of the land, YHWH divided it by lot for his people. Joshua 13:6 ... אוֹרִ ישֵׁ֔ ם מִפְּנֵ ֖י בְּנֵ ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ ֑ ל רַ֠ ק הַפִּלֶ ֤הָ לְ יִשְׂרָ אֵ ל֙ בְּֽנַחֲ לָ֔ ה כַּאֲשֶׁ ֖ ר “ ,similarly recalls these two activities

s. also 23:4). Unlike these verses, however, the psalm does not recall Joshua as) ” צִוִּ יתִֽ יB׃ dividing the land, but God. After dividing the land, his final act in this verse is to cause his refers to the abandoned באהליהם people, the tribes of Israel, to dwell in their tents. The term

וַיִּתֵּ ֣ ן לָ֭הֶ ם אַרְ צ֣ וֹת גּוֹיִ ֑ם ו8ֲַמַ ֖ ל לְאֻמִּ ֣ ים “ ,dwellings of the former Canaanite inhabitants. Psalm 105:44

reflects the picture presented in the final colon, whereby God bestows upon his people ,” יִירָ ֽ שׁוּ׃

143 the hard work of the previous inhabitants of Canaan.

141 As with Ex 15:16ff., Kraus (1988b:129) here notes in the psalm a switch from the Exodus tradition to a Zion tradition. 142 The similarity between this wording and the psalm suggests the psalmist employed Joshua as a source. If this עם in the psalm could reflect the psalmist’s desire to reserve the term גוי to עם is the case, then the alteration from exclusively for Israel, God’s people. 143 See also Deut 6:10-12, which similarly presents a picture of YHWH bestowing a rich land together with the labor of the previous inhabitants to Israel.

Page <77> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

56 וַ יְנַסּ֣ וּ וַ֭יַּמְ רוּ אֶ ת־אֱ Nהִ ֣ ים 8ֶלְ י֑וֹן ו8ְֵ֜ דוֹתָ֗ יו לֹ֣ א שָׁמָ ֽ רוּ׃

But they rebelliously tested God Most High and his ordinances they never kept

The following three verses record Israel’s response, in light of all YHWH accomplished for ,recalls ,” וינסו וימ רו “ ,them in vv.43-55 they disobey him. The opening hendiadys 144 of v.56

These verses .” וישובו וינסו אל ... “ ;” כמה ימרוהו במדבר ... “ ,and relates it to, vv.40 and 41 recorded the general rebellious attitude of the Israelites, and vv.56-58 provide a practical example of when they rebelled. The exact nature of the rebellion at this point is not explicit, 145 עדותיו but the second colon relates it to failing to keep God’s ordinances. The reference to

וַיָּ ֤ קֶ ם 8ֵ דוּת֙ ׀ בְּֽ י8ֲַ קֹ֗ ב וְ תוֹרָ ה֘ שָׂ ֤ ם בְּ יִשְׂרָ ֫אֵ ֥ ל אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר צִ֭וָּ ה “ ,alludes to the ordinances first mentioned in v.5

those YHWH instituted for his people. Thus, in disobeying the ,” אֶ ת־אֲ ב וֹתֵ ֑ ינוּ לְ֜ הוֹדִ י8ָ֗ ם לִבְנֵ יהֶ ֽ ם׃ ordinances of God, they are rebelling against him. Via a semantic chiasmus here, the verse alludes to the second stanza, and the first recalled instance of disobedience related to Ephraim who also failed to keep his laws and ,” וּ֜בְ תוֹרָת֗ וֹ מֵאֲ נ֥ וּ לָלֶ ֽכֶ ת׃ לֹ֣ א שָׁ֭מְ רוּ בְּרִ ֣ ית אֱ Nהִ ֑ ים “ ,in v.10 commands.

57 וַיִּסֹּ֣ גוּ וַ ֽ֭יִּבְגְּ דוּ כַּאֲ בוֹתָ ֑ ם נֶ֜הְפְּכ֗ וּ כְּ קֶ ֣שֶׁ ת רְ מִ יָּ ֽה׃

They turned back and dealt treacherously like their fathers, they returned like a treacherous bow

Verse 57 further details the rebellion mentioned in the previous verse; Israel turned back and

אֲ דֹנָ ֤י יְ הוִה֙ פָּתַ ֽ ח־לִ ֣י אֹ֔ זֶ ן וְאָ נֹכִ ֖ י לֹ֣ א “ ,like their forefathers. Is 50:5 ,” ויסגו ויבגדו “ ,(betrayed (God

equates to , סוג ,recalls another instance in which the verb to turn back ,” מָרִ ֑ יתִ י אָח֖ וֹר לֹ֥ א נְ סוּגֹֽתִ י׃

frequently appears in the opening section, the אבות defiant behavior, as it does here. Though

וְ לֹ֤ א יִהְי֙ וּ׀ כַּאֲ בוֹתָ֗ ם דּוֹר֘ סוֹרֵ ֪ ר וּמֹ֫רֶ ֥ ה דּ֭ וֹר “ ,reference here is to the rebellious generation in v.8

as a mistake even though there are no וינסו See Watson (2001:327f.). Duhm (1920:205), however, understands 144 problems with the reading in MT. is often associated with Deuteronomic literature, suggesting a ” ועדותיו לא שמרו “ The occurrence of the phrase 145 reworked the verse; s. Campbell (1979:52).

Page <78> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

a fact explicated by the second colon. The second half of v.57 alludes to ,” לֹא־הֵכִ ֣ ין לִבּ֑ וֹ ...

בְּֽנֵ י־אֶפְרַ ֗ יִם “ ,Ephraim, and their turning away from God like a fearsome warrior from a battle

v.9), an association highlighted by a chiastic relationship) ” נוֹשְׁ קֵ ֥ י רוֹמֵ י־קָ ֑שֶׁ ת הָ֜פְכ֗ וּ בְּ י֣וֹם קְרָ ֽ ב׃

Thus in the context of the psalm even though Israel as a whole is .( רומי : קשת :: כקשת : רמיה) singled out for this behavior, the tribe of Ephraim is also specifically targeted. Like v.9, v.57 represents turning back in a moral sense. The imagery of נהפכו depicts disobedience in which

is that of a faulty bow that fails to shoot straight. When a warrior attempts to use ” קשת רמיה“ it in battle, it backfires on him, betraying him, and endangering his life. 146 Metaphorically, this represents the promise of something or someone behaving one way, only to change its behavior at a critical moment. This pattern of behavior applies to the forefathers, as recorded in vv.35-37, where they act one way, in feigning repentance, only to turn back on their initial יָשׁ֣ וּבוּ׀ לֹ֣ א “ commitment. The phrase is also reminiscent of another Northern text, Hos 7:16, 147

which similarly portrays an instance of deceptive behavior, that of the ,” 8ָ֗ ל הָ יוּ֙ כְּ קֶ ֣שֶׁ ת רְ מִ יָּ֔ה...

Northern Kingdom.

58 וַיַּכ8ְִ יס֥ וּהוּ בְּבָ מוֹתָ ֑ ם וּ֜בִפְסִ ילֵ יהֶ֗ ם יַקְנִ יאֽ וּהוּ׃

And they angered him with their high places, and with their idols, they made him jealous

Detailing the previously mentioned instance of rebellion, v.58 recalls how the Israelites (and more specifically Ephraim) angered God with their high places. Psalm 106 similarly recounts

where ,(106:29) ” וַ יַּכ8ְִ יסוּ בְּמַ 8ַֽלְלֵ יהֶ ֑ ם וַתִּ פְרָ ץ־בָּ֗ ֜ם מַ גֵּפָ ֽ ה׃ “ ,Israel provoking YHWH with their deeds the precise nature of the enraging deeds is more obscure. The source of YHWH’s anger are high places”, that the Israelites established, those elevated locations upon which“ , במות the

146 For similar descriptions of this concept see Schaefer (2001:194), Keil and Delitzsch (1982:373), and Kraus (1988b:129). Hacham (1981:48) similarly relates it to people who were supposed to keep the Torah but did the opposite, just like a bow that aims one way and shoots another. 147 The lexical correspondence and similarities in this context affirm that an instance of borrowing exists here. We will pursue this relationship later.

Page <79> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

וַיְקַטְּ רוּ־שָׁם֙ בְּכָ ל־בָּמ֔ וֹת כַּ גּוֹיִ֕ ם “ ,idolatrous cultic rituals were performed. 148 Second Kings 17:11

records a similar instance of high ,” אֲשֶׁ ר־הֶ גְלָ ֥ה יְהוָ ֖ה מִפְּנֵ יהֶ ֑ ם וַ ֽ יּ8ֲַ שׂוּ֙ דְּ בָרִ ֣ ים רָ 8ִ֔ ים לְהַכ8ְִ ֖ יס אֶ ת־יְהוָ ֽה׃ places provoking God’s wrath. The resulting punishment in 2Kings was the exile of the Northern Kingdom. 149 The chiasmus in this verse specifically relates the high places to

פְּסִ ילֵ ֥י אֱ Nהֵ יהֶ ֖ ם תִּשְׂרְ פ֣ וּן “ ,Such images were presumably those of foreign gods . פסיליהם ,images

Deut 7:25), employed in Canaanite rituals (s. also Deut 12:3 and Is 30:22). The) ” בָּאֵ ֑ שׁ ...

constitutes another expression of Israel’s actions that angered YHWH. With יקניאוהו phrase

,only appears in Deut 32 כעס and קנא the exception of the present location, the parallel pair of

הֵ֚ ם קִ נְא֣ וּנִ י בְ לֹא־אֵ֔ ל כּ8ֲִס֖ וּנִ י “ ,and again in v.21 ,” יַקְ נִאֻ ֖ הוּ בְּ זָרִ ֑ ים בְּ תוֹ8ֵ בֹ֖ ת יַכ8ְִ יסֻ ֽ הוּ׃ “ ,once in v.16

150 .” בְּהַבְלֵ יהֶ ֑ ם ...

59 שָׁמַ ֣ ע אֱ֭ Nהִ ים וַ ֽ יִּתְ 8ַבָּ ֑ר וַיִּמְאַ ֥ ס מְ֜ אֹ֗ ד בְּ יִשְׂרָ אֵ ֽ ל׃

And God heard and was angered and greatly despised Israel

Unlike the previous descriptions of punitive measures (vv.30f. and 34), the psalm now dedicates more verses to YHWH’s response than to the disobedience and idolatry. Once again illustrates how YHWH discovered Israel’s deeds. Though it seems , שמע ,the verb of hearing like a peculiar verb for perceiving what happened, it may have been selected specifically to solidify the association with v.21. God’s “hearing” and the flaring up of his anger against לָכֵ ֤ן׀ שָׁמַ ֥ ע יְהוָ֗ ה וַ ֽ יִּתְ 8ַבָּ ֥ ר וְ֭אֵ שׁ נִשְּׂ קָ ֣ ה בְ י8ֲַ קֹ֑ ב “ ,Israel are key themes connecting this verse with v.21

There, his anger arose because the desert generation tested the .” וְגַ ם־אַ֗ ף 8ָלָ ֥ה בְ יִשְׂרָאֵ ֽ ל׃ limitations of his abilities. In v.59, it is a new generation angering YHWH with different

-with idolatrous practices is not consistently observed in biblical literature. In the pre במות The association of 148 monarchic era there do not appear to be negative associations with the Israelite practice of seeking God and performing cultic acts at such locations. Samuel apparently performed a variety of cultic acts at high places (s. 1Sam 9:12, and 1Ki 3:2 with relation to Solomon). It is only later during the monarchy that negative slants on Israel worshipping at high places appear (s. Jer 19:5 and Ezek 6:3). This diachronic observation implies the psalm, or at least the verse/section here, reflects the work of a later period, when a negative association to the high places was established. 149 The only two other occurrences of these words appear in 2Chr 28:25 (a text that is unlikely to have been written at the time Psalm 78 was composed) and 2Ki 17:11. 150 This verse presents another instance of a Deuteronomic reworking; s. Campbell (1979:52).

Page <80> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 actions. Consequently, his response is more severe, and he greatly despises his people. In a recalls how God rejected Saul as ,” ... וַאֲנִ ֣י מְאַסְתִּ֔ יו מִמְּ F ֖N 8ַ ל־יִשְׂרָאֵ ֑ ל ... “ ,similar way, 1Sam 16:1 king, and perhaps more importantly, God’s spurning of the Northern Kingdom is similarly ;2Ki 17:20; s. also Lev 26:43) ” וַ יִּמְאַ֙ ס יְהוָ֜ ה בְּכָ ל־זֶ ֤ רַ ע יִשְׂרָאֵ ל֙ וַי8ְַ נֵּ֔ ם וַ ֽ יִּתְּ נֵ ֖ם בְּ יַד־שֹׁסִ ֑ ים... “ ,portrayed and Israel’s refusal of Canaan as reported by the psalmist in Ps 106:24). The severity of which similarly expresses the extent of 151, מאד Israel’s rejection is intensified with the adverb

.” ויאכלו וישבעו מאד ... “ ,their satisfaction with God’s provision in v.29

60 וַ֭יִּ טֹּשׁ מִשְׁכַּ ֣ן שִׁ ל֑ וֹ אֹ֜הֶ ל שִׁכֵּ ֥ן בָּאָדָ ֽ ם׃

Then he abandoned his dwelling at , the tent (in which) he dwelled among men

The practical outcome of God rejecting and despising Israel was his abandonment of the sanctuary at Shiloh. Effectively, this amounts to the removal of his protection, thus giving his עזַ֙בְתִּ י֙ אֶ ת־בֵּ יתִ֔ י נָטַ ֖שְׁתִּ י אֶ ת־נַחֲ לָתִ ֑ י “ ,people up to an enemy for destruction, as Jer 12:7 indicates

previously appeared it referred to the dwelling שכן When .” נָתַ ֛תִּ י אֶ ת־יְדִד֥ וּת נַפְשִׁ ֖ י בְּכַ ֥ ף אֹיְבֶ ֽ יהָ ׃ place of men (s. v.28 and 55), but here it describes the tent at Shiloh. 152 The very mention here of Shiloh again singles out the tribe of Ephraim because theirs was the territory in which , אהל ,”it was located. Throughout the psalm, we can translate each instance of the word “tent as “dwelling”, rather than specifically “tent”: the dwelling of Ham (v.51), the dwelling of אהל ,”Canaan, (v.55), and now God’s dwelling . The very notion of “God’s dwelling with man

YHWH causing his people to inhabit ,” ... וישכן באהליהם שבטי ישראל “ ,recalls v.55 , שכן באדם

151 Its placement here appears somewhat awkward, and some evidence suggests it is a divine epithet; Ps 46:2, .uses it in a similar fashion ,” אֱ Nהִ ֣ ים לָ֭ נוּ מַחֲסֶ ֣ ה וָ 8ֹ֑ ז 8ֶ זְרָ ֥ ה בְ֜ צָר֗ וֹת נִמְצָ֥ א מְ אֹֽ ד׃“ 152 God’s anger and ensuing abandonment of Israel and the tent at Shiloh implies that the previous reference to indicates all 12 tribes as opposed to just the northern tribes because the Israelites abandoned the tent at ישראל Shiloh prior to the establishment of the monarchy and its subsequent split. The Shiloh sanctuary represented the chief cultic centre at the time of the judges (s. Jud 18:8ff., 21:2). It was apparently destroyed in the middle of the eleventh century BCE, s. Day (1979), by the Philistines and became a sign of the extent to which God was willing to punish his people (s. Jer 7:12-15). It is, however, only in Jeremiah that a connection arises between the ו8ְָשִׂ֜ יתִ י לַבַּ ֣ יִת׀ אֲשֶׁ ֧ ר נִֽ קְרָ א־שְׁמִ ֣ י 8ָלָ֗ יו אֲשֶׁ ֤ ר אַתֶּם֙ בֹּטְחִ ֣ ים בּ֔ וֹ וְלַ֙ מָּק֔ וֹם אֲשֶׁ ר־נָתַ ֥ תִּ י לָכֶ֖ ם “ ,destruction of the Shiloh sanctuary ,Jer 7:14), and the rejection of the northern tribes, which led to their destruction) ” וְלַאֲבֽ וֹתֵ יכֶ֑ ם כַּאֲשֶׁ ֥ ר 8ָשִׂ ֖ יתִ י לְשִׁ לֽ וֹ׃ .(7:15) ”… הִשְׁ לַ֙ כְתִּ י֙ אֶ ת־כָּ ל־אֲחֵ יכֶ֔ ם אֵ ֖ ת כָּ ל־זֶ ֥ רַ ע אֶפְרָ ֽ יִם׃ “

Page <81> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

Canaan. In making this association, the psalm hints that YHWH himself dwelt in the same land in which he caused his people to settle. Furthermore, this connection reveals another

לֶחֶ ם “ ,example of the overlap between the realm of God, and that of man. Previously in v.25

men ate the food of heaven, that which divine beings ,” אַ֭ ִ בּירִ ים אָ ֣כַ ל אִ ֑ ישׁ צֵ ידָ֬ ה שָׁלַ ֖ח לָהֶ ֣ ם לָ שֹֽׂ בַ ע׃ eat. Here it is YHWH, a divine being, who dwells with man in the earthly realms.

61 וַיִּתֵּ ֣ ן לַשְּׁבִ ֣ י 8ֻ זּ֑וֹ וְֽתִ פְאַרְ תּ֥ וֹ בְ יַד ־צָ ֽ ר׃

And he delivered into captivity his strength, his splendor into the hand of the enemy

More than just abandoning his dwelling (the larger structure in which he dwelt, as recorded in here reflects נתן up to captivity. The appearance of , עזו ,”v.60), YHWH delivers “his strength a change from mercy to punishment. In rescuing his people from the hands of the Egyptians, v.46), and now as) ”וַיִּתֵּ ֣ ן לֶחָסִ ֣ יל יְבוּלָ ֑ם וִ֜ יגִ י8ָ֗ ם לָאַרְבֶּ ֽ ה׃ “ ,YHWH delivered their produce to locust

refers to the Ark עזו Israel’s enemy 153 he delivers up his own dwelling place. The expression

יהוָ֙ ה צְבָא֜ וֹת אֱ Nהֵ ֤ י יִשְׂרָאֵ ל֙ יֹשֵׁ ֣ ב “ ,of the Covenant, the place on earth in which YHWH dwelt

also recalls his strength in leading a south wind to bring עזו Is 37:16). 154 The term) ” הַכְּרֻ בִ֔ ים ...

” יַסַּ ֣ ע קָ֭דִ ים בַּשָּׁמָ ֑יִם וַיְנַהֵ ֖ ג בּ8ְֻ זּ֣וֹ תֵ ימָ ֽ ן׃ “ ,meat for his people to satisfy their cravings in the desert

This correspondence is . תפארתו as a reference to the Ark is עזו v.26). Complementing) primarily ascertained from the terraced pattern employed in the verse, but also finds some In describing the .” ... השְׁלִ ֤יF מִשָּׁמַ֙ יִם֙ אֶ֔רֶ ץ תִּ פְאֶ ֖רֶ ת יִשְׂרָאֵ ֑ ל וְ לֹא־זָכַ ֥ ר הֲ דֹם־רַ גְלָ ֖יו ... “ ,support in Lam 2:1

and ,” לֹא־זָכְר֥ וּ אֶ ת־ יָד֑ וֹ י֜וֹם אֲשֶׁ ר־פָּדָ ֥ ם מִ נִּ י־ צָ ֽ ר׃“ ,the psalmist links v.61 with v.42 ,” יד צר “ enemy as creates a stark contrast in events. Verse 42 recalls how God delivers Israel from the hand of an enemy, but here, in many respects, the psalmist reverses the situation and YHWH delivers the Ark into enemy hands. At this point in the psalm, it is more than probable that the psalmist is referring to the capture of the Ark by Philistine forces in 1Sam 4.

153 Zakovitch (1997) further develops the theme of God’s transformation from Israel’s deliverer to their enemy. Ps 132:8). The allusion to events recorded in 1Sam 4 also) ,” קוּמָ ֣ ה יְ֭ הוָ ה לִמְ נוּחָתֶ ֑ B אַ֜ תָּ֗ ה וַאֲר֥ וֹן 8ֻזֶּ ֽ B׃“ See also 154 clarify that YHWH delivered the Ark into enemy hands; s. also Davies (1963:52), and Briggs (1969:196). Additionally, Psalm 132:8 demonstrates the correlation between “strength” and “the Ark” (s. also Ps 96:6).

Page <82> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

62 וַיַּסְגֵּ ֣ר לַחֶ ֣רֶ ב 8ַמּ֑ וֹ וּ֜בְ נַחֲ לָת֗ וֹ הִתְ 8ַבָּ ֽ ר׃

He delivered his people to the sword, and with his inheritance he became angry

The punishment continues as his people are given up to the sword, and a word previously ,” ויסגר לברד בעירם ... “) ויסגר ,employed to depict the punishment reserved for Israel’s enemies

v.50), now applies to God’s people. Verse 62 represents the third ,” ... וחיתם לדבר הסגיר “ ;v.48 instance in which YHWH punishes his people: first, fire was sent against them (v.21), second, God slew a number of their choice ones (v.31), and now they are given up to the sword, an expression usually denoting war (s. Lev 26:25 and Jer 14:15). The war referred to here, in all likelihood, is the previously mentioned battle against the Philistines, in which they captured the Ark and defeated the Israelites. Unlike the previously mentioned punishments, this section presents a far more detailed account. Even in the midst of punishment, however, the unique relationship between YHWH and his people remains extant; for the psalmist, at no stage does .”his (YHWH’s) people“ , עמו YHWH reject his people to the point that they are no longer

עם a synonym for , נחלה Supporting this connection between God and his people is the term that similarly functions as a term of endearment for Israel (s. also Ps 135:12). This usage differs from v.55 where it describes the land he gave them. For the second time the psalmist s. also v.21), linking these two acts that recall God’s displeasure with his) התעבר employs people.

63 בַּ חוּרָ ֥ יו אָ ֽכְלָ ה־אֵ ֑ שׁ וּ֜בְ תוּNתָ֗ יו לֹ֣ א הוּלָּ ֽ לוּ׃

Fire consumed his young men, and his maidens never married

The description of God’s punishment, i.e. the effects of war, continues: fire consumes God’s recalls the earlier incident when God himself subdued the בחור young men. Repetition of

recalls אש v.31). Similarly) ” ...וַ֭יַּהֲ רֹג בְּ מִשְׁמַ נֵּ יהֶ ֑ ם וּבַ חוּרֵ ֖ י יִשְׂרָאֵ ֣ ל הִ כְרִֽ יZַ ׃“ choice ones of Israel, 155

implying “the chosen ones of Israel”. Though ,( בחוריהם =) Here the Septuagint renders νεανίσκους αυτων 155 this is ostensibly feasible, by maintaining the third-person masculine suffix, the psalm maintains the association

Page <83> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

לָכֵ ֤ן׀ שָׁמַ ֥ ע יְהוָ֗ ה וַ ֽ יִּתְ 8ַבָּ ֥ ר וְ֭אֵ שׁ “ ,another instance of God punishing his people for disobedience

v.21). Even though the imagery of fire in the context of war is a known) ” נִשְּׂ קָ ֣ ה בְ י8ֲַ קֹ֑ ב

... גַּ ם כָּ ל־ה8ֶָרִ֥ ים הַ נִּמְצָא֖ וֹת שִׁ לְּח֥ וּ “ ,phenomenon—as witnessed in the war against Benjamin

Jud 20:48; s. also 1Sam 30:3, 1Ki 9:16)—, due to the aforementioned internal) ” בָאֵ ֽ שׁ׃ allusions the fire mentioned in this verse links the destruction of “his young men” directly to God’s punitive actions, in addition to the events of war. ,repeated a number of times in the psalm , אכל ,”The idea of “consumption” or “eating plays an important role. It first appears in a phrase expressing part of Israel’s rebellious v.18). The psalm then) ”ַ ויְנַ סּוּ־אֵ ֥ ל בִּלְבָבָ ֑ ם לִֽשְׁאָ ל־אֹ֥כֶ ל לְנַפְשָׁ ֽ ם׃ “ ,desires, as they request food to eat employs it to confirm that even though the demand for food stemmed from the wrong motives, God still obliged by giving Israel their desires, a context depicting God’s mercy in which ,” לחם אבירים אכל איש ... “ ,light of disobedience. This same picture appeared in v.25

ויאכלו וישבעו “ ,describes the food Israel ate as “the bread of angels”. In a similar context, v.29

depicts the people’s satisfaction with their meat and bread. A turning point occurs in ,” מאד

as Israel sins whilst eating of the provisions God had ,” לֹא־זָר֥ וּ מִתַּאֲ וָתָ ֑ ם ע֜ וֹד אָכְלָ ֥ם בְּפִ יהֶ ֽ ם׃ “ ,v.30

only ever appears in a negative context, in relation אכל given them, and from here, the word

יְשַׁ לַּ֬ ח בָּהֶ ֣ ם 8ָ֭ רֹב “ ,to judgment. First, it recalls the swarms sent to consume the Egyptians

v.45); and then in this verse it appears as judgment against Israel. The) ” וַ יֹּאכְלֵ ֑ם ... transformation of Israel throughout this psalm from being the recipients of YHWH’s kindness

.throughout the psalm אכל to the object of his punishment is thus reflected in the usage of

Although the verse only reports that the men are struck, ramifications exist for the .”his maidens“ , בתולתיו his young men”, the psalm speaks of“ , בחוריו women. Parallel to

מִ חוּץ֙ תְּשַׁ כֶּ ל־חֶ֔רֶ ב “ ,Together, these form a merismus emphasizing totality. Deuteronomy 32:25

reflects a similar picture of totality ,” וּמֵחֲדָרִ ֖ ים אֵ ימָ ֑ ה גַּ ם־ בָּ חוּר֙ גַּ ם־ בְּ תוּלָ֔ ה יוֹנֵ ֖ק 8ִ ם־אִ֥ ישׁ שֵׂ יבָ ֽ ה׃ constituting a portrayal of destruction during war (s. also Jer 51:22 and Ps 148:12). The

between God and his people. Even though he delivered them up to war and bloodshed, they are still his .

Page <84> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 overall effect of the young men being slain in battle is that the maidens would remain

lit: “not praised” in wedding songs. 156 ,” לא הוללו “ ,unmarried

64 כֹּ֭הֲ נָ יו בַּחֶ ֣רֶ ב נָפָ ֑לוּ וְ֜אַלְמְ נֹתָ֗ יו לֹ֣ א תִבְכֶּ ֽ ינָ ה׃

His priests fell by the sword and his widows did not mourn

As a parallel to v.63, v.64 first depicts the fate of men, followed by a corresponding effect on women. Recollection of the priests falling by the sword escalates the severity of the war portrayed in this verse. Typically, priests are not trained warriors who go out to battle, and so their slaughter represents an especially heinous act of the enemy. The slaying of priests recalls Saul’s actions against the priests of Nob, when he slaughtered them in his hunt for David (s. 1Sam 22:19; Ezra 9:7 similarly recalls priests and kings falling to the sword). The picture of additionally echoes an earlier time in the psalm ,” בחרב נפלו “ ,the priests falling to the sword

” וַיְגָ ֤ רֶ שׁ מִפְּנֵ יהֶ֙ ם׀ גּוֹיִ֗ם וַֽ֭יַּפִּ ילֵ ם בְּחֶ ֣בֶ ל נַחֲלָ ֑ה... “ ,when Israel were the recipients of God’s mercy

(v.55; s. also v.28, quail falling round the camp), and not the object of his wrath. The second here closes a short inclusion with v.62 depicting those delivered up to the חרב instance of sword as part of God’s judgment. 157 If vv.59-64, portraying Israel’s punishment through war, are indeed records of 1Sam 4, then the present reference to priests surely alludes to the deaths of Hophni and Phinehas, Eli’s sons who died in battle on the same day (1Sam 4:11, 17). 158 As a devastating consequence of the war, the widows of those slain in battle are unable to observe the customary practice of mourning for their husbands. The current verse’s wording presents a variety of images. They could represent battlefield devastation so complete that neither messengers nor any other survivors are able to return home. Thus, the women would never know if their husbands were dead or alive, and would be unable to mourn for them.

επενθηθησαν ), meaning “to) ילל as though it were a hifil of הללו The Septuagint has apparently rendered 156 wail”. Contextually, such an understanding suggests that due to the war’s severity, the normal opportunities peacetime afforded, such as the performance of funerals, could not be completed. Whereas this solution has its merits, MT’s rendering is also quite acceptable and has no need for alteration. The decision to support MT in this instance finds support from a number of both medieval and modern commentators. See for example Ibn Ezra (Cohen [2003:31]); RaDaK (Cohen [2003:31]), Zakovitch (1997:161), Dahood (1970:247), and Tate (1990:283). .(v.64) חרב v.63), and) בחור ,(v.62) חרב It is also possible to detect an instance of paronomasia here between 157 158 Both Rashi (Cohen [2003:30]) and Briggs (1969:190) have also noted this connection between the texts.

Page <85> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

Alternatively, the women’s inability to mourn could stem from the trauma induced by the devastating loss of the Ark, rendering them incapable of mourning for their husbands. In light of the associations with 1Sam 4, the second colon also contains a veiled reference to the death of Hophni’s wife as recorded in vv.17-22. News of the Ark led her to give birth prematurely, and she was unable to mourn for her husband, a priest, because she died soon after. 159

65 וַיִּ קַ ֖ ץ כְּ יָשֵׁ ֥ ן׀ אֲ דֹנָ ֑י כְּ֜גִבּ֗ וֹר מִתְ רוֹנֵ ֥ ן מִ יָּ ֽ יִן׃

Then the Lord awoke as though he had slept, like a hero waking up from wine

The following two verses depict a dramatic reversal as God, after delivering his people up in battle, turns to them again in mercy. The syntactic chiasmus in the verse reflects the reversal in God’s attitude to his people. The image of YHWH awaking from a slumber to fight on behalf of his people is attested elsewhere in biblical literature. It recalls the cry for the divine עוּרִ ֙ י עוּרִ ֤ י לִבְשִׁ י־עֹז֙ זְר֣ וֹZַ יְהוָ֔ ה ע֚ וּרִ י כִּ ֣ ימֵ י … “ ,warrior to awake and fight for his people in Is 51:9-11

v.9). On one hand, the idea of YHWH waking up from a deep sleep is somewhat) ” קֶ֔דֶ ם derogatory, recalling Elijah’s taunts in his confrontation with the prophets of Baal in 1Ki Elsewhere in biblical literature, however, when God’s people .” ... אוּלַ֛ י יָשֵׁ ֥ ן ה֖ וּא וְיִ קָ ֽ ץ׃ “ ,18:27 feel abandoned by him, falling victim to their enemies or a natural catastrophe, they often call and in Ps ,” ה8ִָ ֣ ירָ ה וְ֭הָקִ יצָ ה לְמִשְׁ פָּטִ ֑ י אֱ Nהַ ֖ י וַ ֽאדֹנָ ֣י לְרִ יבִֽ י׃ “ ,upon him to awaken . Psalm 35:23 reads

In these instances, the belief is not that God .” עוּרָ ה לָמָּ ה תִ ישַׁ ן אֲ דֹנָ י הָקִ יצָ ה אַ ל־תִּ זְנַ ח לָנֶצַ ח “ ,44:24 really sleeps, but they constitute a desperate call for him to act on their behalf. 160 Contrasting

( שְׂרִ ידוֹ ) [ שְׂ֭ רִ ידָ יו ] בַּמָּ ֣ וֶ ת יִקָּבֵ ֑ רוּ “ ,Another possibility exists through an intertextual reading with Job 27:15 159 .which depicts the fate of a wicked man. When he dies, his widow will not mourn for him ,” וְ֜ אַלְמְ נֹתָ֗ יו לֹ֣ א תִ בְכֶּ ֽ ינָ ה׃ With this in mind, it is possible to read Israel in the place of the wicked man. Their crimes are depicted as being so bad, that the Israelite widows do not mourn the loss. It is additionally possible to read this section of the psalm, vv.59-64, as an explanation for the loss of the Ark, and the severe defeat the Israelites suffered at the hands of the Philistines, as recorded in 1Sam 4. In 1Sam 4 the Philistines devastate the Israelite army and capture the Ark of the Lord. Moreover, two of the high priest’s sons also die on the battlefield. The result of this trauma subsequently causes the death of the high priest, Eli. Within this picture of abject devastation in Samuel, no adequate explanation appears for such a catastrophic loss. Psalm 78, however, goes some way to answering this issue by suggesting that a culmination of Israel’s sins, spanning back to the generation delivered from Egypt, caused it. Seybold (1996:308) recognizes this as the original meaning of the psalm. Similarly, he asserts that the meaning was altered later in the psalm’s development by the hand of a Deuteronomic redactor. 160 The motif of the sleeping deity is also known from Assyrian literature; for more on this image see Mrozek (1999).

Page <86> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 the aforementioned psalms, in v.65 YHWH stirs himself to arise and defend his people, and is not prompted by the cries of Israel. The second colon further delineates the process of waking up, relating it to that of a hero recovering from a heavy wine-induced 161 sleep. Such a bold 162 image properly reflects the desperation Israel experienced. The fact that it was no ordinary sleep, but one induced by the consumption of wine, reflects the long duration for which Israel would have remained vulnerable and at the mercy of their enemies. It also portrays the severe dulling of the senses that God would have experienced, rendering him unable to hear the cries of his people. Overall, this image does not possess any lexical associations with events in 1Sam 4, but represents the psalmist’s interpretation of events.

66 וַיּFַ־צָרָ ֥ יו אָח֑ וֹר חֶרְ פַּ ֥ ת ע֜ וֹלָ֗ ם נָ ֣תַ ן לָ ֽ מוֹ׃

And he struck his enemies back and made them a lasting reproach

As a result of waking, God now takes revenge upon his enemies, those who assaulted his and he struck”, recalls the earlier instance in which God struck an“ , ויך people. The phrase

v.51), in addition) ” וַיַּ ֣ F כָּ ל־בְּ כ֣ וֹר בְּמִ צְרָ ֑יִם רֵ אשִׁ֥ ית א֜ וֹנִ֗ ים בְּאָהֳ לֵ י־חָ ֽ ם׃ “ ,enemy on behalf of his people

” הֵ ֤ ן הִ ָ כּה־ צ֙ וּר׀ וַיָּ ז֣וּבוּ מַ יִם֘ וּנְחָלִ ֪ים יִ֫שְׁ טֹ֥ פוּ...“ ,to the striking of a rock to provide Israel with water

(v.20, as the Israelites recall the event). The enemy mentioned in v.66 is the same as that

recalls , למו ,The third-person pronoun here .” וַיִּתֵּ ֣ ן לַשְּׁבִ ֣ י 8ֻ זּ֑ וֹ וְֽתִ פְאַרְ תּ֥ וֹ בְ יַד־צָ ֽ ר׃ “ ,introduced in v.61

in v.62, reminding the reader of the close relationship that עמו the similar morphological form still exists between God and his people. Additionally, we can infer the existence of this intimate relationship from the fact that Israel’s enemy is synonymous with God’s enemy. “His

recalls Israel’s forgetfulness, when they forgot that YHWH is the one who , צריו ,”enemies

is a hapax legomenon , its meaning can be derived from the context, and the מ תרונן Though the word 161 translations of the Septuagint, κεκραιπαληκως , “to have a sick head-ache, consequent upon a debauch”, LSJ .”to open the eyes“ , מתפקח ,.and the Tgs ;989 162 The idea of God, creator of the universe, sleeping is bad enough, but now to read of him being intoxicated with wine appears disrespectful. Concerning this picture, Weiser refers to it as “a very daring picture”, (1965:542), similarly Campbell says, “the awakening of is depicted with daring imagery…”; Keil, on the other hand, attempts to place a more positive spin on the incident, suggesting that the hero’s courage is heightened and exhilarated by the influence of wine, Keil and Delitzsch (1982:375).

Page <87> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

v.42). If we return) ” לֹא־זָכְר֥ וּ אֶ ת־יָד֑ וֹ י֜ וֹם אֲשֶׁ ר־פָּדָ ֥ ם מִ נִּ י־צָ ֽ ר׃ “ ,redeems them from their oppressors to the probable allusion here to 1Sam 4, a double entendre arises with the depiction of back”. In a strict military sense, it refers to driving an“ , אחור YHWH striking the enemy

בְּ שׁוּב־אוֹיְ בַ ֥ י “ ,enemy force backwards forcing them to retreat in battle, as reflected in Ps 9:4

Additionally, it may refer to the “rear part” or “rump”, as an .” אָח֑ וֹר יִכָּשְׁ ל֥ וּ וְ֜ יֹאבְד֗ וּ מִפָּנֶ ֽיB׃ allusion to the piles that the Philistines were struck with after they had captured the Ark 163 (1Sam 5:6). .” חרפת עולם “ ,”In striking his enemies, God transforms them into an “eternal disgrace

supports the latter of the interpretations listed above, highlighting the disgust חרפה The word

is ” חרפת עולם “ ,caused by the nature of God’s vengeance. Together, as part of an expression

where the ,” וְנָתַתִּ֥ י 8ֲלֵ יכֶ ֖ם חֶרְ פַּ ֣ת עוֹלָ ֑ם וּכְלִמּ֣ וּת עוֹלָ֔ ם אֲשֶׁ ֖ ר לֹ֥ א תִשָּׁכֵ ֽ\ַ ׃ “ ,only attested in Jer 23:40

constitutes the final element of a chiasmus נתן . employs it to castigate false prophets linking v.66 with v.61. After giving up his dwelling to the power of an oppressor, YHWH now makes them a lasting reproach; the chiasmus here signifies a reversal of circumstances

164 .( ויתן : צר :: צריו : נתן)

67 וַ֭יִּמְאַ ס בְּ אֹ֣הֶ ל יוֹסֵ ֑ ף וּֽבְשֵׁ ֥בֶ ט אֶ֜פְרַ ֗ יִם לֹ֣ א בָחָ ֽ ר׃

And he rejected the tents of Joseph, and the tribe of Ephraim he did not choose

YHWH’s return to his people, delivering them from the hand of the enemy, did not come without repercussions; such ramifications constitute the climactic end to the psalm, which ,” שָׁמַ ֣ ע אֱ֭ ִ Nהים וַ ֽ יִּתְ 8ַבָּ ֑ ר וַיִּמְאַ ֥ ס מְ֜ אֹ֗ ד בְּ יִשְׂרָאֵ ֽ ל׃ “ ,begins in v.67. This verse sheds some light on v.59 and it is possible to understand there that it was not so much Israel that God rejected, but the

163 See Tate (1990:283) and RaDaK (s. Cohen [2003:33 ]). as , צריו ,A valid and somewhat appealing alternative understanding for this verse identifies God’s enemies 164 Israel rather than the Philistines. Understanding it this way means that YHWH struck Israel back and made them an eternal reproach (s. Zakovitch [1997:162f.]). If we understand Israel as being representative of the Northern tribes, then the fact that God made them a lasting approach resonates well with the following verse which depicts and למו the rejection of Joseph. Additionally supporting such a view is the aforementioned similarity between .suggesting God made his people a lasting reproach , לעמו

Page <88> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 tribe of Ephraim. As a result of their repeated transgressions, and failing to learn from their אהל “ forefathers, God rejects them. The first reference to Ephraim appears here in the phrase

Gen 41:52 attests that Ephraim was the son of Joseph. Furthering the association with ,” יוסף

From this we .” ויטש משכן שלו אהל שכן באדם “ ,which recalls v.60 , אהל Ephraim is the word can assert that God’s rejection was of the territory of Ephraim, the place where he had previously chosen to dwell. שבט “ ,”Complimenting the tents of Joseph in the second colon is “the tribe of Ephraim

who were first criticized for their disobedience in vv.9-11. 165 Even though the ,” אפרים description of Israel’s transgressions as a nation constituted a large part of the psalm, it is now clear that the main object of attention is the tribe of Ephraim. They are first identified as those who forget God’s deeds, in the aforementioned verses, and are further indicted for not learning from their forefathers’ mistakes. As a final consequence, they and their land are rejected by God. expressing rejection, and completes a , וימאס corresponds with ” לא בחר “ The phrase chiasmus that makes the rejection of Ephraim even more emphatic. Selection of this slightly

as a parallel probably stems from the psalmist’s desire to create an (” לא בחר “) clumsy phrase association with the following verse.

68 וַ֭יִּבְחַ ר אֶ ת־שֵׁ ֣בֶ ט יְהוּדָ ֑ ה אֶ ֽ ת־הַ ֥ ר צִ֜ יּ֗ וֹן אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר אָהֵ ֽ ב׃

And he chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which he loved

Key elements in v.67 b now appear in 68 a, providing an important degree of continuity. The

emphasizes the rejection and ( בשבט : בחר :: ויבחר : שבט ) chiasmus between these verses selection processes. Ephraim was rejected and Judah chosen. Throughout the psalm there have been numerous mentions of Israel and Ephraim (e.g., vv.9, 21, 31, and 41), but this is the first time the tribe of Judah is recalled. Paralleling the selection of the tribe of Judah, the second colon focuses on the geographical region of Mount Zion, the territory of Judah, the

165 The association between Ephraim and the house of Joseph is also apparent from Jos 14:4.

Page <89> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

is well יהודה // ציון hill on which the Temple was built.166 The corresponding word pair

s. also Jer 14:19) ” כִּ ֤ י אֱ Nהִ֙ ים׀ י֨וֹשִׁ ֤ יZַ צִ יּ֗ וֹן וְ֭יִבְ נֶ ה 8ָרֵ ֣ י יְהוּדָ ֑ה ... “ ,attested in verses such as Ps 69:36

provided the earliest indication of the select and הר ,and Ps 97:8). First mentioned in v.54

It is only fitting to assume .” ִ וַ֭יְביאֵ ם אֶ ל־גְּב֣ וּל קָדְשׁ֑ וֹ הַ ר־זֶ֗ ה קָ נְתָ ֥ ה יְמִ ינֽ וֹ׃ “ ,unique status of Mt. Zion now that the mount he acquired with his right hand is the same as that which he now loves. which approximately bears the same , אהב in the first colon is בחר Corresponding with

וְתַ֗חַ ת כִּ ֤ י אָהַב֙ “ ,meaning in this context. Deuteronomy 4:37 similarly associates the two words

וְאַתָּה֙ יִשְׂרָאֵ ֣ל 8ַבְדִּ֔ י י8ֲַ קֹ֖ ב אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר בְּחַ רְתִּ ֑ יB זֶ ֖ רַ ע “ ,as does Is 41:8 ,” אֶ ת־אֲ בֹתֶ֔ יB וַיִּבְחַ ֥ ר בְּ זַרְ 8֖ וֹ אַחֲרָ ֑ יו ...

.(s. also Deut 10:15 and Ps 47:5) ” אַבְרָהָ ֥ ם אֹהֲבִֽ י׃

From the selection process described in this verse, a difficult question arises: where was Judah during the rebellions enumerated throughout the psalm? Verse 69 suggests they had no role in any of the transgressions listed, and were consequently eligible for selection, whereas YHWH rejected Ephraim for their persistent disobedience. The solution to this anomaly lies in one of the psalm’s more prominent themes: YHWH’s bestowal of undeserved favor. From beginning to end, the psalm repeats instances of God supplying above and beyond the people’s requests simply because of his benevolent nature. In applying the picture of overabundant favor to v.68, it becomes evident that YHWH selected the tribe of Judah through his inherent goodness, and not through any particular merits they may have achieved otherwise.

69 וַיִּ ֣בֶ ן כְּ מוֹ־רָ֭מִ ים מִקְדָּשׁ֑ וֹ כְּ֜אֶ֗רֶ ץ יְסָדָ ֥ הּ לְ עוֹלָ ֽ ם׃

And he built his Temple like the heavenly heights, As the earth he established it eternally

The psalmist now enumerates the reason for the selection in v.68: YHWH chose the region for the construction of the Temple. Just as the psalmist has omitted any mention of intermediaries in recounting the desert events—up until this point in the psalm at least—so

166 It is primarily the pre-exilic prophets (Is 8:18, Jer 31:6, and Mic 4:7) who refer to Zion as the hill upon which the Temple stands, a view that is reflected here. The majority of references to Mt. Zion as a synonym for Jerusalem appear in later writings; s. Mare (1992:1096).

Page <90> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 too he ascribes the work of constructing the Temple 167 directly to God. 168 Perhaps more like the“ , כמרומים to ” כמו רמים “ appropriately, however, we should probably amend the phrase heavens”. 169 In understanding it this way, another connection between heaven and earth arises. 170 Additionally, it hints towards the unshakable nature of the Temple; just as the heavens are a constant part of reality, so too is the Temple. Another reference to the Temple’s יָ ֽסַ ד־אֶ֭רֶ ץ 8ַ ל־מְ כוֹנֶ ֑יהָ בַּ ל־תִּ֜מּ֗ וֹט “ ,Psalm 104:5 .” כארץ יסדה “ permanence appears with the phrase

recalls a similar image depicting eternal stability. The phrase also creates an ,” עוֹלָ ֥ם ו8ֶָ ֽ ד׃

which ,” הַ בּוֹנֶ ֤ה בַשָּׁמַ֙ יִם֙ ( מַ 8ֲ לוֹתוֹ [) מ8ֲַ לוֹתָ֔ יו ] וַאֲ גֻדָּת֖ וֹ 8ַ ל־אֶ ֣רֶ ץ יְסָדָ ֑ הּ “ ,undeniable link with Amos 9:6

further לעולם depicts God building the upper rooms of his palace. Moreover, the phrase explicates the eternal nature of this abode.171

70 וַ֭יִּבְחַ ר בְּדָ וִ ֣ד 8ַבְדּ֑ וֹ וַ֜יִּקָּחֵ֗ הוּ מִֽמִּכְלְ אֹ֥ ת צֹֽ אן׃

And he chose David his servant, and took him from the sheepfold

וַ֭יִּבְחַ ר “ ,The process of selection continues in v.70, just as the tribe of Judah was selected

v.69), so too is David. The psalm’s remaining three verses all relate to this) ” אֶ ת־שֵׁ ֣בֶ ט יְהוּ דָ ֑ה final selection. The very fact that the psalmist took deliberate measures throughout the psalm to omit the specific mention of individuals besides God—especially the omission of Aaron and Moses in the recounting of the plagues’ narrative—accentuates the explicit mention of David in the present verse. David’s exalted status is further highlighted by his depiction as an exceptional term bestowed upon pre-eminent individuals, such as , עבדו ,God’s servant

167 The reference to the Solomonic Temple determines a terminus post quem for our psalm, 960 BCE, the approximate date of the Temple’s completion. which would simply refer to the , כמו רמים It is possible, but not preferable, to preserve MT here, reading 168 ,(Deut 12:2) ” ... 8ַ ל־הֶהָרִ ֤ ים הָ ֽרָ מִ ים֙ ו8ְַ ל־הַ גְּבָע֔ וֹת… “ ,heights, as in the high places of the earth such as mountain tops Is 2:13). Such a reference to “heights” recalls the high places) ” ו8ְַ ל֙ כָּ ל־אַרְ זֵ ֣ י הַלְּבָ נ֔ וֹן הָרָמִ ֖ ים וְהַ נִּשָּׂאִ ֑ ים ... “ ,or high trees in v.58, but here, the height of the Lord’s mountain, going up to the heavens, exceeds that of the idols’ high places. הַ ֥ לְ לוּ יָ֙ הּ׀ הַ ֽלְל֣ וּ אֶ ת־יְ֭ הוָ ה “ ,and 148:1 ,” כִּֽ י־הִ֭ שְׁ קִ יף מִמְּר֣ וֹם קָדְשׁ֑ וֹ יְ֜ הוָ֗ ה מִשָּׁמַ ֤ יִ ם׀ אֶ ל־אֶ֬ רֶ ץ הִבִּֽ יט׃ “ ,See Pss 102:20 169 .(s. also Kraus [1988b:122], Briggs [1969:197], and BHS) ” מִ ן־הַשָּׁמַ ֑ יִ ם הַ֜ לְל֗ וּהוּ בַּמְּ רוֹמִֽ ים׃ 170 See close reading for v.26. אַ ל־תִּבְטְח֣ וּ לָכֶ֔ ם “ ,The perception of the Solomonic Temple being indestructible is discernable from Jer 7:4 171 .in which its very existence promotes a sense of security ,” אֶ ל־דִּ בְרֵ ֥ י הַשֶּׁ ֖ קֶ ר לֵ אמֹ֑ ר הֵ יכַ֤ ל יְהוָה֙ הֵ יכַ ֣ ל יְ הוָ֔ ה הֵ יכַ֥ ל יְהוָ֖ ה הֵ ֽ מָּ ה׃

Page <91> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

Moses (Num 12:7), Caleb (Num 14:24), Abraham (Gen 26:24), and Israel, as a nation (Jer additionally ascribes David with ,” בּ8ֲַ֭ בוּר דָּ וִ ֣ד 8ַבְדֶּ ֑ B אַ ל־תָּ֜שֵׁ֗ ב פְּנֵ ֣י מְשִׁ יחֶ ֽ B׃ “ ,Psalm 132:10 .(30:10 this honored title. 172 Just as the selection of Judah was founded upon YHWH’s inherent kindness, and not their inherent goodness, so too is the election of David. The second colon reinforces this view, recalling the humble background from which YHWH selected him: he took David from the

here, the psalmist recalls God leading his people צאן By mentioning .” ממכלאת צאן “ ,sheepfold

.(v.52) ” וַיַּסַּ ֣ ע כַּ צֹּ֣ אן 8ַמּ֑ וֹ וַ ֽ יְנַהֲגֵ ֥ם כּ8ֵַ֜֗דֶ ר בַּמִּדְבָּ ֽ ר׃ “ ,in the desert after he delivered them from Egypt

...אֲנִ ֤י לְקַחְתִּ֙ יB֙ מִ ן־הַ נָּוֶ֔ה מֵאַחַ ֖ ר “ ,The process of selection in v.70 echoes God’s words in 2Sam 7:8

Concerning this quote, the similarities with v.70 are .” ַ הצֹּ֑ אן לִֽהְ י֣וֹת נָגִ֔ יד 8ַ ל־8ַמִּ ֖ י 8ַ ל־יִשְׂרָאֵ ֽ ל׃ remarkable. Both emphasize the progression from humble beginnings to an exalted status, and both arise in contexts related to the Temple’s construction. In Samuel, the words constitute part of God’s reply to David after he first suggested building a house in which YHWH could dwell.

71 מֵאַחַ ֥ ר 8ָל֗ וֹת הֱ֫בִ יא֥ וֹ לִ֭רְ עוֹת בְּ י8ֲַ קֹ֣ ב 8ַמּ֑ וֹ וּ֜בְ יִשְׂרָ אֵ֗ ל נַחֲ לָתֽ וֹ׃

He brought him from following the nursing sheep, to shepherd Jacob his people and Israel his inheritance

The psalm’s penultimate verse continues detailing the theme of David’s transition from humble beginnings, and further progresses the grand purpose God had prepared for him. The repeat the sentiment of v.70 b: that David was a ,” מאחר עלות “ ,opening words of this verse shepherd. 173 The wording here, however, emphasizes David’s compassionate heart and tender care of his sheep. Rather than simply caring for sheep, as recalled in the previous verse, David

.nursing sheep and goats”, in need of special attention“ 174, עלות is depicted as watching over

172 Psalm 78’s silence on Saul’s existence implies his rejection as king corresponded with the rejection of Ephraim. Moreover, throughout his reign he never considered constructing a Temple for the Ark. means “following after”, but can also bear the nuance of “tending flocks”; s. 2Sam 7:8 and מאחר ,Literally 173 another northern text that similarly ,” וַיִּקָּחֵ ֣ נִ י יְ הוָ֔ ה מֵאַחֲרֵ ֖ י הַ צֹּ֑ אן וַ יֹּ֤ אמֶ ר אֵ לַי֙ יְהוָ֔ ה לֵ֥ F הִ נָּבֵ ֖ א אֶ ל־8ַמִּ֥ י יִשְׂרָאֵ ֽ ל׃ “ ,Amos 7:15 .as a shepherding term מאחר uses .literally means, “to give suck”, BDB 732 עול The root 174

Page <92> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

recalls YHWH’s ,” ... יְקַבֵּ ֣ץ טְ לָאִ֔ ים וּבְחֵ יק֖ וֹ יִשָּׂ ֑ א 8ָל֖ וֹת יְנַהֵ ֽ ל׃ “ ,Utilizing similar imagery, Is 40:11

had YHWH as the subject הביא gentle treatment of Israel. The two previous occurrences of

וַ יֹּאכְל֣ וּ וַיִּשְׂ בּ8ְ֣ וּ “ ,and expressed his undeserved mercy. He brought the Israelites their desires

וַ֭יְבִ יאֵ ם אֶ ל־גְּב֣ וּל קָדְשׁ֑ וֹ הַ ר־זֶ֗ ֜ה “ ,v.29), and brought them to his holy land) ” מְ אֹ֑ ד וְ֜תַ ֽאֲ וָ תָ֗ ם יָבִ֥ א לָהֶ ֽ ם׃

v.54). Similarly as an act of undeserved favor, God now brings David out from) ” קָ נְתָ ֥ ה יְמִ ינֽ וֹ׃ tending the ewes. From the shepherding of flocks, YHWH calls David to shepherd his people, Jacob. 175 David’s skills as a shepherd, to which the psalmist dedicates two cola, must now be applied to shepherding God’s newly restored people. In the context of Psalm 78, such a request represents a monumental task. Throughout the psalm, YHWH alone has functioned as Israel’s shepherd, leading them out of Egypt and through the desert to his holy land. David is now called to adopt this same function as Israel’s leader. Psalm 78 constantly recounts instances of Israel’s failure to obey God. If God thus had difficulty in shepherding his people, how much more difficulty will David encounter! The repeated emphasis on Jacob and Israel as God’s people shows that he has still not entirely rejected all of the tribes because they are soon to be led by David (his function here is not exclusive to the tribe of Judah).

72 וַ֭יִּרְ 8ֵ ם כְּ תֹ֣ ם לְבָב֑ וֹ וּבִתְ בוּנ֖ וֹת כַּפָּ ֣יו יַנְחֵ ֽ ם׃

And he shepherded them with integrity, and with the wisdom of his craft he led them

In addition . רעה The idea of shepherding continues in this verse with the repetition of the root to David’s gentleness as a shepherd, the psalm now focuses on his innocence and integrity. carries with it a sense of innocence, which is to say an absence of 176” בתם בלב “ The phrase

recalls how Abimelech ,” ...בְּתָ ם־לְבָבִ ֛ י וּבְנִקְ יֹ֥ן כַּפַּ ֖ י 8ָשִׂ֥ יתִ י זֹֽ את׃ “ ,intentional malice. Genesis 20:5 took Abraham’s wife Sarah in innocence, he was not conscious of committing a crime.

175 The link between David’s role as shepherd and his position as Israel’s leader also appears in 1Sam 17:34-37. Similarly, the extra-biblical , attested in the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls, reflects this transformation. 176 Here I have opted to amend the kaph into a bet due to their graphical similarity, s. Tov (1992:248), a decision ,” כתם לב “ supported by a few Hebrew Mss (s. BHS). Moreover, biblical literature does not support the phrase .appears in the aforementioned locations ” בתם לב “ whereas

Page <93> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

Moreover, the phrase carries a sense of obedience. In 1Ki 9:4 God requests Solomon to walk וְאַתָּ֞ ה אִ ם־תֵּלֵ֣ F לְפָנַ֗ י כַּאֲשֶׁ֙ ר הָ לַ֜ F דָּ וִ ֤ד אָ ִ֙ ביB֙ בְּתָ ם־לֵבָ ֣ב וּבְ יֹ֔שֶׁ ר ל8ֲַשׂ֕ וֹת כְּכֹ֖ ל אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר “ ,like his father David

a context in which the phrase suggests obedience. On its own, the ,” צִוִּ יתִ ֑ יB חֻקַּ ֥ י וּמִשְׁ פָּטַ ֖ י תִּשְׁ מֹֽ ר׃

recalls Israel’s disobedience in vv.8, 18, and 37, and this too contrasts with the לבב word obedience of the man chosen to lead them. 177 Contextually, the best way to understand the somewhat awkward and unique phrase

178 is “the wisdom of his craft”. In adopting this interpretation, an explanation ” בתבונות כפיו“ arises for the last three verses of the psalm depicting David’s transformation from shepherd to King. In leading the sheep, David first learned and perfected the craft of shepherding; the wisdom of this craft he must now transfer to his new role as Israel’s shepherd. David’s function as king over Israel is never explicitly mentioned in Psalm 78; instead, it refers to him

as an expression of David’s kingship again נחה as one who leads God’s people. Selection of emphasizes his responsibility in adopting the leadership reins from God. With the two ויַּנְחֵ ֣ ם בּ8ֶָנָ ֣ ן יוֹמָ ֑ ם וְכָ ל־הַ֜ לַּ֗ יְלָ ה “ ,previous instances of this word, God had led Israel with a cloud

” וַיַּנְחֵ ֣ ם לָ֭בֶ טַ ח וְ לֹ֣ א פָחָ ֑ דוּ וְאֶ ת־א֜ וֹיְבֵ יהֶ֗ ם כִּסָּ ֥ ה הַ יָּ ֽם׃ “ ,v.14), and safely through the sea) ” בְּא֣ וֹר אֵ ֽ שׁ׃

(v.53). 179 Now it is David’s turn to lead Israel in the monarchic era.

MEANING

The primary purpose of Psalm 78 is to justify the rejection of Ephraim: both the tribe, and territory for the location of YHWH’s dwelling with man. In vv.9-11 Ephraim is first cast as a rebellious and disobedient tribe that forgot God’s instruction and deeds, and all the good that their forefathers had experienced of him. At the end of the psalm, YHWH rejects his dwelling established in Shiloh (Ephraim’s territory) and selects the land of Judah to start again, building his sanctuary in Zion. This rejection of Ephraim can also be viewed as a rejection of

which refers ,” ו8ְַתָּ ֖ ה מַמְלַכְתְּ B֣ לֹא־תָק֑ וּם בִּקֵּ שׁ֩ יְהוָ֙ ה ל֜ וֹ אִ ֣ ישׁ כִּלְבָב֗ וֹ… “ ,An additional allusion exists with 1Sam 13:14 177 to David as a man after God’s own heart, another attestation of David’s uprightness and steadfastness. 178 Even though biblical literature does not precisely attest this translation, it can easily be understood from the refers to “wisdom” or “understanding” (s. Ex 31:3, with respect to a תבונה .individual components of the phrase .hands” represents the work of one’s hands, a trade“ , כפים craft), and נָחִ ֣ יתָ כַ צֹּ֣ אן 8ַמֶּ ֑ B בְּֽ יַד־מֹשֶׁ ֥ ה “ ,Keil and Delitzsch (1982:361) note this verse’s correspondence with Ps 77:21 179 which recalls Moses and Aaron leading Israel like a flock. Psalm 78:72, however, transposes this role to ,” וְאַהֲ רֹֽ ן׃ David.

Page <94> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 the Northern Kingdom. Together with this, the psalm justifies the selection of the territory and people of Judah. From the territory of Judah, God selected Zion for his dwelling, and from the tribe he selected David to be Israel’s King.180 In selecting Judah, the psalm additionally reinforces the idea of Jerusalem as the only legitimate place of worship for Israel, and the royal line from which all future kings of Israel should stem. Another important message the psalm teaches concerns the limits of YHWH’s kindness and longsuffering. Throughout the psalm YHWH is depicted as constantly showing Israel kindness even in the face of their disobedience. In v.19-20 they speak against him, questioning his ability to provide food, and though he punishes them (21-22) he also supplies an abundance of bread and meat. Frequently the psalmist portrays him as bestowing his people with provisions above and beyond their immediate needs. The imagery of his provision of water (15-16) and bread (vv.22-23) exemplify this. Coupled with this beneficence, however, the limits of his mercy are also depicted. Certain instances occurred in which Israel pushed the boundaries of his kindness and benevolence a little too far. The results of such actions were that God swiftly and assuredly punished them for their persistent disobedience (s. vv.30-31). In the overall context of the psalm, YHWH’s willingness to punish his people serves as a stark warning to the psalmist’s audience, presumably the descendants of Judah. Even though the tribe of Ephraim was rejected because of disobedience and replaced with Judah, they should not think that YHWH would hesitate to punish them in the same way if they persistently defied him. Facilitating this message is Psalm 78’s use of language most commonly associated with . Because the psalm’s opening is steeped in the vocabulary of wisdom literature, we should treat the whole psalm as such: a psalm from which the readers should seek to learn, and change their behavior in accordance with what they have learned. Within Psalm 78, the key to such learning lies in the importance of remembering 181 the magnificent works God performed for his people throughout their history, and his laws. Ultimately, it is this remembrance that affects people’s behavior leading them to obedience. 182

180 It is only fair to assume that Psalm 78 establishes the royal lineage here, even though the specific mention of “kings” or “kingship” is absent. שכח vv.35, 39, 42) and) זכר The idea of “remembering” and “forgetting” repeat throughout the psalm via 181 (vv.7, 11). 182 Kraus (1988b:129) raises another potential purpose for the Psalm: an attempt to include the selection of the Davidic kingship as part of the Exodus narrative account.

Page <95> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

DATE

For the dating of the psalm, we first look to the primary evidence, the most obvious of which concerns the internal evidence Psalm 78 offers: the historical period covered by the psalm. It begins at the Exodus from Egypt and ends after the selection of David as king of Israel, and the construction of the Temple. This evidence determines the psalm’s terminus post quem , during the reign of King Solomon. 183 Furthermore, because the psalm addresses the rejection of the Northern Kingdom, the terminus post quem must lie after its fall. It is important to note at this point, that no obvious signs of LBH 184 appear within Psalm 78, in spite of its length. 185 The remaining evidence, even though it is primarily linguistic in nature, should not be considered primary because it only suggests a possible period of authorship. First, the selection of divine names found within the composition and their distribution 186 indicate archaic origins. Second, the deployment of the imperfect, yiqtol , representing past action typically characterizes pre-exilic texts, possibly even archaic. 187 Third, the rare usage of the indicates a writing style more akin to the pre-exilic era. 188 Fourth, because ”ה “ definite article a number of words and phrases specifically link the psalm to Northern (or Israelian) Biblical Hebrew, 189 the possibility of a postexilic date lessens since the northernisms would have originated from an era when the Northern Kingdom functioned as an extant political entity. Additional secondary linguistic evidence suggesting a pre-exilic date for the psalm includes: the“ ,” וַ֭יְבִ יאֵ ם אֶ ל־ גְּב֣ וּל קָדְשׁ֑ וֹ הַ ר־זֶ֗ ה קָ נְתָ ֥ ה יְמִ ינֽ וֹ׃ “ ,functioning as a relative particle in v.54 ” זה“

.s) ” את “ mountain which he acquired”; 190 the frequent appearance of the accusative particle

183 This observation, coupled with the fact that the psalm fails to mention the divided kingdom, leads Tate (1990:284) to assume the psalm originated during the Solomonic era. Campbell (1979:75) also adduces this omission as evidence for a very early date. 184 Psalm 78’s language was compared with examples of LBH recorded by Polzin (1976:123-50), Sáenz-Badillos (1993:56-63), and Hurvitz (1972). constituting examples ” כסל “ and ” אהלי חם “ Contrary to this view, Briggs (1969:181) raises the possibility of 185 of LBH, although he offers no further evidence proving their lateness. Because the former phrase is a hapax as a noun meaning ,” כסל “ legomenon, its distribution is insufficient for ascertaining the date. The distribution of “hope” or “confidence”, appears twice in Job (8:14 and 31:24), and once in Proverbs (3:26). From these limited instances, especially its appearance in Job, one cannot accept this word as evidence for lateness. 186 Freedman (1980:103) suggests these factors are indicative of the date, stating, “The general selection and distribution of divine names and epithets in Psalm 78 correlate well with the other poems in this group, and tend to support a date in the early monarchy”. 187 See Dahood (1970:238). 188 See Sarna (1996:284) and Young (1993:128); note however, that these two pieces of evidence alone cannot categorically prove the date, but function best as supporting evidence. 189 See Rendsburg (1990, 2003b). 190 See Sáenz-Badillos (1993:57).

Page <96> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 vv.5, 8, 42, 53, 56, and 68; together with its use for “with” in v.8); 191 and the third-person in vv. 24 and 66. 192 ”- מו “ masculine plural suffix

With respect to the Documentary Hypothesis, Lauha (1945:53) notes that the plagues’ account recorded in Psalm 78 only includes traditions from J, the oldest of the sources. This observation hints towards an early origin for the psalm, before the theoretical joining of sources. 193 More importantly, however, the high number of Deuteronomic words and phrases permeating the psalm root its origins to a specific era. 194 If only a few Deuteronomic phrases were present, one could argue that they were proto-Deuteronomic terms subsequently adopted by the authors of Deuteronomy. Their exceptionally high number, however, indicates the psalm was either written or extensively revised during the reign of Josiah. The fact that the psalmist never once alludes to, or hints at, the Temple’s destruction 195 and the exile of Judah suggests the psalm predates the disaster. One of the psalmist’s most prominent themes, “sin in light of God’s kindness”, seems to necessitate at least a passing reference to an event epitomizing Israel’s sin as a response to God’s mercy, the Exile. Overall, the evidence presented above categorically suggests a pre-exilic date for the psalm, 196 and the only real contention concerning this conclusion is whether the psalm was written at an early or late stage during the monarchy. In order to fulfill the objective we first set for ourselves, dating the final form of the psalm, we must conclude that it was written during the latter part of the morarchy: after the fall of the North and during the Deuteronomic era. Only this era can fully account for the high number of Deuteronomic terms.

191 See Sáenz-Badillos (1993:58). v.44) as a negative) לא replacing בל See Young (1993:125f.). Another possibility concerns the poetic form 192 Even though this particle occurs in a relatively large number of .” וַיַּהֲ פֹ֣ F לְ֭ דָ ם יְ אֹרֵ יהֶ ֑ ם וְ֜ נֹזְלֵ יהֶ֗ ם בַּ ל־יִשְׁתָּ יֽוּן׃ “ ,particle biblical works, Sáenz-Badillos (1993:57) argues that it is indicative of early texts. 193 Countering this, Briggs (1969:181) argues that the whole of the psalm is under the influence of J, E, and D, which would suggest a later date. סורר ומורה , יקניאהו \\ יכעיסהו , אותות ומופתים , הלך בתורת יהוה , נצר :Weinfeld (1972:365) identifies the following 194 . מצוות יהוה , שמר עדות יהוה 195 In fact, the opposite is true since v.69 implies it is eternal. 196 On the whole, this view represents the consensus of biblical scholarship; see for example: Fohrer (1974:287), Zakovitch (1997:181ff.), and Stern (1995), who locates the psalm to the eighth century BCE and is one of the few scholars who specifically states his dating objectives (the latest redactional strata).

Page <97> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

Table 1. 197 SOURCES Ps 78:13 Ex 14:16 P 201 Table 1 summarizes Psalm 78’s possible allusions to Ps 78:13 Ex 15:8 NS biblical literature. 202 Notably, in addition to the prosaic Ps 78:14 Ex 13:21 JE 198 traditions of the Torah, 203 the psalmist employs a poetic Ps 78:15 Num 20:8 P Ps 78:19 Num 21:5 JE tradition: the Song of the Sea (Ex 15). The complaints for Ps 78:21 Num 11:1-3 JE food recorded in Psalm 78:18-31 bear lexical and Ps 78 :24 Ex 16:4 JE contextual similarities with Num 11:1-9, 18-23, and 31- Ps 78:26 (28) Num 11:31 JE 34, 204 which presents a more preferable source than its Ps 78:29 (30) Num 11:4 JE counterpart in Exodus due to a higher concentration of Ps 78:30 Num 11:20 JE Ps 78:31 Num 11:33 JE markers. 205 Finally, and with perhaps more doubt than the Ps 78:44 Ex 7:20-21 199 JE aforementioned instances, it would appear the psalmist Ps 78:45 Ex 8:17 JE knew of, even if he did not specifically quote from, the Ps 78:46 Ex 10:4 JE idolatry committed at Mt. Sinai with the golden calf. A Ps 78:47 Ex 9:25 JE number of words and phrases in Psalm 78:38 connect it Ps 78:48 Ex 9:23 JE with Ex 32-24, in addition to a series of contextual Ps 78:51 Ex 12:29 JE Ps 78:54 Ex 15:16 NS 200 correspondences. 206

197 See Appendix A for a detailed listing of the sources together with their corresponding psalm verses. 198 Here, it is worth noting that Driver (1972:66) attributed 20:6-13 to P, and 20:14-21 to JE; whereas Campbell and O’Brien (1993:260) credit 20:8-13 to P and 20:14-15 to JE. In either case, 20:8 is always attributed to P. Doubts nevertheless arise concerning this association because the link consists of a single word. 199 The sources in italics here constitute the plagues’ narrative. Even though I consider these an alternate tradition, I have included them here because a comparison between the plagues’ tradition in the psalm and its appearance in Exodus is included in the following section. 200 Concerning the Song of the Sea, I have attributed it to a non-source tradition; s. Fohrer (1974:188). 201 More so than any of the other psalms included in this study, a higher degree of doubt arises concerning the determination of Ps 78’s sources. Such doubts arise from the fact that the psalm is relatively early. This raises the likelihood that the psalmist employed either oral sources, or written sources that reflect today’s Torah. 202 It must be said from the outset that I have attempted here to locate the sources that the psalmist would have had available to him, as opposed to a more generic categorization of all possible inner-biblical associations, including cases such as Neh 9’s associations with the psalm. Instances such as the latter, in which the associated text is most likely older, have been omitted for the purposes of this study. For a more liberal listing of associated texts see Zakovitch (1997:171ff.). 203 At this point I must clarify again (s. Introduction) that I am by no means suggesting that the Torah was in a complete, compiled, and edited form at the time the psalm was written. Instead, I am only loosely referring to the Torah, i.e., texts reflecting today’s printed versions. 204 This group of texts omits the “seventy elders” account in Numbers, which intersects the quail tradition. Such an omission may simply reflect the psalmist’s original source consisting of the quail incident as a single account, which later on would have been united for editorial reasons. in Psalm 78:18 could, however, allude to the giving of manna in the Exodus , נסה ,The word for testing 205 account. With respect to this, it is possible to see a reversal of who was testing whom. Psalm 78 recalls the Israelites testing God in their request, whereas Exodus records the sending of the manna as God testing Israel, to וַ יֹּ֤ אמֶ ר יְהוָה֙ אֶ ל־מֹשֶׁ֔ ה הִ נְנִ֙ י מַמְטִ֥ יר לָכֶ֛ ם לֶ֖ חֶ ם מִ ן־הַשָּׁמָ ֑ יִ ם וְיָצָ֙ א ה8ָָ֤ ם וְלָ ֽקְ טוּ֙ “ ,see if they would be faithful to his request .(Ex 16:4) ” דְּ בַ ר־י֣ וֹם בְּ יוֹמ֔ וֹ לְמַ ֧ 8ַ ן אֲ נַסֶּ ֛ נּוּ הֲ יֵלֵ֥ F בְּ תוֹרָתִ ֖ י אִ ם־לֹֽ א׃ 206 See close reading for v.38.

Page <98> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

With respect to the Documentary Hypothesis, the most striking feature of the sources concerns the heavy influence of the JE tradition on the psalm. Even though part of Ex 7:20 is not attributed to JE, the words concerning the quote in the Table 2. 207 , ברד psalm stem from this source. In the event that the Psalm 78 J P דם דם דם mentioned in Ps 78:48, actually refers to the cattle plague

צפרדעים צפרדעים ערב in Ex 9:3-7, the connection remains with the JE ( דבר)

שחין ערב צפרדעים tradition because P fails to recall such a plague. 208

ברד דבר ארבה Furthering the association with JE is the fact that all of the plagues recorded in Psalm 78 (with the aforementioned ארבה ברד ברד can be located solely to the J ( דבר caveat concerning מכות הבכור ארבה דבר

מכות הבכור מכות הבכור ,tradition. Table 2, which compares the plague traditions suggests the psalmist was unaware P’s rendition of the plagues. Finally, it is worth noting that the possible presence of all four sources—the influence of D was noted throughout the close reading—in the psalm 209 suggests that they were at least in existence when the psalm was composed. Though one cannot conclusively prove the psalmist accessed alternate traditions, in at least two places Psalm 78 may have employed such accounts. The first concerns the heavenly grain”. Such a description suggests the“ ,” דגן שמים “ description of the manna as food eaten by the Israelites in the desert constituted more than just a type of grain that appeared with the dew. The wording suggests this grain was nothing less than the food angels ,”the bread of angels“ ,” לחם אבירים “ eat in heaven. The further description of the manna as further strengthens the assumption. An echo of this idea, which is not recalled in the Torah, appears in the Septuagint’s translation of v.25, “ ἄρτον ἀγγέλων ἔφαγεν ἄνθρωπος ”. A potential remnant of this tradition appears in 2Ki 7:2, when one of the king’s officers

... וַ יֹּאמַ ר֒ הִנֵּ ֣ה יְהוָ֗ ה עֹשֶׂ ֤ ה אֲרֻ בּוֹת֙ “ ,questions Elisha’s prediction that a famine would end overnight

207 In this single instance the J source has been isolated from E because the latter includes darkness as a plague (s. Driver 1961:24) whereas the former does not. Consequently, the psalmist’s source would have been more akin to the J tradition alone. 208 See Driver (1972:24) and Tate (1990:292). 209 The psalm’s pre-exilic dating together with possible evidence of P in the source analysis suggest, albeit tentatively, that the P tradition was in existence before the Exile, when Psalm 78 was composed. To be sure, the two links to P identified in table 1 could also be attributed to a source from which P drew, hence the doubt concerning this possibility. Though the data presented above could assist in conclusively establishing that the psalmist solely relied on J, or JE, it does not fall within the scope of the present study to pursue the matter further.

Page <99> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

A second possibility concerns the plagues’ tradition. Though it is 210 .” בַּשָּׁמַ֔ יִם הֲ יִהְ יֶ ֖ה הַדָּבָ ֣ר הַזֶּ ֑ה ... possible that the author of Psalm 78 was the originator of the tradition therein, the consensus 211 is that he copied from an earlier known work that differed from the Exodus account. 212

PROCESS OF SELECTION The psalmist’s overall selection process apparently centered on biblical traditions that record God’s grace towards Israel and their ungrateful response. Yet, in spite of this, a number of notable omissions arise, especially from the Torah. From the wilderness traditions, he omits short rebellions that ostensibly comply with the aforementioned general scheme: and Aaron’s rebellion against Moses (Num 12), and the rebellion led by Dathan and Abiram (Num 16). Concerning these events, one can surmise that the psalmist primarily desired to limit his work to national instances of rebellion, rather than individual counts of insurrection. Another obvious omission concerns Israel’s Idolatry with the golden calf because it constitutes an instance of national rebellion in light of God’s kindness. In response to YHWH delivering the Israelites from the Egyptians, providing them with water, food, and protection, 213 they quickly turn from him, forging their own idol and worshipping it. Concerning this omission, one can offer two possible solutions. First, the psalmist may have alluded to this instance, if not directly quoted from it, in Ps 78:38. 214 Second, he may not have interpreted the account as an instance of national sin since the are partially vindicated in the account—only they were willing to execute God’s judgment on the people (s. Ex 32:26ff.).

210 Extra-biblical traditions such as Wisdom 16:20, “…instead you gave them the food of angels. From heaven you sent down bread that was ready to eat…”; and 4Ezra 1:19, “I pitied your groanings and gave you manna for food; you ate the bread of angels” (Kohlenberger [1997:1089]), reflect the understanding that this bread was the food heavenly beings ate. In certain instances, the manna even adopts more supernatural qualities (s. 4Q511). For more examples, and a detailed description of this tradition’s echoes in biblical and non-biblical literature see Shinan and Zakovitch (2004:50-56), and Kugel (2000:358ff.). 211 For those holding that the plagues’ account represents an alternate tradition, s. Zakovitch (1999:176f.) and Loewenstamm (1992a:86); additionally, Lauha (1945:53) suggests the plagues’ account is derived from J, thus making it earlier than the Exodus account. וַ֭ יִּ טֹּשׁ מִשְׁכַּ֣ ן שִׁ ל֑ וֹ אֹ֜ הֶ ל שִׁכֵּ֥ ן “ ,Another potential lost tradition concerns the destruction of Shiloh echoed in v.60 212 Here the wording suggests more than just the loss of the Ark, but that the tent housing it together with .” בָּאָדָ ֽ ם׃ the surrounding area was also destroyed. The Book of Samuel fails to report the destruction of Shiloh explicitly; it only records the capture of the Ark by the Philistines. However, Jeremiah 7:13-15 apparently recognizes the location’s destruction. See also Jer 26:6, 9, in addition to Zakovitch (1997). 213 One could also construe that the giving of the law constitutes an act of undeserved favor because it represents YHWH’s selection of Israel as a treasured possession. 214 See close reading for this verse.

Page <100> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

Throughout most of the psalm, one cannot help but notice the psalmist’s aversion to naming specific biblical characters. Moses and Aaron fail to appear in the deliverance from Egypt, even though they both played a significant role in effecting the plagues—the former additionally played a key role in splitting the sea. 215 Similarly, the psalm omits Joshua in recounting the conquest and division of Canaan. Instead, the psalm portrays YHWH as enacting all of these events by himself. Likewise, the psalmist fails to recall Solomon’s name, even though the psalm depicts the construction of the Temple. 216 One probable reason for omitting the aforementioned names is to highlight the only individual mentioned by name, David. In doing so, the psalmist implies that David was the only legitimate leader for Israel from the time of the Exodus to the beginning of the Monarchy. Though Psalm 78 assumes the Torah’s existence, 217 the record of God bestowing it to וַיָּ ֤ קֶ ם 8ֵד֙ וּת׀ בְּֽ י8ֲַ קֹ֗ ב “ ,Israel is only apparent via an allusion; v.5 recalls Israel receiving the Law

Perhaps the best reason for the psalmist’s omission of this event is that it .” וְ תוֹרָ ה֘ שָׂ ֤ ם בְּ יִשְׂרָ ֫אֵ ֥ ל ... simply did not fall into the scope of his primary objectives: the kindness and mercy of God and the rebellious response of his people.

ALLUSIONS

DESERT PROVISION Numbers 11 opens with a short narrative recounting how the Israelites complain bitterly before God (v.1), though the narration, at this point, fails to recall the nature of the complaint and that the Israelites complained directly against God. As a consequence of their complaints, v.1) that burns against them , אש ) v.1) and becomes angry sending fire , וישמע ) God hears

v.1). Repenting of their sin, the Israelites cry out to Moses for help. He ,” ותבער בם “) intercedes for Israel and the fire dies down as a result (v.2). A new account begins in v.4; the

215 Concerning the absence of Moses in the splitting of the sea, it is possible that earlier renditions of the Exodus deliberately sought to exclude Moses’ role in an attempt to avert a “Moses cult”, in which he, and the power of his staff, dominate over God’s works; see Shinan and Zakovitch (2004:44ff.). 216 Zakovitch (1997:78f.) also holds that the omission of Solomon stems from the psalmist’s desire to close the psalm on a positive note. The name Solomon may have caused the reader to recall some of his more infamous acts, such as succumbing to worshiping the idols of his many wives. 217 See close reading for this verse.

Page <101> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

התאוו “) riff-raff, 218 who apparently accompanied the Israelites from Egypt, start to crave

a wider variety of food, and their complaints become infectious. Then the Israelites (” תאוה together with the riff-raff cry out to Moses, recalling the produce they enjoyed in Egypt by reciting an extraordinarily long list of foods, comparing their former luxury with their present

v.6) are shriveled because all they eat is the , נפשנו ) travail. They complain that their gullets dull tasting manna—at this stage in Numbers God had already provided it. The narrative continues with a description of the manna, detailing the way in which the Israelites gathered it and subsequently prepared it for consumption. At this point, its taste is describes as being like v.9) in the mornings, so , מחנה ) v.8). When the dew fell on the camp ,” לשד ה שמן“) rich cream too would the manna. The account resumes in vv.18-23 when God responds to the request for (v.20 , לזרא ) variety by promising to send them meat to the point that it will become loathsome to them. At this point, another break in the narrative occurs and it continues in v.31, which v.31) from God sweeping quail from the sea and scattering them about , רוח ) records a wind

v.31) to a depth of two cubits, enabling the Israelites to collect ,” סביב ות המחנה “) the camp them. With respect to their gathering, Numbers recalls that even those who gathered least had v.33) still eating, indulging in their , עודנו ) a significant quantity (ten homers). Then, whilst

v.33) arises and he strikes them with a severe ,” אף יהו ה חרה “) lust for food, YHWH’s anger plague. No obvious cause arises concerning how the plague abated, and the account finishes

”graves of craving“ ,” קברות התאוה “ with an etiological verse explaining the place name

(11:34). Psalm 78 begins by juxtaposing the provision of meat and bread on the background of God’s gracious provision of water (vv.13-16). In response to this provision, the Israelites test

v.18). At this point in Psalm , לנפשם ) God in their hearts, requesting food for their appetites

78, the manna had not yet been given, a situation different from Numbers since they had already received the manna and were sick of it. Psalm 78 then launches into a two-verse description of Israel’s desires: they speak against God, questioning whether he could arrange

s. BDB 63 ;” ערב רב “ This term refers to the mixed multitude recorded in Ex 12:38, which describes them as 218 and KB (vol.1 75). Concerning the part this group plays in instigating the complaints, Levine (1993) writes, “In both accounts, in Numbers and in Exodus, these presumably non-Israelites are blamed for incurring God’s wrath, whereas the fault of the Israelites themselves was that they followed suite”; s also Budd (1984:124).

Page <102> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 a feast in the desert; after seeing him bring water from a rock, they question if he could also bring bread and meat for his people. 219 The request for a feast in the desert apparently corresponds with the complaint in Numbers that began with the riff-raff. The surplus of food, v.19), corresponds with the long list of delicacies presumably available to the) ל ערך שלחן

Israelites in Egypt. Unlike Numbers, the psalmist refrains from blaming the non-Israelite riff- raff with sowing seeds of discontent, all of the guilt falls on the Israelites alone. Understandably, the psalmist additionally omits the description of the manna and its collection and preparation at this point since in his rendition it had not yet been given.

v.21) this complaint, which , שמע ) Psalm 78 proceeds by recounting how God hears

in v.21 , יתעבר ,consequently angers him. The psalm’s portrayal of God becoming angry

where, as (11:1 ,” ותבער בם אש“) recalls the burning fire in the opening narrative of Numbers a result of his anger arousing, he sends fire against them. Concerning the further desire for food, Israel’s punishment in the psalm originates from their failure to trust in God’s ability to deliver, and their lack of faith in him. This constitutes a more theological explanation of their actions in Numbers, where they ultimately sought a return to Egypt (Num 11:18, 20). Psalm 78 continues by narrating the sending of the bread and meat, with the psalmist dedicating three verses to the former. The only faint connection between the bread giving in

which is vaguely ,(78:24) ” וימטר “ Ps 78 and that in Numbers comes via the phrase reminiscent of the manna descending with the dew in Num 11:9. Instead of being a dull form of sustenance, Psalm 78 presents the manna as a spectacular supernatural food, “grain from heaven” (v.24), and the “food of Angels” (v.25). 220 Such a description places more guilt on the Israelites. Rather than criticizing a bland means of sustenance, as Numbers recalls, with the inner-textual reading of the psalm, it turns out that the Israelites frown upon miraculously provided supernatural bread. Moreover, the psalmist additionally claims the provision met v.25). Numbers, on the other hand, recalls that they detested it , לשבע ) the people’s satisfaction

(Num 11:6).

used in Ps 78:19 to describe how the people spoke against God may have been ,” וידברו באלהים “ ,The phrase 219 another text reporting ,” וַיְדַבֵּ ֣ ר ה8ָָ֗ ם בֵּ ֽ אNהִ ים֘ וּבְ מֹשֶׁ ה֒ לָמָ ֤ ה הֶ 8ֱֽלִ יתֻ֙ נוּ֙ מִמִּצְרַ ֔ יִם לָמ֙ וּת בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ ר... “ ,influenced by Num 21:5 the Israelites’ grumbling for food. could refer not just to the ” שמים “ the grain of heaven”, the word“ ,” דגן שמים “ With respect to the phrase 220 heavens themselves, but also to those who dwell therein (s. Ps 89:6, Job 15:15, and close reading for v.24).

Page <103> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

After recounting the manna, the psalmist continues by retelling the sending of meat v.26) from heaven , קדים ) v.26) an east wind , יסע ) vv.26-29). Similar to Numbers, God sends)

.(wind”, in the Torah (Num 11:31“ , רוח as an agent to assemble the birds, equivalent to the

,which, as recorded in the close reading , נסע The psalm’s rendition utilizes the hifil of accentuates God’s active role in the event. Though different words appear in Numbers, Ps 78:27 records the abundance of quail as being like the “dust”, and the “sand of the the psalmist employs the , שלו ,sea(shore)”. Likewise, instead of specifically mentioning quail

presumably to comply with the assonance within the verse—see close reading) ” עוף כנף “ term

v.28), the psalmist notes that , מחנהו ) the camp ( סביב ) for v.27). In addition to falling around

to the word “camp” associating ”- הו “ the birds fall in its midst, where he adds the direct object it with God. 221 Verse 29, which recalls the sentiment of Num 11:32, records Israel’s

suggesting that even those who collected the least quail ,( וישבעו ) satisfaction with the meat had more than enough; moreover, Ps 78:29 explicitly claims that God satisfied their desire In both texts, the turning point from provision to anger and subsequent judgment .( תאותם)

.v.30) the Israelites were still eating , עוד ) occurs whilst

A further link between the two texts occurs in v.30, which speaks of the Israelites not

v.30) 222 from their craving. In utilizing such a rare phrase, the psalmist recalls , זרו ) ,turning

to ( זרא ) Num 11:20 depicting God’s punishment on the people, the food became detestable them. With respect to punishment, the psalm recalls how God directly kills the “choice ones” and young men of Israel. Rather than mentioning a plague, the psalmist portrays ( משמניהם)

YHWH as directly striking the Israelites; this resonates with the psalm’s overall perception

v.31), a somewhat peculiar ,משמניהם ) ”and portrayal of God. In mentioning the “choice ones and unexpected phrase, the psalmist recalls the description of the manna’s taste: like rich .(Num 11:8 ,” לשד השמן “) cream

221 As noted in the close reading, the mention of the birds landing amidst the camp and around it could represent an attempted harmonization of the traditions in Ex 16:13 and Num 11:31; s . Zakovitch (1997:141). 222 At this point, in light of Noble’s criticism (2002:228), I must note that the associations with Numbers do not solely depend on this association through similarity (s. Appendix A for further markers).

Page <104> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

THE SONG OF THE SEA The Song of the Sea in Ex 15 primarily celebrates YHWH fighting on Israel’s behalf, and his victory at the Reed Sea. It begins with a personal expression of faith recalling how YHWH v.2). YHWH is then portrayed as the one who cast , ישועה ) brought about Israel’s deliverance

Pharaoh’s chariots and army into the sea, where they drowned when the deep covered them v.6) as being , ימינך ) v.5). The song then attributes the power of God’s right hand , י כסימו)

,v.7) consumes Israel’s enemy. Additionally , חרנך ) responsible for the victory, and his fury

YHWH directs his might against the sea, as the blast of his nostril causes the waters to rise up v.8) and congeal. The song then narrates the enemy’s ,” כמו נד “) v.8) like a wall , נצבו) malicious intentions towards Israel, plans that never reach fruition. Verses 11-12 constitute the song’s epicenter, an interjection of praise as the author breaks from narrating events.

, גאלת ) v.13) the people he redeemed , נחית ) Following this, attention turns to YHWH’s leading

v.13). After mentioning the Canaanites’ fear of the ,” נוה קדשך “) v.13) to his holy abode

Israelites entering the land (15-17), the song closes with the people whom God had acquired v.17) of his , הר ) v.16) crossing into Canaan, and God planting them on the mountain , קנית)

.v.17), the place he chose for his own dwelling , נחלתך ) inheritance

Various contextual and structural similarities unite the song and the psalm. The aforementioned markers predominantly appear within two short sections of Psalm 78 that cover the same subject matter: crossing the sea, and entering into the Promised Land. Similarly, with regard to structure, both works contain an epicenter that breaks the narrative sequence and expresses an important aspect of God’s character (s. close reading for v.38 and section on structure). Moreover, both accounts exalt YHWH’s role in events to the detriment of Moses, who is obscured in the background. In addition to portraying God alone leading Israel through the wilderness into Canaan, both works recognize the Promised Land as a place in which he chose to dwell, and further suggest that he constructed a dwelling for himself there. With respect to the historical period covered, both works devote little attention to historical events after the conquest and entrance into the land. ,” ויצב מים כמו נד “) Like Exodus 15, Psalm 78 recalls the waters standing in a heap

as a ” וַ ֽ יַּצֶּ ב “ v.13) during the Israelites’ deliverance. The psalmist, however, employs the word

Page <105> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 hifil as opposed to a qal , raising the profile of God’s involvement in events. Subsequent to the v.14) his people in the desert, a description Psalm 78 , וינחם ) Sea deliverance, God leads expounds since it includes the added details of the pillars of cloud and fire. Such gracious acts in the psalm, however, are soon forgotten by the Israelites, and they fail to remember his v.22), in contrast to Moses’ declaration in Ex 15:1. Israel’s response to , ישועתו ) salvation

God’s in Ex 15 is exclusively positive, as a result of his deliverance they sing his praises. On the other hand, in Psalm 78:35, though they remember his role in their redemption .this memory proves ephemeral and they soon lie to him, showing themselves false ,( גאלם)

v.49) being unleashed against the , חרון ) Like Exodus, the psalm recalls God’s anger

Egyptians, even though it depicts the Egyptians during the plagues, as opposed to their defeat at the sea. When Psalm 78 returns to the desert wandering period for the second time, vv. 52-

v.53) the people in safety, since the sea had covered , וינחם ) God is portrayed as leading ,55

v.53) their enemies, and at this point it fails to recall the name Pharaoh. After leading , כסה)

, הר ) them through the wilderness, YHWH brings the Israelites to the land of his holy hill

v.54), as opposed to the , קנתה ) v.54) acquired , ימינו ) v.54), the mountain which his right hand people he acquired in Exodus. Towards the end of the psalm (vv.68f.), the psalmist further identifies the mountain as Mt. Zion, the place where YHWH himself built his dwelling

.(v.69 , מקדשו)

Among the more noticeable differences in Psalm 78 is the focus on Israel’s sins and disobedience. The psalm’s overall purpose demands significant attention devoted to revealing Israelite ungratefulness in light of God’s grace. The overall plan of Exodus 15, on the other hand, is to praise the works of God, with particular respect to his might in battle, the one who goes to war for his people. Such details are less important to Psalm 78’s program of events.

Page <106> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

THE PLAGUES Exodus 7-13 223 depicts a battle between YHWH and Pharaoh (and his magicians), with Moses and Aaron serving as intermediaries working on God’s behalf. Pharaoh has God’s people captive and God multiplies plagues against him until he finally cedes to the superior power. The psalm’s perspective paints a somewhat different picture, with the intermediaries removed: Pharaoh, Moses, and Aaron play no part in the events. Instead, the battle is between God and the Egyptians, his enemies and the enemies of his people. Psalm 78 also sets the stage for the plagues on the backdrop of Israel’s sin, a theme generally absent from the Exodus account. Though a few scattered complaints appear in Exodus, 224 no records of wholesale rebellion and sin appear on Table 3 . a level comparable to that of the Exodus Psalm 78 44 דם -25 7:14 דם psalm, which recalls the rebellion in 1

45 ערב 7:26-8:11 צפרדעים the wilderness tradition before 2

45 צפרדעים 8:12-15 כנים enumerating the plagues’ account. 3 Both accounts begin their 46 ארבה -28 8:16 ערב 4 respective renditions with the same 47 ברד -7 9:1 דבר 5 Exodus .(7:14-25 , דם ) plague, blood 48-50 דבר 9:8-12 שחין 6 recalls Moses striking the Nile and 51 מכות הבכור 9:13-35 ברד 7 turning the rivers and streams into -20 10:1 ארבה 8 blood, in addition to all of the water in 10:21-23 חשך 9 the Egyptians’ vessels; the fish in the 10 12:29-32 מכת הבכור Nile also die as a result, creating a stench. Psalm 78 sees God striking the water directly, without the help of Moses, and the primary result is that the waters become undrinkable. No recollection of the fish dying appears in this rendition of events. in Exodus (Ex 7:26-8:11), recorded as a single plague, enter into ( צפרדעים ) The frogs all of the houses and rooms in Egypt. They cause no physical damage either to plants, animals or people; instead, Exodus portrays them as a nuisance to the Egyptians, rather than a physical threat. Presumably, in Exodus, the frogs overrunning their natural boundary represents evidence of God’s power over Creation, since he was ultimately responsible for the event.

223 In this analysis, I have primarily followed the order of the plagues as they appear in Exodus. 224 See for example Ex 5:19-21.

Page <107> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

.the fourth plague in Exodus ,( ערב ) Psalm 78:45 recalls the frogs together with the swarms

Unlike Exodus, the swarms and frogs in Psalm 78:45 posses power to harm humans, devouring them. No mention is made of the places in which they entered, and instead of simply being a sign displaying God’s power, the frogs and swarms in the psalm create a tangible threat to human health. as found in Ex 8:12-15 (the third ( כנים ) Psalm 78 omits any recollection of the gnats plague). This omission may have been motivated by the perceived severity of the plague. In Exodus, it affects men and beasts, but no lasting damage or harm occurs. In a similar way to Exodus’ perception of the frogs, the gnats are portrayed more as a nuisance than anything else. Consequently, the psalmist would have omitted them because he perceived them as causing less severe physical damage than the previous plague. Psalm 78:45 links the swarms fourth in Exodus, with the frogs, and, as previously mentioned, portrays them far more ,( ערב) maliciously than their Exodus counterpart, with the ability to devour.

assumes responsibility for the destruction of דבר ,(As the fifth plague in Exodus (9:1-7 all (9:6) the livestock in Egypt, horses, donkeys, camels, and flocks. This situation creates a conflict in Exodus because some of the livestock reappear and are struck in the seventh as the sixth and penultimate plague whose effects are the דבר Psalm 78 employs . ברד ,plague more severe since it kills both man and animals. Altogether the psalmist devotes three verses to this plague (48-50), expounding its effects and the wrath it represented. The sixth plague in Ex 9:8-12), affecting man and beast, has no recollection in Psalm 78. Because) שחין ,Exodus this plague constitutes a type of pestilence, the psalmist may have omitted it due to its

. דבר similarity with

,fifth in Psalm 78) has the potential for killing man) , ברד ,Exodus’ seventh plague beasts, and plant life (9:19, 22). Concerning this plague, Exodus recalls a warning for people to place their livestock and themselves under shelter. In doing so, one detects a degree of mercy shown to the Egyptians, since they receive a warning to protect themselves. Exodus is also quite specific in mentioning the crops struck—the flax and the barley shafts; the wheat and rye remained unaffected (9:31-32)—and the active role that fire played in the event. on man, a degree of escalation occurs ברד Though Psalm 78 fails to record the affects of the because this is the first plague causing death, albeit to plants. Unlike Exodus, the psalm

Page <108> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 removes all hints of grace and mercy extended towards the Egyptians and the overall tenor seems to suggest the opposite. Another divergence occurs with the plants struck, where the psalm recalls vines and almond trees falling victim to the plague. Instead of mentioning fire, as an accompaniment. 225 ( חנמל ) together with the hail, Psalm 78 includes frost

,the eighth plague in Exodus, appears fourth in the psalm. In Exodus ,( ארבה ) Locust they are ushered in by an east wind, the Lord’s agent, and they consume crops, fruit trees, and plant life (10:15). Like the account in Exodus, Psalm 78 limits the locust’s destruction to plant life, but no mention appears of the east wind as an agent recruiting the plague. Psalm 78 which conforms to ,(10:21-23 , חשך ) refrains from mentioning Exodus’ ninth plague, darkness the psalmist’s general plan of presenting the plagues in an escalating sequence of severity. The psalmist would have thus conceived darkness as being inappropriate at this stage in the proceedings, 226 less of a punitive measure. 227 The final and climactic plague in both renditions of its retelling is the slaying of the firstborn. Exodus specifically portrays this plague as a direct act of God—emphasizing the lack of any intermediaries involved—that affects all of the Egyptians in addition to their livestock. Similar to the account of the blood, the author emphasizes the affect on animals: the firstborn of both man and beast die. One of the main purposes for the story in Exodus is to expound upon the sacred institution of , in doing so, a long interruption in the plague sequence appears as a buildup to the final plague. Psalm 78 refrains from including the deaths of the animals in its rendition of events, and similarly has no interest in the etiological aspects of the plague. Additionally, the psalmist does not single-out this plague as a more direct act of God; instead, throughout the whole of his retelling, God is portrayed as directly acting against Egypt. Two general observations at this point should be noted concerning Psalm 78’s rendition of the plagues. First, it seems to intensify the plagues’ severity and destruction to people. The ordering in Psalm 78, as seen from above, demonstrates a progression from the least to the most severe plague with respect to human harm and injury. As the account progresses, the plagues become more and more destructive to the Egyptians, culminating in

. רשף ,Although a possible allusion to fire appears in v.48 225 226 In the context of Exodus, darkness may indeed function as an allusion to the darkness that existed before Creation. Thus, one could possible perceive it as a particularly threatening plague; s. Fretheim (1991:391). is apparent from the similar , חֹ֖ שֶׁ As witnessed in the close reading, a reminder of the darkness, F 227 .in v.50 , חָשַׂ ֣ morphological form, F

Page <109> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 the death of their firstborn. Exodus, on the other hand, seems less concerned with such ordering. As a result, plagues such as darkness, a relatively harmless event, appear towards the end of the cycle, next to the most severe, the killing of the firstborn. Second, the order of the plagues in Psalm 78 alleviates the discrepancy in Exodus concerning the death of herd ,Ex 9:1-7). Two plagues later) דבר animals. Exodus recalls that all the cattle die during the

the cattle are alive and endangered again (they additionally suffer during the , ברד during the plague of the firstborn). In the psalmist’s rendition of events, no such discrepancy arises.

JUXTAPOSITION

PSALM 77—78 With respect to their content, both Psalms 77 and 78 reflect similar agendas: the Israelites’ desert experience. Psalm 77 is an Individual Lament depicting a restless psalmist meditating v.2) in his distress. The psalmist , האזין ) upon his distress, and calling out to God to hear him v.6) and starts questioning God’s faithfulness (8- , מקדם ) then turns his thoughts to days of old

(v.12 ,” מעללי יה “) After confessing his own faults (v.11), he begins recalling God’s deeds .(11

v.12) in an attempt to lift his spirits. He declares ,” מקדם פלאך “) and his wonders of old

v.15), and manifests his strength among , פלא ) YHWH as being the God who works wonders the nations. Following this, the psalmist proceeds to cite how YHWH redeemed Israel, splitting the Sea and leading Israel via the hand of Moses and Aaron. 228 Psalm 78 continues developing the notion of God’s deeds and his magnificent works, broadening the scope of his works to include the plagues in Egypt, the provisions in the desert, and the conquest of Canaan. The very notion of YHWH’s deeds in all probability functioned as an influencing factor in juxtaposing the two works. In Ps 78, the psalmist speaks of his generation, that they will not keep from telling their children all of God’s

,v.4) so that the following generations will perpetuate the retelling , נפלאותיו ) mighty acts

v.7). Unlike the ,” מעללי אל “) putting their trust in YHWH and not forgetting his works psalmist in Ps 77, however, earlier generations recalled in Ps 78 forgot his deeds and mighty

228 This verse, however, probably represents a later addition (s. Zakovitch [1997:184 n. 140], who argues that the psalm’s focus falls on God’s leading, and so the insertion of Moses and Aaron does not suit the context well; s. also Briggs [1969:176]). See Excursus 1 for more on Moses’ role in Book IV, The Book of Moses .

Page <110> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

v.11) which he had shown them, and this in turn led to their ,” עלילותיו ונפלאותיו “) works

forms a ( קדם ) punishment. The very idea of recalling YHWH’s works from days of old catalyst for change in both psalms by which the present and future are altered. In Psalm 77, the psalmist reminds himself of God’s ability to act on behalf of those he loves. In dwelling

מני “) on such thoughts, the psalmist finds some solace in his distress. Psalm 78 uses the past

v.2) as a parable, or an example, from which the present and future generations should ,” קדם learn to recount God’s historic deeds to future generations in order to influence their behavior. 229 The addition of Moses and Aaron at the end of Psalm 77 bears some implications for the reading of Psalm 78. The latter, even though it details events from the desert wandering era, never mentions any individuals during this critical period in Israel’s history, choosing instead to depict God as their leader. Psalm 77:21 alters this perspective slightly, recalling the role of Moses and Aaron in the desert period, thus completing a slightly skewed portrayal in Psalm 78. 230 Psalm 77:8-9 poses numerous questions concerning God’s faithfulness to the psalmist: will he reject forever, has his faithfulness disappeared forever, will his promise remain unfulfilled for all time, has God forgotten how to pity, has he stifled compassion in his anger? Such questions do not receive a complete answer in Psalm 77, but Ps 78 assists in responding to some of these issues. As a result of Israel’s sin, God punishes them and turns his back on them for a lengthy duration, to the point that the psalmist suggests he was unconscious under the influence of an alcohol-induced sleep (v.65). At this point, it would seem that Israel stands in the same dilemma as the psalmist in Psalm 77—God had forgotten compassion and rejected them forever. A continuation in the reading, however, shows that even though he punishes Israel, and his people suffer subjugation by their enemies, ultimately God is faithful in returning and being compassionate towards them. Thus, he does not reject forever, his faithfulness does reappear, his promises are fulfilled once again, and he does not forget how to show pity.

In the latter . אזן Zakovitch (1997:183f.) also notes that Psalm 78 functions as a response to Ps 77 via the root 229 v.2). In reply to this call, we can) ” האזין אלי “ ,psalm, the psalmist turns to God pleading for YHWH to hear him .(v.1) ” האזינה עמי תורתי ... “ ,see YHWH answering back, and calling for his people to listen to his instruction 230 Keil and Delitzsch (1982:361) additionally note here that both of the psalms close with a reference to people leading Israel. Psalm 77 recalls Moses and Aaron leading them like a flock, and Psalm 78 mentions David as their leader.

Page <111> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

PSALM 78—79 As a Communal Lament, Ps 79 bemoans the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of an enemy as part of God’s punishment. The opening section (vv.1-4) depicts the damage caused v.1). They left God’s servants as food for , בנחלתך ) by the nations, who entered God’s domain

v.3) was shed , דמם ) v.2) of heaven, and as flesh for the wild beasts. Their blood , עוף) the birds

v.4) to their neighbors. The , חרפה ) like water round Jerusalem and they became detestable

v.5) and continues , אש ) following verses ask how long will God’s indignation blaze like fire

v.6) on the nations that do not know him, and not to , חמתך ) to ask YHWH to pour out his fury

v.8) Israel’s former iniquities against them. The psalmist then cries out for help , תזכר ) hold and forgiveness (v.9) so that the nations would not become proud (v.10). Verses 11-12 express the people’s desire that their groans would reach God and that he would repay their v.12). The final verse ,” חרפתם אשר חרפוך “) enemies for the abuse they directed towards him

v.13) of , צאן ) reaffirms the Israelites’ relationship with YHWH, referring to them as the flock

,” לדר ודר “) v.13) of his praises forever , נספר ) his pasture, and also affirms that they will tell v.13). between the two psalms represents a failing in the ” לספר ... דר תהלה “ Repetition of intentions of Psalm 78. Within this psalm, the psalmist asserts that his generation would not remain silent, but would speak of YHWH’s might to the successive generations (v.4). For Psalm 78, reciting such acts represents a constant desire to recall them so that the future generations would not forget them. Such forgetfulness, as Psalm 78 patently shows, leads to rebellion and God’s punishment. begins by recounting a time in which Israel are already suffering punishment. Together with the fact that later in the composition they call for לדר ודר ... נספר “) God to repay their enemies so that his people can eternally tell of his praises

v.13) suggests a cessation of this very activity had occurred. In short, Judah suffered ,” תהלתך because they ceased retelling YHWH’s deeds and laws. A consecutive reading of the two psalms demonstrates the failure of the Southern Kingdom, in spite of their previous selection by God. On the grounds of Psalm 78, Judah and the Southern Kingdom could potentially justify themselves as being special and even more

Page <112> Chapter 1-Psalm 78 superior to their northern counterparts. When we read the two psalms together, however, it is clear that Judah fares no better than Israel, YHWH in the end exiles both nations on account of their sin. Historically, a degree of completion also appears between the psalms because Psalm 78 begins reciting history from the deliverance of Egypt and continues through to the exile of the northern tribes. Psalm 79 then continues by describing an event after the northern exile, the destruction of Jerusalem, thus, together the two psalms describe various events from the period between the Exodus and the Babylonian exile. Psalms 104-106 represent a similar historiographical sequence, recounting events from Creation to the Babylonian exile. 231

PSALM 77—79 The idea of “shepherding” and “leading” links all three psalms together (77-79). Psalm 77 נָחִ ֣ יתָ כַ צֹּ֣ אן 8ַמֶּ ֑ B בְּֽ יַד־מֹשֶׁ ֥ ה “ ,recalls Moses and Aaron leading Israel like a flock through the sea

v.21. This perception of human shepherds for God’s people alters temporarily in ,” וְאַהֲ רֹֽ ן׃

Psalm 78 as the focus shifts unto God as Israel’s shepherd. He led them via a pillar of cloud he ,” וַיַּנְחֵ ֣ ם לָ֭בֶטַ ח וְ לֹ֣ א פָחָ ֑ דו ... “ v.14), and in v.53) ” וַיַּנְחֵ ֣ ם בּ8ֶָנָ ֣ ן יוֹמָ ֑ ם וְכָ ל־הַ֜ לַּ֗ יְלָ ה בְּא֣ וֹר אֵ ֽ שׁ׃ “ ,and fire led them safely through the waters of the Reed Sea. By the end of the psalm, however, this leadership returns to the realms of man, as David assumes the responsibility of shepherding v.71). As time passes) ” מאַחַ ֥ ר 8ָל֗ וֹת הֱ֫בִ יא֥ וֹ לִ֭רְ עוֹת בְּ י8ֲַקֹ֣ ב 8ַמּ֑ וֹ וּ֜בְ יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ ל נַחֲ לָתֽ וֹ׃ “ ,God’s people however, the earthly shepherd apparently fails, and Psalm 79 uncovers the fate of the Southern Kingdom. In the final verses of the psalm, the decimated Israelites once again וַאֲנַ ֤חְ נוּ 8ַמּBְ֙ ׀ “ ,(identify themselves as the sheep of God’s pasture (with him shepherding them

v.13), recalling the days recorded by Psalm 78 when YHWH) ” וְ צֹ֥ אן מַרְ 8ִ יתֶ B֘ נ֤ וֹדֶ ֥ ה לּBְ֗ לְע֫ וֹלָ ֥ם ...

232 himself led them (v.53).

231 Zakovitch (1997:185) raises another possibility, he understands Psalm 79 as a response to the implicit question raised by Psalm 78: when does the validation of an eternal temple expire? 232 This notion of an exchange from earthly to divine leadership parallels the Psalter’s portrayal of Israel’s relationship with God concerning kingship. Books I-III outline a failed Davidic kingship that subsequently leads to the Babylonian exile. This precedes a recollection of (and desire for) the desert period when God served as Israel’s king, a theocracy, with Moses as his prophet (s. Ps 90, the psalm of Moses, and the strong kingship theme found in the opening psalms of Book IV). In a similar way, Israel, at the end of Psalm 79 harkens back to the days of divine shepherding as opposed to that of earthly leadership. Concerning this assessment of the Psalter’s continuity, see Wilson (1993a:75). Even though I have chosen to end this discussion here at the conclusion of Pss 77-79, we should also note that the relationship between psalms continues into the forthcoming compositions. The idea of God leading ,recalling Psalm 78:1. Additionally האזינה Israel like a flock continues in Ps 80:2, which also employs the word

Page <113> Chapter 1-Psalm 78

the notion of the psalmist questioning God on the extent of God’s wrath towards Israel continues from Psalm 79 (s. v.5) into Psalm 80 (s. v.5). Within this framework, Psalm 81 can further be viewed as a response from God since within this composition we see words spoken by YHWH to the assembled congregation. Thus, after two psalms that effectively question his presence, he answers expressing his mind. Finally, it is worth mentioning that of the five psalms mentioned here, four of them recall the desert motif in one form or another. Psalm 80 alludes to it in v.9, depicting God taking Israel from Egypt, and Psalm 81:6-17 similarly recalls the deliverance from Egypt and Israel’s subsequent disobedience. Only Psalm 79 fails to recall desert events.

Page <114> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

CHAPTER 2: PSALM 105

The second of the selected compositions, Psalm 105, is a Hymn of Praise recounting events from Israelite history spanning the days of the Patriarchs to the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham to give his descendants the land of Canaan. The primary concern of the psalm centers on the promise and its fulfillment. Throughout the psalm YHWH’s faithfulness to his word constantly recurs, and at the end, the psalmist enumerates the response YHWH desires from Israel: obedience to his laws. Two factors separating Psalm 105 from the other selected psalms are its inclusion of events from Abraham’s life, and those from Joseph’s life. Particularly notable amidst the psalm’s recollection of events is the decidedly positive light shed on all that transpires concerning Israel. Unlike the previous psalm, instances of Israel’s rebellious behavior are avoided, and their relationship with God is portrayed idealistically at all times. 1

STRUCTURE

Most scholars agree on Psalm 105’s fundamental structure; however, concerning the precise details of each stanza, disagreements frequently arise. For the purposes of this study, I have divided the psalm as follows:

1 At this point it is worth noting that 1Chr 16:8-22 reuses Psalm 105:1-15 with only a few alterations. For the ,[1Chr 8:12 vs. Ps 105:5] פיו פיהו .most part the changes are best described as stylistic and orthographic (e.g 1Chr 16:16 vs. Ps 105:9]). On at least three occasions] ישחק יצחק ,[1Chr 16:8 vs. Ps 105:1] עלילותיו עלילתיו (vv.6, 8, and 12), however, the emendations could be described as interpretive. Even though these instances are discussed in the close reading of the psalm, they are confined to footnotes because they detail ways in which has adapted the psalm, as opposed to the psalm adapting a source.

Page <115> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

I. Summons to worship YHWH in light of his deeds (1-7) II. YHWH’s promise of land to Abraham recalled (8-11) III. YHWH’s protective intervention in the lives of the Patriarchs (12-15) IV. The preservation of the promise in Joseph’s life (16-22) V. Israel’s multiplication, oppression, and deliverance from Egypt (23-36) a. Israel multiplies and are subsequently oppressed by Egypt (23-25) b. YHWH delivers his people via plagues (26-36) VI. The desert wandering and fulfillment of the promise (37-45) a. YHWH’s provision in the wilderness (37-41) b. Recollection and fulfillment of the promise (42-44) c. Injunction to obey in light of all YHWH has done (45)

The first stanza opens the psalm with an exhortation to praise YHWH for his deeds, with particular regard for those judgments he has wrought with his mouth. In total, four phrases

,(v.1) עלילות ,(vv.2, 5) נפלאות :appear in the opening section that portray his mighty acts

v.5). No geographical limitations apply to these deeds; they are for) מופת vv.5, 7) and) משפט proclamation among peoples (v.1) and they fill the earth (v.7). Remembrance of YHWH’s mighty acts constitutes the primary theme of the psalm: from beginning to end, it recalls all he did for his people from the promise to Abraham to its fulfillment. The final two verses of the opening stanza highlight those whom the psalmist addresses, creating an intimate link between the Patriarchs, and those of the psalmist’s generation. Two notable stylistic features within the opening, which separate it from the remainder of the psalm, are the concentration of imperative forms and the frequent use of the divine name, which scarcely occurs in the psalm’s remainder. Section two (8-11) is marked by a change in time as the focus turns to the promise God made to the Patriarchs and his faithfulness to it. The idea of the covenant dominates the remainder of the psalm, which further details its fulfillment. After God promises the land to Abraham, the remainder of the psalm is dedicated to its fulfillment. Each of the subsequent sections depicts instances in which a danger threatens the bearers of the promise, Abraham or his offspring, consequently endangering its fulfillment. An inclusion demarks the first three verses of the section, which highlights the eternal nature of the promise, and the psalmist closes the stanza citing words YHWH originally used to establish it (v.11).

Page <116> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

The next four sections each contain a cycle of events that more or less exhibit the following components: a setting, characters introduced (except God, who is always present), a conflict introduced threatening the bearers of the promise, resolution of the conflict—God intervenes to save. A change in subject clearly defines each section. The first of these sections, stanza three (12-15), recalls the Patriarchs’ early sojourning in the land of Canaan. Even though the psalm only dedicates four verses to this period, it is the only treatment of the Patriarchs’ lives found in the selected psalms. The threat of being abused and killed by the inhabitants of Canaan constitutes the danger presented within the stanza. In response to the danger, God intervenes with words of rebuke to defend his chosen ones. His intervention forms the climax of each literary-historical account. After the patriarchal wanderings, the psalmist recounts the story of Joseph, which is also unique among the selected psalms. The main events recalled are Joseph’s sale into slavery, his time in prison, and subsequent promotion to being Pharaoh’s second-in- command. The psalmist portrays all of these events with YHWH in total control of all that transpires. He is directly responsible for causing a famine, sending Joseph to prepare the way for his family, and releasing Joseph from prison. Joseph’s imprisonment constitutes the threat to the promise in this section: if he dies then his family, the bearers of the promise, perish from starvation in Canaan. YHWH intervenes, resolving the threat by removing Joseph from prison and appointing him ruler over Egypt, second only to Pharaoh. The fifth stanza constitutes the longest and most detailed account of YHWH’s intervention for the sake of his promise. Israel’s miraculous multiplication is first recalled (vv.23-24), followed by God turning the hearts of the Egyptians against his people, which represents the threat to the promise. God’s intervention to deliver Israel consists of nine verses and represents the longest account of deliverance in the psalm. Even though the psalm introduces human characters in this section, Moses and Aaron, it depicts YHWH himself as ,first mentioned in the first stanza ,( מופתים ) being responsible for the plagues. His mighty acts links the two sections. The sixth, and final, stanza (37-45) primarily depicts the Israelites’ journey through the desert to inherit the Promised Land. The desert wanderings begin with the Israelites leaving Egypt with spoil from their captors. Death by hunger and thirst constitute the primary threat to their lives. YHWH resolves the danger in the wilderness by guiding his people and providing them with food and water. Recollection of the promise in v.42 creates a link to the

Page <117> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

The second stanza recalls the . חק and , ארץ , אברהם second stanza, along with the words promise and the sixth stanza reports its fulfillment when the descendants of Abraham receive the land promised to their founding forefather. Closing the psalm is v.45, which breaks away from reciting Israelite literary history and provides a rationale for the entire work. 2

CLOSE READING

1 הוֹד֣ וּ לַ֭ יהוָ ה קִרְ א֣ וּ בִּשְׁמ֑ וֹ הוֹדִ֥ יעוּ ב8ַָ֜מִּ֗ ים 8ֲלִ ילוֹתָ ֽ יו׃

Proclaim thanks to YHWH, call out his name, make known among the nations his deeds

which ,3” הודו ליהוה “ ,The psalm opens with an exhortation to declare praise to YHWH constitutes one of the features defining it as a Hymn of Praise. Verse one employs three each being a verb 4 ,” הודו…קראו…הודיעו… “ ,imperatives to exhort the listeners to praise God

suggests invoking God and being ” קראו בשמו “ ,expressing vocal declaration. 5 On one hand involved with him in an act of worship. 6 On the other hand, this same expression bears the

is best שם ,nuance of declaring and speaking out his name. Within the present context understood as a reference to God’s reputation. In Gen 11:4, the people of Shinar sought a for themselves, attempting to accomplish something that would make them ( שם ) reputation famous. Just as they sought to achieve this reputation by their deeds, building a tower (s. also Gen 12:2; Josh 7:9), YHWH’s fame in this psalm is created by his deeds, which are for

The second colon introduces the idea .”… הודיעו בעמים עלילותיו “ ,declaration among the nations of YHWH’s jurisdiction over other nations and not just the Israelites, a theme reflected numerous times in the remainder of the psalm. God’s mighty deeds, another central theme in When used of God, this word frequently . עלילותיו this psalm, are represented in this verse by refers to miraculous deeds YHWH enacts to aid his people, as in Psalm 77:13 where it

2 See close reading for v.45. 3 The Septuagint moves “” from the end of Psalm 104 to the beginning of Psalm 105, creating a series of “Hallelujah” Psalms that all begin with this exhortation. 4 In a similar way, Psalm 95 begins with numerous cohortatives encouraging the audience to offer praise. from the תודה as a verb of vocal declaration, see BDB 986, and Jos 7:19, which employs the noun להודות For 5 same root. 6 It is similarly used in Gen 12:8 and 26:25, where Abraham, after building an alter, calls on the name of the Lord

Page <118> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

s. also Ps 66:5). In) ” וְהָ גִ֥ יתִ י בְכָ ל־פּ8ֳָלֶ B֑ וּֽב8ֲַלִ ֖ ילוֹתֶ ֣ יB אָשִֽׂ יחָ ה׃ “ ,another verb of action , פעל parallels placing this word at the end of the verse, the author creates an instance of delayed identification, a poetic device used to create suspense and impact that frequently appears in this psalm. 7 Overall, the opening words of the psalm associate it with the words of Isaiah, Isa 12:4), which speaks of a new song that) ” ... הוֹד֤ וּ לַ ֽ יהוָה֙ קִרְ א֣ וּ בִשְׁמ֔ וֹ הוֹדִ֥ יעוּ בָ 8ַֽמִּ ֖ ים 8ֲ לִֽ יNתָ ֑ יו ...“ exiles will sing upon their return to Israel. This link between the two works specifically associates the words of the psalm with the occasion implied in Isaiah, a return from exile.

2 שִֽׁ ירוּ ־ל֖ וֹ זַמְּ רוּ־ל֑ וֹ שִׂ֜ יחוּ בְּכָ ל־נִפְלְ אוֹתָ ֽ יו׃

Sing to him sing, make music to him, speak about all his wonderful deeds

The exhortation to praise continues in v.2, which parallels the opening verse with respect to syntax: three verbs appear at the start of each verse, each verb is in the third-person imperative, each implies a vocal activity, and God’s works constitute the object of each verse. It is possible to understand the repetition in the parallelism as an emphasis on speaking out and declaring God’s deeds. All of the verbs used in this verse continue expressing aspects of the first two suggest a musical accompaniment and are ;” שירו… זמרו ... שיחו... “ ,vocalization

as a verb of speaking), and Job שיח commonly used synonymously (s. Pss 21:14, 57:8 for

s. also Jud 5:10 and Pr 6:22). 8 The second) אדברה and שיחו with ” לא אחשך פי“ contrasts 1 7:1

עלילותיו v.1 employed ; נפלאותיו :half of the verse presents another synonym for God’s deeds

generally indicates something פלא and the two appear together in Psalm 78:11. The root difficult to understand (see Job 37:5, 42:3) or a task difficult for a man to accomplish (Deut

refers to the unique works YHWH wrought on נפלאות ,In the context of this psalm .(17:8 behalf of his people. Frequently, as seen in Psalm 78, 9 this word refers to the plagues sent against the Egyptians to enact the Israelites’ deliverance (Ex 3:20, Ps 106:22).

7 See for example v.45. could be rendered “about”, reading “Sing about him!”, which is to say about the acts he has ל The preposition 8 performed. See Psalm 98:1 for this understanding, and BDB 514. 9 See close reading for Ps 78:4.

Page <119> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

3 הִ֭תְהַ לְ לוּ בְּשֵׁ ֣ ם קָדְשׁ֑ וֹ יִ֜שְׂמַ֗ ח לֵ ֤ב׀ מְבַקְשֵׁ֬ י יְהוָ ֽה׃

Praise his holy name; let the seekers of YHWH rejoice

meaning “to boast on the grounds of…” or , התהללו Verbal declaration continues in v.3 with

“to speak greatly of...” (Ps 34:3), and assists in establishing the theme of proclamation as the last in a series of seven imperatives forming a perfect call to praise. YHWH’s reputation,

that is to say unique ,” שם קדשו “ originally mentioned in v.1, is further described here as holy

שם and set apart from all others (s. Gen 2:3 concerning the ). Additionally, the word marks the end of an inclusion, beginning in v.1, which emphasizes the declaration of God’s name; each verb found within the inclusion constitutes an imperative of declaration. The first non-imperative verbal form appears in the second colon, where the audience is introduced for in all likelihood a reference to the Israelites (s. Ps 69:7), or more—” מבקשי יהוה “ ,the first time

to those who ,” ישמח לב “ ,specifically, godly Israelites (s. Zeph 1:6). The wish for happiness seek the Lord is echoed in Psalm 70:5, and contrasts with the string of imperatives previously and ,” מבקשי יהוה “ mentioned. The change in mood corresponds with a change in subject to

. בקש we see a new theme introduced, “seeking the Lord”, highlighted by the root

4 דִּרְשׁ֣ וּ יְהוָ ֣ה ו8ְֻ זּ֑וֹ בַּקְּשׁ֖ וּ פָנָ ֣יו תָּמִֽ יד׃

Seek YHWH and his strength, seek his face always

Verse 4 sees a change in direction moving from praising to seeking. Each colon in v.4 parallels v.3 b; they both contain verbs of seeking and YHWH’s name (or a reference to him), and together they focus the attention of the listeners unto him. The two synonymous phrases both emphasize the action of seeking; 10 they frequently appear in parallel (Is בקשו and דרשו

65:1, Ps 24:6, Pr 11:27) and in exhortations to worship (Deut 4:29, Hos 3:5, 7:10, Jer 50:4). here signifies God’s presence, understandable from the parallel with עזו As the verb’s object, 11

10 The Septuagint translates both verbs as ζητησατε , indicating they are synonymous in this context. 11 Here, the Septuagint reads an imperative form, which may have been influenced by the multiple imperatives found in vv.1-7.

Page <120> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

וַיִּתֵּ ֣ ן לַשְּׁבִ ֣ י 8ֻ זּ֑וֹ “ where his face equates to his presence, in addition to its use in Ps 78:61 , פניו

where it signifies the Ark, the place where YHWH was present among the ,” וְֽתִ פְאַרְ תּ֥ וֹ בְ יַד־צָ ֽ ר׃

,is “God’s strength to save”, based on Ex 15:13 עוז Israelites. An alternative way of rendering

.(s. also Pss 21:2, 66:3, and 74:13) ” נָחִ֥ יתָ בְחַסְדְּ B֖ 8ַ ם־ז֣וּ גָּאָ ֑לְתָּ נֵהַ ֥לְתָּ ב8ְָ זּBְ֖ אֶ ל־נְוֵ ֥ה קָדְשֶׁ ֽ B׃“

Interpreting it this way suits the psalm’s context because the following sections speak of functions both adverbially, meaning תמיד YHWH’s great power in deliverance. The modifier

“continually”, explaining how the listeners seek his presence, and adjectively, detailing the nature of God’s presence, eternal. 12 This eternal aspect of God’s character echoes throughout the body of the psalm because it recounts God’s eternal faithfulness throughout a number of generations .

5 זִכְר֗ וּ נִפְלְ אוֹתָ ֥ יו אֲשֶׁ ר־8ָשָׂ ֑ ה מֹ֜פְתָ֗ יו וּמִשְׁ פְּטֵ י־פִֽ יו׃

Remember the wonderful deeds that he has done, his mighty acts and the judgments of his mouth

After imploring the listeners to seek God’s presence the psalmist now explains how to achieve it: by remembering his deeds. Verse 5 resumes the theme that began in vv.1-2, YHWH’s mighty deeds. The psalmist replaces verbs of seeking in the previous two verses with a verb usually signifies acting in זכר ,denoting remembrance. More than just remembering, however

... אֶ ת־אֲ דֹנָ֞ י הַ גָּד֤ וֹל וְהַ נּוֹרָא֙ זְ כֹ֔ רוּ “ ,accordance with what you have remembered. Nehemiah 4:8

exhorts the exiles not just to remember the ,” וְהִֽלָּחֲמ֗ וּ 8ַ ל־אֲ ֵ חיכֶם֙ בְּנֵ יכֶ ֣ם וּבְ נֹתֵ יכֶ֔ ם נְשֵׁ יכֶ ֖ם וּבָתֵּ יכֶ ֽ ם׃

Lord, thinking about him, but to let this be an incentive to fight. Similarly, Psalm 78:42 chastises Israel for not remembering God’s power, which is not to say they never thought of his acts, but that they failed to act accordingly. 13 In Psalm 105 the appropriate action for remembering appears later in the psalm. Earlier in v.2 the listeners were exhorted to sing and and so it is only logical that here they are called ,( נפלאות ) speak of God’s magnificent deeds

;modifies that which immediately precedes it appear in Nah 3:19 and Ps 71:6 תמיד Similar instances in which 12 s. Dahood (1981). 13 See close reading for Ps 78:42.

Page <121> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

, מפתיו in the second colon is נפלאות upon to remember them. The word corresponding to which similarly often recalls the plagues’ tradition of Exodus. 14 signifies deeds of judgment (s. Is 26:9, Jer משפט In the present context the word

48:21, Ezek 39:21, and Ps 7:7), referring to those instances in which YHWH intervenes to

describes verbal acts ” משפטי פיו “ ,administer punishment or reward. With this understanding of judgment, even though the phrase is unique in the Bible. By maintaining the words of MT, God’s verbal judgments are emphasized, the deeds he effected by the words of his mouth. Such verbal judgments persistently recur throughout the psalm. 15

6 זֶ֭רַ ע אַבְרָהָ ֣ ם 8ַבְדּ֑ וֹ בְּנֵ ֖י י8ֲַ קֹ֣ ב בְּחִ ירָ ֽ יו׃

Seed of Abraham his servant, the sons of Jacob his chosen ones

Focus switches in v.6 from the works YHWH has done to the audience and their relationship with him. The internal parallelism here dwells on the relationship between the Patriarchs and the audience, thus strengthening the connection between the two. In this verse, the psalmist draws a direct relationship between his audience and Abraham, a relationship important to his overall purposes. The presence of Abraham 16 in this psalm separates it from the other historiographic psalms, which neither mention him nor allude to events in his life. Abraham’s ” בני יעקב “ in this verse naturally refers to the nation of Israel, paralleling ,” זרע אברהם “ ,seed

(s. also Jer 33:26). The psalm accentuates Israel’s unique status in various ways. In this verse, s. also vv.26 and 43), which together) 17 בחיריו the emphasis manifests itself in the term

constitutes a word pair frequently found in Isaiah, where it similarly relates Israel to עבדו with

.( Is 44:1; s. also Is 41:8 and 45:4 18) ” ו8ְַתָּ ֥ ה שְׁ מַ ֖ ע י8ֲַ קֹ֣ ב 8ַבְדִּ ֑ י וְ יִשְׂרָאֵ ֖ ל בָּחַ ֥רְתִּ י בֽ וֹ׃ “ ,the Patriarchs

14 See Ex 4:21, 7:3, 7:9, 11:9, and 11:10. 15 Verses 8, 11, 15, 16, 19, 27, 28, 31, 34, and 42. 16 The chronicler in 1Chr 8:18 alters the reference here from Abraham to Israel, and the most probable reason for this is to focus more attention onto his audience. Instead of reading Abraham as God’s servant, the Chronicler relates this title to Israel. Such a redirection of focus from the past to the chronicler’s generation is similarly reflected in his changes to Ps 105:8, 12; see below. 17 See also 2Sam 21:6 where it specifically describes someone that God has chosen. 18 This similarity in phrasing indicates a possible literary connection between Psalm 105 and Deutro-Isaiah.

Page <122> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

7 ה֭ וּא יְהוָ ֣ה אֱ Nהֵ ֑ ינוּ בְּכָ ל־הָ֜אָ֗רֶ ץ מִשְׁ פָּטָ ֽ יו׃

He is YHWH our God, in all the earth are his judgments

The author now changes his perspective and identifies himself with his listeners via the third-

which additionally establishes an intimate relationship , אלהי נו person common plural pronoun

,are further detailed in this verse ( משפטיו ) between God and his people. His judgments previously they were verbal (v.5) and now the psalmist states they are not limited by ,In describing God this way .” בכל הארץ “ ,geographical boundaries, but exist in all the world the psalmist alludes to the title Abraham gave to God when he mediated on behalf of Lot in In this context, God indeed serves as a judge .” ... הֲ שֹׁפֵט֙ כָּ ל־הָאָ֔רֶ ץ לֹ֥ א י8ֲַשֶׂ ֖ ה מִשְׁפָּ ֽ ט׃ “ ,Gen 18:25 of the whole earth because he executed his judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah. The same idea of God’s deeds extending national boundaries creates an inclusion for the opening stanza since v.1 states that his deeds should be proclaimed to all peoples. Regarding the opening section, vv.1-7, one of its main features is the intense repetition of the divine name; four of its five occurrences in the psalm appear here. Via this distribution of the divine name, the psalmist establishes YHWH as the main subject for the remainder of psalm. After the opening section, the psalm generally refers to YHWH implicitly, via pronouns and third-person masculine singular verbs. 19

8 זָ כַ ֣ר לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם בְּרִ ית֑ וֹ דָּבָ ֥ ר צִ֜ וָּ֗ ה לְאֶ ֣לֶ ף דּֽ וֹר׃

He remembers forever his covenant, the promise he determined for a thousand generations

Verse 8 begins a new section that is distinguished by a change in theme and time. The psalm now begins to focus on a covenant, and the temporal framework shifts to the past. In this section, the psalmist initiates that which he previously exhorted his audience to do: proclaim thanks to YHWH, talk about, and remember his deeds. Previously the psalm instructed the the Lord’s mighty acts performed on their behalf (v.5), and now ( זכרו ) Israelites to remember

19 The repeated plural imperatives, concentration of the divine name, reasons for praising him (in this case his v3) constitute strong) התהללו v.2), and) זמרו ,(v.2) שירו ,(v.1) הודו wonders), and words of praise such as indicators for Gunkel’s form-critical category Hymn of Praise; s. Gunkel and Begrich (1998:22-34).

Page <123> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

his covenant. The chiastic structure within v.8 serves ( זכר) it shows how God remembered 20 as an emphatic opening to the section and highlights through repetition the eternal nature of here ברית and דבר The corresponding terms . לעולם : בריתו :: דבר : לאלף דור :the covenant represent the important theme of God’s covenant, or promise. 21 Furthermore, we can surmise

not as a two-sided covenant but as a unilateral promise that ברית further defines דבר that

וְהָ יְתָ ֥ ה הַקֶּ ֖שֶׁ ת בֶּ 8ָֽנָ ֑ ן וּרְאִ יתִ֗ יהָ “ ,YHWH alone is obliged to keep, such as that found in Gen 9:16

bears the meaning דבר Additionally, the word .” לִזְ כֹּר֙ בְּ רִ ֣ ית עוֹלָ֔ ם בֵּ ֣ין אֱ Nהִ֔ ים וּבֵ ין֙ כָּ ל־נֶ ֣פֶ שׁ חַ יָּ֔ ה ...

mentioned in ” משפטי פיו “ word”, which is to say a “spoken utterance”, alluding to one of the“ v.5; thus, the promise mentioned here exemplifies one of YHWH’s spoken judgments. The a modifier expressing a , צוה ,promise made by God is something that he has determined to do degree of certainty concerning its accomplishment (cf. Ps 111:9). 22 The deeds mentioned within the psalm continually recall YHWH’s determination to fulfill the promise to Abraham.

9 אֲ שֶׁ ֣ ר כָּ֭רַ ת אֶ ת־אַבְרָהָ ֑ ם וּשְׁ ב֖ וּ8ָת֣ וֹ לְ יִשְׂחָ ֽ ק׃

Which he cut with Abraham, and his oath to Isaac 23

Verse 9 continues by further detailing the covenant introduced in v.8. The connection between and subsequently , אשר the verses is primarily established by the relative pronoun

.(cf. Hos 10:4, Ps 89:4) ” כרת ברית “ ,strengthened by the breaking up of a composite phrase

The psalm specifically identifies the promise mentioned in vv.8-9 with God’s promise to

making the form an imperative addressed to his , זכר The chronicler here apparently adds a waw to the word 20 audience. Instead of God remembering his covenant, as recorded in the psalm, the audience is implored to recall the covenant that God made with them. As mentioned in the close reading for v.6, this represents the chronicler’s desire to focus more on his audience. stems from a pool of legal terminology, it does not necessarily bear this nuance in ברית Even though the term 21 the present context. occurs in the Bible is Deut 7:9, where it describes God’s faithfulness to his ” אלף דור “ The only other place 22 covenant, although the covenant mentioned in Deuteronomy differs. .(.s. Kutscher (1974:104f ;ש and צ stems from the phonetic similarity between יצחק This variation of the word 23 In addition to its appearance here, it also appears in Jer 33:26, Amos 7:9, and 16. We can be sure that it does not represent a diachronic alteration because when 1Chr 16:16 reuses Psalm 105:10 it employs the expected form, which occurs in both pre-exilic and postexilic texts. Consequently, the change in representation probably , יצחק represents a dialectal variant.

Page <124> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

Gen 15:18). In both passages the) ” בַּ יּ֣וֹם הַה֗ וּא כָּרַ ֧ ת יְהוָ ֛ה אֶ ת־ אַבְרָ ֖ ם בְּרִ ֣ ית… “ ,Abraham in Genesis

does not serve as a direct object marker but a preposition “with” (s. also Gen את particle

2Sam 16:17). Abraham’s name previously appeared in v.6, where it linked the people of Israel with the Patriarch. With that link established, its appearance here provides a degree of association between the promise made to the Patriarch and the Israelites. Continuing to detail ...וַהֲ קִֽ מֹתִי֙ אֶ ת־הַשְּׁ ב8ָֻ֔ ה אֲשֶׁ ֥ ר נִשְׁבַּ 8ְ֖תִּ י “ ,the covenant, the second colon alludes to Gen 26:3

.when God reaffirmed the promise he originally made with Abraham to Isaac ,” לְאַבְרָהָ ֥ ם אָבִֽ יB

meaning oath (s. Deut , שבועתו ,Appearing in this colon is a third synonym for the promise

7:8, Jer 11:5), a word that further reinforces the connection between vv.8-9. 24

10 וַיַּ 8ֲֽמִ ידֶ ֣ הָ לְ י8ֲַ קֹ֣ ב לְחֹ֑ ק לְ֜ יִשְׂרָ אֵ֗ ל בְּרִ ֣ ית עוֹלָ ֽ ם׃

He established it for Jacob as an ordinance, for Israel an everlasting covenant

... הָאָ֗רֶ ץ אֲשֶׁ ֤ ר אַתָּה֙ שֹׁכֵ ֣ב “ ,Continuing to describe the promise, v.10 recalls events in Gen 28:13

when God appears to Jacob reaffirming the oath he originally made ,” 8ָלֶ֔ יהָ לBְ֥ אֶתְּ נֶ ֖נָּ ה וּלְזַרB ֽ ֶ8ְ׃ with Abraham. By separating the Patriarchs’ names, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which normally appear together, (s. Num 32:11, Deut 34:4, 2Ki 13:23), the psalmist creates a refers to the covenant with חק ,stronger link with the previous verse. In the present stanza

Abraham, which was first introduced in v.8 (s. also Jos 24:25 for a similar association refers to the nation because in ישראל ,Within the present context .( ברית and חק between vv.10-11 each colon represents a separate generation in which the promise is preserved from the Patriarch Abraham via Isaac and Jacob to the ,(” אברהם ... ישחק ... יעקב ... ישראל “) people of Israel. In developing the relationship from the Patriarch to the people, the psalm reminds the listeners of v.6, which also links the two entities. Moreover, the continuum represented here throughout the generations exemplifies the promise’s eternal nature, since YHWH preserved the promise from generation to generation. Explicating that eternal nature which creates an inclusion with the start of v.8 ,” ברית עולם “ ,is the last phrase of the verse

.appear synonymously in Num 30:3 דבר and שבועה The two words 24

Page <125> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

within this envelope, the promise’s durability is demonstrated. At this stage, it is :” עולם ברית“ worth noting that the entire burden of maintaining the promise falls on YHWH; he must prove faithful in remembering the promise, and the people have no active role to play.

11 לֵ אמֹ֗ ר לְ B֗ אֶתֵּ ֥ ן אֶ ת־אֶ ֽרֶ ץ־כְּנָ 8ַ֑ ן חֶ֜בֶ ל נַחֲ לַתְכֶ ֽם׃

Saying: “to you I will give the land of Canaan as a territory for your inheritance” 25

After speaking generally about the promise, the psalmist now quotes the words of the promise

Even though the psalmist .” ... לֵ אמֹ֑ ר לְ זַרְ Bֲ8֗ נָתַ֙תִּי֙ אֶ ת־הָאָ ֣רֶ ץ הַ זֹּ֔ את... “ ,itself, alluding to Gen 15:18 probably had numerous texts before him that mention God’s promise to Abraham, he specifically focuses on one aspect of the promise, the land, as opposed to fame and progeny. In doing so, he introduces the central concern for the psalm: YHWH’s promise to give

is slightly out of לא מר Abraham’s descendants the land of Canaan. The psalmist’s use of character for the Psalter because direct quotes within the Psalter are generally unmarked (s. v.15); 26 thus, it would appear the psalmist is pointing the reader to Gen 15:18. Although YHWH specifically made the promise to Abraham, its realization belongs to Abraham’s descendants, including the psalmist’s contemporaries. The verse’s wording reflects this but the fulfillment appears in , לך ,situation: the promise is phrased in the singular to Abraham

encompassing the psalmist’s contemporary audience. Appearing for the 27, נחלתכם ,the plural

which here only refers to the land of Canaan, as opposed to , ארץ second time in the psalm is

, נחלה the whole earth in v.7. The land of Canaan is bestowed to Abraham’s descendants as a

וְ לֹֽ א־תִ סֹּ֤ ב “ ,an inheritance passed down from generation to generation, as Num 36:7 implies

.(s. also Job 42:15) ” נַחֲ לָה֙ לִבְנֵ ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ ל מִמַּטֶּ ֖ ה אֶ ל־מַטֶּ ֑ ה כִּ ֣ י אִ֗ ישׁ בְּ נַחֲ לַת֙ מַטֵּ ֣ ה אֲ בֹתָ֔ יו יִדְ בְּק֖ וּ בְּנֵ ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ ֽ ל׃

The act of giving land as an inheritance further exemplifies God’s judgments going out into

,rendering “…I will give the land , ארץ An alternative reading of this verse is possible by moving the pause to 25 creating a relationship in which ,” ארץ כנען “ ,Canaan as an everlasting possession” breaking the composite phrase the second colon explains the first. 26 See Meier (1992:33-50). 27 This is a common poetic device used to relieve monotony; s. Dahood (1981:54), and Berlin (1985:35-50).

Page <126> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

v.7). YHWH’s ability to bestow the land of one nation to) ” בכל הארץ משפ טיו “ ,all the earth another exemplifies his jurisdiction over the whole earth. Section two closes here, after it establishes God’s eternal covenant with Abraham as the main theme. Verse 10 explicitly states the eternal nature of the covenant by referring to it The psalm further illustrates this fact in its remaining verses, which detail .” ברית עולם “ as a how the covenant begins with Abraham and continues throughout the generations of his offspring. Each of the following accounts provides more detail concerning how YHWH fulfilled his promise.

12 בִּ֭הְ יוֹתָ ם מְתֵ ֣ י מִסְפָּ ֑ ר כִּ֜מ8ְַ֗ ט וְגָרִ֥ ים בָּ ֽ הּ׃

When they were few in number, sparse and sojourners in it (the land)

Verse 12 opens a new section in the psalm with the central emphasis moving away from a description of the promise, to the way in which YHWH fulfilled it. In each of the following stanzas, it is possible to identify three entities: God, his chosen one(s), and a threat to the promise. God ultimately dominates and controls all situations and circumstances whether good or bad. The psalm portrays the chosen one(s) as flat characters, 28 victims who are unable to save themselves, 29 and the threat usually adopts the form of other nations, but also appears מתי “ as the forces of Creation. Verse 12 recalls when the Patriarchs were small in number, 30

,”means “men of small number ” מתי מספר “ ,and lived in the land of Canaan. Literally ,” מספר

by itself can simply be translated “few” (s. Is 10:19). 31 The phrase מספר although the word

which is one of the few ,” ...וַאֲ נִי֙ מְתֵ ֣ י מִסְפָּ֔ ר וְנֶאֶסְפ֤ וּ 8ָלַי֙ וְהִכּ֔ וּנִ י... “ ,recalls Gen 34:30 ” מתי מספר“ times this expression appears in the Torah. 32 Moreover, in Genesis it portrays an incident in

28 Even though Psalm 105 is a poetic text, vv.12-41 lend themselves well to a narrative analysis; consequently, I shall use terms from this sphere of study. The flat character is described in Berlin (1994:23-41) and Ska (1990:83-94). 29 This contrasts their role in the Torah where they have speech and the ability to think and act. 30 As with the chronicler’s change in Ps 105:6, here too it would appear that he seeks to switch focus from past from the third-person plural to the בהיותם generations to his audience. This he achieves by altering the suffix on .( בהיותכם ) second-person plural 31 The word can also refer to an individual or people in exile, as Ezra 2:2 suggests (s. BDB 709), which could constitute a reflection of the psalmist’s reality. 32 Outside of the verse quoted, it never appears in connection with the Patriarchs. Its only other occurrences are in Deut 4:27 and 33:6.

Page <127> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105 which the inhabitants of Canaan threatened Jacob and his family. After his sons slay the inhabitants of Shechem, Jacob fears that the local peoples will hear about it and attack him and his family in retribution because they were relatively few in number . The notion of a threat fits well into the context of the psalm since the threat posed to Jacob also endangers the promise’s fulfillment. which is to say sojourners, people who , גָרִ ים The Psalm portrays the Patriarchs here as dwell as newcomers without rights in a land. 33 In choosing this word, the psalmist emphasizes that the promise remained unfulfilled. The Patriarchs begin in Canaan as journeymen and then move to Egypt before their offspring returns to Canaan. Only at this final stage, when the In using this word, the psalmist additionally . גרים promise is fulfilled are they no longer

in which Abraham describes himself as a 34 ,” גֵּ ר־וְ תוֹשָׁ ֥ ב אָ נֹכִ ֖ י 8ִמָּכֶ ֑ם ... “ ,recalls Gen 23:4 sojourner when he purchase a plot of land to bury Sarah. At this stage in his life, he wandered

in בה from place to place and the promise of land was still awaiting fulfillment. The pronoun

previously mentioned in v.11; it also determines the geographical , כנען this verse refers to starting point of the Patriarchs. No mention is made of Abraham’s sojourn from Ur because the author apparently desires to have the promise’s origin and fulfillment in the same location, Canaan.

13 וַ֭יִּתְהַלְּ כוּ מִ גּ֣ וֹי אֶ ל־גּ֑ וֹי מִ֜מַּמְלָכָ֗ ה אֶ ל־8ַ ֥ ם אַחֵ ֽ ר׃

They walked about from nation to nation, from kingdom to another people

.the Patriarchs traveled from people to people ,גרים ,As a consequence of being sojourners

meaning to wander about with no specific destination (s. Ps 82:5 and Esth , התהלכו The verb

because they had not yet established a , גרים complements the patriarchal status of ,(2:11 country of residence. Verse 13 recalls Gen 13:17, which speaks of God’s command to ק֚ וּם “ ,Abraham to walk about the land and re-emphasizes God’s promise to give it to him

33 See BDB 157; and also Jud 17:7-9. .stranger”, is used“ , גֵ ר Here, the related noun 34

Page <128> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

is a general term referring to a גוי Even though 35 .” הִתְהַלֵּ F֣ בָּאָ֔רֶ ץ לְאָרְ כָּ ֖הּ וּלְרָחְבָּ֑ הּ כִּ֥ י לBְ֖ אֶתְּ נֶ ֽנָּ ה׃ people or nation, in this context it specifically relates to those peoples living in Canaan alludes to ממלכה because this was the region in which the Patriarchs wandered. The word another incident in which the Patriarchs faced danger. The only instance in which it appears

36 .” ... כִּֽ י ־הֵבֵ ֧אתָ 8ָלַ ֛י ו8ְַ ל־מַמְלַכְתִּ ֖ י חֲטָאָ ֣ ה גְ דֹלָ ֑ה ... “ ,with respect to the Patriarchs occurs in Gen 20:9

These words are taken from an incident in which Abraham’s life was threatened by the king of Gerar (s. Gen 20:11), where once again, the threat to the Patriarch represents a threat to the which appears as a synonym , עם אחר promise. Heightening the notion of a threat is the phrase

... וְ לֹ֥ א יָשׁ֖ וּב לָ F֑ צֹֽ אנBְ֙ נְתֻ נוֹ ת לְ אֹיְבֶ֔ יB וְאֵ ֥ ין לBְ֖ מוֹשִֽׁ יZַ ׃ בָּנֶ֙ יfor Israel’s enemies in Deut 28:31-32, “ B

here in the psalm refers to the nations that stood עם אחר The use of .” וּבְ נֹתֶ֜ יB נְתֻ נִ֙ ים ל8ְַ ֤ם אַחֵ ר... as a threat to the promise, it also recalls the nations to whom YHWH’s deeds were proclaimed

.” ... הוֹדִ֥ יעוּ ב8ַָ֜מִּ֗ ים 8ֲלִ ילוֹתָ ֽ יו׃ “ ,in v.1

14 לֹֽ א־הִנִּ ֣י\ַ אָדָ ֣ ם ל8ְָשְׁ קָ ֑ ם וַיּ֖וֹכַ ח 8ֲלֵ יהֶ ֣ם מְלָכִֽ ים׃

He never permitted a man to oppress them, and reproved kings on their behalf

The allusion to the patriarchal families’ vulnerability continues in v.14, but attention is now s. also Ecc) ” לא הניח “ devoted to God and his ability to protect them. He never permitted

5:11, Jud 16:26, and Lam 5:5) anyone to harm them, in spite of the potential danger. The , לעשקם ) highlights YHWH’s prevention of anyone from oppressing ” אדם… מלכים “ merismus s. 1Sam 12:3, Ps 62:11) the Patriarchs, from a single man, to many kings, implying all in points to two different events in the lives of the מלכים between. More specifically, the word

Patriarchs. At some stage in their lives, all of the aforementioned Patriarchs were endangered whilst in the presence of kings or powerful individuals. In order to prevent people from those who ,ויוכח ,oppressing the Patriarchs, God had to intervene verbally and rebuke

35 Joshua 18:4 uses the same verb in the context of surveying a land before taking possession, which reflects Abraham’s situation when God told him to survey the land prior to his descendants possessing it. are well attested in biblical literature as a parallel pair; s. for example Jer ממלכה and גוי Together, the words 36 51:20, in addition to Pss 46:7 and 79:6.

Page <129> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

when ,”…רָאָ ֥ ה אֱ Nהִ ֖ ים וַיּ֥וֹכַ ח אָ ֽמֶ שׁ׃ “ threatened them. An instance of this occurs in Gen 31:42

recalls the incident in which the king יכח Laban threatened Jacob’s life. Furthermore, the root of Gerar posed a threat to Abraham and Sarah. Unlike the previous instance, however, the וּלְשָׂרָ ֣ ה אָמַ֗ ר ההִ נֵּ֙ נָתַ֜ תִּ י לֶףאֶ ֤ כֶּסֶ֙ ף֙ לְאָחִ֔ יF ההִנֵּ֤ הוּא־לFָ֙ כְּס֣ וּת 8ֵ ינַ֔ יִם ללְכֹ֖ אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר “ ,king was not reproved

here refers to Sarah’s נכחת Gen 20:16). Though the meaning of) ” אִתָּ ֑ F וְאֵ ֥ ת לכֹּ֖ וְ נֹכָ ֽחַ ת׃ vindication, the account itself speaks of God intervening on her behalf.

15 אַ ֽ ל־ תִּ גּ8ְ֥ וּ בִמְשִׁ יחָ ֑ י וְ֜לִנְבִ יאַ י אַ ל־תָּרֵ ֽ עוּ׃

Do not touch my anointed ones and to my prophets do no harm

Specific words of rebuke now complete the picture of God’s protection that began in the previous verse. The psalmist employs chiasmus to create an emphatic close to the section. 37 v.14), the psalmist creates a semantic) יכח together with נגע By employing the word

אֲ נִי֙ “ ,connection with the previous verse, in 2Sam 7:14 both appear together synonymously

Recalling Gen .” אֶהְ יֶה־לּ֣ וֹ לְאָ֔ ב וְה֖ וּא יִהְ יֶה־לִּ֣ י לְבֵ ֑ ן אֲשֶׁ ר֙ בְּהַ ֣ 8ֲ וֹת֔ וֹ וְהֹֽ כַחְתִּ יו֙ בְּשֵׁ ֣ בֶ ט אֲ נָשִׁ֔ ים וּ בְ נִג8ְֵ֖ י בְּנֵ֥ י אָדָ ֽ ם׃

echoes God’s words when he rebuked Abimelech for taking ” אל תגעו במשיחי “ the phrase ,20:6

Furthermore, the verse echoes an event in .” ...8ַ ל־כֵּ ֥ן לֹא־נְתַתִּ ֖ יB לִנְ גּZַֹ֥ אֵלֶ ֽ יהָ ׃ “ ,Abraham’s wife

Isaac’s life. In Gen 26:11, Abimelech charges all of his citizens to leave Isaacs wife alone,

With this last citation, it is .” וַיְצַ֣ ו אֲבִ ימֶ֔ לֶ F אֶ ת־כָּ ל־ה8ָָ֖ ם לֵ אמֹ֑ ר הַ נֹּגֵ֜ Zַ בָּאִ֥ ישׁ הַזֶּ֛ ה וּבְאִשְׁתּ֖ וֹ מ֥ וֹת יוּמָ ֽ ת׃“ possible to see the psalmist relating to at least one event in each of the Patriarchs’ lives. The עבד bear a nuance of being “chosen”, as did the words נביאי and משיחי corresponding terms

is reserved for priests and kings 38 (s. Lev 4:5, 16: 32 and מ שיח ,in v.6. Ordinarily בחיר and

1Sam 12:3; Is 45:1), and even though the Bible is not explicit in calling Abraham a king, instances arise in which he is attributed certain kingly attributes. 39 Genesis 14 portrays

37 For this function of chiasmus, see Watson (1981:118-68). 38 Priests are anointed with oil (Ex 29:7), that is to say oil is poured on their heads when they take office. Kings are similarly anointed as 2Ki 9:3 indicates (s. also Ps 89:21). Abraham, however, never receives such an . 39 The idea of Abraham’s association with kingship appears in extra-biblical sources. Genesis Rabbah XLlll. 5 suggests Abraham was offered kingship of the world after his defeat of the four kings.

Page <130> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

Abraham as a peer to the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah. Additionally, one could argue his superiority over the kings mentioned because he not only rescued the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, but also defeated the confederation of kings that led the original assault. Genesis 17:6 also associates Abraham with kingship because it declares that kings will come forth from his offspring, suggesting he somehow possesses royal blood. The parallel term to “king” ו8ְַתָּ֗ ה הָשֵׁ ֤ ב אֵ ֽשֶׁ ת־הָאִ ישׁ֙ “ ,draws our attention to the peculiar 40 verse Gen 20:7 , נביאי ,in v.15

where Abraham receives this title. It constitutes the only ,” כִּֽ י־ נָבִ ֣ יא ה֔ וּא וְיִתְ פַּלֵּ ֥ל בַּ 8ַֽדְ B֖ וֶ ֽחְ יֵ ֑ה... occasion in the Torah where a Patriarch receives the title of “prophet”. Its appearance in Gen 20:7 emphasizes Abraham’s intercessory role because there God instructs him to intercede on recalls another incident in אל תרעו behalf of the king of Gerar. In the second colon, the phrase which God verbally intervenes on behalf of the Patriarchs. As mentioned in v.14, God

.” ...וְ לֹֽ א־נְתָ נ֣ וֹ אֱ Nהִ֔ ים לְהָרַ ֖ ע 8ִמָּדִֽ י׃ “ ,prevents Laban from harming Jacob in Gen 31:7

Verse 15 brings the first literary-historical account to a climax. Initially it presented the Patriarchs as being numerically small and vulnerable, and proceeded to raise the listeners’ awareness of their vulnerability as they wandered about the land of Canaan. In the final climactic scene, God verbally interposes for the sake of his promise. His intervention in these mentioned in v.5. 41 ,” משפטי פיו “ ,verses represents an example of the judgments of his mouth

16 וַיִּקְרָ ֣ א ר8ָָ֭ ב 8ַ ל־הָאָ ֑רֶ ץ כָּ ֽ ל־מַטֵּ ה־לֶ ֥חֶ ם שָׁבָ ֽ ר׃

He called a famine on the land, every staff of bread he broke

We now turn to the psalm’s fourth section, which contains the second literary-historical account, the story of Joseph. The psalmist again opens the narrative by setting the scene for the coming events. This rendition of Joseph’s life only covers the period of his descent into Egypt to his promotion to Pharaoh’s second-in-command. Outside of the Pentateuch, this is

40 This verse is peculiar because it designates Abraham as a prophet, a title considered by most to be anachronistic, thus leading some to believe Gen 20:7 constitutes a later addition (s. for example: Bowie [1952:364f.]). 41 At this point the chronicler ceases quoting from Psalm 105, and it is worth noting that the meaning of the quoted section differs significantly from its appearance in the psalm to its appearance in Chronicles. This change in meaning is best described by Butler, who states, “By simply omitting the remainder of Ps. CV, the editor has transformed the meaning of the old material to speak to a new generation, few in number, wandering between world powers, but armed with God's eternal covenant and his warnings to the nations not to harm his designated leaders” (1978:41).

Page <131> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105 the only reference to such events. 42 In recounting Joseph’s story, the psalmist restricts himself to selecting and retelling events in a way that reinforces his overall plan—demonstrating God’s direct intervention to save his chosen ones. ,” ויקרא רעב “ ,Opening the section is a reference to God calling a famine on the earth

is a verb usually associated with קרא from v.3 since ” משפטי פיו “ which once again recalls speech (s. Ex 1:18 and Jon 3:4). This verse additionally recalls v.7, “in all the earth are his judgments”, a fact demonstrated here since the famine affects all of the earth. Even though a famine is often considered a natural disaster, here the author attributes it to YHWH via the contributing to the author’s plan of portraying God’s omnipotence, in good and , ויקרא phrase

in the first רעב constitutes an expansion of ” מטה לחם שבר “ bad situations. 43 The expression colon. It occurs in four other places in the Bible (Lev 26:26, Ezek 4:16, 5:16, and 14:13) as a phrase depicting famine 44 caused by God’s judgment; however, the idea of punishment is not appropriate in this context. One potential reason for selecting this somewhat peculiar term is which copiously appears in the Genesis Joseph narrative with , שבר that it contains the root different meanings (s. for example 41:56, 57, 42:1-3, 7, 10, 19).

17 שָׁלַ ֣ח לִפְנֵ יהֶ ֣ם אִ ֑ ישׁ ל8ְֶ֜֗בֶ ד נִמְכַּ ֥ ר יוֹסֵ ֽ ף׃

He sent before them a man; as a slave he was sold, Joseph

to prepare the way for the ,” שלח לפניהם איש “ ,In addition to calling a famine, God sent a man patriarchal family. Verse 17 recalls Joseph’s own words when he speaks of the same situation Moreover, on various occasions .” וַיִּשְׁ לָחֵ ֤נִ י אֱ Nהִ ים֙ לִפְנֵ יכֶ֔ ם לָשׂ֥ וּם לָכֶ ֛ם שְׁאֵרִ ֖ ית בָּאָ ֑רֶ ץ... “ ,in Gen 45:7

וַיְהִ ֤ י יְהוָה֙ אֶ ת־יוֹסֵ֔ ף וַיְהִ ֖ י אִ ֣ ישׁ מַצְלִ ֑י\ַ וַ יְהִ֕ י “ ,such as , איש the Genesis narrative describes Joseph as

in two עבד s. also 43:3-14). We can interpret Joseph’s role as an ;39:2) ” בְּבֵ ֥ ית אֲ דֹנָ ֖יו הַמִּצְרִֽ י׃

42 This contrasts post-biblical literature, which has a tendency to expound upon the lacuna in Joseph’s life; s. Kugel (1990:13-27). 43 This is not always the case, in :1, the author does not attribute the famine to God; rather, it simply happened as a natural course of events. is generally understood as the pole on which bread rings were hung to protect them from מטה לחם The term 44 mice. Figuratively, the expression here implies a shortage of bread (s. Milgrom [2001b:2313f.], and Noth [1965:199]).

Page <132> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105 ways. 45 On one hand, it refers to events transpiring in Gen 37:27, where even though the word does not appear, the context indicates Joseph was sold as a slave . Additionally, Potiphar’s

.” וַתְּדַבֵּ ֣ר אֵ לָ֔ יו כַּדְּ בָרִ֥ ים הָאֵ ֖לֶּ ה לֵ אמֹ֑ ר בָּ ֽ א־אֵ לַ֞ י ה8ֶָ ֧בֶ ד הָ 8ִֽ בְרִ ֛ י... “ ,wife describes him thus in Gen 39:17

also indicates Joseph’s position before YHWH, as his “servant” or עבד ,On the other hand

“chosen one”, a title previously bestowed to Abraham in v.6. Though Joseph was obviously as , נמכר ,sold as a slave, the psalm obscures the identity of those who sold him via a nifal verb

;” לְכ֞ וּ וְנִמְכְּרֶ ֣ נּוּ לַ יִּשְׁמ8ְֵ אלִ֗ ים ֵ֙ וְיָדנוּ֙ אַ ל־תְּהִ י־ב֔ וֹ כִּֽ י־אָחִ֥ ינוּ בְשָׂרֵ ֖ נוּ ה֑ וּא... “ ,opposed to the qal in Gen 37:27 consequently, the fact that Joseph’s own brothers sold him is not conveyed in this rendition of the psalmist creates an , יוסף in the first colon for the name איש events. By substituting instance of delayed identification, waiting until the last moment to reveal the subject’s 46 identity.

18 8ִ נּ֣ וּ בַכֶּ ֣בֶ ל ( רַ גְלָ יו ) [ רַ גְל֑ וֹ] בַּ֜ רְ זֶ֗ ל בָּ ֣אָ ה נַפְשֽׁ וֹ׃

They bound his feet with chains, and iron came over his neck

After describing his deliverance into captivity, the psalm now details Joseph’s incarceration. with iron. Together , נפש ,lit. “oppressed”), with chains, and his neck) ענו ,His feet were bound

constitute a merismus, which is to say Joseph was bound from head to foot (the רגל and נפש

has the נפש ,equivalent of being bound “hand and foot” in English). In this interpretation literal interpretation of “neck”, as in Jon 2:5. 47 One’s “neck” could also be read figuratively

... הָבִ֙ יאוּ אֶ ת־צַוְּ ארֵ יכֶ֜ ם בּ8ְֹ֣ ל “ ,constituting an expression of subjugation as Jer 27:12 indicates

;Genesis provides no evidence supporting this description 48 .” מֶ ֽלֶ F־בָּבֶ֗ ל ו8ְִבְד֥ וּ אֹת֛ וֹ ו8ְַמּ֖ וֹ וִֽחְ יֽ וּ׃ consequently, we should understand it as an expansion by the psalmist intended to accentuate

45 Zakovitch further explores the use of a single word purposely to serve dual meanings (1999:21-68). 46 For another example of this concept, see Ps 112:6. . הרחיב and forms the object of , פה See also KB (vol. 2, 711f.); and Is 5:14 where it parallels 47 may additionally form part of an נפש It is also possible to read “soul” (like the Septuagint, ψυχὴ). The word 48 meaning “to humble” (s. Lev 16:31, Num 30:14, Is 58:5, Psalm 35:13). Understanding it ענה ... נפש expression like this suggests Joseph was humbled, adequately describing his state from the time he was sold to his promotion. The understanding of “soul” also suggests a threat to life, which is a recurring theme in the narrative accounts.

Page <133> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105 the threat to Joseph’s life. If Joseph were to die at this point, his family would presumably also die of starvation, and the promise would remain unfulfilled. Joseph’s binding, as recorded in this verse, could represent two events. On one hand, it refers to him being sold into captivity by his brothers, an interpretation that aligns the verse more with the previous one; on the other hand, it represents his incarceration by Potiphar, after Potiphar’s wife falsely accused Joseph of making a pass at her. The latter interpretation accords well with the following verses.

19 8ַ ד־8ֵ ֥ת בֹּֽ א־דְ בָר֑ וֹ אִמְרַ ֖ ת יְהוָ ֣ה צְרָפָ ֽתְ הוּ׃

Until the time came for his promise, the word of YHWH refined him

Verse 19 continues the psalmist’s interpretation of events in Joseph’s life with a theological perspective of his suffering. Joseph remained in prison until God was ready to fulfill his additionally links vv.18-19. By itself, the בא where the word ,” עד עת בא דברו “ ,promise

,serves two functions in this context. In the life of Joseph it refers to God’s word דברו phrase revealed to Joseph through his dreams that one day his siblings and parents would bow before him (s. Gen 37:6-11). In the psalm’s larger context it alludes to v.8, reminding the listeners of God’s promise to Abraham. 49 In this instance, the promise is being fulfilled since God is preserving his people, through Joseph, as part of the process of giving land to Abraham’s ,” אמרת יהוה “ corresponding to דברו descendants. Verse 19 consists of a terrace pattern 50 with

that similarly depicts ,” הַ שֹּׁלֵ ֣\ַ אִמְרָת֣ וֹ אָ ֑רֶ ץ 8ַ ד־מְ֜הֵרָ ֗ ה יָר֥ וּץ דְּ בָרֽ וֹ׃ “ ,a word pair found in Ps 147:15

represents another אמרה an action brought about by God’s spoken word. The poetic word

,purifies and prepares Joseph ,” אמרת יהוה “ ,God’s spoken word .” משפטי פיו “ actualization of removing from him his presumed character flaws. 51 A similar process of perfecting occurred with Gideon’s army in Jud 7:4. Concerning Ps 105:19, the psalmist may have been influenced which similarly describes ,” הָאֵל֘ תָּמִ ֪ ים דַּ֫רְ כּ֥ וֹ אִמְרַ ֽ ת־יְהוָ ֥ה צְ רוּפָ ֑ה ... “ ,by the wording of Ps 18:31

49 This expression also refers to the dreams Joseph interpreted whilst in prison, as maintained by Humphries (1988:207ff.). 50 Watson presents a useful overview of verse patterns (2001:201-13). 51 Literally, the word refers to the process in which precious metals like silver and gold are refined of impurities (s. Zech 13:9), but this purging process may apply to people (s. Is 48:10).

Page <134> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105 the purifying character of God’s word. Nowhere in Genesis does any theological reason appear concerning Joseph’s suffering in prison. Surely he could have continued working for Potiphar, and YHWH could have theoretically promoted him to be a ruler of Egypt from there! The psalmist answers this potential objection with the explanation that Joseph’s incarceration constituted part of a divine plan to test and purify him through trials and tribulations.

20 שָׁ ֣לַ ח מֶ֭לֶ F וַיַתִּ ירֵ ֑ הוּ מֹשֵׁ ֥ ל 8ַ֜מִּ֗ ים וַ ֽ יְפַתְּחֵ ֽ הוּ׃

He sent a king and freed him, the ruler of the people released him

Verse 20 introduces a radical change in Joseph’s fortunes; they dramatically change as YHWH imposes his will on the situation. God intervenes to preserve his promise here, just as וַיִּשְׁלַ֤ ח פַּרְ עֹה֙ “ ,he did with the Patriarchs. The dramatic turnaround recalls events in Gen 41:14

.we can derive two subjects , שלח From the form of the verb .” וַיִּקְרָ ֣ א אֶ ת־יוֹסֵ֔ ף וַיְרִ יצֻ֖ הוּ מִ ן־הַבּ֑ וֹר ...

a ,( ויפתחהו ) On one hand, the subject could be Pharaoh, who sends for Joseph to release him reading well suited to the following verse. On the other hand, the subject could be God, reading, “God sent for the king who then freed him”. The latter interpretation conforms to the psalm’s overall desire to portray God as omnipotent, and Pharaoh subordinate to his he is subject to God’s ,” משל עמים “ ,judgments. Even though Pharaoh is a ruler of peoples

as , פרעה as opposed to מלך bidding. Supporting this notion is the selection of the word recorded in Genesis, because the former corresponds with the kings God rebukes in v.14. which recalls v.1, where the , עמים Another recollection of earlier verses concerns the word psalmist exhorts his listeners to declare God’s deeds to the nations. The connection here implies that the release of Joseph constitutes one of the deeds for declaration among the nations.

21 שָׂמ֣ וֹ אָד֣ וֹן לְבֵ ית֑ וֹ וּ֜ מֹשֵׁ֗ ל בְּכָ ל־קִ נְיָנֽ וֹ׃

He made him lord over his house and ruler over all his possessions

Page <135> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

recalling ,” שמו אדון לביתו “ ,After being set free, the king appoints Joseph lord of his house

ו8ְַתָּ֗ ה לֹֽ א־אַתֶּ֞ ם שְׁ לַחְתֶּ ֤ ם אֹתִ י֙ הֵ֔ ָ נּה כִּ ֖ י הָאֱ Nהִ ֑ ים וַ יְשִׂ ימֵנִֽ֙ י לְאָ֜ ב לְפַרְ עֹ֗ ה וּלְאָ דוֹן֙ לְכָ ל־בֵּ ית֔ וֹ “ ,events in Gen 45:8

as recalled by Joseph. Previously, when Joseph’s brothers spoke about ,” וּמֹשֵׁ ֖ ל בְּכָ ל־אֶ ֥רֶ ץ מִצְרָ ֽ יִם׃

of the land (s. Gen 42:10, 30, 33, 43:20). The second , אדון ,him, they refered to him as the lord colon in the verse parallels the first, repeating and dwelling on the exalted status Joseph a phrase usually associated with livestock , קנינו we find לביתו receives. Corresponding with that here represents all Pharaoh owned (s. Gen 31:18, 36:6, Jos 14:4, Ezek 38:12).

22 לֶאְ סֹ֣ ר שָׂרָ ֣ יו בְּ נַפְשׁ֑ וֹ וּזְקֵנָ ֥יו יְחַכֵּ ֽ ם׃

To bind his officials as he pleases and his elders he makes wise

Joseph’s elevated position after God’s promise materialized is further expounded in v.22, although here the psalmist apparently depends more on his understanding of the situation than ,”as “to imprison” or “to bind לאסר on events narrated in Genesis. It is possible to understand

which completes the role ,” לֶאְסֹ֣ ר מַלְכֵ יהֶ ֣ם בְּ זִקִּ ֑ ים וְ֜נִכְבְּדֵ יהֶ֗ ם בְּכַבְלֵ ֥י בַרְ זֶ ֽל׃ “ ,as in :8 reversal that began in v.18. Joseph was bound and imprisoned in v.18 (also known from the

as he , שריו ,Genesis account) but here he has authority to incarcerate Pharaoh’s ministers

s. Ps 35:25). Joseph’s authority to imprison individuals is reflected in Gen) 52 בנפשו pleases

42:17 when he imprisoned his brothers. Perhaps more importantly, his authority to bind ... וַיִּקַּ ֤ ח מֵ ֽאִתָּם֙ אֶ ת־שִׁמְע֔ וֹן “ ,individuals is reflected in the binding and imprisonment of Simeon

.(Gen 42:24) ” וַיֶּאֱסֹ֥ ר אֹת֖ וֹ ל8ְֵ ינֵ יהֶ ֽ ם׃

to instruct” (s. Ps 94:10), creating an“ 53, ליסר could be corrected to לאסר ,Alternatively

in the second colon, and emphasizing Joseph’s role as an instructor יחכם internal parallel with to Pharaoh’s ministers. Genesis 41:33-39 portrays Joseph functioning in this capacity,

52 A plausible alternative understanding appears in the Septuagint, which translates “himself”, τοῦ παιδεῦσαι τοὺς ἄρχοντας αὐτοῦ ὡς ἑαυτὸν, meaning, Joseph did not need to consult with Pharaoh before he imprisoned one of his ministers, he could do it on his own authority. 53 As interpreted by the Septuagint ( παιδεῦσαι ) and .

Page <136> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105 instructing 54 Pharaoh on how to manage the years of plenty and famine. With these two understandings in view, the psalmist highlights the fullness of Joseph’s authority. His responsibilities cover both judicial and administrative spheres. Both of the aforementioned interpretations demonstrate aspects of authority, and reflect Joseph’s new standing in contrast to his old. Adding to the previous section, vv.16-22 reveal God’s ability to reverse a dire situation. Joseph was not only delivered from his chains but also richly blessed, a turnaround vv.18, 20, 21, 22) נפשו : משל :: משל : בנפשו ,dramatized by the chiasmus in vv.18-22 respectively), the one whose soul was ruled over now rules over other souls.

23 וַיָּ בֹ֣ א יִשְׂרָאֵ ֣ ל מִצְ רָ ֑יִם וְ֜י8ֲַ קֹ֗ ב גָּ ֣ר בְּאֶ ֽרֶ ץ־חָ ֽ ם׃

Then Israel came to Egypt and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham

We now move to the third and longest recital of Israelite literary history, depicting a development from individuals (the Patriarchs and Joseph) to a nation. The stanza begins with Jacob and his family’s move to Egypt and ends with the Israelites’ expulsion by the Egyptians. As with the openings of the previous sections, v.23 sets the stage for forthcoming 55 .” וְאֵ֙ לֶּ ה שְׁמ֧ וֹת בְּנֵ ֽי־ יִשְׂרָאֵ ֛ ל הַבָּאִ֥ ים מִצְרַ ֖ יְמָ ה אֵ ֣ ת י8ֲַ קֹ֣ ב אִ֥ ישׁ וּבֵ ית֖ וֹ בָּ ֽ אוּ… “ ,events by recalling Ex 1:1

which earlier , בוא The psalmist forges a connection with the previous sections via the word portrayed steel passing over Joseph’s neck (v.18) and the fulfillment of God’s word (v.19).

ישראל : יעקב :: Another link appears to the second stanza via the chiastic arrangement of

with v.10. Unlike v.10, however, both references here refer to the Patriarch and יעקב : ישראל

Just .” גר בארץ חם “ ,not the nation. After entering into Egypt, Jacob settles in the land of Ham

” כמעט וגרים בה “ ,as the other Patriarchs were few in number when they dwelt in Canaan

in the land of Ham. As a designation for ,גר ,v.12), so too was Jacob’s family when he dwelt)

no doubt stems from the table of nations in Gen 10:6. The choice of ” ארץ חם “ Egypt, the term

54 The notion of Joseph being renowned for his wisdom is also recorded in Acts 7:9-16. which speaks of Jacob’s move ,” ... כי גר יהיה זרעך בארץ ל א להם ... “ ,There is an additional allusion to Gen 15:13 55 to Egypt. The declaration of the future in Gen 15:13, coupled with the fulfillment in Ps 105:23, is another example of God fulfilling his word. By alluding to this event the psalmist is able to preserve the notion of God’s word coming to fruition, and yet preclude any negative pictures from the psalm (the words quoted in Gen 15:13 speak of the future enslavement).

Page <137> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

in an ארץ this term may have been motivated by the psalmist’s desire to include the word epithet, and in so doing develop it as a leitmotif. 56 It first appears in v.7 as a description of the world, then in v.11 as a designation for Canaan, and once again in v.16 referring to the whole brings with it a derogatory element since Ham, one חם earth. As with Ps 78:51, recollection of of Noah’s sons, was deemed guilty in a shameful incident (s. Gen 9:22), and so the nation that bears his name may have been conceived as also sharing in his shame.

24 וַיֶּ ֣פֶ ר אֶ ת־8ַמּ֣ וֹ מְ אֹ֑ ד וַ֜יַּ 8ֲֽצִמֵ הוּ מִצָּרָ ֽ יו׃

He multiplied his people greatly, and strengthened them more than their enemies

ויפר את עמו “ ,After arriving in Egypt, God greatly multiplied his people, the sons of Jacob

וּבְנֵ ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ ל פָּר֧ וּ וַיִּשְׁרְ צ֛ וּ “ ,In reciting this incident, the psalmist recalls events in Ex 1:7 .” מאד...

,s. also Ex 1:20). The psalmist’s rendition of events, however) ” וַיִּרְ בּ֥ וּ וַיַּ 8ַֽצְמ֖ וּ בִּמְ אֹ֣ ד מְ אֹ֑ ד... employs causative verbs as opposed to simple verbs. Exodus simply states that Israel in qal ), whereas the psalmist reinterprets this to imply that God caused this פרה ) multiplied

which the psalm , עצם in hifil ). A similar difference appears with the stem פרה ) growth transforms to hifil , implying that God strengthened his people. In the psalmist’s rendition of events, God’s profile in literary history is elevated and he appears as omnipotent and in control of all situations. The present verse represents a turning point because from v.24 onwards the psalm ceases speaking of the Patriarchs and their families, and refers to the bearers of the promise as with the third-person masculine ,ע מו a nation. Consequently, v.24 contains the first mention of

referred to other nations—those to whom עם singular suffix, “his (God’s) people”. Previously

God’s deeds should be declared (v.1), dwellers of Canaan (v.13), and the people whom the king of Egypt ruled over (v.20)—here, for the first time it refers to Israel. As a result of God multiplying Jacob’s sons, they become stronger than their enemies. The psalmist refers to the

56 For more on this concept, s. Bubor (1997).

Page <138> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

which presents a lucid reminder of their identity via its , מצריו enemies in the current verse as

. מצרים similarity with

25 הָפַ F֣ לִ֭בָּ ם לִשְׂ נֹ֣ א 8ַמּ֑ וֹ לְ֜הִתְ נַכֵּ֗ ל בּ8ֲַבָדָ ֽ יו׃

He changed their heart to hate his people, and to conspire against his servants

Because of Israel’s multiplication, the hearts of the Egyptians turn against them; however, this לשנא “ ,does not occur on their own accord, rather, YHWH causes them to hate his people

In the same way that YHWH called a famine on the land in v.16, creating a problem for .” עמו

Abraham’s descendants, so too he creates a difficult situation for them here. In presenting God this way, the psalmist again demonstrates YHWH’s total control of all events, whether good or bad. The image of God causing the Egyptians to hate his people reflects the situation in Exodus in which God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, which effectively increased the Ex 4:21, s. also 7:3). The) ” ... וַאֲ נִי֙ אֲחַ זֵּ ֣ק אֶ ת־לִבּ֔ וֹ וְ לֹ֥ א יְשַׁלַּ ֖ח אֶ ת־ה8ָָ ֽ ם׃ “ ,Israelite’s oppression

is now the object of their ,( עמו ) previous object of YHWH’s benevolence in v.24, his people enemy’s hatred. Together, vv.24-25 accentuate Israel’s passive role in the proceedings; they never act on their own volition, but merely constitute the object of another’s actions. As a result of their hearts turning against Israel, the Egyptians begin to plot evil, וַיִּרְ א֥ וּ אֹת֖ וֹ מֵרָחֹ֑ ק “ ,against them in the same way Joseph’s brothers plotted against him , להתנכל

Gen 37:18). Exodus’ account of Israel’s sojourn in) ” וּבְטֶ֙רֶ ם֙ יִקְרַ ֣ ב אֲ לֵ יהֶ֔ ם וַיִּֽתְ נַכְּל֥ וּ אֹת֖ וֹ לַהֲמִ יתֽ וֹ׃

Egypt, records various outlets for the Egyptians’ scheming: enslavement (Ex 1:9-11), attempted murder of male children via midwives (Ex 1:15-16), and murder of male Israelite recalls the titles , עבדיו ,children (Ex 1:22). The reference to the Israelites in the second colon bestowed upon Abraham (v.6) and Joseph (v.17). In each instance, the title represents the bearers of God’s original promise to Abraham.

26 שָׁ֭ לַ ח מֹשֶׁ ֣ ה 8ַבְדּ֑ וֹ אַ֜הֲ רֹ֗ ן אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר בָּ ֽחַ ר־בּֽ וֹ׃

He sent Moses his servant and Aaron whom he chose

Page <139> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

שלח משה “ ,In response to the threat created by the Egyptians, God sends his servant Moses

in addition to Aaron, probably alluding to Ex 3:13-16, which recounts YHWH’s ,” עבדו ... commissioning of them both. The selection of Moses and Aaron as recorded here is unproblematic when compared with Exodus, in which Aaron’s involvement only becomes necessary after Moses raises a series of objections to accepting YHWH’s commission (s. Ex 4). The idea of Moses as God’s servant is widespread in the Bible, especially in Joshua (s. Jos 1:1, 18:7, 22:5; and also Num 12:8, Deut 34:5); Aaron, however, is never directly referred to as God’s chosen one. Selection of this title for Aaron here reflects Num 17:20 when God More .” וְהָ יָ֗ה הָאִ ֛ ישׁ אֲשֶׁ ֥ ר אֶבְחַ ר־בּ֖ וֹ מַטֵּ ֣הוּ יִפְרָ ֑ ח... “ affirmed Aaron’s selection as high priest

זֶ֭רַ ע “ ,importantly, the two titles for Moses and Aaron here reflect those given to Israel in v.6

linking the two sections and creating a bond between the ,” אַבְרָהָ ֣ ם 8ַבְדּ֑ וֹ בְּנֵ ֖י י8ֲַ קֹ֣ ב בְּחִ ירָ ֽ יו׃ psalmist’s listeners and their righteous forefathers.

27 שָׂ ֽ מוּ־בָ֭ ם דִּ בְרֵ ֣ י אֹתוֹתָ ֑ יו 57 וּ֜ מֹפְתִ֗ ים בְּאֶ ֣רֶ ץ חָ ֽ ם׃

They executed against them (the Egyptians) his mighty works 58 , and mighty acts in the land of

Ham

his , שמו ,Moses and Aaron, 59 after receiving their commission from YHWH, now execute mighty works against the Egyptians. The present verse represents one of the few examples in which Moses (and Aaron) take an active role in the sending of plagues.60 The normal

Such an .” בם דברי “ in place of במצרים To improve parallelism within the verse, the BHS suggests reading 57 emendation, however, contradicts the psalmist’s overall schema; throughout his account of the sojourn in Egypt, . גבולם and ” ארץ חם “ replacing it with synonyms and pronominal references such as , מצרים he avoids the use of 58 The phrase is somewhat tautological, and I have chosen here to translate it as a single word. A similar type of .” ... וּשְׂ פוּנֵ֖ י טְמ֥ וּנֵ י חֽ וֹל׃ “ ,construction appears in Deut 33:19 . שם to the third-person singular שמו The Septuagint and Peshitta amend the third-person plural reading of 59 Effecting this change elevates God as the primary instigator, which places the verse more in line with the psalmist’s plans. 60 Within the overall contexts of the psalm, the fact that Moses and Aaron now execute the plagues is particularly remarkable. Elsewhere, the psalmist takes pains to emphasis YHWH acting alone to deliver Israel (s. for example vv.17, 20, 24). The alteration raises the possibility that v.26 constitutes a later addition to a psalm that purely attributed Israel’s deliverance to YHWH. The motivation for such an alteration would have been to include Moses’ role in events because Moses, on the whole, serves an important role in Book IV of the Psalter (s. Excursus 1). After adding v.26, the next task of an arranger would have been to harmonize his addition with the Were we to remove the two . שם following verse, v.27. This he would have done by adding a waw to the verb

Page <140> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105 portrayal in the psalms is that YHWH alone punishes the Egyptians. Verse 27 refers to lit. “The works/words of his mighty) ” דברי אתותיו “ YHWH’s works with the peculiar phrase acts”), a phrase unattested anywhere in biblical literature. In order to make the verse more Such an emendation, however, is 61. דברי readable, it is possible to remove the form unnecessary for two reasons. First, a similar form appears within the confines of biblical Second, by 62. אתות instead of נפלאות in Ps 145:5, which employs ” דבְרֵ ֖ י נִפְלְ אוֹתֶ ֣ יliterature, “ B

aligns the verse with the psalmist’s דבר maintaining the phrase as it appears in MT, the word

the“ ,” משפטי פיו “ emphasis on God’s spoken judgments. Verse 5 introduces the idea with

a famine on the land, and in v.19 , ויק רא ,judgments of his mouth”, v.16 recounts God calling

that is fulfilled in Joseph’s life. In line with this motif within ,דברו ,it is the word of the Lord the psalm, it would thus seem natural that the psalmist portrays the plagues in reference to YHWH’s words . appears as a pronoun and thus delays their full , בם ,The first reference to the Egyptians identification until the end of the verse. Joseph’s identification was similarly delayed in v.17.

...רְ אֵ֗ ה כָּ ל־ הַ מֹּֽפְתִ ים֙ אֲשֶׁ ר־ שַׂ ֣מְתִּ י “ appears in a context reminiscent of Ex 4:21 מופתים The word

indicate general מפתים and אתות Usually the words . שים which also uses the verb ,” בְ יָדֶ֔ B ...

“deeds” or “works” of YHWH. 63 When used together, however, they also specifically relate to the plagues executed to procure Israel’s emancipation from Egypt, 64 as Ex 7:3 s. also Deut) ,” וַאֲנִ֥י אַקְשֶׁ ֖ ה אֶ ת־לֵ ֣ב פַּרְ 8ֹ֑ ה וְהִרְ בֵּ יתִ ֧ י אֶ ת־אֹתֹתַ ֛ י וְאֶ ת־מוֹפְתַ ֖ י בְּאֶ ֥רֶ ץ מִצְרָ ֽ יִם׃ “ ,demonstrates

creates an inclusion with v.23, enclosing ” ארץ חם “ Ps 78:43). Repetition of the phrase ,7:19 the buildup to the plagues. Overall, the psalmist is specific about the roles of both Moses and Aaron in this verse, explicating that YHWH performed the miracles, and the human intermediaries were merely vessels, pawns in the divine plot.

aforementioned alterations, very little, if anything, would be lost with regards to the psalm’s development and s. also close) ” ... וְאֶ ת־אֹתֹתַ ֖ י אֲשֶׁ ר־שַׂ ֣ מְתִּ י בָ ֑ ם ... “ flow, and the psalm would resonate extremely well with Ex 10:2 reading for Ps 135:9). 61 As the Peshitta has done. should be considered interchangeable, because they represent standard biblical אתות and נפלאות Both terms 62 language for depicting miracles; s. Zakovitch (1987:11-18). 63 See close reading for Psalm 78:43. 64 See Deut 6:22, Neh 9:10.

Page <141> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

28 שָׁ ֣ לַ ֽ ח חֹ֭שֶׁ F וַיַּחְשִׁ ֑ F וְ לֹֽ א־מָ֜ ר֗ וּ אֶ ת־( דְּ בָרָ וו ) [ דְּ בָרֽ וֹ]׃

He sent darkness and it became dark and it never disobeyed his word

The following description of the plagues is by far the longest and most detailed account of God’s intervention to save his chosen one(s). With the patriarchal and Joseph narratives this function was ascribed two cola each (v.15 and v.19 respectively), now we see nine verses dedicated to portraying YHWH’s intervention. The expansion emphasizes how important the

,his servant Moses ,שלח ,psalmist viewed this particular act of deliverance. Just as God sent

וַ יֹּ֙ אמֶ ר יְהוָ֜ ה אֶ ל־מֹשֶׁ֗ ה נְטֵ ֤ ה יָ ֽ דְ he now sends another messenger, darkness, 65 recalling Ex 10:21, “ ֙B

could be indicative חשך Duplication of the root .” 8ַ ל־הַשָּׁמַ֔ יִם וִ֥ יהִ י חֹ֖שֶׁ F 8ַ ל־אֶ ֣רֶ ץ מִצְרָ ֑יִם וְיָמֵ ֖ שׁ חֹֽשֶׁ F׃ of the heavy darkness, which could even be felt, as reported above. The psalm relates the sending of the plague directly to God, he commands the darkness. In doing so, the psalmist continues accentuating God’s omnipotence by portraying his domination over Creation. After By .” ... לא מרה את דברו “ ,God commanded the darkness, it did not disobey his word recounting that God commanded the darkness, the psalmist utilizes an image similar to v.16, that involves another instance of YHWH ,” וַיִּקְרָ ֣ א ר8ָָ֭ ב 8ַ ל־הָאָ ֑רֶ ץ כָּ ֽ ל־מַטֵּ ה־לֶ ֥חֶ ם שָׁבָ ֽ ר׃“

links v.28 to v.27 and 66 דבר manipulating Creation to accomplish his goals. Repetition of

The Peshitta .” לא מרו “ A long-standing problem with this verse concerns the identification of the subject of 65 and certain Septuagint Mss alleviate this discrepancy by removing the negative particle and making the Egyptians the verb’s subject: “The Egyptians rebelled against his word”. Such a reading provides God good reason to continue with the plagues since the Egyptians would not listen to or heed the first warning. In spite of this, I have opted to remove a waw , making the subject of the verb “darkness”, suggesting that it was obedient to God’s command. This reading is in line with Codex Sinaiticus and the Vulgate, which render the equivalent of in the singular; s. also Booij (1989). Technically, as Keil and Delitzsch (1982:146) suggest, all of the מרה This reading of the text . מרו wording of MT could be preserved, reading Moses and Aaron as the subjects of draws our attention to the other instance in the Torah when this verb appears together with Moses and Aaron as the subject, i.e. Num 27:14. In this verse, God recounts how Moses and Aaron both rebelled against his word when they performed his instructions to bring water from a rock. By maintaining MT, it is possible to understand the author arguing: unlike the incident at Meribah, in this instance Moses and Aaron obeyed YHWH’s command. Modern commentators suggest other emendations, e.g. Kraus (1988b:308) and Allen (2002:39) prefer , אמרו and applying the verb to the Egyptians again. Dahood (1981:60) prefers reading שמרו to מרו amending being influenced by the Akkadian amaru , “to see”. He also applies this verb to the Egyptians, understanding the second colon as a result of the first. a plague mentioned in the Exodus tradition ,( דבר) In a text without pointing, these letters allude to pestilence 66 but omitted in this Psalm (s. Ex 9:3-4).

Page <142> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

Unlike the plagues’ tradition .(” משפטי פיו “) perpetuates the notion of God’s verbal judgments recorded in Exodus, the psalmist has repositioned the plague of darkness from the penultimate, to the first position. A possible rationale for this is that he sought to portray the plagues in an escalating order of severity, thus understanding darkness as the most innocuous plague. Another possibility, is that the psalmist sought to align the plagues with the Creation tradition in Genesis 1. Within this schema, the sending of darkness coincides with its removal in Genesis. 67

29 הָ פַ F֣ אֶ ת־מֵ ימֵ יהֶ ֣ם לְדָ ֑ ם וַ֜יָּ֗מֶ ת אֶ ת־דְּ גָתָ ֽ ם׃

He turned their waters to blood and killed their fish

Since the psalmist’s desires are to highlight the Lord’s mighty deeds, he omits all intervening encounters between Moses and Pharaoh, and the psalm now moves directly from the plague of darkness to the Nile’s pollution without recording the intermediate events. Just as God changed the hearts of the Egyptians to hate his people (v.25) he now changes their water into blood. A comparison of vv.25 and 29 reveals God’s manipulation over man and Creation to achieve his purposes. In addition to turning the waters to blood, the psalmist here recalls that ,Even though the psalm reflects Ex 7:20-21 .” ... וימת את דגתם “ ,YHWH killed the fish therein

...וְהַדָּ גָ֙ ה אֲשֶׁ ר־בַּ יְאֹ֥ ר מֵ֙תָה֙ וַ יִּבְאַ ֣ שׁ הַ יְאֹ֔ ר וְ לֹא־יָכְל֣ וּ מִצְרַ ֔ יִם לִשְׁתּ֥ וֹת מַ ֖יִם מִ ן־הַ יְאֹ֑ ר וַיְהִ֥ י הַדָּ ֖ ם בְּכָ ל־אֶ ֥רֶ ץ “

v.21), it fails to mention the inconvenience caused by the interruption to the) ” מִצְרָ ֽ יִם׃

Egyptians’ water supply. The psalmist’s portrayal of the event here apparently softens the effect of the plague when we compare it with the Exodus account, mentioned above, and the plague as it appears in Psalm 78:44. The latter text emphasizes the effects to man: interruption

.” וַיַּהֲ ֣ פFֹ לְ֭דָ ם יְאֹרֵ יהֶ ֑ ם וְ֜ נֹזְלֵ יהֶ֗ ם בַּ ל־יִשְׁתָּ יֽ וּן׃ “ ,of the Egyptians’ drinking supply

30 שָׁ רַ ֣ ץ אַרְ צָ ֣ם צְפַרְדּ8ְִ ֑ ים בְּ֜חַדְרֵ ֗ י מַלְכֵ יהֶ ֽ ם׃

Their land multiplied with frogs, even in the chambers of their kings 68

67 A fuller examination of the plagues appears in the section on allusions. .is peculiar since there was only a single king (Pharaoh) during the plague infestations מלך The plural of 68 Interpreting this as a plural of majesty is one way of alleviating this difficulty. In any event, the plural here creates a stronger link to v.14 where God rebukes kings on behalf of the Patriarchs.

Page <143> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

After the rivers turned to blood, YHWH caused 69 the land of the Egyptians to teem with frogs,

the psalmist uses , ארץ ,Continuing to develop the leitmotif of land 70 .” שרץ ארצם צפרדעים ...“ the word here to indicate the land of the Egyptians, as it does in v.23 and 27; previously it represented the whole earth (vv.7, 16), and the land of Canaan (v.11). The unnatural teeming of frogs inconveniences the Egyptian kings as the frogs enter into their houses and rooms,

וְשָׁרַ ֣ ץ הַ יְאֹר֘ צְפַרְדְּ 8ִ ים֒ ו8ְָ לוּ֙ “ ,The event as Exodus recalls it has a similar effect .” בחדרי מלכיהם“

recalls God rebuking kings מלך Ex 7:2 8). Once again, the use of) ” וּבָ ֣אוּ בְּבֵ יתֶ֔ B וּבַחֲדַ ֥ ר מִשְׁ כָּבBְ֖ ... for the sake of his promise in v.14, and the control of the king in v.20. Just as YHWH interacted with kings for the sake of the Patriarchs, so too he admonishes them here for the sake of his people. As with the previous plague, the psalm here represents mollified portrayal of events when compared with Psalm 78:45, which grants the frogs power to cause physical Notably, throughout the present .” יְשַׁ לַּ֬ ח בָּ ֶ ֣ הם 8ָ֭ רֹב וַ יֹּאכְלֵ ֑ם וּ֜צְפַרְדּZֵַ֗ וַתַּשְׁחִ יתֵ ֽ ם׃ “ ,destruction section, the author copiously employs the third-person plural suffix in most of the verses— “their waters” and “their fish” (v.29), “their land”, “their kings” (v.30) etc. In doing so, he distinguishes between the land of the Egyptians and Goshen where the Israelites lived.

31 אָ֭מַ ר וַיָּבֹ֣ א 8ָ רֹ֑ ב כִּ֜נִּ֗ ים בְּכָ ל־גְּ בוּלָ ֽ ם׃

He (the Lord) spoke and a swarm came, lice in all their border

The psalmist again demonstrates the power of YHWH’s spoken word, the judgments of his mouth (v.5), in his depiction of YHWH evoking the fourth plague; he spoke, and there came is reminiscent of ” אמר ויבא “ The author’s use of the phrase .” אמר ויבא ערב ... “ ,forth swarms the Creation story (s. for example Gen 1:3); in both instances, God’s spoken word produces

69 It is possible to read “their land” as the object of the verb “to teem”, in spite of the fact that the feminine an interpretation followed by the Septuagint: ἐξῆρψεν , שרץ does not agree with the masculine verb ארץ subject ,as a causative שרץ ἡ γῆ αὐτῶν βατράχους (s. also BDB 1056). In spite of this, I have opted to read the verb even though no further biblical evidence exists for the reading. The reason for this interpretation is contextual. Throughout the plagues’ narrative, God is the primary instigator and the one who directly executes each judgment; consequently, it would seem out of place to include a plague at this point that God did not directly cause. We could theoretically re-point the root here as a piel , or accept that at some stage in its diachronic development, the verb may have possessed a causative meaning; s. Dahood (1981:60f.). .in each word צ With regards to this colon, one can detect a degree of alliteration as the psalmist repeats 70

Page <144> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

In Exodus, as well .”… וַיָּבֹא֙ 8ָ רֹ֣ ב כָּבֵ֔ ד בֵּ ֥ יתָ ה פַרְ 8ֹ֖ ה… “ ,results. Verse 31 recalls events in Ex 8:20

,are more of a nuisance than a serious threat to health; however ערב as the present psalm, the in Psalm 78:45, their function is intensified and they possess the ability to devour. Within the need not be translated as “flies”, but simply as “swarms”, 71 where the ערב ,context of Ps 105

which enter into all the borders of , כנים ,second colon further identifies the content as lice

Thus the psalmist interprets a single plague, 72 unlike Exodus that recalls .” בכל גבולם “ ,Egypt

It is more appropriate to .(” ...וְהָ יָ ֥ה לְכִנִּ ֖ם בְּכָ ל־אֶ ֥רֶ ץ מִצְרָ ֽ יִם׃ “ two separate incidents (s. Ex 8:12 understand a single plague in order to create a seven-plague tradition, a number expressing completion 73 (similar to Psalm 78).

32 נָתַ ֣ ן גִּשְׁמֵ יהֶ ֣ם בָּרָ ֑ ד אֵ ֖ שׁ לֶהָב֣ וֹת בְּאַרְ צָ ֽ ם׃

He made their rain [into] hail, a flaming fire in their land

After two plagues involving animal life, the psalmist now demonstrates God’s manipulation ” נתן גשמיהם ברד “ ,over meteorological elements as he turns the rain of the Egyptians into hail

s. Is 3:4 and Jer 9:10 ). As with the other plagues reported thus far in ,נתן for this meaning of) the psalm, the psalmist omits the physical damage that the plague inflicted on man and beast. Instead, he apparently prefers portraying each plague as a demonstration of YHWH’s power over Creation, as opposed to depicting a battle between YHWH and the Egyptians. Together is sent against the Egyptians’ land. Verse 32 recalls ,” אש להבות “ ,with the hail, burning fire

but adds ,” ...וַ ֽיהוָ֗ ה נָתַ ֤ ן קNֹת֙ וּבָרָ ֔ ד וַתִּ֥הֲ לַ F אֵ ֖ שׁ אָ ֑רְ צָ ה וַיַּמְטֵ ֧ ר יְהוָ ֛ה בָּרָ ֖ ד 8ַ ל־ אֶ ֥רֶ ץ מִצְרָ ֽ יִם׃ “ ,Exodus 9:23

71 See close reading on Ps 78:45 for a discussion on this concept. 72 Loewenstamm (1971:34-38, and 1992:185f.) also argues that the structure of “he spoke and they came”, repeated in verse 34, constitutes a structural indication that this is a single plague, and further adduces that the psalmist applies at least two cola to each plague. Not all scholars adhere to this understanding; Margulis (1969) is opposed to a seven-plague tradition in Psalm 105 along with any possibility that there could be an independent tradition underlying the psalm. Concerning the existence of an alternate tradition, Loewenstamm (1992a:188) further suggests that the two seven-plague traditions (Pss 78 and 105) predate the account in Exodus. 73 As examples of the number seven representing completion and perfection, see Gen 2:2-3, 7:2, 1Ki 6:38. See also Loewenstamm (1992a:107), who further argues that seven is more preferable than ten for creating a climax.

Page <145> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

כְּאֵ ֥ שׁ תִּ ב8ְַ ר־יָ 8ַ֑ ר וּ֜כְלֶהָבָ֗ ה תְּ לַהֵ ֥ ט “ ,s. Ps 83:15) אש as a natural poetic accompaniment to להבות

74.(” הָרִֽ ים׃

33 וַיַּ ֣ F גַּ֭פְ נָ ם וּתְאֵ נָתָ ֑ ם וַ֜יְשַׁ בֵּ֗ ר 8ֵ ֣ץ גְּ בוּלָ ֽ ם׃

75 He struck their vines and figs, and shattered the trees of their territory

As our psalmist approaches the plagues’ climax, he begins expanding each plague to two verses instead of one. To help express the totality of destruction, the psalmist employs a short in ,” ויך גפנם ותאנתם “ ,list of crops destroyed. Both the Egyptian vines and figs were struck

The striking of the .” וישבר עץ גבולם “ ,addition to every tree in their territory being shattered

is not mentioned in the Exodus account, but Psalm 78:47 recounts the same plague גפן

; ת אנתם ,recalling a destruction of the vines. Similarly absent from the Exodus account are figs

expressing the richness of a land, non-essential גפן however, these are often coupled with items or luxuries. 76 By mentioning these items first, we can see a development in the idea of increasing intensity as the plagues progress. recalls the famine initiated by God in v.16, when every staff of שבר Repetition of bread was broken. This time, however, the disaster does not encompass the whole earth, but וַיַּ֙ F הַבָּרָ ֜ ד בְּכָ ל־אֶ ֣רֶ ץ מִצְרַ ֗ יִם אֵ֚ ת כָּ ל־אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר “ ,only the land of Egypt. Comparing this verse to Ex 9:25

highlights a ,” בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ ה מֵאָדָ ֖ ם ו8ְַ ד־בְּהֵמָ ֑ ה וְאֵ֙ ת כָּ ל־8ֵ ֤שֶׂ ב הַשָּׂדֶה֙ הִכָּ ֣ה הַבָּרָ ֔ ד וְאֶ ת־ כָּ ל־8ֵ ֥ץ הַשָּׂדֶ ֖ ה שִׁבֵּ ֽ ר׃ significant difference: the psalmist avoids mentioning any destruction to livestock, an omission tempering his account.

34 אָ֭מַ ר וַיָּבֹ֣ א אַרְ בֶּ ֑ה וְ֜יֶ֗לֶ ק וְאֵ ֣ ין מִסְפָּ ֽ ר׃

He spoke and locusts came, young locusts without number

74 See also Is 47:14, Pss 29:7, 83:15. 75 The words “vine”, “fig”, and “tree” should all be interpreted as nouns of species, singular words representing plurals; s. GKC §123. 76 See Deut 8:8, 1Ki 5:5.

Page <146> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

As with the swarms of lice, God also commands 77 the locust into action: he speaks and they The second colon, here, expands the first, accentuating the number of .” אמר ויבא “ ,come

... כָּבֵ ֣ד מְ אֹ֔ ד לְ֠פָנָ יו “ ,In contrast to Exodus 10:14 .” וילק ואין מספר “ ,locust involved in the plague

as a poetic accompaniment for 78 ילק the psalmist chose the word ,” לֹא־הָ֙ יָה כֵ ֤ן אַרְ בֶּה֙ כָּ מֹ֔ הוּ ...

the two often appear together in the context of judgment. 79 Psalm 78:46 ; ארבה ,locust

,that Exodus fails to include. In contrast to v.12 , חסיל ,similarly employs a poetic compliment

here denotes an uncountable multitude; it is a term מספר repetition of ,” בהיותם מתי מספר ...“

כָּרְ ת֤ וּ י8ְַרָהּ֙ נְאֻ ם־יְהוָ֔ ה כִּ ֖ י לֹ֣ א “ ,that often accompanies the description of locust, as in Jer 46:23

s. also Jud 6:5). The psalmist employs the expression to) ” יֵ ֽחָ קֵ ֑ ר כִּ ֤ י רַ בּוּ֙ מֵ ֽאַרְ בֶּ֔ ה וְאֵ ֥ ין לָהֶ ֖ ם מִסְפָּ ֽ ר׃

.” וַיְכַ֞ ס אֶ ת־8ֵ ֣ין כָּ ל־הָאָרֶ ץ֘ וַתֶּחְשַׁ ֣ F הָאָרֶ ץ֒ ... “ ,reflect the density of the locust reported in Ex 10: 15

35 וַ יֹּ֣אכַ ל כָּ ל־8ֵ ֣שֶׂ ב בְּאַרְ צָ ֑ם וַ֜ יֹּ֗ אכַ ל פְּרִ ֣ י אַדְמָתָ ֽ ם׃

It consumed all of the green things of their land, and it consumed all the produce of their land

As with the destruction caused by the hail and fire, the psalmist adopts two verses to describe the plague of locust: the first depicting the nature of the plague, the second portraying the כל עשב “ ,damage caused by the plague. The locust consumed every green thing in their land

s. Deut 7:13 and Num 13:20 for) ” פרי אדמתם “ ,in addition to the produce of the earth ,” בארצם

אכל this sense). An escalation in the destruction caused is detectable from the repetition 80 of in both colons. The nature of the destruction also relays a degree of increased severity in relation to the damage caused by the previous plague. Previously the plagues wrecked luxury produce, but now the psalm records a totality in the destruction of all the earth’s produce. As a leitmotif in the psalm, it once again appears in this section referring to ארץ continuation of the

77 See 2Ki 4:24, Ps 106:34, and Esth 1:17. 78 The exact nature of these is uncertain; they are a type of locust or young locusts; see KB (vol. 2, 413). 79 See Joel 1:4, 2:25. 80 Watson (2001:278f.) further explains the idea of initial repetition serving as a tool for intensification.

Page <147> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

... וַ יֹּ֜ אכַ ל אֶ ת־ כָּ ל־8ֵ ֣שֶׂ ב הָאָ֗רֶ ץ וְאֵת֙ כָּ ל־פְּרִ ֣ י “ ,the land of Egypt. From a comparison with Ex 10:15

.it would appear that the psalmist possessed a source similar to MT ,” ץה8ֵָ֔ ...

36 וַיַּ ֣ F כָּ ל־בְּכ֣ וֹר בְּאַרְ צָ ֑ם רֵ ֜ אשִׁ֗ ית לְכָ ל־אוֹנָ ֽם׃

He struck every firstborn in their land, the first of all their strength

is the ,” ויך כל בכור “ ,The final plague in the psalmist’s sequence, the striking of the firstborn first in his rendition that directly harms man. To this point, the other six plagues have simply here recalls the beginning ויך damaged crops and animals, causing a nuisance. Repetition of

but a comparison of the two verses reveals an increase in ,” ויך גפנם ותאנ תם ... “ ,of v.33 intensity since people’s lives are damaged as opposed to plant life. The psalmist’s rendition of however, the ;” ...וַ ֽיהוָה֘ הִכָּ ֣ה כָ ל־בְּ כוֹר֘ בְּאֶ ֣רֶ ץ מִצְרַ יִם֒ ... “ ,the account certainly reflects Ex 12:29

referring to the firstborn (s. Gen 49:3 and Deut 21:17), is absent from ,” ראשית…און “ phrase

.” וַיַּ ֣ F כָּ ל־בְּ כ֣ וֹר בְּמִ צְרָ ֑יִם רֵ אשִׁ֥ ית א֜ וֹנִ֗ ים בְּאָהֳ לֵ י־חָ ֽ ם׃ “ ,the Exodus tradition but appears in Psalm 78:51

On one hand, the similarity could simply represent a logical word pair chosen by both psalmists; on the other hand, it raises the possibility of the author relying on a source other than Exodus, one shared by the author of Psalm 78 (or even Ps 78 itself). The plagues’ כל אונם… כל בכור… כל “ ,in the last two verses כל account finishes with three occurrences of

which expresses a totality of God’s judgments against the Egyptians, accentuating the ,” עשב event’s climax. 81 Within this, the fifth narrative, the threat to the promise stemmed from the attempted eradication of the descendants of Abraham, and God’s intervention came through a series of seven plagues, which facilitated the release of his people from the hands of the Egyptians.

37 ִ וַ֭יּוֹציאֵ ם בְּכֶ ֣סֶ ף וְזָהָ ֑ ב וְאֵ ֖ ין בִּשְׁבָטָ ֣ יו כּוֹשֵׁ ֽ ל׃

And he brought them out with silver, and gold and not one among his tribes stumbled

81 Loewenstamm (1992a:82-86).

Page <148> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

The third and final recital from Israelite literary history begins here in v.37, recounting Israel’s journeys in the desert. In the present rendition of desert events, the psalm heavily contrasts with the same period recorded in Psalm 78, since the latter psalm casts events in a predominantly negative light focusing on sin and disobedience, and the former entirely positive. 82 Verse 37 concentrates on God’s provision for, and blessing of, the Israelites after the plague of the firstborn. He blessed the Israelites with silver and gold as they departed from ” ... יָ ֽצְא֛ וּ כָּ ל־צִבְא֥ וֹת יְהוָ ֖ה מֵאֶ ֥רֶ ץ מִצְרָ ֽ יִם׃ “ ,By alluding to Exodus .” ויוציאם בכסף וזהב “ ,Egypt

(12:41), the psalmist’s rendition emphasizes YHWH’s work. Instead of using the simple qal form to depict their departure, the causative hifil form appears in the psalm, emphasizing that ,(s Ex 11:2, 12:35) 83” כסף וזהב “ ,God brought them out. Recollection of the silver and gold with which the Israelites left Egypt is unique among the selected psalms, and is employed here to demonstrate God’s abundant kindness towards his people. Even though he is fulfilling his promise to Abraham, he does not simply provide them with the bare minimum, but endows them richly with material goods. The Exodus rendition of Israel’s flight from Egypt In order to .” ואין בשבטי ו כושל“ ,fails to mention that they left without weakness or stumbling

מוֹלִ יכָ ֖ם “ ,find such a description of Israel’s departure, we must turn to the poetry of Isaiah

which depicts the same event. By turning to this ,(63:13) ” בַּתְּ הֹמ֑ וֹת כַּסּ֥ וּס בַּמִּדְבָּ ֖ ר לֹ֥ א יִכָּשֵׁ ֽ לוּ׃ rendition of events, we can assume that either the psalmist was more familiar with Is 63, or that he viewed Isaiah’s rendition of events more suitable to his work since it adds a degree of supernatural sustenance to the proceedings: YHWH not only led them, but also kept them from stumbling.

38 שָׂמַ ֣ ח מִ צְרַ ֣יִם בְּצֵ אתָ ֑ ם כִּֽ י־נָפַ ֖ל פַּחְדָּ ֣ ם 8ֲלֵ יהֶ ֽ ם׃

Egypt were happy when they left because the fear of them [Israel] fell upon them [Egyptians]

שמח מצרים “ ,Egypt’s response to Israel departing from their land is one of joy and happiness

יצא emotions that find no precise representation in Exodus. Repetition of the root ,” בצא תם from the previous verse links the two verses, with v.38 adding detail to the nature of the

82 All traces of rebellion and murmuring disappear from our psalmist’s rendition of events, as we shall see. 83 This phrase serves as a summary of all of the spoil with which Israel left Egypt; s. Coats (1968a).

Page <149> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105 emancipation. Resonating with the positive nature of the psalm, the psalmist here records that even the Egyptians are happy when Israel departed. For the second time in the psalm the word

appears, which closes an inclusion that began in v.23. Within this division, the psalm מצרים records all events transpiring in Egypt, and the psalmist apparently avoids any mention of the word between vv.23-38. ’explicates the reason for the Egyptians ” כי נפל פחדם עליהם “ ,The second colon happiness, the fear of the Israelites had fallen upon them (s. 1Sam 11:7 and Esth 8:17). After being stricken with plagues, the Egyptians knew that if the Israelites remained, they would continue to suffer; consequently, they were glad to see them go. In selecting this phrase, the תִּ פֹּ֙ ל 8ֲלֵ יהֶ ֤ ם אֵ ימָ֙תָ ה֙ וָפַ֔חַ ד בִּגְ דֹ֥ ל זְ רוֹpsalmist probably received some influence from Ex 15:16, “ ֖Bֲ8

which speaks of the fear that went before the ,” יִדְּמ֣ וּ כָּאָ ֑בֶ ן 8ַ ד־י8ֲַ בֹ֤ ר 8ַמּBְ֙ יְהוָ֔ה 8ַ ֽ ד־י8ֲַ בֹ֖ ר 8ַ ם־ז֥ וּ קָנִֽ יתָ ׃

Israelites when they travelled to Canaan. The psalmist, however, reapplies this phrase to broaden the scope of those who feared the work God did among the Israelites. In addition to the inhabitants of Canaan, the psalm includes the Egyptians. Egypt’s happiness contrasts which results from the great deeds God ,” ... ישמח לב מבקשי יהוה “ ,Israel’s joy recorded in v.3 performed (for them). Israel is able to revel in a joy that does not stem from a fear of retribution. With v.38 we now witness the completion of a reversal. When Israel entered Egypt, vv.23-25, they were the victims of the Egyptians, but now those who sought to oppress Abraham’s descendants fear them.

39 פָּרַ ֣ שׂ 8ָנָ ֣ ן לְמָסָ ֑ F וְ֜אֵ֗ שׁ לְהָאִ֥ יר לָ ֽיְלָ ה׃

He spread out a cloud for protection and a fire to light the night

As part of YHWH’s gracious treatment of the Israelites, he extends his mercies to his people in v.39 in the form of protection and guidance. At first glance, this verse presents a reminder whereby God sent a ,” וַ ֽיהוָ֡ ה הֹלFֵ֩ לִפְנֵ יהֶ֙ ם יוֹמָ֜ ם בּ8ְַמּ֤ וּד 8ָנָן֙ לַנְ חֹתָ ֣ ם הַדֶּ֔רֶ of events in Ex 13:21, “ ...F pillar of cloud by day to guide the Israelites on their journey. Contrasting this, however, is the which implies a screen of some description, separating two entities, as ,” פרש ... למסך “ phrase with the various curtains used in the (s. Ex 38:18 and 40:5). Such an understanding implies that God provided the Israelites with some degree of protection in

Page <150> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105 sending the cloud. From this assumption, it is possible to read v.39 as a reference to Ex 14:19- 10, where the cloud that had originally provided guidance for the Israelites, moved behind them forming a protective screen between them and the ensuing Egyptians. Alternatively, the cloud functioning as a screen could also represent an alternate tradition in which God protected the Israelites from the heat of the sun during their desert journey. Such a tradition וּבָרָ ֣ א יְהוָ֡ ה 8ַ ל֩ כָּ ל־מְכ֙ וֹן הַ ר־צִ יּ֜ וֹן ו8ְַ ל־מִקְרָ אֶ֗הָ 8ָנָ ֤ ן׀ יוֹמָם֙ ו8ְָשָׁ֔ ן וְ נֹ֛גַ הּ “ ,may indeed be reflected in Is 4:5

in which a cloud constitutes an agent of protection. Additionally, Wisdom ,” אֵ ֥ שׁ לֶהָבָ ֖ ה לָ ֑יְלָ ה ...

10:17 attests to the existence of such a tradition, “…guided them in a marvelous way, and was unto them for a cover by day, and a light of stars in the night season…” (italics mine). Thus, here in the psalm, the cloud is best viewed as a symbol of God’s protection of Israel during their journey, where protection of Israel equates to a protection of the promise. In addition to protection, God offers his people guidance for their journey via a pillar of fire during the

highlights a contrast in attitude between God’s אש The appearance of .” ואש להאיר לילה “ ,night relationship with his people and his dealings with their adversaries. In v.32 the fire came here, in ;” אש להבות בארצם “ ,against the Egyptians as part of God’s judgment against them v.39 it represents an expression of his benevolence towards his people, caring for them whilst in the desert. Unlike the previous narratives, the present threat does not originate from people, but from the harsh desert environment. 84

40 שָׁאַ ֣ ל וַיָּבֵ ֣א שְׂלָ ֑ו וְלֶ ֥חֶ ם שָׁ֜מַ֗ יִם יַשְׂ בִּ י8ֵ ֽ ם׃

They asked and he brought quail, with the bread of heaven he satisfied them

In addition to guidance and protection, God aids Israel when they turn to him and request, here notably contrasts its appearance in Ps 78:18. In שאל food. The psalmist’s use of 85, שאלו

וַיְנַ סּוּ־אֵ ֥ ל בִּלְבָבָ ֑ם לִֽשְׁאָ ל־אֹ֥כֶ ל “ ,the latter psalm, the Israelites test God in their request for food

s. also Ps 106:15), whereas v.40 refrains from any hint of rebellion, they simply turn) ” לְנַפְשָׁ ֽ ם׃

84 By this point in the proceedings, one would expect an explicit mention of the Reed Sea crossing, since it aptly demonstrates an act of God’s intervention to save his people. This account, however, is strangely absent from the psalm. A possible rationale for the omission is that the psalmist sought to preserve a positive element at this point, and the deaths of thousands of Egyptians would have ruined the effect. 85 This is probably a haplography; the scribe failing to insert two waw ’s resulted in the third-person masculine . שאל singular perfect of

Page <151> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

additionally שאל to YHWH with a request and he meets their need. The author’s choice of

often appears together with שאל recalls vv.3-4, which emphasize seeking the Lord, because

to convey the idea of seeking or searching (s. Deut 13:15, Is 65:1). By linking בקש and דרש the verses, the author creates a bond between the wilderness generation and the psalmist’s audience: just as he answered the call of the desert generation when they sought him, so too he will answer the psalmist’s generation when they seek him. Twice previously, the psalm in the context of judgment falling on the Egyptians (s. vv.31, 34). Here, in בוא employed contrast, it represents an expression of Israelite blessing, as God responds to their request. Unlike the Egyptians, with respect to this word, YHWH relates to his people with acts of benevolence and mercy. 86 ,and bread , שלו God’s response to the Israelites’ request is to send them meat, via quail

.s) ” ... בָּ 8ֶ֜רֶ ב בָּשָׂ ֣ ר לֶאֱכֹ֗ ל וְלֶ ֤חֶ ם בַּ בֹּ֙קֶ ר֙ לִשְׂ בּHere the psalmist reflected events in Ex 16:8, “ ... ַZֹ֔ . לחם also Ex 16:4 and Psalm 78:24, 25). Unlike Exodus 16, however, no further restrictions appear on the provision concerning the manner in which it is collected; God’s provision here is unconditional, freely bestowed according to his goodness. Additionally, the psalmist employs

as a hifil , as opposed to the qal in the Torah, emphasizing God’s activity in the provision שבע

v.16) it brought devastation in the form) לחם of food. Previously when the psalm mentioned of famine; here, in contrast, it forms the means by which YHWH sustains the life of Israel. ,bread of heaven”) reflects the tradition in Ps 78:24“) ” לחם שמים “ The psalmist’s wording

וַ יֹּ֤אמֶ ר יְהוָה֙ אֶ ל־מֹשֶׁ֔ ה “ ,more so than Exodus (s. 16:4 ,” וַיַּמְטֵ֬ ר 8ֲ לֵ יהֶ ֣ם מָ ֣ ן לֶאֱכֹ֑ ל וּדְ גַ ן־שָׁ֜מַ֗ יִם נָ ֣תַ ן לָ ֽ מוֹ׃“

.”representing “bread from heaven ,(” הִ נְנִ֙ י מַמְטִ֥ יר לָכֶ ֛ם לֶ ֖חֶ ם מִ ן־הַשָּׁמָ ֑יִם ......

41 פָּ ֣תַ ח צ֭ וּר וַיָּז֣וּבוּ מָ ֑יִם הָ֜לְכ֗ וּ בַּצִּ יּ֥וֹת נָהָ ֽ ר׃

He opened a rock and water poured out, it ran in the dry places like a river

The reply to the general request that began in v.40 continues here with the provision of water for the Israelites: God opened a rock, and water flowed forth from it. Within this psalm, both

86 This constitutes another example of contrastive repetition, where the psalmist repeats a word to contrast two .( אש situations (s. v.32 for example, concerning the word

Page <152> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

appear in the context of deliverance. Earlier it depicted Joseph’s release פתח occurrences of from prison, v.20, and here it speaks of Israel’s deliverance from thirst in the desert. In both instances, God is directly responsible for the act, a fact that bears more relevance for v.41 מים ,since Moses is absent from the proceedings. In another instance of contrastive repetition here represents a life-giving entity to the Israelites, whereas for the Egyptians (v.29) it constitutes YHWH’s punitive actions. Even though the event described here reflects similar situations recorded in Ex 17:1-7, Num 20:1-13, and Ps 78:15-20, the language employed by וְ לֹ֣ א צָמְא֗ וּ בָּחֳרָ בוֹת֙ הֽ וֹלִ יכָ֔ ם מַ ֥ יִם מִצּ֖ וּר הִזִּ ֣יל לָ ֑מוֹ וַיִּ֙בְקַ ע־צ֔ וּר וַיָּזֻ ֖בוּ “ ,the psalmist is more akin to Is 48:21

In adopting this wording, the psalm forges a connection between the two texts. The .” מָ ֽ יִם׃ context of provision in the desert, as recorded in Isaiah, however, does not describe the Exodus from Egypt, but that from Babylon (Is 48:20). Consequently, this marks the second

הלכו “ instance in which the psalmist relates his work to a later exodus. 87 The poetic phrase

being a poetic term, s. Jer 2:6, 50:12, Hos 2:5) portrays God’s ציות the form) ” בציות נהר benevolence through vivid imagery, suggesting water flowed into the desert like a river, providing an ample sufficiency for the Israelites.

42 כִּֽ י־זָ֭כַ ר אֶ ת־דְּבַ ֣ר קָדְשׁ֑ וֹ אֶ ֽ ת־אַבְרָהָ ֥ ם 8ַבְדּֽ וֹ׃

Because he remembered his holy promise with Abraham his servant

Verse 42 represents an interjection in the psalmist’s narration of events, as he turns to recall the promise originally mentioned in vv.8-9. The verse stands out from its immediate context because of its lack of parallelism, either internally or with the surrounding verses. By deliberately deviating from the expected form, the psalmist draws attention to the verse’s importance. At this point in the proceedings, the psalmist provides the reason why God performed the deeds mentioned in the previous narratives: because he remembered his YHWH’s faithfulness to the Patriarchs and to .” כי זכר את דבר קדשו “ ,covenant with Abraham

Israel, as enumerated in the psalm, stem from his faithfulness in keeping the promise he initiated with Abraham. The Israelites have done nothing to deserve this treatment; they are ,” זכר “ ,merely recipients of his benevolence. Three words repeat themselves from vv.8-9

87 See close reading for v.1.

Page <153> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

the psalm again ,דבר linking the second and sixth stanzas. In repeating ,” אברהם“ and ,” דבר“ recalls YHWH acting via the words of his mouth. Just as God’s name is described as holy in .” דבר קדשו את אברהם “ ,so too is his promise to Abraham ,” התהללו בשם קדשו ... “ ,v.3

43 וַ יּוֹצִ ֣ א 88 8ַמּ֣ וֹ בְשָׂשׂ֑ וֹן בְּ֜רִ נָּ֗ ה אֶ ת־בְּחִ ירָ ֽ יו׃

And he brought out his people with rejoicing, with shouts his chosen ones

After the interjection, the psalm continues here with the narration of events. According to the psalmist’s rendition of the account, God brought Israel out of Egypt and through the desert creates an inclusion with v.37 that יוצא with joy, and with loud shouts of rejoicing. The word surrounds events transpiring from the Exodus to the end of the desert period. The title of the was introduced in v.6, and the root also appeared concerning Aaron’s , בחיריו ,chosen ones

v.26), here it is assigned once again to) ” ... אהרן אשר בחר בו “ ,function as God’s messenger

Israel, linking the opening section with the last. As with v.15, and the structure of the fourth section, the psalmist employs chiasmus here for emphasis (his people : joy :: shouts of joy : his chosen ones). Within the context of the psalm, v.43 apparently relates to the desert experience as recorded in Exodus, however, the wording is more reminiscent of Isaiah,

Is 51:11), where the context again) ” ...וּבָ ֤אוּ צִ יּוֹן֙ בְּרִ נָּ֔ ה וְשִׂמְחַ ֥ ת עוֹלָ ֖ם 8ַ ל־רֹאשָׁ ֑ ם שָׂשׂ֤ וֹן וְשִׂמְחָה֙ ...“ describes an exodus from Babylon. 89

44 וַיִּתֵּ ֣ ן לָ֭הֶ ם אַרְ צ֣ וֹת גּוֹיִ ֑ם ו8ֲַמַ ֖ ל לְאֻמִּ ֣ ים יִירָ ֽ שׁוּ׃

And he gave them the lands of the nations and the toil of the nations they [Israel] possessed

After a series of threats and endangerments to the Patriarchs and their descendants, from people and extreme desert conditions, YHWH finally fulfills the promise that was made in the לך אתן את ארץ “ ,second stanza. God promised the land to Abraham and his descendants

ויתן “ ,in v.11, and now with similar words linking the two sections, he fulfils his words ” כנען ...

88 This is an unusual pointing of the hifil , there are further occurrences in Deut 4:20, 2Kings 11:12, and Ps 78:16; the meaning of verb is apparently unaffected. 89 See close reading for v.41.

Page <154> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

and recalls the patriarchal travels ,” ארצות גוים “ Verse 44 refers to the land as .” להם ארצות גוים

the same land in which Israel’s forefathers sojourned when ;” ויתהלכו מגוי אל גוי ... “ ,in v.13 they were small in number is given to their descendants as an inheritance. The psalmist more deeply expresses YHWH’s beneficence in the second colon, which declares that Israel

All that the inhabitants of Canaan had 90 .” עמל לאמים “ ,possessed the toil of the nations worked for, their houses, crops, cities etc., appears here as a gift bestowed to the descendants of Abraham as a possession. Rather than simply receiving the land of the Canaanites, the Israelites inherit all they had built on it. The sentiment here most clearly echoes Deut 6:10-11, which similarly recalls Israel inheriting property and goods for which they never worked. Just as the psalmist avoided accounts of desert murmurings, so too he omits the numerous battles occurring between the Israelites and the Canaanites before they fully possessed the land. In portraying Israel as the recipients of the Canaanites’ hard work, the psalmist establishes an instance of measure for measure :91 just as Israel were enslaved and labored hard for the benefit of their captors, they now receive the labor of others. The implicit question raised in the second stanza, can YHWH complete his promise through adverse circumstances, is answered affirmatively here in the penultimate verse.

45 בּ8ֲַב֤ וּר׀ יִשְׁמְר֣ וּ חֻ֭קָּ יו וְ תוֹרֹתָ ֥ יו יִנְ צֹ֗ רוּ הַ ֽלְ לוּ־יָ ֽהּ׃

In order that they might keep his laws, and observe his instructions—Praise Yah

After narrating YHWH’s faithfulness to his promise and his people, the psalmist now provides a rationale for God performing the mighty works mentioned in the psalm. He did it ישמרו “ ,see 1Sam 23:10, Mic 2:10, and Ps 106:32), they might keep his laws) בעבור ,so that

God’s faithfulness carries direct implications for the recipients. All that YHWH did for ;” חקיו the Patriarchs and their descendants—protecting them from the malicious intentions of their enemies and manipulating Creation for their preservation—was performed so that the carries a different חק ,descendants would respond in kind by obeying his laws. Here in v.45

.s. Gen 25:23, Is 34:1, Ps 2:1, 44:3, and Pr 14:34 , גוים This commonly appears with 90 91 For more on this concept, s. Jacobs (2006).

Page <155> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

The present verse employs it to .” ויעמידה ליעקב לחק ... “ ,meaning 92 to its appearance in v.10 refer to the Mosaic laws, whereas previously it described God’s unconditional promise to Abraham. Repetition here further links the second and sixth stanzas, but additionally implies that just as God was faithful to his promise, so Israel should be faithful to his covenant. The in reverse order, creating ,” ... ותורתיו ינצרו “ ,second colon reiterates the sentiment of the first another instance of chiasmus for increased emphasis, accentuating Israel’s responsibility in

mean, “to keep” as in “to do” (this pair also appears ינצרו and ישמרו obedience. 93 Both words in Deut 33:9 and Pr 5:2), and the 94 regularly appears as their object. With the inclusion of the last verse, it is possible to recognize a microcosm of the lawgiving at Sinai. YHWH first declares all he has done for Israel (Ex 20:1-2), and then specifies how they must respond to his mercy, via obedience. In the psalm, the proportion between God’s acts of deliverance and response differ, but the structure is the same. First the psalmist explicates all God has done for Israel (vv.1-44), and then he lays down the obligation they must fulfill

that corresponds with 95,” הללו יה “ ,v.45). Closing the psalm is an imperative to praise YHWH)

in the opening stanza (v.3); together, they create an inclusion for the entire work הלל the root ultimately classifying it as a work of praise.

MEANING

With regard to Psalm 105’s meaning, the final verse provides the clearest expression of its raison d’être : that Israel would keep YHWH’s laws as a response to his faithfulness in preserving his promise. The psalm was written to encourage its readers/listeners to obey God’s laws. In reciting YHWH’s faithfulness to them in the Exodus, the psalmist seeks to bring his audience to a position of indebtedness to God, and the method of repayment comes highlights this main theme as it represents both חק via their obedience. Repetition of the word

92 The Septuagint recognizes this difference in meaning by translating the first instance of the word in v.10 as and the second instance as δικαιωματα (usually associated with ( משפט προσταγμα (which is equivalent to .( תורה 93 See v.43. .(the inference is to the Law of Moses (Deut 4:8, 17:19, 30:10 תורה appears with חק Usually when 94 appears at the beginning of the following psalm as opposed to the end ” הללו יה “ In the Septuagint, the phrase 95 of Ps 105, a change corresponding with its placement of the same phrase from the end of Ps 104 (MT) to the beginning of the present work.

Page <156> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105 the promise in v.10, signifying God’s benevolence, and the law in v.45, signifying how Israel repeated throughout the psalm, functions as a leitmotif , ארץ ,is to repay him. The idea of land and a constant reminder of the promise that was first mentioned in the second stanza. Though each individual section addresses a different period in Israelite literary history, they are all unified by at least one mention of “land”. A recurring pattern of events in each narrative account—a threat to promise bearers, God’s intervention, and deliverance of the promise bearers—constantly reinforces the idea of YHWH’s faithfulness to his promise. Along with the primary theme mentioned above, the psalmist adopted additional sub- themes to teach and encourage his listeners. Two of the more prominent sub-themes are the intimate relationship between God and his people, and God’s sovereignty over the whole earth. The former is expressed with a variety of words and lexical forms, such as the third describing individuals and the nation as עבד and בחר and the words 96, עם person suffix on

God’s chosen ones and servants.97 Throughout the composition, YHWH’s treatment of Israel is exclusively positive, contrasting his treatment of the other nations, who are rebuked and reproved (vv.14-15, 28-36). God’s intimate relationship with his people as expressed in the psalm ultimately stems from his faithfulness to his promise. In initiating the promise to Abraham, God similarly creates a close and intimate relationship with Abraham and his descendants. YHWH’s sovereignty similarly finds numerous expressions: he calls a famine throughout the earth (v.16); his judgments are known in all of the earth (v.7); his authority and control are not restricted to his people, and so he can rebuke kings (v.14) and direct Pharaoh to release Joseph (v.20). Finally, only YHWH possesses authority to apportion a land with its inhabitants to another nation as an inheritance. Complimenting statements of his authority throughout the psalm are the constant reiterations of God acting via the word of his mouth (s. close reading for vv.5, 8, 11, 15, 16, 19, 27, 31, 34, and 42). From the beginning of the psalm to the end, the verbal judgments described above constitute a tool through which YHWH preserves the promise that he originally made to Abraham.

DATE

With regards to primary evidence, no explicit datable events people or places present themselves within Psalm 105 enabling us to situate it in any specific era in biblical history.

96 See for example vv.24, 25, and 43. 97 See for example vv.6, 17, and 26.

Page <157> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

Because Psalm 105 contains historiographic data, we can determine its earliest date of origin because the psalm could not have been completed before the last literary-historical event cited. Events within the composition span from the Patriarchs, Abraham being the earliest, to the Israelites’ entry into Canaan. From this information, we can deduce with certainty that the psalm was written after Israel entered Canaan. Turning to linguistic evidence, we should first note that no sign of ABH appears in the composition; consequently, archaic origins for the psalm are unlikely. Concerning LBH, the in LBH adopts the meaning 98 עמד v.10) is significant because the root) ” להעמיד…ברית “ phrase

bore the meaning of “establish” and קום in SBH. During the SBH era, the root קום of

,adopts this meaning (s. 1Chr 17:14, 2Ch 9:8 עמד confirm”; however, in later books the root“

as opposed to ,” להעמיד…ברית “ Dan 11:14). Thus, the presence of the phrase

as in Gen 26:3 (s. also Lev 26:9), patently represents late language in ,” להקים… שבועה/ ברית“ our psalm. With all of the primary evidence discussed, it is time now to consider the secondary evidence, and we will first look at two of the psalm’s recurrent themes. The first, the giving of land to Israel, is intertwined with images reflecting the Exodus from Babylon to Judah. From this, it is possible to locate the psalm to the postexilic period, after such an exodus occurred. 99 Under this scenario, it would appear that the psalmist is recalling the second exodus as a re- enactment of the first, and an extension of YHWH’s faithfulness to his promise to Abraham. Another notion present within the psalm, “the ideal relationship between Israel and God”, assists in narrowing down the date because it is unlikely 100 that a psalm with an idealistic theme was written during the Exile when Israel was extremely conscience of their unfaithfulness to the Lord. Such evidence suggests a composition date either before or after the Exile, but not during Israel’s captivity in Babylon. Another piece of evidence we should in v.15. Scholars often consider this נביא not overlook concerns the inclusion of the word word a later addition to the text of Genesis. Consequently, we must assume that the psalmist

98 Hurvitz (1982:94-98) performed a more extensive survey on this phrase. 99 Clifford (1979:420ff.) additionally argues that the motif of land was inspired at a time when the Israelites were without theirs; however, this evidence alone should not be considered conclusive with respect to the date. 100 Here, I stress unlikely because one could always argue the possibility that a positively themed psalm could be written during a nation trauma. During the Exile, we would expect to find Laments such as Psalms 106 and 137.

Page <158> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105 recognized a relatively late rendition of the Genesis account. 101 In light of all the evidence presented above, it is probably best to accept a postexilic date for Psalm 105, although not much else can be said at this point concerning its relative position within that era.

SOURCES

The table opposite 103 shows that the primary source for Table 4. Psalm 105’s Exodus rendition came from the book of Ps 105:23 Ex 1:1 P Ps 105:23 -24 Ex 1:7 P Exodus. 104 Though the psalm never quotes from Leviticus, Ps 105:25 Ex 14:5 JE Numbers, or Deuteronomy, it would be imprudent to Ps 105:27 Ex 7:3 P suggest the psalmist did not have these texts (or their Ps 105:28 Ex 10:21 JE equivalent) available to him. With regard to Leviticus and Ps 105:29 Ex 7:20-21 102 JE Deuteronomy, they have relatively little narrative material Ps 105:30 Ex 7:28 JE Ps 105:31 Ex 8:13, 20 JE and so one can understand why the psalmist did not include Ps 105:32-33 Ex 9:25 JE them. Numbers would similarly be deemed unsuitable Ps 105:34 Ex 10:14 JE because its narrative accounts are predominantly negative Ps 105:35 Ex 10:15 JE and thus unsuitable for the psalm’s overall purposes. In Ps 105:38 Ex 15:16 NS addition to the Torah, the psalmist utilizes two locations in Ps 105:40 Ex 16:4 JE Ps 105:41 Is 48:21 — Isaiah to recount the wilderness tradition. The question of Ps 105:43 Is 51:11 — literary borrowing between Ps 105:41, 43 and Is 48:21, 51:11 is difficult to gauge with certainty. Even though I have included Isaiah here as a source there is also the possibility of either a common tradition underlying both, or Isaiah reusing the psalm. Wording from at least three other psalms apparently influenced the psalmist in composing his text. The portrayal of the final plague in Psalm 78:51 apparently influenced the psalmist’s description of the same event in Psalm 105:36, both texts employ the phrase Additionally, concerning Ps 105:40’s . בכור as a poetic complement to ” ראשית ... אונם“

101 It is very difficult to be any more specific concerning exactly how late the word was added. Concerning its addition, Fretheim (1994:482) argues that its use is anachronistic, which implies that it is temporally out of place and thus a later addition. Similarly, Westermann states, “The word prophet is not used here of Abraham in a technical but rather in a general sense; he is a ‘man of God,’ an intercessor, familiar to a later era; to speak or conceive of Abraham in such a way is very far removed from the patriarchal period” (1985:324). 102 Though v.20 is divided between JE and P, the part cited in the psalm belongs to JE. 103 See Appendix B for a more detailed comparison between the psalms’ verses and the sources. 104 With the date established in the previous section, it is safe to assume that the psalm is later than the Torah and thus drew from it (i.e, texts reflecting its current form).

Page <159> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

some influence may have originated from Ps 78:24-25’s ,” לחם שמים “ ,description of manna rendition of the same event. 105 Another more certain connection exists between Ps 105:23, 27, only occurs in these two places in the ” ארץ חם “ and Ps 106:22 since the common phrase

Bible. 106 All of the aforementioned cases probably represent instances of influence, whereby our psalmist borrowed phrases to form poetic complements without seeking to allude specifically to the aforementioned texts. As a result, the following section does not investigate these texts further. 107 Like Psalm 78, Psalm 105 reveals signs of P but predominantly reflects the JE tradition. Psalm 105’s association with P, however, is more reliable than Ps 78’s association because Psalm 105 bears further ideological connections with P. The clearest example concerns the psalmist’s emphasis on the power of YHWH’s spoken word. Such an emphasis resonates well with P’s Creation account, which recalls Creation via God’s spoken word. 108 Another similarity Ps 105 bears with Ps 78 concerns the degree of Deuteronomic influence. Even though no explicit associations appear to Deuteronomy, the weight of D’s influence is nevertheless present. The psalm’s final verse is particularly telling because the is especially prominent in Deuteronomy (s. 4:40, 5:1, 6:17, 7:11, and ” לשמור חק “ phrase

17:19). Moreover, the Deuteronomic ideal of obedience to the Law being linked with residence in the land is also present in the psalm (s. Deut 4:26 and 11:17 for example). 109 In addition to the known sources, the close reading revealed the possibility of an alternate tradition in the psalm. In describing God leading the Israelites from Egypt, the psalm As discussed in the close .” פרש ענן למסך “ ,depicts him as stretching out a cloud for a screen reading for v.39, this concept resonates more with an extra-biblical tradition concerning God’s protection of Israel than it does with the Torah’s rendition of desert events. 110

105 See close reading for v.40. 106 The very fact that this rare phrase occurs in juxtaposed psalms raises some interesting possibilities concerning the arrangement of these two works; see Juxtaposition in Chapter Three. Concerning the direction of borrowing between Psalms 105 and 106, the former represents the later work. Psalm 106 was written during the Exile (s. Chapter Three) and Psalm 105 was written after the Exile, as we have seen in the previous section. 107 The association with Ps 106:22 however, will be addressed in the section on juxtaposition. 108 Another similarity concerns the inclination to exonerate the Patriarchs of all sin; s. Rofé (1999:42) for these characteristics of P. 109 See Tucker (2005:407f.) for further Deuteronomic associations. 110 Due to doubts about the certainty of an alternate tradition here, I shall also treat this matter in the following section.

Page <160> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

PROCESS OF SELECTION Psalm 105 draws upon five of the Exodus’ sub-motifs—, the emancipation from Egypt, the giving of manna, provision of water, and the provision of meat. Regarding these units, the psalm omits any reference to the deliverance at the sea. In view of the breadth of sources available to the psalmist, it is unlikely that he was unfamiliar with this tradition. Consequently, we must seek another explanation for its omission. At this point, we can only assume that the psalmist did not seek to portray YHWH as being vindictive in any way. Thus, the destruction of the Egyptian army in the sea was not conducive to his overall plan. Further evidence of the psalmist’s tendency to temper events appears in his depiction of the plagues, which are not as destructive to people as its Exodus counterpart. Another noticeable aspect of selection concerning Psalm 105 is the psalmist’s omission of all negative aspects concerning the Israelites’ desert sojourn. Though the psalm recalls the provision of water along with the giving of manna and meat, no recollection of the murmuring preceding these supplies of food appear. The conquest of Canaan is similarly portrayed in a trouble-free manner, whereby no battles took place, but the land and the hard work of the Canaanite peoples were simply delivered to the Israelites. Overall, the result leaves the psalm with a euphoric feel from beginning to end, and paints a picture of constant harmony between Israel and YHWH throughout the desert journey. When we look at these omissions in the overall plan of the psalm, it becomes clear that were the psalmist to include such events in his composition, the last verse would lose its impact. Inclusion of the rebellions in the desert would imply that the people would have already failed to keep his laws. Also absent from the psalmist’s retelling is the lawgiving at Sinai, the instance in which God entered into a covenant together with Israel after he had delivered them from Egypt. The psalmist’s strict and uncompromising focus on the Abrahamic covenant provides us with an explanation for this omission. Inclusion of events at Sinai would have added some confusion between the two covenants, and the Sinaitic covenant, consequently, would draw attention away from that made with Abraham. Additionally, the inclusion of the lawgiving at Sinai would break the psalmists plan to list a continuous series of events that epitomize YHWH’s merciful deeds to Israel whilst maintaining his covenant.

Page <161> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

ALLUSIONS

ISRAEL IN EGYPT

(1:1 ,ה באים ) who came (1:1 ,” בני ישראל “) The beginning of Exodus records the sons of Israel

,Once there, they multiply greatly .(1:1 , יעקב ) including Jacob ,(1:1 , מצרימה ) to Egypt

.and they fill the land ,(1:7 ,” ויעצמו במאד מאד “) and very strong ,(1:7 , פרו ) becoming fruitful

,(1:9 ,” עצום ממנו “) Their rapid multiplication soon makes them stronger than their enemies who subsequently conspire against them, enslaving them and attempting to destroy all their male children. Pharaoh’s daughter saves one of these children, Moses, and raises him in Pharaoh’s household as an Egyptian. After killing an Egyptian in defense of a Hebrew, Moses is forced to flee to where he settles down as a shepherd. As a shepherd, YHWH calls to deliver the Israelites from their captors, a calling (3:13 ,” משה ... שלחני “) Moses, sending him he is initially reluctant to accept due to his lack of eloquence. God overcomes the problem by ( אהרן ) appointing Aaron, his brother, to accompany him as a spokesman. Thus, both Aaron

are sent on their mission by God (s. Ex 4:13-16). As part of his instructions ( משה ) and Moses

in his ( שמתי ) he has put ( מפתים) to Moses, God tells him to return to Egypt with the signs hand (s. 4:21).

to live in ( ויבא ) coming ( ישראל ) Psalm 105:23 begins like Exodus recalling Israel

living in the land of Ham. Here, it deviates ( יעקב ) and the children of Jacob ,( מצרים ) Egypt opting for an epithet for Egypt (land of Ham) which on one hand could simply reflect a poetic word pair, but could also represent a deliberately derogatory choice of phrase. Psalm 105:24 than ( ויעצמהו ) and stronger ( ויפר ) fruitful ( מאד ) then recalls how the Israelites became very their oppressors. Unlike the source, however, Psalm 105 does not simply record that the Israelites grew strong, but that YHWH made them stronger than their enemies. YHWH’s dominance in all events constitutes a major theme in the psalm, and here it manifests itself by הָפַ F֣ לִ֭בָּ ם “ ,a change from simple forms in the source to causative forms in the psalm. Verse 25

apparently originates from the psalmist’s imagination, but ,” לִשְׂ נֹ֣ א 8ַמּ֑ וֹ לְ֜הִתְ נַכֵּ֗ ל בּ8ֲַבָדָ ֽ יו׃ nevertheless reflects Exodus’ account of God being responsible for hardening the heart of ... וַאֲ נִי֙ אֲחַ זֵּ ֣ק אֶ ת־לִבּ֔ וֹ וְ לֹ֥ א יְשַׁלַּ ֖ח “ ,Pharaoh, causing him to keep the Israelites captive (s. Ex 4:21

Page <162> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

also 9:12). Thus, the psalmist apparently shifts God’s treatment of Pharaoh to ;” אֶ ת־ה8ָָ ֽ ם׃ apply to all of the Egyptians. The psalm proceeds, in v.26, enumerating how both Moses בחר “ and עבדו ) by God, and the status it ascribes them ( שלח ) are sent ( אהרן ) and Aaron ( משה)

neither of which appears in the source) reflects the psalmist’s desire to associate Moses ,” בו and Aaron with his audience in v.6. As expected from the psalmist’s rendition of events, negative instances, such as Moses’ initial refusal to return to Egypt, play no role in the psalmist’s composition.

THE PLAGUES As with Psalm 78, the plagues’ tradition in the current psalm differs significantly from the Exodus account. None Table 5. of the earlier plagues Psalm 105 Exodus Psalm 78

44 דם 7:14-24 דם 28 חשך and signs—the leprous 1 hand, Moses’ staff 45 ערב 7:25-8:11 צפרדעים 29 דם 2 turning into a snake 45 צפרדעים -15 8:12 כנים 30 צפרדעים 3 and crocodile— 46 ארבה 8:16-28 ערב 31 ערב\ כנים 4 recorded in Exodus 5 32-33 9:1-7 47 ברד דבר ברד are recalled in 4:1-7 -50 48 דבר -12 9:8 שחין -35 34 ארבה the psalm, and the 6 51 מכות הבכור -35 9:13 ברד 36 מכת הבכור psalmist concentrates 7

10:1-20 ארבה on Exodus’ ten plagues 8

10:21-23 חשך that strike the 9 Egyptians, forcing -32 12:29 מכת הבכור 10 them into submission and releasing the Israelites. Moses turning the rivers and waters of Egypt to blood constitutes the first plague recalled in Exodus. YHWH instructs him to meet Pharaoh in the morning with his staff and demand the Israelites’ release. When Pharaoh refuses to comply, Moses strikes

Ex , דם ) Ex 7:20) to blood ,ויהפכו ) Ex 7:20) of the Nile turning it ,מים ) his staff on the water

Ex , הדגה ) Ex 7:21 ) the fish , מתה ) causing the water to become undrinkable, and killing ,(7:17

7:21 ). Psalm 105 recalls the plague of blood as the second plague, as opposed to the first, and even though it recalls the death of the fish, YHWH bears sole responsibility for their death, as

Page <163> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105 opposed to the waters. The psalm omits any reference to the water being undrinkable, and the psalmist removes the intermediaries Moses, Aaron, and the staff of God; instead, he focuses on YHWH alone as the plague’s instigator. Rather than causing any physical harm to the Egyptians, the plague is depicted more as a sign of God’s power. After the plague of blood, Exodus recalls the sending of frogs against the Egyptians coming out of the river, entering into houses and (7:28 , שרץ ) The frogs multiply .(7:27-8:11)

presenting themselves as a nuisance as they cover the whole ,(7:28 ,” חדר משכבך “) bedrooms

The psalm deviates slightly from this portrayal by specifically .(8:2 , ארץ ) of the land mentioning that the frogs enter into the rooms of the kings, a detail unspecified in the source. לֹֽ א־הִנִּ ֣י\ַ “ ,It is possible, however, to see this alteration as a deliberate association to 105:14

which recalls God rebuking kings as an act of intervention on ,” אָדָ ֣ם ל8ְָשְׁ קָ ֑ ם וַיּ֖וֹ כַ ח 8ֲלֵ יהֶ ֣ ם מְלָכִֽ ים׃ behalf of the Patriarchs. In making this association, the psalmist highlights God protecting the people of Israel in the same way he protected their forefathers. The third and fourth plagues in Exodus, swarms and lice, appear together as the fourth being sent across the whole land of (8:12 , כנים ) plague in Psalm 105. Exodus depicts the lice

sent after the ,(8:19 , ערב ) affecting both man and beast. The swarms ,(” בכל ארץ מצרים “) Egypt lice, similarly cause a substantial amount of destruction across the land. By joining the two swarms” in“ , ערב plagues together, the psalmist interprets the somewhat ambiguous word v.31. 111 The term does not necessarily signify the precise nature of the individual constituent parts of the swarming body. Thus, by linking the two together the palmist explicates that the swarming body consisted of lice. The following two plagues in Exodus, pestilence (9:1-7) and boils (9:8-12), find no recollection at all in the psalm. Concerning this omission, the psalmist may have had concerns about the damage they inflicted in the source. In Exodus, the pestilence destroys all of the cattle in Egypt in addition to the horses, donkeys and other flock animals. These same animals are also affected in the boils that follow and the hail after that, not to mention the death of the

111 See close reading for v.31.

Page <164> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105 cattle’s firstborn. In removing these plagues from the psalm, the psalmist alleviates a perceived difficulty in his source whilst reworking the text.112

strikes men, beasts, and plants, killing ,(9:13-10:11) ברד ,The sixth plague in Exodus them; and among the destruction to the plant life, Exodus mentions that the hail destroys the (9:23 , אש ) Along with the hail, Exodus reports of fire .(9:22 ,” עשב השדה “) grass of the field

and break (9:25 , עשב השדה ) accompanying it, and together they destroy the grass of the field every tree of the field. Exodus 9:31 additionally mentions the flax and the barley being struck, with the wheat and the spelt surviving because they were late crops. The psalm’s reworking of events restricts itself to mentioning the destruction on plant life, but it too includes the in v.32. Psalm 105, however, alters the identification of plants struck ( אש ) appearance of fire by this plague, and records fig trees and vines being affected along with the grass. As a change to its previous portrayals, the psalm dedicates two verses to this plague and in המטיר to depict the sending of the plague, as opposed to נתן additionally adopts the verb

Exodus, a change designed to recall the promise of land earlier recorded in 105:11. Regarding the psalmist’s portrayal of the hail, we witness another example of him mollifying the events in his source. Exodus recalls a danger posed to man that has no reflection in the psalm. Ex 10:1-20, Ps , ארבה ) Following the hail, both texts recall the sending of locust

105:34-35); Exodus recalls it as the eighth plague and Psalm 105 as the sixth. In Exodus, the and destroy the crops left by the hail. They (10:5 ,” וכסה את עין הארץ “) locust cover the land enter the houses of the Egyptians, and the text describes the phenomenon as a unique event , אדמה ) that none of the Egyptians’ forefathers had witnessed since they dwelt in the land

everything green in (10:15 , וי אכל ) Exodus 10:12 and 15 depict the locust as consuming .(10:6

vv.12, 15). The source further states that an east wind brought the ,” כל עשב הארץ “) the land

remained after the plague ended. As the (10:15 ,ירק ) plague (10:13), and that no greenery sixth plague in Psalm 105, no recollection of the east wind appears in recruiting, or removing, the locust; instead, they are summoned by God’s word. For a poetic compliment to the word which recalls the similar sounding word for , יֶלֶ ק the psalmist adopts the segolate ארבה

112 Concerning the omission of these two plagues, Tucker (2005:405ff.) avers that because the mention of land does not appear at the conclusion of the plagues in Exodus, they were omitted from the psalm. His assumption here stems from the “land” leitmotif within the psalm.

Page <165> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

to portray God ” אמר ויבא “ The psalmist also repeats the phrase .( יֶרֶ ק ) greenery in Exodus sending the plague. By employing this expression, he recalls both the words of Ex 10:4, an abundance of locust on their territory, in addition to ( מביא ) where God says he will bring

Psalm 105 dedicates two , דבר ,the calling of the swarms in v.31. As with the previous plague full verses to the locust: the first of which announces the plague, and the second enumerates the destruction it wreaks. a pitch-blackness that covers the ,( חשך ) The penultimate plague in Exodus is darkness land of the Egyptians (Ex 10:21-23). As mentioned previously, Psalm 105 relocates this event to the first position. The most probable explanation being that the psalmist somehow deemed it an innocuous plague, and consequently better suited to the first place in the sequence. We should, however, be aware of the fact that darkness, the removal of it, also appears as the first act of God in Creation. Thus the psalmist may have deliberately aligned his rendition of the plagues to correspond, at least partially, with the Creation story. 113 Ex 11:1-12:32) constitutes ,” מכת הבכור “) In both texts, the striking of the first-born the final plague, which the Exodus account merges with the institution of Pesah. The source

כל ) every firstborn male (12:29 , הכה ) reports that in the middle of the night the Lord struck

,of Egypt. The psalmist recalls the event in words similar to Exodus ( ארץ ) in the land ( בכור

as a poetic compliment. When the psalmist selected this ” ראשית לכל אונם“ but adds the phrase phrase, he was probably influenced by the same words describing the event in Psalm 78:51, In developing the association with the Creation account, the striking of the .” ראשית ... אונים“ firstborn corresponds with God’s last creative act, the creation of man. Within this structure, the plagues’ account in Exodus represents an undoing of Creation. Instead of creating light God removes it, instead of creating man, he destroys him, instead of creating order for the world, he creates disorder, via the unnatural meteorological phenomenon and animal behavior found in the remaining plagues. 114 The association with Creation enhances and emphasizes

113 With respect to the psalm as a whole, a further link to Creation appears in the juxtaposition between Psalms 104 and 105; see below. Tucker (2005:408f.) also suggests that darkness represents a sign of God’s displeasure, and thus it was moved to the first position in order to set a tone highlighting God’s anger for the remainder of the psalms. 114 Reinforcing the link with Genesis 1 is the order in which the plagues develop. From celestial entities, they continue to the water, then to the land and plants, and finally to man. Reflecting this progression is the development of Creation in Gen 1 (s. Lee [1980] esp. 259f.).

Page <166> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105 the plagues’ narrative by highlighting the extent to which God was willing to act on behalf of his people.

THE WILDERNESS WANDERING Before leaving Egypt, Exodus records YHWH’s instructions to the Israelites to request Ex 11:2, 12:35) from the Egyptians, a command ,” כלי כסף ו כלי זהב “) articles of gold and silver that they performed, and in so doing, plundered the Egyptians. Even though Psalm 105:37 recalls the event, the negative aspects of Israel plundering the Egyptians are removed and the receiving of gold and silver is depicted as an expression of benevolence God shows to his people. The second part of Psalm 105:37 detours from the Torah, turning to the poetry of Isaiah for a continued description of the initial desert period. :7 begins recounting the great deeds of old that YHWH wrought on behalf of the Israelites and speaks of them turning against him (63:10), which incites him to fight against them (63:10). God then remembers the days of old when he brought them through the Sea. He divided the waters through Moses, and led them through the sea like a horse through the desert, and during this time, they did not From this rendition of events, the psalmist only recalls the lack .(63:13 ,” לא יכשלו “) stumble

,v.37) among the tribes as they came into the desert. Furthermore ” אין ... כושל “) of stumbling the context that frames these words in the psalm is purely positive. Even though the psalm does not explicitly mention the sea crossing, the aforementioned allusion recalls the event. Apparently recalling events in Exodus 12:36, Psalm 105:38 reflects the Israelites’ departure from Egypt and the favorable disposition of the Egyptians. Exodus, however, neither explicitly recalls the Egyptians’ happiness at the Israelites leaving, nor the fear that fell upon them. Both of these emotions are nevertheless understandable from the context since the Egyptians would have been glad at the sight of Israel leaving, and yet still fearful of God’s wrath that had been leveled against them whilst the Israelites dwelt among them. Following the order of Exodus, Psalm 105:39 records the Israelites’ desert sojourn after their emancipation from Egypt. Two notable omissions, however, occur at this point in the psalm: the deliverance at the Reed Sea, and the Law giving at Mt Sinai. After the Israelites by day, and a pillar of fire ( ענן ) leave Egypt, God leads them in the desert via a pillar of cloud

at night, providing them with continual guidance (s. Ex ( להאיר ) to give them light ( אש)

13:21). Psalm 105’s rendition of these events differs even though v.39 recalls both the fire

Page <167> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

does not function as a guide. Instead, the psalmist (ע נן ) and cloud. For the psalmist, the cloud

,In v.39 . עמוד ,as opposed to a pillar , מסך ,depicts God spreading the cloud out like a screen the psalmist apparently alludes to Is 4:5, which speaks of the future glory of Zion (a prophecy directly relevant to the psalmist’s immediate situation). In Isaiah, both fire and cloud are recalled as forming a canopy over Zion. Their function here, however, is not to guide, but to protect. The psalmist evidently relies on the notion of protection to express the care that YHWH exercises towards his people. In addition to leading them, he also preserves them from all harm. 115 This same idea of protection and the cloud forming a shield is not entirely as a veiled allusion to the protection God מסך foreign to the Torah. It is possible to read provided at the Reed Sea. Just before the sea was split, Exodus recalls the cloud moving behind the Israelite camp between them and the Egyptians. In this way, it formed a screen between the two camps, creating a picture of YHWH protecting his people from the Egyptian army. In Exodus 16, soon after God delivers the Israelites from the sea, they begin complaining (v.2) as they remember the fleshpots they enjoyed whilst in Egypt. Upon hearing their complaints, Moses brings the matter to God, who responds by promising to rain bread v.4) upon them as part of a test to see if they would walk ,” מן שמים “) v.4) from heaven ,לחם) in his ways. He subsequently instructs them concerning its collection each day and . God v.8), enough for their satisfaction , לאכל ) v.8) to eat , בשר ) additionally promises them flesh

,v.8). YHWH reaffirms his promise of provision when he appears to the community , לשבע) reiterating that he has heard their complaints (v.12), and that in the evening they will eat

v.12) with , תשבעו ) v.12) and in the morning they will be satisfied , בשר ) v.12) meat , תאכלו)

v.13) came and , שלו ) v.12). According to God’s word, later that evening quail , לחם ) bread covered the camp, and in the morning, together with the dew there was manna, which Moses Psalm 105’s .( לאכלה ) v.15) that God provided for them to eat , לחם ) declared as the bread rendition of these events all occurs within a single verse, and the psalmist juxtaposes them immediately after the Israelites leave Egypt. Perhaps the most noticeable alteration found in the psalmist’s account is the avoidance of Israelite complaining. Instead, he depicts them as simply requesting food, a petition that was soon answered by God. Such a change was

115 The idea of protection also surfaces in extra-biblical texts; s. close reading for v.39.

Page <168> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105 necessary to develop the joyous nature of the psalm, omitting negative incidents involving God’s people. Contextually in line with this overall schema is the omission of the test linked with the provision of bread in Exodus. After the provision of bread and meat in the Exodus itinerary, the Israelites proceed to Rephadim, where they complain again to Moses for water to drink. He subsequently relays (Ex 17:5 , והלכת ) their complaints to God, who instructs him to take some of the elders and go

v.6) where God will be standing. Moses is then instructed to strike the rock , צור ) to a rock

.v.6) would spring forth, from which the people could drink , מים ) whereupon water ( צור)

Isaiah 48:20-21 also records YHWH’s provision of water in the desert. This context, however, speaks of God’s work among the exiles from Babylon, as they go forth from captivity back to their homeland. On their return, they are to declare and announce to the world that God has v.21) through , הוליכם ) v.20), and that he led them ,” עבדו יעקב “) redeemed his servant Jacob

v.21 ); he split the , צור ) v.21) flow for them from a rock , מים ) parched places; he made water

v.21). Of the two aforementioned , ויזבו ) v.21) flowed out , מים ) v.21), and water , צור) rock accounts, even though the psalmist was evidently aware of the Torah’s rendition, he primarily depends on Isaiah’s account. In selecting this record of events, the psalmist reflects a tradition temporally closer to his situation, and more importantly portrays the second Exodus, his experience, in light of the original Exodus from Egypt. Psalm 105:1 similarly recalls the connection between two Exodus accounts. 116 A further association between the Exodus from Egypt and that from Babylon appears with Psalm 105:43’s use of Is 51:9-11. The latter recalls God’s works of old, and calls for him to clothe himself with splendor as in the days of old when he defeated and dissected the dragon Rahab, and dried up the sea and the waters of the deep so his people could walk through. Isaiah calls for God to act in the same way to bring the ransomed of the Lord, those .(51:11 , ששון ) and joy (51:11 , רנה ) from Babylon, back to Zion with shouts of happiness

Psalm 105:43 depicts the happiness with which God brought his people through the desert and the shouting with which they entered the Promised Land with the same words. Via the allusion, however, the Psalm also recalls the joy of the new Exodus from Babylon, enumerated in Isaiah. With this, the third instance of welding old and new Exodus traditions,

116 See close reading for this verse.

Page <169> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105 it is apparent that the real joy the psalmist seeks to express in the psalm is not so much the promise of land to Abraham and its fulfillment in the days of Joshua, but the joy created from its fulfillment in the days of Judah’s return from the Babylonian exile.

JUXTAPOSITION

PSALM 104–105 Psalm 104 constitutes a song praising YHWH for his work in Creation. It begins (vv.1-4) by extolling his majesty, and in doing so portrays the winds as his messengers and the fiery v.4) as his servants. Following this, it depicts YHWH’s work in separating the , אש ) flames dry land from the waters (vv.5-11). The second stanza continues by concentrating on YHWH’s work in providing for the needs of all Creation. He provides water that satisfies the

v.15), and from ,” ישמח לבב “) v.13), supplies man with wine that cheers the heart , תשבע ) earth

v.16). Verses 19-23 focus on the , ישבעו ) the water provided, the trees are also satisfied creation of the moon and sun, and the activities that occur in the day and night hours. When v.20) it becomes night and the beasts of the forest stir. The , חשך ) YHWH sends darkness

אין “) following verses mention the multitude of creatures he created, creatures without number

v.28) by YHWH’s provision. In the final , ישבעון ) v.25), and all of them are satisfied ,” מספר verses of the psalm, the psalmist is moved to praising YHWH for Creation. The psalmist says

v.33) as long as he lives, and make music ,” אשירה ליהוה “) that he will sing to the Lord

v.34) will be acceptable , שיחי ) v.33) to him. He furthermore hopes that his meditation , אזמרה)

v.34). 117 ,” אשמח בי הוה “) to YHWH, and rejoices in him

A degree of continuity appears in the positioning of Psalm 105 next to 104 because the former begins with a number of keywords found at the end of the latter. Psalm 105 begins

v.1) deeds , יהוה ) with a call for the assembled community to speak out and declare YHWH’s

v.2) to him, and make , שירו ) to the nations. In developing this notion, it calls for them to sing

v.2) on all of his wonderful acts. The following verse , שיחו ) v.2), and meditate , זמרו ) music

117 Cassuto discusses the phenomenon of common words linking the beginning of one text with the end of another text (1973b:5).

Page <170> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105

v.3). The link ,” ישמח לב “) v.3) to rejoice , יהוה ) additionally requests the seekers of YHWH created in the repetition of these words and phrases develops the thematic continuity between the two works, moving from Creation to the Patriarchs, to Joseph and on to the Exodus. Additionally, a number of relatively rare words and phrases link the two works. The which Psalm 104:25 employs to depict a multitude of ,” אין מספר “ most prominent of these is creatures God created in the sea. Psalm 105 similarly relates the phrase to an act of God

v.34) of locust against Egypt. With the ,” אין מספר “) because he sent an innumerable multitude exception of these instances, the phrase does not appear again in Book IV, and only twice in the remainder of the Psalter (40:13 and 147:5). Another relatively rare word linking the two which in both psalms forms an expression of God’s provision. Three times in , שבע works is

Psalm 104 it portrays God supplying the needs of plants and animals in Creation (vv.13, 16 and 28), in Psalm 105 it similarly depicts God supplying needs, but this time for man, more specifically YHWH’s people, the Israelites (v.40). Both psalms use the word “darkness” in remarkably similar phrases to describe God commanding the darkness, and its ( חשך)

to depict ,” תָּ ֽשֶׁ ת־חֹ֭שֶׁ F וִ ֣יהִ י לָ ֑יְלָ ה ... “ ,subsequent appearance. Psalm 104:20 recalls the phrase

YHWH’s creation of darkness as part of his formation of times and seasons; whereas, Psalm in a less natural occurrence, a break in the ” שָׁ ֣לַ ֽ ח חֹ֭שֶׁ F וַיַּחְשִׁ ֑ employs the phrase “ ... F 105:28 created order causing darkness to fall upon the Egyptians. 118 Through the aforementioned association, a reading of the two psalms enforces the notion of darkness in Ps 105 not disobeying YHWH’s command because Ps 104 perceives it as one of his servants. At this point, with regards to motivation for the juxtaposition of Psalms 104 and 105, we should also note Psalm 105’s tight association with Creation. The close reading identified on numerous occasions the power of YHWH’s spoken word, which was used to enact his purposes (s. for example vv.11 and 16). Another potential relationship to Creation concerns the psalm’s rendition of the plagues. Darkness appears as the first of the plagues and the slaying of the firstborn appears as the last. Such sequencing reflects the Creation tradition in Genesis 1, where God’s first act is to dispel the darkness when he created the first light (Gen 1:3), and then at the end of Creation he creates man. These associations with the Creation

118 The relationship between Psalms 105-106 is more developed than 104–105, and we shall discuss the connections between the two in the following chapter, after first analyzing Psalm 106.

Page <171> Chapter 2 - Psalm 105 story may have been recognized by an editor of the Psalter and influenced him when he decided to place Pss 104 and 105 together. 119

119 The two motifs of Creation and exodus are frequently found together in the selected psalms, and the issue will be revisited again in the conclusions.

Page <172> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

CHAPTER 3: PSALM 106

The third of the selected works, Psalm 106, recounts numerous episodes of the Israelites’ sojourn in the desert after their emancipation from Egypt. Like many of the other Exodus psalms, events such as the crossing of the sea and the provision of food are recalled in Psalm 106. Contrary to the other Exodus psalms, however, Psalm 106 recalls events in an entirely negative light as part of a confession of sin and a cry for deliverance from captivity. A unique feature of the Psalm is that it recalls an instance of the Israelites sinning whilst they still dwelt in Egypt. The only other book that reflects such transgressions is Ezekiel (s. 23:8, 19, 21). The psalmist uses this recollection of Israel’s sin in Egypt to exemplify further the nation’s ingrained rebellious streak.

STRUCTURE

Psalm 106 is best divided according to theme, although various lexical and poetic markers contribute to the clarification of the stanzas and strophes.

I. Introductory call to remember and recite YHWH’s deeds (1-5) II. Confession of sin from the Exodus to the psalmist’s present (6-46) a. YHWH’s gracious deliverance at the sea and Israel’s response (6-12) b. Israel forgets the deliverance and complains for food (13-15) c. Jealousy against YHWH’s appointed leaders (16-18) d. Moses averts punishment for golden-calf idolatry (19-23) e. Israel’s rejection of land and its ensuing punishment (24-27) f. Phinehas averts punishment for idolatry with Baal Peor (28-31) g. The Israelites cause Moses to Sin (32-33) h. Increased sin involving child , and its ensuing punishment (34-42) i. Cycle of sin and deliverance (43-46) III. Plea for YHWH to deliver Israel from exile (47) IV. Doxology (48)

Page <173> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

The introduction presents a number of key themes recurring throughout the psalm. The first two verses speak of YHWH’s goodness, everlasting mercy, and heroic deeds. Following this, v.3 introduces the idea of the righteous individual, which manifests itself in the psalm’s body via Moses and Phinehas. Verses 4 and 5 isolate the psalmist from the remainder of the community and suggest a discrepancy between his current standing, and where he desires to be with respect to his relationship with God. The fact that he requests the benefits usually afforded the people of God implies he is not currently in a position to receive them. From a .envelops the introductory section הלל poetic standpoint, the root

The second stanza 1 opens with a confession of sin and subsequently recounts the act of salvation at the Reed Sea; it proceeds by recalling God’s intervention for his people to save them from their enemies. Unlike the remaining incidents recorded in the psalm, this account includes an appropriate response to YHWH’s intervention: Israel trusts in his word and temporarily sing his praise. As a background to this act of deliverance, the stanza recalls Israel’s sins when they defy him at the Sea. This incident creates an important setting for the whole psalm because it shows that in spite of the people’s sin and rebellion, YHWH is still willing to be merciful to them for his name’s sake. Section three records how the previous events were quickly forgotten, and those who were saved soon succumbed to wanton desires leading them to test YHWH in the desert. Though the specific nature of the desires is not specifically mentioned, the section recalls links מדבר ,events in Numbers 16 when Israel craved meat to eat. From a literary standpoint this section with the previous one. Unlike the previous section, however, that recognized Israel’s appropriate response to YHWH’s display of power, stanza three only records the pattern of sin and punishment. Israelite rebellion is not directly targeted at God in the fourth stanza, rather, his appointed leadership. Similarly, not all the Israelite congregation is implicated, only the company of Dathan and Abiram, who envy Aaron’s and Moses’ leadership. Like the previous stanza, this one only includes an instance of sin and its ensuing punishment. Stanza five, consisting of five verses, recounts Israel’s idolatry in worshiping the image of a golden calf. Just like the third stanza, the psalmist provides a rationale for why the

1 Scholarly consensus generally agrees with this division, and the only real point of contention arises with v.6. Hoffman includes it with the first stanza (1999:132), whereas Allen (2002:69) reads a much larger introductory stanza ranging from vv.1-12. Additionally, Hacham (1981:281) understands v.6 as an independent stanza. Concerning the remaining divisions, there is similarly a wide range of agreement; consequently, I will only comment on the more radical divergences.

Page <174> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

links ישע sin occurred, because they forgot the deeds performed for them in Egypt. The root the two sections and explicitly refers to God delivering Israel from their haters in v.10. Unlike the previous two stanzas, punishment is averted on this occasion of idolatry, and one righteous man, Moses, successfully averts retribution by “standing in the gap”, and turning away God’s wrath. The sequence of events differs from the last two sections and a pattern of “sin—punishment averted” emerges. Four verses combine for the sixth stanza, two describing sin and two punishment. The crime indicated in this section consists of Israel failing to trust God; they did not believe he

האמין could bring them into the Promised Land and drive out its inhabitants. Reusing the verb

(v.24 ), the psalm inserts a reminder to the second section (esp. v.12) when the people trusted in YHWH’s promise soon after experiencing deliverance. Like the first stanza, an inclusion vv.24, 27 ), which plays an integral part in the people’s) ארץ delimits this section via the word sin and punishment. The sequence of events in this stanza is: sin—judgment decreed; the psalmist fails to mention the judgment’s execution. The seventh stanza recalls the worship of false gods, similar to the fifth stanza. This time, however, the Israelites do not forge their own idol, but begin serving and worshipping the gods of the surrounding nations. Like the fifth stanza, this one contains the extended sequence of sin, punishment and punishment averted, but with the addition of a reward for the intercessor. Once again one man stands in the gap, however, this time it is not Moses but and אכל Phinehas; additionally, unlike Moses, Phinehas receives a reward for his act. Both

.link this stanza with the fifth, which recites Moses’ act of intercession פרץ

Almost by way of apology, stanza eight, two verses, mentions the rebellion at the waters of Meribah. Though this short stanza depicts one of the many Israelite sins in the desert, it seems more concerned about excusing Moses’ sinful actions by placing the onus on the Israelites’ behavior. In this stanza, though the people sin, which subsequently leads Moses to sin, no explicit punishment is mentioned for either party. After the shortest stanza comes the longest, section nine. The sin, taking up six verses (vv.34-39), is far more detailed than the previous transgressions, and recounts a descent into depravity. The people’s failure to destroy the previous occupants of Canaan forms the basis of the sin. This initial act of disobedience snowballs and culminates with the Israelites sacrificing their sons to idols and demons, thus polluting the land. For the third time, (s. also

Page <175> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 stanza five and stanza seven) idolatry ensnares Israel. YHWH delivers them into the hands of the nations as punishment, and in the end, these same nations rule and oppressed them. In this stanza the familiar pattern “sin—punishment” returns. Instead of detailing another specific example of Israelite sin, the tenth stanza recalls a perpetual pattern reflecting both the events explicated in the psalm’s main body, and the continued sequence of events after the Israelites conquered the land and dwelt therein. A distinct change enters into the penultimate section: no specific punishment is decreed or enacted by God. Instead, the psalmist portrays a general picture of Israel being humbled as a result of their punishment, a situation causing God to respond by delivering them from their own self-inflicted distress. The stanza finishes on a positive tone leading the reader to the psalm’s climax, v.47. The final verse, v.47, 2 has a variety of pertinent literary links with the whole psalm. It constitutes a plea for help that is anchored on everything previously recounted in the psalm. The recurring theme in almost every stanza is sin, and because this fact is well documented, the psalmist cannot request any assistance from God based on the Israelites’ behavior. Consequently, he establishes his plea on the foundation of God’s mercy. 3 Only at this stage in the psalm does it become clear why the psalmist singles himself out as a separate individual in the opening section. Throughout the psalm, the psalmist recalls the roles of individuals who were separate from the community, who were able to intercede on their behalf: section five mentioned Moses and section seven recalled Phinehas. In this last section, the psalmist himself adopts the role of an individual intercessor.

2 See close reading for v.48. 3 The two most divergent divisions from the structure proposed above come from Allen and Terrien. Allen (2002:62ff.) proposes four major divisions: 1-12, 13-23, 24-31, and 32-47—with the last verse excluded for the same reasons mentioned above. This proposal however, is not radically different from my division, but simply unites the smaller units into larger sections. The other variance, Terrien (2003:726-33), adopts a five strophe model where each strophe consists of three stanzas with the addition of a three-verse stanza as a prelude, and vv.47, 48 as a postlude: prelude 1-3; strophe I, 4-5, 6-7, 8 - 10; strophe II, 11-13, 14-16, 17-18; strophe III, 19-22, 23-24, 25-27; strophe IV, 28-31, 32-33, 34-36; strophe V, 37-38, 39-41, 42 -46; postlude, 47-48. Such a division, derived from the so-called “pattern and layout” of the psalm bears little sensitivity to the psalm’s internal content and poetic markers. Uniting v.13 with 11-12, for example, creates a degree of tension because it unites negatively toned verses with a positive one. The Israelites’ positive response marked in this stanza creates an ideal model depicting how they should have responded to their deliverance; an ideal they fail to attain throughout the remaining stanzas. Additionally, his division between vv.41 and 42 ignores the inclusion created by the word .(cf. close reading for these verses) יד

Page <176> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

CLOSE READING

1 הַ ֽלְ לוּיָ֙ הּ׀ הוֹד֣ וּ לַ יהוָ ֣ה כִּ י־ט֑ וֹב כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

Praise Yah; proclaim thanks to YHWH for he is good, surely his mercy is everlasting

Though Psalm 106’s opening verse should by no means be considered unique, since it frequently appears in psalms praising God (s. Psalms 118:1, 1Chr 16:34), the overall context in which these verses are set, especially with regard to Exodus psalms, differs significantly. Comparing Psalms 106:1 and 136:1, we see the same verse appears introducing two appreciably disparate aspects of YHWH’s everlasting kindness. The latter celebrates compassion that manumits his people from their foes and allots them land, primarily accentuating God’s benevolence towards his people, Israel. YHWH’s anger in Ps 136 is generally leveled against other nations, Amorites and Egyptians, whereas here, it is turned towards his people. which forms an ,” הללו יה “ As with Psalm 135, the present psalm opens and closes with inclusion creating a framework of praise that should be remembered throughout the psalm. Even though retribution and punishment come from his hand, as a result of disobedience, YHWH still deserves praise for curtailing the extent of all punitive actions. Set in the context constitutes a compelling testimony of the psalmist’s hope ” כי טוב “ of Psalm 106, the phrase and trust in God. In spite of the dire picture painted in the psalm—Israel’s inclination to rebel and God’s punitive responses—, the opening verse still exhorts the community to declare in this psalm never fully , חסדו ,God’s inherent goodness first. 4 YHWH’s eternal grace materializes; rather, it is a declaration of his nature, recited in the hope that he will one day be faithful to that nature and deliver his people. Again, this contrasts Psalm 135, where the congregation celebrates his past acts of mercy. The eternal nature of God’s mercy finds expression within the psalm’s main body as it surveys hundreds of years of Israelite literary history: from their emancipation in Egypt to the Exile, and for the psalmist such mercy will hopefully continue.

4 This becomes more pronounced when we consider, according to Hacham (1981:281), that the implication of .” כי טוב לנו “ is often ” כי טוב“

Page <177> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

2 מִ י יְ֭מַ לֵּ ל גְּ בוּר֣ וֹת יְהוָ ֑ה יַ֜שְׁמִ֗ יZַ כָּ ל־תְּהִלָּתֽ וֹ׃

Who can speak of the heroic deeds of YHWH, (and) declare his praiseworthy acts

The idea of declaration continues in v.2. Verse one employs a plural imperative of the root which not only expresses thanksgiving but also “declaration” and “annunciation” (s. close , ידה

and 5, ימלל ,reading for Ps 105:1). Verse 2 similarly begins with an expression of declaration

strictly in the גבורה poses a rhetorical 6 question: who can tell, or speak of YHWH’s might (for sense of “power” or “might”, s. Jud 5:31, Ps 21:14, Job 39:19). Through a relatively simple process of deduction we can arrive to the conclusion that the psalmist, in a sense, speaks of and תהלה himself because he recounts YHWH’s mighty deeds in the psalm’s body. Both

even though the parallel pair is not attested elsewhere—represent puissant acts— גבורה performed by God. The former may depict a king’s accomplishments in much the same way 2Ki 10:34; s. also 13:12). The) ” וְיֶ֙תֶ ר דִּ בְרֵ ֥ י יֵה֛ וּא וְכָ ל־אֲשֶׁ ֥ ר 8ָשָׂ ֖ ה וְכָ ל־גְּ בוּרָת֑ ו ... “ ,as it does here latter, in addition to praise (s. Ps 34:2), represents deeds performed that evoke a response of לְמַ 8ַ֥ ן אֲסַפְּרָ ֗ ה כָּ ֽ ל־תְּהִ לָּ֫תֶ ֥ יpraise. In Ps 9:15, YHWH’s praise stems from his ability to deliver, “ B

,s. also Ps 78:4); thus, in effecting the psalmist’s redemption) ” בְּ שַׁ 8ֲֽרֵ ֥ י בַ ת־צִ יּ֑וֹן אָ֜גִ֗ ילָ ה בִּ ישׁוּ8ָתֶ ֽ B׃

God evokes his praise.

3 אַ֭ שְׁרֵ י שֹׁמְרֵ ֣ י מִשְׁפָּ ֑ט עֹשֵׂ ֖ ה צְדָ קָ ֣ ה בְכָ ל־8ֵ ֽ ת׃

Blessed is the man who keeps justice, and performs righteous deeds at all times

Though v.3 does not attempt to answer directly the question posed in v.2, juxtaposition of the verses encourages the association of the one who keeps the law as being worthy to tell of means “fortunate”, “happy”, or more importantly “blessed”, as אשרי God’s deeds. The word

5 This is the standard Aramaic word for “speak” or “say”, s. Jastrow (1984:792), and may reflect the psalm’s lateness. 6 Rhetorical questions, like the one posed in this psalm, usually expect an implicit negative answer, as seen in Joel 1:2; s. Watson (2001:341), and also Seybold (1996:422). With this understanding, it is possible to interpret the psalmist stating, “Who can speak of his mighty acts now, at a time when we are in such despair”. Such an interpretation reflects the remainder of the psalm that is less focussed on the heroic deeds, and more focussed on Israel’s sins.

Page <178> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

s. also 1Ki 10:8, the queen of) ” לְדָ וִ֗ ד מַ֫שְׂכִּ֥ יל אַשְׁרֵ ֥ י נְֽ שׂוּי־פֶּ֗שַׁ ע כְּס֣ וּי חֲטָאָ ֽ ה׃“ ,Ps 32:1 suggests

Sheba’s description of Solomon’s servants), and such terminology is usually reserved for s. also Pr 8:34 and) ” אַשְׁרֵ ֣ י אָ֭דָ ם מָצָ ֣א חָ כְמָ ֑ ה וְ֜אָדָ֗ ם יָפִ֥ יק תְּ בוּנָ ֽה׃ “ ,Wisdom Literature, e.g., Pr 3:13

Job 5:17). Its presence in this psalm, however, should not be totally unexpected because similar didactic elements appear in Psalm 78. 7 Additionally, the wisdom theme guides the reader in reading the psalm, emphasizing its message should be learned and is valuable for

is best understood as a description of one who obeys ” שמרי משפט “ instruction. 8 The term

וּשְׁמַ רְתֶּ ֤ ם אֶ ת־חֻ קֹּתַ י֙ וְאֶ ת־מִשְׁ פָּטַ֔ י אֲשֶׁ֙ ר י8ֲַשֶׂ ֥ ה “ ,God’s laws, a definition exemplified by Lev 18:5

equates שמר represents “laws” and משפט cf. Psalm 119:106), in which) ” אֹתָ ֛ ם הָאָדָ ֖ ם וָחַ ֣ י בָּהֶ ֑ ם ... to “obey”. Echoes of this verse reverberate throughout the remainder of the psalm, which adduces concrete examples conveying the misery of those failing to obey God’s laws, and the the psalmist forges a literary nexus between , כל rewards of those who obey. By repeating vv.2, and 3; the association develops the concept of deeds: v.2 enumerates the deeds of God whereas v.3 expounds the deeds of man. As we shall see further, comparisons between these deeds frequently appear throughout the present work.

4 זָכְרֵ ֣ נִ י יְ֭הוָ ה בִּרְ צ֣ וֹן 8ַמֶּ ֑ B פָּ֜קְדֵ֗נִ י בִּ ישׁוּ8ָתֶ ֽ B׃

Remember me O YHWH with the favor of your people; visit me with your deliverance

Here marks a turn in our psalm as attention focuses on the psalmist (or speaker/reciter of the to be remembered with the good will and favor ( רצון ) psalm). Verse four reflects his desire

YHWH affords his people (s. Ps 5:13 and esp. Is 61:2 where it involves vindication and

as a copyist זכרני comfort). Exegetes often interpret the personal element on the imperative

but this alteration 9 ,( זכרנו) error and replace it with the first-person common plural ending may indeed be hasty. The notion of a righteous individual interceding for a sinful people finds expression within the psalm’s main body (cf. vv.23 and 30). Moreover, juxtaposed elements

7 See close reading for Ps 78:1-2. 8 Concerning this didactic element in the psalm, Allen (2002:66) notes, “The commendation formula of v.3 reveals a didactic ethical function comparable with Psalm 105:45”. 9 This change is reflected in certain Septuagint documents as “ μνήσθητι ἡμῶν”, a reading Kraus (1988b:315) adopts.

Page <179> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 in the psalm’s opening reveal a certain innocence and righteousness of the speaker because he is the first person mentioned since it was stated, “Who can speak of his deeds” and “Blessed is the man who keeps his laws”. The psalmist’s cry for God to “remember” does not represent a call for mental activity by YHWH concerning the speaker, but a petition for physical intervention. Such an entreaty appears in Jeremiah when , פקד // זכר for help and intervention, also involving the parallel pair

” ... זָכְרֵ ֤נִ י וּפָקְדֵ֙נִי֙ וְהִנָּ ֤ קֶ ם לִי֙ מֵ רֹ֣דְ פַ֔ י ...“ ,the prophet calls for God to intervene and judge his enemies

the , ישועה Echoes of the psalmist’s distress additionally come to the fore in the word .(15:15)

commonly occurs in contexts of war and oppression demanding a physical ,ישע ,root of which intervention for deliverance (s. Ex 14:13 and 1Sam 14:45).

5 לִרְ א֤ וֹת׀ בְּט֨ וֹבַ ֤ת בְּחִ ירֶ ֗ יB לִ֭שְׂ מֹ\ַ בְּשִׂמְחַ ֣ ת גּוֹיֶ ֑ B לְ֜הִתְהַ לֵּ֗ ל 8ִ ם־נַחֲ לָתֶ ֽ B׃

To see the goodness of your chosen ones, to rejoice with the joy of your people, to rejoice with your inheritance

Verse 5 continues to develop the request for YHWH to remember the psalmist with good will. The infinitive construct together with the lamed prefix is a form often employed to detail a

in v.4. Thus, v.5 forms a detailing continuation of the פקדני preceding verb, 10 in this instance sentiment originally expressed in v.4, “remember me…that I might see…”. Overall, the verse expresses the psalmist’s continual yearning to experience the benefits afforded a chosen people—Psalms 135 and 136 recount benefits such as deliverance from enemies and the bestowal of land as an inheritance. Emphasis on Israel’s intimate relationship with YHWH Such an emphasis serves as a .” בחיריך…גויך…נחלתך “ finds expression in repeated statements reminder to YHWH that they are still his special people, thus eliciting his compassion for

to , גויך ,them. Somewhat unexpectedly, however, the psalmist has chosen a rare word designate the people’s privileged status. On one hand, this may simply stem from a desire to serves as a גוי ,appears in the previous verse. On the other hand עם avoid repetition, 11 since sullen reminder of the people’s current status before God, they stand before him almost as

10 See Gen 18:19, Ex 31:16, and Deut 13:19; also JM §124 o. .” ... ויתר גויי ינחלום “ ,A similar usage of this word also occurs in Zeph 2:9 11

Page <180> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 though they had forfeited their unique status and were simply one of the other nations. Other within the psalm 12 enforce such an interpretation. 13 גוי occurrences of

Each expression depicting the select status of God’s people corresponds with a term adopts this meaning, as in Is התהלל ,denoting joy and happiness. Within such a framework

Verse 5 closes the . גיל where it parallels ,”…וְאַתָּ ֙ ה תָּגִ ֣יל בַּ ֽ יהוָ֔ ה בִּקְד֥ וֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵ ֖ ל תִּתְהַלָּ ֽ ל׃ “ ,41:16

a word embodying the initial , טוב opening section with an inclusion created by the word stanza’s disposition. It evaded any recollection of Israel’s sinful past and the prevailing mood has indeed been positive, focusing on YHWH’s goodness and omnipotence, and only obscure hints are provided with respect to the perceived gulf the psalmist recognizes between the nation (and himself) and their God.

6 חָטָ ֥ אנוּ 8ִ ם־אֲ בוֹתֵ֗ ינוּ ה8ֱֶוִ֥ינוּ הִרְשָׁ 8ְֽ נוּ׃

We have sinned with our fathers, we have committed iniquity, we have acted wickedly

The new section’s opening verse witnesses a dramatic contrast to the opening stanza’s optimism. Opposing the previous verse’s tri-colon, signifying the joys of intimacy with YHWH, stands another tri-colon denoting sin, transgression, and wickedness. Just as the repetition in v.5 emphasizes 14 joy, here it inculcates the severity of Israel’s transgressions. ( רשע and 15, עוה , חטא ) The three roots employed here to represent the people’s transgressions

The verse’s .” יָדַ 8ְ֧ נוּ יְהוָ ֛ה רִשׁ8ְֵ ֖נוּ 8ֲ וֹ֣ ן אֲ בוֹתֵ ֑ ינוּ כִּ֥ י חָטָ ֖ אנוּ לָ ֽ F׃ “ ,additionally appear in Jer 14:20 wording has much in common with Solomon’s prediction of Israel’s sins and their turning back to God in 1Ki 8:47. These same words may have been adopted into part of a standard Lament formula designed to invoke Solomon’s entreaty for God to see Israel’s suffering and turn from his anger. The powerful imagery of an individual confessing the sins of his

12 See vv.27, 35, 41, and 47. relates to the people of God. Amidst his גוי Cody (1964:6) classifies numerous instances in which the word 13 classification he acknowledges instances in which the word is derogatively employed (citing Deut 32:28, Jud 2:20, and Is 1:4 among others), but fails to include this verse. Instead, he classes Psalm 106:5 as an instance of an alternative B-word for people. I fundamentally disagree with this assumption because it seems too coincidental that within a psalm bearing such a negative tone we see this ascription. .” ... וְאָמַ֔ ר קָד֧ וֹשׁ׀ קָד֛ וֹשׁ קָד֖ וֹשׁ יְהוָ֣ ה צְבָא֑ וֹת ... “ ,For a further example of a threefold emphatic repetition, see Is 6:3 14 .s. BDB 730f ; עוה originates from the root עון The word 15

Page <181> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

יָדַ 8ְ נוּ יְהוָ ה רִ שְׁ 8ֵ נוּ 8ֲ וֹן “ ,generation together with that of his forefathers also appears in Jer 14:20

.(s. also Dan 9:16) ” אֲ בוֹתֵ ינוּ כִּ י חָטָ אנוּ לָ F

Along with the repetition of the three words for transgression comes the tripartite deployment of first-person common plural suffixes. These suffixes conjoin the wrongdoings of the psalmist’s community with those of their forefathers: no distinction appears between the sins of the two generations, both are combined and confessed together, and the contemporaneous generation stands as guilty as their forefathers. Such a picture contrasts Psalm 95, which attempts to detach the desert generation’s rebellious behavior from the community reciting the psalm at the Temple.

7 אֲב֨ וֹתֵ ֤ ינוּ בְמִצְרַ ֙ יִם׀ לֹא־הִשְׂ כִּ֬ ילוּ נִפְלְ אוֹתֶ֗ יB לֹ֣ א זָ֭כְ רוּ אֶ ת־רֹ֣ ב חֲסָדֶ ֑ יB וַיַּמְר֖ וּ 8ַ ל־יָ ֣ם בְּ יַם־סֽ וּף׃

Our fathers in Egypt never learned from your mighty acts, they never remembered your great mercy, and they defied Elyon at Yam Suf

From an abstract reference to Israel’s transgressions, the psalmist proceeds to detail the misdeeds and acts of rebellion committed by “our fathers”. 16 Whilst in Egypt, the forefathers which is best understood as “learn” or “gain insight from”, 17 as witnessed in— השכילו failed to

וּבַ יּ֣ וֹם הַ שֵּׁ נִ֡ י נֶאֶסְ פוּ֩ רָ אשֵׁ֙ י הָאָב֜ וֹת לְכָ ל־ה8ָָ֗ ם הַ כֹּֽהֲ נִ ים֙ וְהַ לְוִיִּ֔ ם אֶ ל־8ֶ זְרָ ֖ א הַ סֹּפֵ ֑ר וּלְהַשְׂ כִּ ֖ יל אֶ ל־דִּ בְרֵ ֥ י “ ,Neh 8:13

when the dwellers of Judah congregated to learn from the law (s. also Ps 2:10, where ,” הַ תּוֹרָ ֽ ה׃ kings are advised to learn from discipline). 18 The generation in Egypt never learned from the mentioned here , נפלאות YHWH enacted in Egypt. In all likelihood, the , נפלאות ,mighty deeds refer to the plagues, since these are often described in this way (s. v.22, Ex 3:20, and close reading for Psalm 78:4). Moreover, the plagues constitute the event that immediately precedes the sea crossing in Israelite literary history. Psalm 106’s portrayal of plagues wrought against Egypt differs slightly from the other selected psalms because they employ this account to

after ימרדו Richardson (1987:193), incorrectly, seeks to “complete” this verse into a double bi-cola by adding 16 .such an alteration, however, is unnecessary ; מצרים 17 Kraus (1988b:319) understands the verse as though they did not understand the significance of God’s deeds. Though this perception is similar, it also softens the verse’s impact implying the Israelites were unable, through no fault of their own, to understand the significance of the works wrought. The context of the psalm, however, suggests a stronger nuance: they understood, but simply refused to act accordingly. 18 The word is also common in Wisdom Literature, a genre echoed in v.2’s rhetorical question, and the word .in v.3 אשרי

Page <182> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 demonstrate YHWH’s power over the enemy in defense of his people. Psalm 106, on the other hand, infers that the purpose of the plagues was to teach the Israelites to depend on YHWH. YHWH’s merciful acts , זכרו ,The forefathers are chastised here for not remembering towards them. As with v.4, “remember” connotes more than just mental recollection, but the the זכר and השכ יל appropriate action according to the memory. In paralleling the two terms

and זכר verse links the two concepts of failing to remember and failing to learn. Both roots

,link the present stanza with the opening one. YHWH’s deeds in Egypt, mentioned here חסד

and in the context of the current verse it portrays his , חסד ,exemplify his everlasting mercy

; נפלאות ,power to liberate from oppression, as witnessed from its corresponding word

s. also Ps 17:7 and) ” הִנֵּ ֤ה 8ֵ ֣ין יְ֭הוָ ה אֶ ל־יְרֵאָ ֑ יו לַ ֽמְ יַחֲלִ ֥ ים לְחַסְדּֽ וֹ׃ “ ,moreover, verses such as Ps 33:18

109:26) reveal a similar correspondence. 19 The shortcomings mentioned in the previous two statements—they never learned or

God 21 at the Sea of Reeds. The 20, מרו ,remembered—become explicit in 7 b: they defied reference here recalls events in Ex 14:12 when the Israelites were caught between the Sea and

states, “…normally provides deliverance from dire חסד See also Richardson (1987:192), who, concerning 19 straits…God’s hesed is delivering, protecting power”. 20 A common word denoting rebellion, particularly in the context of God’s relationship with Israel in the desert; s. Deut 31:27, Ezek 20:13, Ps 78:17, 40. The Septuagint reads “ αναβαινοντες ” as though the vorlage read . על ים Various explanations exist for 21 rendering a translation of “When they went up by the sea of Reeds”. Alternatively, Keil and Delitzsch ,” עֹלִ ים“ elsewhere, citing Ezek ב alternates with על opted to preserve the reading claiming the preposition (1982:153) stating the Israelites rebelled directly against , עליון and Joel 4:8 b. Perhaps the best reading, however, is 10:15 YHWH at the Reed Sea. This corresponds with a similar verse in Ps 78:17, and complements the psalm’s main theme of Israel rebelling against the most high. See also Kraus (1988b:315); Brooke (1989:278); and Richardson denoting God (the ,” עלי “ from the proper noun ,” על ים “ who reaches the same conclusion by reading ,(1987:194) form is attested in a theophoric name in the Samaria Ostracon, with the addition of an enclitic mem ).

Page <183> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 the Egyptian army and immediately began crying out against God 22 and complaining to Moses. 23

8 וַ֭יּוֹשִׁ י8ֵ ם לְמַ 8ַ֣ ן שְׁמ֑ וֹ לְ֜ הוֹדִ֗ יZַ אֶ ת־גְּ בוּרָתֽ וֹ׃

But he saved them for the sake of his name, in order to proclaim his heroic acts

As a response to the forgetfulness leading to rebellion at the Reed Sea, God still acts to This work of redemption, however, is strictly founded upon his .( ויושיעם ) deliver his people merciful nature and performed according to his eternal mercy (v.1). The fact that YHWH s. Ps 23:3, 25:11, and 79:9), and not for the ,” למען שמו “) delivers his people for his namesake sake of their behavior, sustains a fundamental theme underlying the psalm: all requests are based on God’s mercy and not Israel’s behavior. The juxtaposition of vv.7 and 8 contrasts Israel’s sin and God’s mercy towards them. Numerous other devices employed by the psalmist, as we will see, similarly contrast these ideas. The present verse closely associates acts of deliverance performed by God with the declarations of such acts: God extricated them so his deeds would be proclaimed. Exodus echoes this notion on numerous occasions when it distinctly states that his acts of deliverance וְיָדְ 8֤ וּ מִצְרַ ֙ יִם֙ כִּֽ י־אֲנִ ֣י יְהוָ֔ ה בִּנְ טֹתִ֥ י אֶ ת־יָדִ ֖ י 8ַ ל־מִצְרָ ֑יִם וְ הוֹצֵ אתִ֥ י “ ,should lead to a knowledge of him

:Ex 7:5; s. also Ex 14:4). Verse 8 echoes v.2 which asks the question) ” אֶ ת־בְּנֵ ֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ ֖ ל מִ תּוֹכָ ֽ ם׃

“who can speak of his mighty acts?” Comparing the two verses suggests the community in which the psalmist stands earnestly seeks an act of deliverance. If God acts so his deeds may be proclaimed, v.8, and in v.2 the psalmist enquires “who can proclaim his mighty acts”, then it follows that none can proclaim them because none have experienced his acts of salvation.

22 Concerning Israelite rebellion in Egypt, however, another possibility presents itself in the form of an earlier tradition suggesting the Israelites may have participated in some form of idolatry, as Ezek 20:7-9 suggests. This option, however, seems less tenable because the point emphasized in v.7 is that immediately after God had manifested his wonders—in this instance the plagues—they failed to learn from them, and trust in him again to deliver them from the Egyptians. Allen (2002:71) raises this possibility, although Loewenstamm (1992a:26) further suggests that Ezekiel’s version consists of an exegetical adaptation of events and does not rely on a specific tradition. 23 RaDaK mentions the possibility that they were afraid to walk into the dry river bed once the sea had opened up; s. Cohen (2003:121).

Page <184> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

9 וַיִּג8ְַ ֣ר בְּ יַם־ס֭ וּף וַ ֽ יֶּחֱרָ ֑ ב וַ יּוֹלִ יכֵ ֥ם בַּ֜תְּ הֹמ֗ וֹת כַּמִּדְבָּ ֽ ר׃

He rebuked Yam Suf 24 and it dried up, then he led them through the deep like a desert

After the general description given in v.8 of God saving his people for the sake of his name, the psalm proceeds to present a more detailed description of events. As in the previous two verses, the waw consecutive in this verse functions as it would in biblical narrative by .in order to rescue his people ,” ויגער בים סוף “ ,progressing the plot. YHWH rebukes the sea

though often appearing in a human context with the meaning “rebuke” or “tell , גער The word off” 25 (s. Gen 37:10, and a more extreme case in Ps 9:6), introduces a potentially mythical element, alluding to an instance during Creation when God rebuked the primeval waters. 26 גּוֹ8ֵ ֤ר בַּ יָּם֙ וַ ֽ יַּבְּשֵׁ֔ הוּ וְכָ ל־הַ נְּהָר֖ וֹת “ ,Similar traditions echo in biblical passages such as Nah 1:4

portraying God’s power over Creation and its reaction to his wrath, and also Ps ,” הֶ ֽחֱרִ ֑ יב ...

104:7, which specifically recounts events in Creation. In Psalm 106, the same image of power and domination manifests itself in YHWH’s redemption of his people for his namesake. With

,” ... וַיַּמְר֖ וּ 8ַ ל־יָ ֣ם בְּ יַם־סֽ וּף׃ “ ,we are reminded of Israel’s rebellion in v.7 ,” ים סוף “ the repetition of which introduces a touch of irony: after they defy him at the sea, God rebukes the water and not the people who disobeyed. Such irony hints towards God’s compassion because it demonstrates an instance in which the Israelites fail to receive what they deserve. Of all the psalms containing quotes from the Exodus tradition, only Psalm 106 as a vivid portrayal of the sea drying up; thus creating an antithesis of החריב employs the verb the desert experience when God caused water to flow in arid places. Similar sentiments,

24 The term “Yam Suf” appears interchangeably with “Sea of Reeds” throughout the present study. 25 Concerning this, Hacham (1981:284) suggests the sea somehow refused to obey God’s command and needed rebuking; Briggs (1969:349) further asserts, “The sea is conceived as a servant, who had exceeded his authority and done what he ought not to have done…” (1969:349). He further suggests this particular word was omitted from the prose accounts of the Torah because of its mythological associations. for “deep”, which bears the obvious תהום Also adding to the mythological aspect is the appearance of 26 similarities to the name Tiamat, the water god defeated by Marduk in the Babylonian epic Enuma Elis. echoes the Ancient Near Eastern myths, but more importantly notes תהום Richardson (1987:104) rightly asserts the relationship between the two events, stating: “…the historical account of liberation was enlarged by incorporating into it elements of the Creation …” (for more on the mythological associations this word bears see Norin (1977:58-62). Concerning this verse, Loewenstamm (1992a:251) further mentions that the victory here was over the sea itself, and that such an understanding is reflected in Psalm 136:13-16. Additionally, were employed in an Israelite national epic recounting גער and תהום Cassuto (1973d:83, 89) remarks that both YHWH’s victory over the sea.

Page <185> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

Unlike the .(63:13) ” מוֹלִ יכָ ֖ם בַּתְּ הֹמ֑ וֹת כַּסּ֥ וּס בַּמִּדְבָּ ֖ ר לֹ֥ א יִכָּשֵׁ ֽ לוּ׃ “ ,however, are apparent in Isaiah

Exodus account in the Book of Exodus, Moses’ role diminishes here, and events at the Reed Sea become solely the work of YHWH—as an act of mercy towards his people. Moses’ reduced role accentuates the psalmist’s desire to highlight YHWH’s role. Later in the psalm, the psalmist recalls Moses’ involvement in other events. 27

10 וַ֭יּוֹשִׁ י 8ֵ ם מִ יַּ ֣ד שׂוֹנֵ ֑א וַ֜יִּגְאָלֵ֗ ם מִ יַּ ֥ד אוֹיֵ ֽב׃

And he saved them from the hand of the hater and he redeemed them from the hand of the enemy

Verse 10 continues enumerating events at the sea, detailing the deliverance from the s. v.8) reminds) ויושיעם Egyptians, as opposed to the sea in the previous verse. Repetition of the reader that the deed was performed according to his compassion, so his name might be proclaimed, and not on account of the Israelites’ obedience. In the context of this verse, both .refer to the Egyptians even though they are not explicitly mentioned by name אויב and שונא

Such an omission expands the possibility of God’s salvation: he can save from any enemy, not just the Egyptians, but those oppressing the psalmist’s contemporaneous generation. 28 The pure parallelism employed by the psalmist in v.8 repeats and accentuates the redemption from Egypt, which constitutes a pivotal act in the psalm.

11 וַיְכַ סּוּ־מַ ֥ יִם צָרֵ יהֶ ֑ ם אֶחָ ֥ ד מֵ֜הֶ֗ ם לֹ֣ א נוֹתָ ֽ ר׃

And water covered their oppressors, and not one of them remained

More than just saving his people from the hand of their enemy, YHWH administers the coup de grâce by destroying the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. Verse 11 echoes Ex 14:28, וַיָּשֻׁ ֣ בוּ הַמַּ֗ יִם וַיְכַסּ֤ וּ אֶ ת־הָרֶ ֙כֶב֙ וְאֶ ת־הַפָּ ֣רָשִׁ֔ ים לְ כֹל֙ חֵ ֣ יל “ ,which reports the same event in similar words

,Without expressly mentioning the Egyptians .” פַּרְ עֹ֔ ה הַבָּאִ֥ ים אַחֲרֵ יהֶ ֖ ם בַּיָּ ֑ם לֹֽ א־נִשְׁאַ ֥ ר בָּהֶ ֖ ם 8ַ ד־אֶחָ ֽ ד׃

27 All of this contrasts Cross (1973:135), who states, “…other psalms, most of them late, reflect precisely the prose tradition: Psalm 136:15; 66:6; 106:9”. 28 They appear again in vv.41-42.

Page <186> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

מים “ the psalmist alludes to them here through the lexically and phonologically similar form

constitutes a third ( זר ) Further linking vv.10-11, this same word 29. מצרים similar to ,” צריהם synonym for Egypt, even though it usually bears a more general meaning of “enemy” or The deliverance and destruction finds .( אויב adversary” (s. Esth 7:6, where it parallels“

stressing the threat of an Egyptian attack was ,” לא נותר “ ,completion in the verse’s final words not just partially removed but entirely eliminated.

12 וַיַּאֲמִ֥ ינוּ בִדְ בָרָ ֑ יו יָ֜שִׁ֗ ירוּ תְּהִלָּתֽ וֹ׃

Then they trusted in his promise and sang his praise

As a result of being saved from their enemies and witnessing his hand at work for them, the

alludes to דבריו ,Israelites correctly respond, in this instance, by believing him. In this verse the promise recorded in Ex 3:8, when God vows to intervene and deliver Israel and lead them As a .” וָאֵרֵ ֞ ד לְהַ צִּ יל֣ וֹ׀ מִ יַּ ֣ד מִצְרַ ֗ יִם וּֽלְהN֘ ֲ8ַתוֹ מִ ן־הָאָ ֣רֶ ץ הַהִ וא֒ אֶ ל־אֶ ֤רֶ ץ טוֹבָה֙ וּרְ חָ בָ֔ ה… “ ,to a spacious land

that , ויאמינו בדבריו ,result of God delivering the people from Egypt, they trusted in his promise he could and would bring them to a spacious land. The resulting action, singing his praises,

,(Ex 15:1) ” אָ ֣ ז יָשִֽׁ יר־מֹשֶׁ ה֩ וּבְנֵ֙ י יִשְׂרָ אֵ֜ ל אֶ ת־הַשִּׁ ירָ ֤ ה הַ זֹּאת֙ ... “ ,recalls the song of the sea , ישירו following the sequence of events in Exodus. Perhaps more importantly, the reference here to alludes back to v.2 where the ,( תהלתו ) singing YHWH’s praises, or magnificent works psalmist asks, “Who can tell of his magnificent deeds?” Consequently, v.12 creates at least a partial answer to this question by claiming “those who have seen his mighty acts can tell of them”. 30 As the last verse of the stanza, v.12, contains the last of any positive and encouraging traits ascribed to Israel; thus, the psalm praises them for seeing his deeds and responding in accordance with what they saw, even if it was only for a short while.

is employed, and also מצריו A similar play on this sound occurs in Psalm 105:24, where the similar sounding 29 . מצרים that once again recalls ” מנ י צר “ in Ps 78:42, which contains the phrase 30 See v.47 for the development of this idea.

Page <187> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

13 מִ֭הֲ רוּ שָׁ כְח֣ וּ מ8ֲַשָׂ ֑ יו לֹֽ א־חִ֜כּ֗ וּ ל8ֲַצָתֽ וֹ׃

They quickly forgot his deeds (however) and never waited for his instructions

Verse 13 marks the beginning of a new section; after believing for a brief time in God’s promises to them, Israel quickly forget what he did for them. From this point onwards the psalm adopts a negative tone in which the Israelites are unable to recover from a downward spiral of sin and rebellion. Within v.13, rather than quoting from a specific source, the author ” מהרו שכחו“ paraphrases and interprets events with his own words. The hendiadys 31 represents the time it took for the Israelites to rejoice at seeing God’s hand at the Sea, to their .(” לא זכרו “) creates a semantic link with v.7 שכחו ,first complaint at a time of need. Moreover

The idea of forgetfulness leading to disobedience appears first in v.7, and now in v.13 the psalmist provides a practical example.

also denotes “longing for” or ” חכו ל ... “ More than just implying “waiting” the phrase

המְחַכִּ ֣ ים לַמָּ ֣וֶ ת וְאֵ ינֶ ֑נּוּוַ ֽ֜יַּחְ פְּרֻ ֗ הוּ“ ,deeply desiring”. Such a sentiment is apparent from Job 3:21“

which does not just speak of one who waits for death, but longs for its coming. 32 ,” מִמַּטְ מוֹנִֽ ים׃

is open to a number of interpretations 33 since it is not עצה The psalmist’s choice of

he refers. In the immediate context it alludes to Israel’s עצה immediately clear to which grumbling for food, rather than waiting for God to guide and instruct them, implying they requested sustenance too soon, without waiting for YHWH to advise them. The Torah, גַּ ֽם־8ֵ֭ דֹתֶ יmay also be interpreted as law, “ B עצה however, never mentions such a sin. The word

Ps 119:24), which could thus be interpreted as a veiled reference to the) ” שַׁ 8ֲשֻׁ 8ָ֗ י אַ נְשֵׁ ֥ י 8ֲצָתִֽ י׃ lawgiving at Sinai when the Israelites did not wait for Moses to return with the law but quickly forgot about him and disobeyed him by forging a calf idol. Such an interpretation is סָ ֣ רוּ “ ,strengthened by the emphasis on the speed with which they sinned whilst at Mt. Sinai

.(Ex 32:8) ” מַהֵ֗ ר מִ ן־הַדֶּ֙ ֶ רF֙ אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר צִוִּ יתִ֔ ם 8ָשׂ֣ וּ לָהֶ֔ ם 8ֵ ֖גֶ ל מַסֵּכָ ֑ה...

31 See also 1Sam 25:42, Abigail quickly rises; and Ps 143:7, a call for God to answer quickly . . שכחו here creates an instance of assonance with חכו The selection of 32 33 For Keil and Delitzsch (1982:154) it refers to “the plan with respect to the time and manner of the help”; along similar lines Allen (2002:71) understands it as YHWH’s intention to provide Israel with material needs. Quoting Is 28:29, Hacham (1981:285) understands it as the next miraculous deed performed to solve a problem.

Page <188> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

14 וַיִּתְ אַ וּ֣ וּ תַ֭אֲ וָ ה בַּמִּדְבָּ ֑ר וַיְנַ סּוּ־אֵ֗ ל בִּֽ ישִׁ ימֽ וֹן׃

And they craved desires in the desert and tested El in the wasteland

Detailing how the people quickly forgot his deeds, the psalm now exemplifies a specific does not necessarily imply an evil desire, as in Psalm אוה incident. Even though the stem

132:14 for instance, it does here as the psalmist alludes to Num 11:4, referring to the mixed

וְהָ ֽ אסַפְסֻף֙ אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר בְּקִרְ בּ֔ וֹ הִתְ אַ וּ֖ וּ תַּאֲוָ֑ ה וַיָּשֻׁ ֣ בוּ וַיִּבְכּ֗ וּ גַּ֚ם בְּנֵ ֣י יִשְׂרָ אֵ֔ ל “ ,multitude 34 that desired flesh to eat

Numbers’ context evidently indicates a selfish and wanton desire .” וַ יֹּ֣ אמְר֔ וּ מִ֥ י יַאֲכִלֵ ֖נוּ בָּשָׂ ֽ ר׃ because the people’s complaint is not based on need; they had already been provided with manna (11:6) and now desired a wider variety of food. To further the contrast between the people’s rebellion in their wanton desire and God’s merciful treatment of them, the psalmist

which appeared in v.9 where it expressly states that YHWH led them , מדבר repeats the word through the deep as though it were a desert. 35 which the Pentateuch never uses with respect to the , נסה In employing the stem sending of quail, the psalmist recalls numerous other instances in the Penteteuch in which the Israelites tried and tested YHWH in the desert. One such instance occurred at the waters of also recalled in) ,” ... וַ יֹּ֤אמֶ ר לָהֶם֙ ֔ מֹשֶׁה מַ ה־תְּרִ יבוּן֙ 8ִמָּדִ֔ י מַ ה־תְּ נַסּ֖ וּן אֶ ת־יְהוָ ֽה׃ “ ,Meribah in Ex 17:2

Deut 6:16). Numbers 14:22 additionally recalls ten instances in which Israel tested God in the Overall, the image created by .” ... וַיְנַסּ֣ וּ אֹתִ֗ י זֶ֚ה 8ֶ ֣שֶׂ ר פּ8ְָמִ֔ ים וְ לֹ֥ א שָׁמ8ְ֖ וּ בְּ קוֹלִֽ י׃ “ ,wilderness recalling the word creates a negative picture of Israel’s relationship with God.

15 וַיִּתֵּ ֣ ן לָ֭הֶ ם שֶׁאֱלָתָ ֑ ם וַ יְשַׁלַּ ֖ח רָ ז֣וֹן בְּ נַפְשָׁ ֽ ם׃

So he gave them their desire, and sent wasting in their gullet

34 See note on Chapter One, in the allusions section, for more on this term. appears in Ps 107, and creates an interpretive link between the ישימון and מדבר Moreover, the parallel between 35 two; see section on juxtaposition.

Page <189> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

As a result of Israel’s wantonness in v.14, we are told in the first colon that YHWH grants s. 1Sam 1:27 and 1Ki 2:16). Though this exact word never appears) שאלה ,them their request in the Torah, with respect to the provision of quail in the desert, Ps 78 employs the verbal Ps 78:18, see also Ps) ” וַיְנַ סּוּ־אֵ ֥ ל בִּלְבָבָ ֑ ם לִֽ שְׁאָ ל־אֹ֥כֶ ל לְנַפְשָׁ ֽ ם׃ “ ,in a similar context לשאל form

105:40). Fundamentally, two possibilities exist for interpreting the second colon, and each

If understood positively, one could read the . רזון alternative hinges on the understanding of verse as an expression of YHWH’s mercy towards his people, understanding a theoretical root meaning “sated”. 36 In this instance, disregarding the lustful desires mentioned in the רוה previous verse, God still sated them, or provided for their wants; thus, he never gave them what they deserved, but acted in accordance with his mercy. This understanding ultimately complies with the psalm’s message, because the cry in v.47 implores YHWH not to act in accordance with the people’s behavior and what they deserve, but in accordance with his everlasting mercy. Alternatively, we can render the word negatively as “wasting” 37 in light of Such a .” לָ֠כֵ ן יְשַׁ לַּ֙ח הָאָד֜ וֹן יְהוָ ֧ה צְבָא֛ וֹת בְּמִשְׁמַנָּ ֖יו ָ רז֑וֹן וְתַ ֧חַ ת כְּ בֹד֛ וֹ יֵ קַ ֥ ד יְקֹ֖ ד כִּ יק֥ וֹד אֵ ֽ שׁ׃ “ ,Is 10:16 translation renders God’s response as one of judgment, whereby he does not meet their desire suggests “throat”, i.e. an eating organ, which נפש but increases it. 38 The specific mention of specifically associates the verse with Num 11:6, explicating that the previously unnamed desire was indeed food related. Numbers 11 harmonizes the two potential views mentioned above. On one hand, the people were provided with their desires and the Lord sent quail to satisfy their request for

Num 11:18). On the other hand, an element) ”…וְנָתַ֙ ן יְהוָ ֥ה לָכֶ ֛ם בָּשָׂ ֖ ר וַאֲכַלְתֶּ ֽ ם׃ “ ,dietary variation of judgment additionally presents itself in the proceedings as God punishes them through the

36 The Peshitta, Septuagint, and Vulgate, along with McCann (1996:1111) all interpret it this way; Briggs and Seybold (1996:421), both concur , מזון who claims a copyist error that should be corrected to ,(1969:350) with a positive assessment of YHWH’s actions here. Richardson (1987:195) also agrees with a positive context He understands the word with a positive . רזון for the verse, but does so with a negative interpretation of in light of Ugaritic. His final conclusion being that God drove out the ב connotation of “wasting”, and reads the .which is to say he removed their hunger ,( נפש ) leanness from their throat 37 Scholars such as Keil and Delitzsch (1982:154)—who argue that the ancient translations mentioned are wrong, and read that a wasting disease came upon them, quoting Num 11:33-35—and Kraus (1988b:319) support this negative slant to the verse. in light of Pr 14:28 as “ruin” renders a negative light on the proceedings, connoting רזון Similarly, interpreting 38 judgement upon the evil actions of the Israelites.

Page <190> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

Num) ” 8ַ ֣ד׀ חֹ֣דֶ שׁ יָמִ֗ ים 8ַ ֤ד אֲשֶׁ ר־יֵצֵא֙ מֵ ֽאַפְּכֶ֔ ם וְהָ יָ ֥ה לָכֶ ֖ם לְזָרָ ֑ א ... “ ,very means their desires are met

in the psalm via a similarity in רזון recalls the word לזרא In this instance, the form .(11:20 form. A negative reading of the verse complies with the psalm’s overall theme, and parallels later recorded incidents in which Israel’s sins are recorded along with God’s punitive response. Consequently, reading this verse as either a negative or positive statement contributes to the psalm’s message. 39 In addition to the dual meaning mentioned above, one

”will”, or “desire“ , רצון stemming from its similarity with , רזון can detect a wordplay with

Ps 143:10). Such a reading cynically hints that God ” לַמְּדֵ ֤נִ י׀ לַ 8ֲֽשׂ֣ וֹת רְ צוֹנBֶ֘ כִּֽ י־אַתָּ ֪ ה אֱל֫ וֹהָ ֥ י ... “) indeed gave them their desire.

16 וַ יְקַ נְא֣ וּ לְ֭מֹשֶׁ ה בַּ ֽמַּחֲ נֶ֑ ה לְ֜אַהֲ רֹ֗ ן קְד֣ וֹשׁ יְהוָ ֽה׃

Then they envied Moses in the camp, and Aaron YHWH’s holy one

Moving on from the sins of the entire congregation against God, v.16 begins retelling an instance involving the rebellion of a small group of individuals against those whom YHWH had placed in authority. For the psalmist, this act amounts to rebelling against God: in rebelling against divinely appointed leadership, they effectively defy YHWH. 40 The verse order in this account emphasizes those who were sinned against: only after Moses and Aaron are identified do we discover who the guilty individuals are. As with the other incidents recounted in the psalm, the people’s sin against God functions as the dominating topic of this section. Unlike any other Exodus psalm, only Ps 106 recalls this specific rebellion against Moses and Aaron. and the rebels envied Moses and , ויקנאו ,The specific sin mentioned in v.16 is jealousy

s. also Pr) ”…וַתְּקַ נֵּ ֥א רָחֵ ֖ ל בַּאֲ חֹתָ ֑ הּ… “ ,Aaron, as Rachel was envious of her sister in Gen 30:1

3:31). 41 The inclusion of Aaron as YHWH’s “holy one” increases the severity of the sin. Now

39 Here we see an example of deliberate ambiguity in the psalm; the psalmist selected a word, absent from his source, reflecting two meanings. See Raabe (1991) and Zakovitch (1999), who report on this and similar phenomena. 40 Cf. Samuel’s complaint that the people have rejected him, and God’s response (1Sam 8). usually appears in ל together with קנא Certain problems arise with the preposition in this verb because the root 41 a positive context, as in Joel 2:18, Ezek 39:25, and Zech 1:14. For this reason it may be wise to adopt the

Page <191> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 the crime is not just against Aaron, but is also partially against God since he set Aaron apart for a task. Psalm 105:26 (and 77:21) recognizes both Moses 42 and Aaron as leaders 43 of Israel,

is unique in historiographic psalms. Such a ” קדוש יהוה “ but the specific mention of Aaron as reference, however, can plausibly be construed as an influence from verses detailing the high priest’s vestments (s. Ex 28:36 and 39:30 44 ). A further reference to Aaron’s status as holy when YHWH singles ,(16:5) ”…בֹּ֠קֶ ר וְ יֹדַ֙ ע יְהוָ ֧ה אֶ ת־אֲשֶׁ ר־ל֛ וֹ וְאֶ ת־ הַקָּד֖ וֹשׁ... “ ,occurs in Numbers him out as the chosen priestly leader.

17 תִּ פְתַּ ח־אֶ֭ רֶ ץ וַתִּבְלַ ֣ע דָּתָ ֑ ן וַ֜תְּכַ֗ ס 8ַ ל־8ֲדַ ֥ ת אֲבִ ירָ ֽ ם׃

And the earth opened and swallowed Dathan, and covered the congregation of Abiram

After a shrouded reference in v.16, in which the offenders find concealment within the third- person plural “they envied”, v.17 now reveals the identity of those involved and portrays their fate. The verse names the culprits as “Dathan” and the “gathering of Abiram”, and reflects and further on ,(16:32) ” ... וַתִּ פְתַּ ֤ ח הָאָ֙רֶ ץ֙ אֶ ת־פִּ֔ יהָ וַתִּבְלַ ֥ע אֹתָ ֖ ם... “ Numbers 16, where we read

Both instances report the same uprising and .(16:33) ” ...וַ תְּ כַ ֤ס 8ֲלֵ יהֶם֙ הָאָ֔רֶ ץ וַ יֹּאבְד֖ וּ מִתּ֥ וֹF הַקָּהָ ֽ ל׃“ punitive action against a specific group of Israelites; however, the psalm stops short of implicating Korah, who finds inclusion among the list of perpetrators in Num 16:24. 45 Emphasis on the punishment appears in the use of verbs in this verse: the earth opened, and

,to provoke to anger; s. Deut 32:21) הכעיס or הקניא Septuagint’s reading of “ παρωργισαν ”, the equivalent of Jud 2:12, and Jer 8:19). 42 With the exception of Psalm 105, this is the only psalm that mentions Moses’ role in the Exodus. The only possible exception is Ps 77, which includes Moses and Aaron in the last verse (in all likelihood, Ps 77:21 represents a later addition; s. juxtaposition for Pss 77-78). 43 Concerning this appearance of both leaders, Cross (1973:197 n. 16) states, “In the J material in Numbers 20:1- 13, Aaron is not associated with Moses; only in Priestly sections does Aaron appear, and even here in a secondary role.” This observation implies a late date for the psalm because both leaders appear together, and Aaron’s role is not secondary. 44 Seybold (1996:423) and Briggs (1969:351) adopt such a stance. 45 Such an omission, on one hand, may simply reflect an abbreviation of people involved based upon space constraints for the verse; on the other hand, we may well be witnessing here an instance in which the psalmist refrains from including Korah as a mark of respect for his descendants who went on to establish a prominent guild of singers; s. Kraus (1988b:319), and Brooke (1989:278). Contrary to this opinion, however, is the possibility that the tradition in Numbers consists of more than one source. In one of these assumed traditions the main instigator of the rebellion was Korah, and in the other instance, Abiram and Dathan. Thus, at the time of writing the psalm, our psalmist only had the latter tradition available to him (of course such an idea counters any suggestion that the psalmist had a Torah similar to ours today (s. Norin [1977:121f.], though Liver [1961] rejects the sources to the tradition according to the Documentary Hypotheses, he nevertheless reads two sources in Numbers. I shall pursue the relationship between Numbers and Psalm 106 in the section on sources).

Page <192> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 swallowed, and covered over. No option for intercession arises for those guilty of this rebellion.

18 וַ ִ תּב8ְַ ר־אֵ ֥ שׁ בּ8ֲַדָתָ ֑ ם לֶ֜הָבָ֗ ה תְּ לַהֵ ֥ ט רְשׁ8ִָֽ ים׃

Then fire burned against their congregation and a flame burnt up the wicked

closes the section and highlights , תבער : אש :: להבה : תלהט ,An emphatic semantic chiasmus the continued judgment passed on those opposing divine leadership: fire burned against the

, להבה ,appears in Numbers, its associated word אש congregation. Though only the word

עדה frequently appears with it in poetic literature (s. Hos 7:6 and Joel 1:19). The repetition of from v.17 creates a degree of continuity with the previous verse and links this act of judgment In the second colon a flame burns . עדתם ,with the remaining followers of Dathan and Abiram

referring to the aforementioned congregation. The same word links , רשעים ,against the wicked

suggesting an appropriate punishment for ,” חָטָ ֥ אנוּ 8ִ ם־אֲ בוֹתֵ֗ ינוּ ה8ֱֶוִ֥ ינוּ הִרְשָׁ 8ְֽ נוּ׃ “ ,v.16 with v.6 the wicked. Thus, it is possible to interpret that those of the psalmist’s generation deserve to die for their wickedness. Verse 18 evidently recalls Num 16:35, which records the same וַיְהִ ֤ י ה8ָָם֙ כְּמִתְ אֹ֣ נְנִ֔ ים ַ ֖ רע בְּאָ זְנֵ ֣י יְהוָ ֑ה וַיִּשְׁמַ ֤ ע יְהוָה֙ וַיִּ ֣חַ ר “ ,incident, but additionally echoes Num 11:1-3

v.1), recording how fire from the Lord broke out against the) ” אַפּ֔ וֹ וַתִּ ב8ְַ ר־בָּם֙ אֵ ֣ שׁ יְהוָ֔ה...

Israelites for their complaining. The latter incident reflects the psalm’s context because it too includes: instances of rebellion, God’s judgment, and works of intercession by a prominent individual.

19 י8ֲַ שׂוּ־8ֵ֥ גֶ ל בְּ חֹרֵ ֑ ב וַ֜יִּשְׁתַּחֲ ו֗ וּ לְמַסֵּכָ ֽ ה׃

They made a calf at Horeb, and bowed down to a cast idol

With v.19 the psalm proceeds from Dathan’s rebellion and begins a new stanza recounting how the Israelites created an idol whilst at Mt. Horeb. 46 In placing the account here, the

46 This is the only mention of the event in the historical psalms, though Nehemiah quotes it in his confession (s. 9:18).

Page <193> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 psalmist reverses the ordering determined by Exodus and Numbers. 47 Just like the other here חרב excerpts employed by the psalmist, this one concentrates on Israelite sin. The letters

an ,” ויגער בים סוף ויחרב ... “ ,remind the reader of YHWH rebuking and drying up the sea in v.9 allusion which illuminates God’s acts of mercy and Israel’s sinful response: he dries up the sea to save them, and they create a cast idol at Horeb as a response. After forging the idol they סָ ֣ רוּ מַהֵ֗ ר מִ ן־הַדֶּ֙רֶ F֙ אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר צִוִּ יתִ֔ ם “ ,as they did in Ex 32:8 ,” וישתחוו למסכה “ ,proceed to worship it

48 .” 8ָשׂ֣ וּ לָהֶ֔ ם 8ֵ ֖גֶ ל מַסֵּכָ ֑ה וַיִּשְׁתַּ ֽחֲ ווּ־לוֹ֙ ...

20 ויָּמִ֥ ירוּ אֶ ת־כְּ בוֹדָ ֑ ם בְּתַ בְנִ֥ית שׁ֜ וֹר אֹכֵ ֥ל 8ֵ ֽשֶׂ ב׃

And they exchanged his glory for the image of a bull eating grass

The physical undertaking of creating and worshiping a calf idol in the previous verse here finds a spiritual interpretation. In the creation and worship of this idol, the Israelites effectively exchange the glory of God 49 for an idol, a repugnant representation of a calf. The should not be understood so much as exchanging the “glory” or ” וימירו את כבודם “ phrase

“honor” of God, but as Israel exchanging YHWH for another god, as understood from verses

in which the ,” הַהֵ ימִ֥ יר גּוֹי֙ אֱ Nהִ֔ ים וְהֵ ֖מָּ ה לֹ֣ א אֱ Nהִ ֑ ים ו8ְַמִּ ֛ י הֵמִ ֥ י ר כְּ בוֹד֖ וֹ בְּל֥ וֹא יוֹ8ִֽ יל׃ “ ,such as Jer 2:11 two equivalent phrases, both depicting an exchange of gods, have been juxtaposed. 50 The very doubly serves as a subtle reminder of v.7 describing , ימירו ,”form of the word “exchange

.at the Sea of Reeds , ימרו ,Israel’s rebellion

the psalmist recalls to the law prohibiting the fashioning of , תבנית By mentioning

פֶּ֙ ן־תַּשְׁחִת֔ וּן ו8ֲַשִׂ יתֶ ֥ ם לָכֶ ֛ם “ ,images. Deuteronomy 4:16-18 specifically warns against such acts

v.16)”. Rather than explicitly declaring the moral sin) פֶּ ֖סֶ ל תְּ מוּנַ ֣ת כָּ ל־סָ ֑מֶ ל תַּ בְנִ֥ ית זָכָ֖ ר א֥ וֹ נְקֵבָ ֽ ה׃ involved in transgressing the laws given at Horeb, the psalmist instead chooses to explain in

47 For a more complete examination of the changes in the order of events, see the section on sources. 48 At this stage, however, Deut 9:16 presents itself as a strong candidate. and should be understood as a tiqqun sopherim , in which , כבודו The mem should be read as waw here, reading 49 a scribe altered the text to preserve God’s honour; s. Terrien (2003:731) and Allen (2002:71f.), who follow the BHS; and Hacham (1981:287). s. BHS), the concept of a) כבודי> כבודו ,Even though there is probably another tiqqun sopherim in this verse 50 nation exchanging God for something worthless is still apparent.

Page <194> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 manifest terms the crime’s ludicrous nature. Israel was delivered by the mighty hand of an 51, שור ,unseen God, and in response they pay obeisance and worship the image of a beast eating grass. This is the only biblical witness for the two words appearing in parallel, and the word choice enhances the Israelites’ absurd act. Numerous medieval commentators 52 have already highlighted the disgusting appearance of cows as they masticate and regurgitate food. The aforementioned image creates a polarized picture of honor, portraying the high honor of God with the base dishonor of a man-made idol.

21 שָׁ֭ כְ חוּ אֵ ֣ ל מוֹשִׁ י8ָ ֑ם עֹשֶׂ ֖ ה גְ דֹל֣ וֹת בְּמִצְרָ ֽ יִם׃

They had forgotten El who saves them, who did great deeds in Egypt

The interpretation of the sin first mentioned in v.19 continues in v.21, in bowing down to the idol the Israelites had effectively forgotten the God who saves them. Numerous allusions appear in v.21 to earlier acts of God’s mercy to Israel, in addition to previous rebellious acts

repeated from v.14, reminds the reader of how the nation , אל against him. The proper noun

recalls a עשה and שכח Repetition of .” ... וַיְנַ סּוּ־אֵ֗ ֜ ל בִּֽ ישִׁ ימֽ וֹן׃ “ ,tested YHWH in the wasteland

The .” מִ֭הֲ רוּ שָׁ כְח֣ וּ מ8ֲַשָׂ ֑ יו ... “ ,similar instance in v.13 when Israel quickly forgot YHWH’s deeds present verse demonstrates that nothing has changed with respect to the Israelites’ attitude, and once again, they forget YHWH who accomplished mighty acts in Egypt. As already

recalls the differences between YHWH’s deeds and those of his עשה ,witnessed in v.19

further emphasizes , במצרים : לא זכר ו :: שכחו : במצרי ם ,people. A semantic chiasmus with v.7 the root of the problem: Israel’s forgetfulness of God’s works in Egypt. In mentioning the the psalm refers back to the time when God delivered ,” אל מושיעם “ ,God who saved them

Because Israel had forgotten .” וַ֭יּוֹשִׁ י8ֵ ם מִ יַּ ֣ד שׂוֹנֵ ֑אַ ... “ ,Israel from the hand of their haters in v. 10 this act of deliverance, they were led to commit idolatry with the calf idol.

to ( רשו =) Kraus (1988b:320) suggests this choice of word may relate to sources in Ugaritic literature linking ¾r 51 the god El, but this may simply be the author’s choice for a suitable B-word, or an original reading of the psalmist’s source. 52 See for example Rashi and RaDaK (Cohen [2003:122f.]).

Page <195> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

22 נִ֭פְלָ אוֹת בְּאֶ ֣רֶ ץ חָ ֑ ם נ֜ וֹרָ א֗ וֹת 8ַ ל־יַם־סֽ וּף׃

Amazing deeds in the land of Ham, fearful works at Yam Suf

Verse 22 continues the tri-cola beginning in v.21 b recalling YHWH’s accomplishments at the Each of the 53 .” נוראות על ים סוף “ and ,” נפלאות בארץ חם “ ,” גדלות במצרים “ :Reed Sea aforementioned parallel cola depicts a deed performed and the location in which it occurred. God’s deliverance of Israel should have constituted an act they were to recall continually and behave in accordance with their recollection of it. Instead, they forgot his accomplishments,

here refers נפלאות which ultimately led to their disobedience and rebellion. The appearance of back to v.7, which recalls the mighty acts God performed whilst in Egypt. Just as his deeds for the people then should have been enough to prevent them from rebelling against him at the sea, v.7, so too a memory of his acts now should have discouraged them from forging a calf

וַיַּ֙רְ א יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ ל אֶ ת־הַ יָּ ֣ד הַגְּ דֹלָ֗ ה אֲ ֶ֙ שׁר 8ָשָׂ ֤ ה יְהוָה֙ בְּמִצְרַ ֔ יִם וַיִּֽירְ א֥ וּ ה8ָָ ֖ם “ ,idol. The sentiment of Ex 14:31

is reflected in vv.21, 22, which possesses both lexical and ,” אֶ ת־יְהוָ ֑ה וַיַּ ֽאֲמִ֙ ינוּ֙ בַּ ֽ יהוָ֔ ה וּבְ מֹשֶׁ ֖ ה 8ַבְדּֽ וֹ׃ contextual congruency, but the people’s response in Exodus represents the desired response only ever ” בארץ חם “ that should have been emulated in this section of the psalm. The phrase occurs in the neighboring Psalm 105, where it similarly epitomizes Egypt. 54 With respect to this phrase, another possible point of influence stems from the historiographic Psalm 78, ” וַיַּ ֣ F כָּ ל־בְּכ֣ וֹר בְּמִ צְרָ ֑יִ ם רֵ אשִׁ֥ ית א֜ וֹנִ֗ ים בְּאָהֳ לֵ י־חָ ֽ ם׃ “ ,”recalling the expression “the tents of Ham

(78:51). Ultimately, the phrase alludes to the designation of Egypt as the land of Ham in the table of nations, Gen 10:6, in addition to Ham himself, Noah’s son. 55

23 וַ יֹּ֗ אמֶ ר לְֽהַשְׁמִ֫ ידָ ֥ ם לוּלֵ֡ י מֹ֨שֶׁ ֤ ה בְחִ יר֗ וֹ 8ָמַ ֣ ד בַּפֶּ֣ רֶ ץ לְפָנָ ֑יו לְהָשִׁ֥ יב חֲ֜מָת֗ וֹ מֵ ֽהַשְׁחִֽ ית׃

He intended to destroy them were it not for Moses his chosen one, who stood in the gap before him to return his destroying anger

and the language of miracles; s. Yaron (1997:26-34) and Zakovitch גדולות , נוראות , נפלאות For more on 53 (1997:11-18). 54 This placement of the otherwise unique phrase in juxtaposed psalms either implies one author had access to the other’s work, or an arranger was influenced by the common phrase in juxtaposing the psalms. For more on this observation, see section on juxtaposition. in the following חמתו See close reading for Ps 78:51; selection of this rare phrase creates a wordplay with 55 verse (s. Hacham [1981:134]).

Page <196> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

Verse 23 develops the plot from the preceding verse, after Israel forged the molten-calf idol, YHWH intended to destroy them, and would have done so were it not for the intervention of Moses. After the people have transgressed, the psalm narrates God’s response—conspicuous is best אמר in the verse’s unusual length, as with v.7 depicting the rebellion. The verb rendered “consider” or “intend”, rather than simply “to say”; in the same way David’s men

’Moses .” וַ ֵ֙ תּצֶ ר לְדָ וִ֜ ד מְ אֹ֗ ד כִּֽ י־אָמְר֤ וּ ה8ָָם֙ לְסָקְל֔ ו ... “ ,considered him in 1Sam 30:6 description as God’s chosen one—only found here in biblical literature—corresponds ,in v.16. Moreover, it sheds light on v.5 קדש יהוה somewhat with the portrayal of Aaron as

After . בחיריך ,where the psalmist desires to see the goodness of the Lord’s chosen ones reading v.23, one can assume the chosen ones alluded to in v.5 are those with such an influential relationship with YHWH, such as Moses, that they could alter his action. Events in this verse allude to the narrative of Exodus 32:11-14 when Moses עמד “ successfully interceded for Israel. 56 At no point, however, in Exodus does the phrase

appear. Literally it means “to stand in the gap”, but here it adopts a metaphorical ” בפרץ meaning, referring to one who breaches the gap between man and God, thus averting a וָאֲבַקֵּ ֣ שׁ מֵהֶ֡ ם אִ ֣ ישׁ גֹּֽדֵ ר־גָּדֵ ר֩ “ ,catastrophe. God similarly sought such an individual in Ezek 22:30

and the psalmist’s selection of vocabulary suggests he was ,” וְ עֹמֵ֙ ד בַּפֶּ ֧רֶ ץ לְפָנַ ֛י בּ8ְַ ֥ ד הָאָ ֖רֶ ץ... influenced by Ezekiel’s words since these are the only two places in biblical literature where the expression occurs with this meaning. As with vv.20-22, the psalmist does not content himself with simply recounting history, or Israelite historiography, but continues to interpret them theologically. signifies intent, “in order , להשיב , The infinitive construct form together with the lamed

itself commonly expresses punitive מהשחית to return his destructive anger”. 57 The word

... וְ לֹ֤ א יִתֵּן֙ הַמַּשְׁחִ֔ ית לָ בֹ֥ א “ ,measures taken by God with respect to judgment. In Ex 12:23

it signifies the destroyer, the angel of the Lord coming to destroy the ,” אֶ ל־בָּתֵּ יכֶ ֖ם לִנְ גֹּֽ ף׃ firstborn of Egypt; a punitive action for their rebellious behavior in enslaving his people.

56 Another strong candidate, however, is Deut 9. 57 See JM §124 l.

Page <197> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

Similarly it appears in Gen 6:13 depicting the flood against mankind induced by the intolerable sins multiplied on the earth (s. also Gen 18:28 and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah). Unlike the first colon, recounting God’s plan to destroy Israel as recorded in ... וַיִּשְׁמַ֙ ע יְהוָ֜ ה אֵ לַ֔ י גַּ֚ם “ ,Exodus 32-34, the second one bears more similarities with Deut 10:10

.a verse sharing the same context and vocabulary ;” בַּפַּ 8ַ֣ ם הַהִ֔ וא לֹא־אָבָ ֥ ה יְהוָ ֖ה הַשְׁחִ יתֶ ֽ B׃

Contrasting the previous stanza, this one does not end in disaster, but the aversion of a catastrophe, thus exemplifying YHWH’s great mercy originally mentioned in the opening verse.

24 וַ֭יִּמְאֲ סוּ בְּאֶ ֣רֶ ץ חֶמְדָּ ֑ ה לֹֽ א־הֶ֜אֱמִ֗ ינוּ לִדְ בָרֽ וֹ׃

Then they refused the desirable land and never trusted his promise

From the creation of a cast idol, the theme of disobedience continues, and the psalm now recounts Israel’s behavior when they were first presented with the land God had promised to signifies the people’s refusal to enter the land and recalls ימאסו their forefathers. The word

,” ...וְהֵבֵ יאתִ ֣ י אֹתָ֔ ם וְיָ ֽ דְ עוּ֙ אֶ ת־הָאָ֔רֶ ץ אֲשֶׁ ֥ ר מְאַסְתֶּ ֖ ם בָּ ֽ הּ׃ “ ,passages in the Torah such as Num 14:31 but in this refusal, they are effectively despising (s. Pr 3:11 and Job 42:6 for this emphasis of

but ,” ארץ חמדה“ the gift offered by God. Nowhere in the Torah is Canaan described as ( מאס it is nonetheless an apt phrase reflecting the essence of the expression “flowing with milk and חמד ” (s. for example Ex 3:8 and Num 14:8). Only in the prophets does the adjective

Zech 7:14; s. also Jer) ” ... וַיָּשִׂ֥ ימוּ אֶ ֽרֶ ץ־חֶמְדָּ ֖ ה לְשַׁמָּ ֽ ה׃ “ ,portray the land God intended for Israel

3:19). Israel’s rejection of a desirable land highlights the heinous nature of their action. It was a desirable gift offered on the basis of kindness and undeserved favor, which was rejected. The people’s failure to respond correctly to YHWH’s saving acts at the Reed Sea is believing his promise”). The generation“) ” האמינו לדברו “ brought to light by the repetition of delivered from Egypt trusted in his word/promise, v.12, and as a result sang his praise. Starkly contrasting this behavior, they now fail to trust in his word and reject his offer. The exact is somewhat equivocal since it may refer to God’s general promise of דברו interpretation of

Page <198> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 land, 58 or, more likely, God’s promise to go before them in battle against the land’s וּבַדָּבָ ֖ ר הַזֶּ ֑ה אֵ ֽ ינְכֶם֙ מַאֲמִ ינִ֔ ם “ ,inhabitants. The latter notion recalls the words spoken in Deut 1:32

.reflecting the same situation ,” בַּ יהוָ ֖ה אֱ Nהֵ יכֶ ֽם׃

25 וַיֵּרָ גְנ֥ וּ בְאָהֳ לֵ יהֶ ֑ ם לֹ֥ א שָׁ֜מְע֗ וּ בְּק֣ וֹ ל יְהוָ ֽה׃

And they murmured in their tents (and) never obeyed the voice of YHWH

The narrative continues in v.25 enumerating the Israelites’ murmurings and complaints, with which contains the ,” וַתֵּרָ גְנ֤ וּ בְאָהֳ לֵ יכֶם֙ וַ תֹּ֣ אמְר֔ וּ בְּשִׂ נְאַ ֤ ת יְהוָה֙ אֹתָ֔ נוּ... “ ,words similar to Deut 1:27

.in the Torah and reflects the same situation found in the psalm רגן only other occurrence of

:to illuminate negative Israelite behavior; they לא Throughout the psalm, the psalmist employs never remembered (v.7), never waited (v.13), never trusted (v.24), and now they never s. for) ” שמע בקול יהוה “ hearkened to his voice. Deuteronomy is particularly fond of the phrase example 13:19, 21:18, 26:14, and 27:10), where it frequently stresses more than just the physical aspect of hearing what God says, but obeying his orders. First Samuel 12:15

”where “not listening ,” וְאִ ם־לֹ֤ א תִשְׁמְ עוּ֙ בְּק֣ וֹל יְהוָ֔ ה וּמְרִ יתֶ ֖ ם אֶ ת־פִּ ֣ י יְהוָ ֑ה ... “ ,exemplifies this usage to his voice equates to rebellion. Thus, when the psalmist states that Israel did not obey God’s voice, he emphasizes they defied YHWH and refused to conquer the land. The chiastic creates a nexus with v.2 suggesting only those who שמעו : יהוה :: יהוה : ישמיע relationship obey the Lord can declare his praise; or more specifically, because Israel did not hearken to his voice, they were not in a position to declare his praises.

26 וַיִּשָּׂ ֣ א יָד֣ וֹ לָהֶ ֑ ם לְהַפִּ֥ יל א֜ וֹתָ֗ ם בַּמִּדְבָּ ֽ ר׃

So he swore concerning them, to kill them in the desert

As in the previous stanza, v.26 reports how God intended to judge Israel’s defiance, he

,” נשא יד “ planned to destroy them. The extent of God’s intent is expressed by the phrase

58 Kroll (1987:312) maintains this opinion, relating it to the promise of land made to Abraham in Gen 15:18-21 and repeated in Ex 23:31 to the people.

Page <199> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 which literally means “to raise the hand (in oath)”, namely, to be firmly resolved to act in a specific way. In the same way God resolved to bestow Canaan to Abraham’s descendants in

he now resolves to ,” וְהֵבֵ אתִ ֤ י אֶתְ כֶם֙ אֶ ל־הָאָ֔רֶ ץ אֲשֶׁ ֤ ר נָשָׂ֙ אתִ י֙ אֶ ת־יָדִ֔ י לָתֵ ֣ ת אֹתָ֔ הּ לְאַבְרָהָ ֥ ם… “ ,Ex 6:8

here implies “to kill”, as להפיל judge those who have refused the desirable land. The word

.depicting the results of a war (s ,”…וַיִּפֹּל֙ מִ יִּשְׂרָ אֵ֔ ל שְׁ Nשִׁ֥ ים אֶ ֖לֶ ף רַ גְלִֽ י׃ “ ,witnessed in 1Sam 4:10 also 2Sam 1:4 and 1Ki 22:20). Thus, the judgment he intended for them was death, to kill them in the desert.

27 וּלְהַפִּ ֣ יל זַ֭רְ 8ָ ם בַּ גּוֹיִ ֑ם וּ֜לְ זָרוֹתָ֗ ם בָּאֲרָ צֽ וֹת׃

And to scatter 59 their seed among the nations and to disperse them among foreign lands

The final verse in the stanza develops the portrayal of punishment that began in v.26; the bodies of those who refused the desirable land will be scattered among the nations, and their seed will be dispersed among the nations. Spanning vv.26-27, the three infinitive constructs demonstrate this continuity of thought. The parallelism at the end of this stanza accentuates the punishment, dwelling on, and repeating God’s punitive action: dispersal among the nations. Unlike the previous verse, bearing a strong resemblance to the Numbers’ tradition, גַּ ם־אֲ נִ֗ י נָשָׂ ֧ אתִ י אֶת ־יָדִ ֛ י לָהֶ ֖ ם בַּמִּדְבָּ ֑ ר לְהָפִ ֤ יץ אֹתָם֙ “ ,this one resonates more closely with Ezek 20:23

For the psalmist, this association links the condemnation of the .” בַּ גּוֹיִ֔ם וּלְזָר֥ וֹת אוֹתָ ֖ ם בָּאֲרָ צֽ וֹת׃ desert generation with that of the psalmist’s generation, and reveals an instance of YHWH’s mercy. For their defiance, the desert generation were killed and buried in the desert; they had no chance of seeing the land God promised their forefathers. On the other hand, though the psalmist’s generation had also defied YHWH, they were not treated as severely as their forefathers, and still have the opportunity to repent and receive God’s mercy. The interpretation of the desert generation’s punishment here flies in the face of that recorded in

I have opted to harmonise this word with Ezekiel 20:23; others , להפיץ and להפיל Due to the similarity between 59 such as Allen (2002:65), Kraus (1988b:315), Richardson (1987:197), and Duhm (1920:248) concur with the textual adjustment, which is also reflected in the Peshitta. Though one can see how a copyist may have been in v.27 would להפיל in the previous verse, a second reading of להפיל mistakenly influenced by the reading of create a degree of continuity linking the punishment of the desert generation with that of the psalmist. The association between the Exile and the dispersion of bodies in the desert led Hacham (1981:288) to suggest the Exile was decreed together with the punishment of the forefathers, but it was not made specific so as not to discourage the people at that time.

Page <200> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 the Torah. In Numbers, the punishment is specifically aimed at one generation, those who refused the land; the following generation was thus allowed to enter into Canaan.

28 וַיִּצָּ֣ מְ דוּ לְבַ 8ַ֣ ל פּ8ְ֑ וֹר וַ֜ יֹּאכְל֗ וּ זִבְחֵ ֥ י מֵתִֽ ים׃

Then they joined themselves to Baal Peor and consumed the sacrifices of the dead

Verse 28 opens a new section describing Israel’s idolatry, adding more variation to the ways in which they had defied him: lustful desires (vv.13-15), refusing divine leadership (vv.16- 18), worshipping the calf idol (19-23), refusing the desirable land (vv.24-27), and now s. 2Sam) יצמדו worship of foreign gods. In this verse Israel is indicted for joining themselves

וַיִּצָּ ֥מֶ ד יִשְׂרָאֵ ֖ ל לְבַ 8ַ֣ ל פּ8ְ֑ וֹר וַיִּֽחַ ר־אַ ֥ ף יְהוָ ֖ה “ ,and Ps 50:19) to Baal Peor as in Num 25:3 20:8

וַתִּקְרֶ ֣ אןָ ל8ָָ֔ ם “ ,The second colon has apparently received influence from Num 25:2 .” בְּ יִשְׂרָאֵ ֽ ל׃

זבחי “ which bears similar vocabulary. The use of ,” לְזִבְחֵ ֖ י אֱ Nהֵ יהֶ ֑ ן וַ יֹּ֣אכַ ל ה8ָָ֔ ם וַיִּֽשְׁתַּחֲ וּ֖ וּ לֵ ֽאNהֵ יהֶ ֽ ן׃

.may simply be understood as a metaphor describing a deeply detestable act ” מתים

Additionally, however, it suggests the gods worshipped were mere idols with no signs of physical life (s. Ps 135:15-17), that is to say dead; 60 and just as Israel worshipped an זבחי “ ,inanimate idol in v.20, they now sacrifice to dead inanimate gods. 61 The same phrase

כִּ ֣ י מִ ֣ י כָ ל־בָּשָׂ֡ ר אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר שָׁמַ ֣ ע “ ,forms a wordplay between a living God, as seen in Deut 5:26 ,” מתים

and dead idols/gods. This wordplay becomes more ,” קוֹל֩ אֱ ֙ Nהִים חַ יִּ֜ ים מְדַבֵּ ֧ר מִ תּוֹF־הָאֵ ֛ שׁ כָּ מֹ֖ נוּ וַיֶּ ֽחִ י׃

... בְּתַ בְנִ֥ית “ linking this verse with v.20 , אכל pronounced in light of the association created with

In both instances the Israelites are exchanging something of worth and value .” שׁ֜ ֗ וֹר אֹכֵ ֥ל 8ֵ ֽשֶׂ ב׃ with something worthless.

60 Similar versions of this conclusion are mentioned by both medieval scholars—such as Ibn Ezra (s. Cohen [2003:122])—and modern, such as Allen (2002:72), who further associates the verse with the declaration in Deut 26:14 in which those who offer sacrifices must declare they have not offered them to the dead. Keil and Delitzsch (1982:136) state, “The sacrificial feastings in which, according to Num. XXV. 2, they took part, are called eating the sacrifices of the dead because the idols are dead beings”. Similarly Hacham (1981:289) asserts the sacrifices were made to gods who were themselves dead; s. also Kraus (1988b:320) and Kroll (1987:313). 61 Richardson (1987:198) relates the “sacrifices of the dead” to funerary practices centring on communal meals at burial sites. A potentially ironic way of understanding the phrase is to relate it to the punishment of those who practiced such sacrifices. Because those who offered these sacrifices were subsequently killed, it is possible to interpret the act as sacrifices leading to death, hence sacrifices of the dead.

Page <201> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

29 וַ֭יַּכ8ְִ יסוּ בְּמַ 8ַֽלְלֵ יהֶ ֑ ם וַתִּ פְרָ ץ־בָּ֗ ם מַ גֵּפָ ֽ ה׃

And they angered (him) with their deeds, and a plague broke out among them

As with other instances in biblical literature, Israel’s idolatry stirs YHWH’s anger, a result .(s. also Jud 2:12 and 2Ki 17:17) ” יַקְ נִאֻ ֖ הוּ בְּ זָרִ ֑ ים בְּ תוֹ8ֵ בֹ֖ ת יַכ8ְִ יסֻ ֽ הוּ׃ “ ,witnessed by Deut 32:16

Numerous words for “deeds”, “works”, or “actions” appear in the psalm; here we see

which contrasts God’s merciful acts in v.13. Verse 29 not only describes the anger , מעלליהם caused by the act, but continues to elaborate upon the punishment, an outbreak of plague. Interestingly enough, however, the psalmist fails to associate explicitly the plague’s outbreak with YHWH’s punitive action: he does not explicitly say YHWH sent the plague. Such an association is strictly implied through the juxtaposition of the cola. The psalmist’s decision to phrase the matter in this way reflects an anomaly in Numbers 25, which only states that the

only ever , מגפה ,plague was stayed without a word concerning its origin. The word for plague appears in the context of judgment in the Bible. Exodus 9:14 recalls the plagues wrought and 2Sam 24 recounts the ;” כִּ ֣ י׀ בַּפַּ 8ַ֣ ם הַ ֹ֗ זּאת אֲ נִ֙ י שֹׁלֵ֜\ַ אֶ ת־כָּ ל־מַ גֵּ פֹתַ י֙ אֶ ֽ ל־לִבּagainst Egypt, “ ... ֔Bְ plague sent against Israel due to the census arranged by David (s. also 1Sam 6:4 and Zech 14:12).

30 וַיּ8ֲַ מֹ֣ ד פִּ֭ ינְחָ ס וַיְפַלֵּ ֑ל וַ֜תֵּ 8ָצַ֗ ר הַמַּ גֵּפָ ֽ ה׃

But Phinehas arose and interceded, and the plague was stopped

As with the fifth stanza, the seventh recounts an instance of human intervention diverting directly links this stanza with the fifth stanza, specifically יעמד divine punishment. The verb

which depicts Moses standing in the ,” וַ יֹּ֗ אמֶ ר לְֽהַשְׁמִ֫ ידָ ֥ ם לוּלֵ֡ י מֹ֨שֶׁ ֤ ה בְחִ יר֗ וֹ 8ָמַ ֣ ד בַּפֶּ ֣רֶ ץ לְפָנָ ֑יו ... “ ,v.23 gap to return God’s anger. This time, however, it is not Moses, but Phinehas who rises up to וַיַּ֗רְ א פִּֽ ינְחָס֙ בֶּ ן־אֶ ל8ְָ זָ֔ ר “ ,avert YHWH’s destructive anger. The verse is reminiscent of Num 25:7

though , יפלל in v.30. The verb עמד equates 62 to קום where ,” בֶּ ֽ ן־אַהֲ רֹ֖ ן הַ כֹּהֵ ֑ ן וַיָּ֙קָם֙ מִתּ֣ וֹF הָ ֽ 8ֵדָ֔ ה ...

62 This correspondence between the two words reflects the diachronic change between SBH and LBH. We shall return to the issue in the section on dating; s. Hurvitz (1972:173).

Page <202> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 absent from Numbers, should be viewed as the psalmist’s interpretation of events that transpired. According to the psalm’s context, we should interpret this word as “intercede”, i.e., to represent the people before God pleading for mercy. 63 Interpreting the word in this manner best describes Phinehas’ actions since he stood on the people’s behalf to avert God’s אִ ם־יֶחֱטָ֙ א אִ ֤ ישׁ לְאִ ישׁ֙ וּפִֽלְל֣ וֹ “ ,anger. This interpretation additionally resonates with 1Sam 2:25

here Eli explains to his sons that God can intercede ;” אֱ Nהִ֔ ים וְאִ ֤ ם לַ ֽ יהוָה֙ יֶ ֽחֱטָ א־אִ֔ ישׁ מִ ֖ י יִתְ פַּלֶּ ל־ל֑ וֹ ... when a man sins against another man, but if a man sins against God then nobody remains to intercede . Similarly, the word here represents the actions one who stands to avert judgment. 64 Just as this plague begins without a clear indication that God had initiated it, so too the disguising the subject, obscures the direct notion that , וַ֜תֵּ 8ָצַ ר psalmist’s choice of a nifal verb

God ultimately stoped the plague, and leaves the reader with the impression Phinehas alone stopped it. Up to this point, God apparently adopts a secondary role, and Phinehas finds himself functioning as the protagonist.

31 וַתֵּחָ ֣שֶׁ ב ל֭וֹ לִצְדָ קָ ֑ ה לְ דֹ֥ ר וָ֜ דֹ֗ ר 8ַ ד־עוֹלָ ֽ ם׃

And it was considered to him as righteousness from generation to generation forever

Unlike the other verses in the psalm’s main body, the closing verse of the present stanza does not recount Israel’s sin, or their punishment, or an act of intercession. Instead, the psalmist relates to the reward ascribed to Phinehas, the one who averted YHWH’s anger in the previous verse. Such treatment, somewhat surprisingly, is not ascribed to any other individual in the psalm. Verse 31 focuses on Num 25:12, when God rewards Phinehas for his zeal—he לָכֵ ֖ן “ ,speared two individuals whilst they committed a lewd act in the Tabernacle’s vicinity

Numbers ; צדקה Noticeably absent from Numbers is the word .” אֱ מֹ֑ ר הִ נְנִ֙ י נֹתֵ ֥ ן ל֛ וֹ אֶ ת־בְּרִ יתִ ֖ י שָׁ לֽ וֹם׃

63 For this meaning, s. BDB 813, and more recently Janowski (1983:170). 64 My translation here is not accepted by all, and numerous commentators—such as Ibn Ezra, who reads it according to Job 31:28 (Cohen [2003:125]), and also RaDaK (Cohen [2003:123]), who reads according to Ex 21:22—and translations (JPS and KJV) have chosen to interpret the word as “judge”. The meaning of carries פלל intercede” is supported and ratified by Speiser (1963). In his article, he demonstrates that the root“ the basic sense of “to judge”, with the meaning “to assess”, or “to estimate”. Further, however, he asserts that the piel of this stem often takes the meaning “to mediate”, and quotes Psalm 106 as an example. Janowski (1983) similarly refutes a meaning of “to judge”, supporting the sense of “intercession”. Hoffman (1999:135) rightfully suggests that the word can be interpreted as “pray”, in line with Gen 48:11. Such a rendering in the psalm’s context demonstrates that the prayers of a single righteous individual can avert an impending catastrophe for the nation.

Page <203> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 simply states that God made a “covenant of peace” with Phinehas, and that his descendants would receive an everlasting priesthood (Num 25:13). In order to find a rationale for the

.we can turn to at least two, non-mutually exclusive, solutions צדקה author’s selection of

First, selection of this specific word creates an internal association with v.3, in which the In .(” עשה צדקה “) ”psalmist declares, “Blessed is the man who does righteous works associating the two verses, the psalmist exemplifies in v.31 an abstract statement in v.3,

Such a lesson encourages . אשרי ,proving that the man who does righteousness is blessed individuals, even among a sinful people, to perform acts of righteousness, because men such the second solution is that the , צדקה as these are rewarded. With respect to the selection of psalm alludes to Gen 15, the only other location in biblical literature in which the phrase occurs. Concerning Abraham’s willingness to obey God by following his ” חשב… לצדקה“

,” וְהֶאֱמִ ֖ ן בַּ ֽ יהוָ ֑ה וַיַּחְשְׁבֶ ֥הָ לּ֖ וֹ צְדָ קָ ֽ ה׃ “ :command to relocate to a foreign land, we see the words

(Gen 15:6). In reusing this phrase, applying it to Phinehas, the psalmist elevates his status, and the importance of his work in intercession is likened to Abraham’s faith in obeying God’s command.

32 וַ֭יַּקְצִ יפוּ 8ַ ל־מֵ ֥ י מְרִ יבָ ֑ ה וַיֵּ ֥ רַ ע לְ֜ מֹשֶׁ֗ ה בּ8ֲַ בוּרָ ֽ ם׃

Then they angered (YHWH) at the waters of Meribah and it was bad for Moses on account of them

The eighth stanza opens with the psalmist reciting events at the waters of Meribah. Though to provoke”, “to anger” (s. Ps 38:2), is not explicitly stated, we can, on“ , יקציפו the object of one hand, assume YHWH is intended from the context, since the psalm previously recounted instances in which the Israelites provoked him to wrath (s. v.29 for example); moreover, whenever the Torah employs the hifil of this verb God always forms the object, as in Deut s. also Deut 9:7, 8). On the) ” וּבְתַ ב8ְֵרָה֙ וּבְמַסָּ֔ ה וּבְקִבְ רֹ֖ ת הַ ֽתַּאֲוָ ֑ה מַקְצִפִ ֥ ים הֱ יִיתֶ ֖ ם אֶ ת־יְהוָ ֽה׃ “ ,9:22 other hand, it is possible to read Moses as the direct object; the Israelites provoke him, and as a result it went bad for him. It should be noted here that whenever the verb appears in Deuteronomy the direct object has been included, whereas the psalmist fails to identify it here, introducing a level of ambiguity.

Page <204> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

the psalm associates this event with the 65” מי מריבה “ By employing the phrase crossing of the sea, especially v.11 in which God delivers Israel from their enemies by The link between the two sections once .” ויכסו מים צריהם “ ,causing the water to cover them again contrasts Israel’s disobedience with YHWH’s faithfulness. Almost as if to protect Moses, the psalmist (according to the second reading) places the weight of culpability on Israel: because they angered Moses, he was forced to sin. 66 The attempted preservation of Moses’ reputation here conforms to the psalm’s general tenor, which previously elevated the status of individuals who have interceded for Israel, as in v.23.

33 כִּֽ י־הִמְר֥ וּ אֶ ת־רוּח֑ וֹ וַ֜יְבַטֵּ֗ א בִּשְׂ פָתָ ֽ יו׃

Because they embittered his spirit, he spoke rashly with his lips

Continuing with the incident at Meribah, v.33 partially explicates Moses’ sin, 67 but only after can be read המרו .further emphasis falls on the people for causing him to behave as he did here in at least two different ways, each contributing to the psalm’s meaning. First, it can meaning “to rebellion against”, suggesting Israel rebelled ,( הִמְ ר וּ) מרה represent the hifil of against Moses causing him to sin. This is reminiscent of Moses words to Israel in Num 20:10,

Additionally we can re-point this word to .” ... שִׁמְ עוּ־נָא֙ הַ מֹּרִ ֔ ים הֲמִ ן־הַסֶּ ֣לַ ע הַ זֶּ֔ ה נוֹצִ֥ יא לָכֶ ֖ם מָ ֽ יִם“

’to embitter”, 68 with Moses as the object, suggesting Israel embittered Moses“ , הֵמֵ רוּ read spirit, which is to say made him angry, causing him to speak rashly. 69 According to the psalmist, Moses’ transgression at Meribah was to speak rashly, or carelessly with his lips, and just like the Torah account, no explicit details are provided explaining the precise nature of

65 This section recalls another instance in which the psalm reflects an order different to the Torah. I will investigate such instances further in the section on allusions. 66 Concerning this subtle shift in blame, Briggs (1969:352) writes, “The author thinks that Moses had to suffer not so much on account of what he had done, as for his association with guilty Israel”. 67 Here I must note two significant differences that will be addressed in the following sections. First, only “the waters of Meribah” is mentioned and not , as in Ex 17:7; second, only Moses is mentioned here, but both מי “ he and Aaron incur the penalty of being denied entrance to the Promised Land (Num 20:12). The phrase recalls Aaron’s involvement in this incident as recorded in Num 20:24. Similarly, it reminds the reader of ” מריבה Num 27:13, which speaks of God refusing Moses entry into the Promised Land because he failed to sanctify YHWH’s name at the waters of Meribah. 68 This reading concurs with two Medieval Hebrew Mss, the Septuagint, and the Peshitta. 69 One could also interpret that the people embittered God’s spirit, by complaining for water, and this situation caused Moses to sin.

Page <205> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

Moses’ crime. The link with Num 20:10, mentioned above, however, suggests that Moses verbal transgression took place when he spoke those words to Israel in the desert. With the

... א֣ וֹ נֶ֡פֶ שׁ כִּ ֣ י “ ,only appears 70 in Lev 5:4 ” בטא בשפתים “ exception of Psalm 106:33 the phrase

which speaks ,” תִשָּׁ בַע֩ לְבַטֵּ֙ א בִשְׂ פָתַ֜ יִם לְהָרַ ֣ ע׀ א֣ וֹ לְהֵ יטִ֗ יב לְ֠ כֹל אֲשֶׁ֙ ר יְבַטֵּ ֧ א הָאָדָ ֛ ם בִּשְׁ ב8ָֻ ֖ ה וְנ8ְֶלַ ֣ם מִמֶּ ֑ נּוּ... of a man who thoughtlessly swears an oath, to do good or bad. Even though no mention of an oath appears in our verse, the idea of Moses speaking thoughtlessly is nevertheless present.

34 לֹֽ א־הִ֭ שְׁמִ ידוּ אֶ ת־הָ 8ַֽמִּ ֑ ים אֲשֶׁ ֤ ר אָמַ ֖ ר יְהוָ ֣ה לָהֶ ֽ ם׃

They never destroyed the peoples that YHWH commanded them

The ninth stanza forms the longest record of Israelite rebellion against God. The main indictment appears in v.34: they never destroyed the peoples of Canaan according to God’s

... כִּי֩ הֻ ֵ֙ גּד הֻגַּ ֤ד ל8ֲַבָדֶ֙ יB֙ אֵת֩ אֲשֶׁ֙ ר צִוָּ֜ ה יְהוָ ֤ה “ ,word. Here the psalmist probably refers to Josh 9:24

From this .” אֱ Nהֶ֙ יB֙ אֶ ת־מֹשֶׁ ֣ ה 8ַבְדּ֔ וֹ לָתֵ ֤ ת לָכֶם֙ אֶ ת־כָּ ל־הָאָ֔רֶ ץ וּלְהַשְׁמִ ֛ יד אֶ ת־כָּ ל־יֹשְׁבֵ ֥ י הָאָ ֖רֶ ץ מִפְּנֵ יכֶ ֑ם ... fundamental act of disobedience stem all the sins and punishments mentioned later in the , השמידו : אמר :: ויאמר : להשמידם ,forms part of a chiastic structure השמידו section. The word linking this verse with v.23, and perhaps more importantly, this section with section five. The two uses of “to destroy” starkly contrast each other. The former (v.23) elaborates on YHWH’s mercy, since he did not destroy the people as originally intended. On the other hand, v.34 ... המֶּ ֣לֶ F אֲחַשְׁ וֵר֡ וֹשׁ אָמַ֞ ר “ ,employs the word as a statement of disobedience. As with Esth 1:17

should אמר ,(s. also Jos 11:9, 2Ki 4:24 and 1Ch 21:17) ” ֙ לְהָבִיא אֶ ת־וַשְׁתִּ ֧ י הַמַּלְכָּ ֛ה לְפָנָ ֖יו וְ לֹא־בָ ֽאָ ה׃ in the present context be interpreted as “command”, signifying Israel rejected a direct command from God.

35 וַיִּתְ 8ָרְ ב֥ וּ בַ גּוֹיִ ֑ם וַ֜יִּלְמְד֗ וּ מַ 8ֲֽשֵׂ יהֶ ֽ ם׃

And they commingled with the nations and learned their ways

.does, however, appear in Pr 12:18 denoting one who babbles בטה The individual word 70

Page <206> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

Disobedience mentioned in the previous verse leads to Israel’s further involvement with the with Baal Peor ,צ מד ,peoples they should have destroyed. Just as Israel joined themselves

It was indeed this very .” ויתערבו בגוים “ ,v.28), they now commingled with the nations)

כִּֽ י־נָשְׂא֣ וּ “ ,transgression that invoked Ezra’s dismay after the exiles returned from Babylon

Even though he specifically .(9:2) ” מִבְּ נֹֽתֵ יהֶ֗ ם לָהֶם֙ וְלִבְנֵ יהֶ֔ ם וְהִת8ְָ ֽרְ בוּ֙ זֶ֣ רַ ע הַ קֹּ֔דֶ שׁ בּ8ְַמֵּ ֖ י הָאֲרָ צ֑ וֹת ... mentions the mixing of “holy seed” the sentiment remains the same: Israel should not have mingled with the surrounding nations. As a consequence of Israel’s assimilation with the surrounding nations, they learn כִּ ֤ י אַתָּה֙ בָּ ֣א “ ,Here Israel’s behavior directly contradicts Deut 18:9 .” וילמדו מעשיהם “ ,their ways

a direct warning against ,” אֶ ל־הָאָ֔רֶ ץ אֲשֶׁ ר־יְהוָ ֥ה אֱ Nהֶ ֖ יB נֹתֵ ֣ ן לָ F֑ לֹֽ א־תִ לְמַ ֣ ד ל8ֲַשׂ֔ וֹת כְּ תוֹ8ֲ בֹ֖ ת הַ גּוֹיִ ֥ם הָהֵ ֽ ם׃

recalls the notion מעשיהם learning Canaanite customs. Even the psalmist’s specific choice of of idolatry. Frequently throughout the Bible this word represents the images and idols forged by the work of men’s hands. Deuteronomy 4:28 speaks of Israel’s exiles being forced to serve

Jeremiah 10:3 .” ו8ֲַבַדְתֶּ ם־שָׁ ֣ ם אֱ Nהִ֔ ים מ8ֲַשֵׂ ֖ ה יְדֵ ֣י אָדָ ֑ ם ... “ other gods, the work of men’s hands similarly associates the two, and in Psalm 135:15, the nation’s idols are described as the s. also Deut 27:15). The term) ” 8ֲצַבֵּ ֣י הַ֭ גּוֹיִם כֶּ ֣סֶ ף וְזָהָ ֑ ב מַ֜ 8ֲשֵׂ֗ ה יְדֵ ֣י אָדָ ֽ ם׃ “ ,works of their hands

additionally serves as a reminder of v.13, explicating how Israel quickly forgot God’s מעשיהם deeds. The link between the verses highlights another catastrophic result of forgetfulness.

36 וַ יּ8ַַבְד֥ וּ אֶ ת־8ֲצַבֵּ יהֶ ֑ ם וַיִּהְ י֖וּ לָהֶ ֣ם לְ מוֹ קֵ ֽ שׁ׃

Moreover, they worshipped their idols, and they (the idols) became a snare for them

The decline continues in v.36, and as a result of commingling with the nations, the Israelites begin to serve their idols. Again in this verse they transgress the command against serving the .(Deut 7:16; s. also Ex 23:33) ” ...וְ לֹ֤ א תַ 8ֲ בֹד֙ אֶ ת־אֱ N֣הֵ יהֶ֔ ם כִּֽ י־ מוֹ קֵ ֥ שׁ ה֖ וּא לָ ֽ F׃ “ ,gods of the nations

Page <207> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

since the nations never referred to their objects of worship in— עצבים The derogatory term 71 such a manner—heightens the absurd nature of Israel’s turning from God, reminding us of v.20 where they exchanged YHWH for the image of a ruminant eating grass. Unlike Psalm are the object of ridicule, depicted as worthless and reserved for other עצבים where the 135 nations, here it is indeed Israel that turns to worship them. 72 Consequently, the idols become a to the people, an object causing trouble and grief—even as Saul hoped Michal, his מוקש

For the .”וַ יֹּ֙ אמֶ ר שָׁא֜ וּל אֶתְּ נֶ ֤נָּ ה לּוֹ֙ וּתְהִ י־ל֣ וֹ לְ מוֹקֵ֔ שׁ ... “ ,daughter, would be for David in 1Sam 18:21

Israelites, the grief occurs in the punishment detailed later in the section. Within the psalm’s framework, this notion of trouble introduces a degree of irony: Israel turns away from YHWH, the God who has consistently delivered them from trouble (s. vv.8 and 10), to serve idols that bring trouble upon them.

37 וַ יִּזְבְּח֣ וּ אֶ ת־בְּ֭נֵ יהֶ ם וְאֶ ת־בְּ נֽ וֹתֵ יהֶ֗ ם לַשֵּׁ ֽדִי ם׃

They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons

As a result of serving idols, Israel is led to human sacrifice, offering up their sons and Specific instances of human sacrifice, as perpetrated by Israel, are absent . שדים daughters to from the Torah as well as from Joshua and Judges, 73 which recount the early conquest and וּמִֽ זַּרְ settlement. 74 However, the injunction against such an act presents itself in Lev 18:21, “ ֥Bֲ8

s. also 20:2-5, and Deut 12:31). Only in the latter stages of Israel’s) ” לֹא־תִתֵּ ֖ ן לְה8ֲַבִ ֣ יר לַ מֹּ֑ לֶ F ... history do we witness instances of Israelites sacrificing their sons and daughters to another וּבָנ֞ וּ בָּמ֣ וֹת הַ תֹּ֗ פֶ ת אֲשֶׁ ר֙ בְּגֵ ֣יא בֶ ן־הִ נֹּ֔ ם לִשְׂ רֹ֛ ף אֶ ת־בְּנֵ יהֶ ֥ ם וְאֶ ת־בְּ נֹתֵ יהֶ ֖ ם “ ,god, Molech, as in Jer 7:31

71 This word, always in plural, denotes an object made by human hands, and is always symbolic with idol In the present verse, the context of idolatry is . אליל worship; s. Hos 4:17, 8:4, and Is 10:11 where it parallels reminiscent of Israel’s worship of the calf idol in vv.19-20. 72 This word often appears in texts polemicizing the gods of the nations. Fabry (1990:283) further notes that the psalm is not criticizing the existence of other gods, but their efficacy. 73 We usually hear of kings leading the nation in this barbaric act nearer the destruction of the First Temple. Contrary to this, Thompson (1986:35-51) suggests the practice was present during the era of Judges and further suggests Psalm 106 reflects a lost tradition from the period of the Judges that recorded instances of child sacrifice. 74 With the exception of Jephthah’s rash oath to sacrifice the first thing he sees upon returning from a military victory (Jud 11:31), which constitutes the thoughtless act of an individual rather than a nation seeking to please the gods of the surrounding peoples.

Page <208> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

75. שדים s. also 32:35). Verse 37 further describes the recipients of the sacrifices as) ” בָּאֵ ֑ שׁ ......

This term only appears in two other places in biblical literature, and from the present context they are best understood as malicious spirits of some description. Its appearance here recalls ,a verse depicting sacrifices to demons ,” יִזְבְּח֗ וּ לַשֵּׁדִ ים֙ לֹ֣ א אp֔Nֱַ אֱ Nהִ ֖ ים לֹ֣ א יְדָ 8֑ וּם... “ ,Deut 32:17

brings an amount שדים but not human sacrifice. Somewhat paradoxically, the introduction of

’which do not possess life. The idols , עצבים ,of life to the previously identified idols identification with demons thus creates a far worse picture of Israelite behavior. 76

38 וַיִּֽשְׁ פְּכ֙ וּ דָ ֪ ם נָקִ֡ י דַּ ם־בְּנֵ֨ יהֶ ֤ ם וּֽבְ נוֹתֵ יהֶ֗ ם אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר זִ֭בְּ חוּ ל8ֲַצַבֵּ ֣י כְנָ 8ַ֑ ן וַתֶּחֱ נַ ֥ ף הָ֜אָ֗רֶ ץ בַּדָּמִֽ ים׃

And they shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters, which they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan and polluted the land with bloodshed

The tight lexical association, brought about through the repetition of keywords, closely links vv.37 and 38, as the latter continues enumerating Israel’s acts of . The original sin of וישפכו דם “ ,failing to destroy the Canaanites (s. v.34) has led Israel to shed innocent blood

שֶׁ שׁ־הֵ֭ נָּ ה שָׂ נֵ ֣א יְהוָ ֑ה ... וְ֜יָדַ֗ יִם שֹׁפְכ֥ וֹת “ ,s. also Jer 22:17), a crime the Lord specifically hates) ” נקי

Pr 6:16-17). Jeremiah 19:4-5 particularly relates this crime to the Israelite acts of) ,” דָּ ם־נָ קִֽ י׃

further inculcates the crime’s heinous nature, as דם child sacrifice. The triple repetition of

which often signifies murder, killing someone who does not deserve דמים does the plural form

.(Gen 4:10) ” וַ יֹּ֖אמֶ ר מֶ ֣ה 8ָשִׂ ֑ יתָ ק֚ וֹל דְּמֵ ֣ י אָחִ֔ יB צ8ֲֹ קִ֥ ים אֵלַ ֖י מִ ן־הָ ֽאֲדָמָ ֽ ה׃ “ ,to die, as in the case of Cain

The blood that was shed belonged to innocent individuals, the children of those performing The detestable picture painted in this verse is further 77 .” דם בניהם ובנותיהם “ ,the sacrifices

75 This is either a loanword from Akkadian, šēdu , which describes a protective spirit (Greek δαιμονιοις ; s. also It is difficult to know whether the . שדיא BDB 993, CAD [vol. 17, 256-59], ); or originates from the Aramaic psalmist properly understood the word, or whether he simply copied from his source. According to Briggs (1969:353) these were originally the ancient gods of Canaan, and the original word simply meant “lords”, used similarly as the divine title “Baalim” with no negative connotation. Soon, however, this title became associated with Baal, which was equivalent to “Demon” in the mind of the psalmist. 76 See Hacham (1981:135) and Hoffman (1999:135). אִ ם־זָרְחָ ֥ ה הַשֶּׁ ֛ מֶ שׁ “ ,implies the guilt surrounding a person who takes an innocent life דמים Similarly, the plural 77 Ex 22:2; s. also Lev 20:9), which must be atoned. If it is not) ” 8ָלָ֖ יו דָּמִ ֣ ים ל֑ וֹ שַׁלֵּ֣ ם יְשַׁ לֵּ֔ ם אִ ם־אֵ ֣ ין ל֔ וֹ וְנִמְכַּ֖ ר בִּ גְנֵבָתֽ וֹ

Page <209> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

זבחו : ,illuminated by the chiastic relationship formed between this verse and the previous one

.emphasizing the sacrifice of one’s own flesh and blood , בניהם בנותיהם :: בניהם ובנותיהם : יזבחו

In a return to the imagery introduced in v.36, the psalmist repeats the notion that the Israelites from עצבים those of Canaan. Moreover, the duplication of , עצבים ,sacrificed to lifeless idols v.36 creates an inclusion in which the act of idolatry is depicted. by blood(guilt) is ” ותחנף ארץ “ ,The idea of the whole land being polluted, or defiled

וְ לֹ א־תַחֲנִ ֣יפוּ אֶ ת־הָאָ֗רֶ ץ אֲשֶׁ ֤ ר אַתֶּם֙ בָּ֔ הּ כִּ ֣ י הַדָּ֔ ם ה֥ וּא יַחֲנִ ֖יף אֶ ת־הָאָ ֑רֶ ץ וְלָאָ ֣רֶ ץ “ ,reflected in Numbers

Even though Numbers is not set in a .(35:33) ” לֹֽ ֗ א־יְכֻפַּר לַדָּם֙ אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר שֻׁ פַּ F־בָּ֔ הּ כִּ י־אִ ֖ ם בְּדַ ֥ ם שֹׁפְכֽ וֹ׃ context of human sacrifice, we can assume that because the crime is the same, defilement of the land with innocent blood, then so is the verdict: no expiation except by the death of him who sheds it. Reading this understanding into our psalm indicates the deserved punishment for Israel is death. Outside the Torah, only Jeremiah employs the term for “pollution of land” and sets it in the context of spiritual idolatry committed by Israel in the latter part (” חנף ארץ “)

.(3:2) ” ... וַתַּחֲנִ ֣יפִ י אֶ֔רֶ ץ בִּ זְ נוּתַ ֖ יFִ וּבְרָ 8ָתֵ ֽ F׃ “ ,of First Temple period

39 וַיִּטְמְא֥ וּ בְמ8ֲַשֵׂ יהֶ ֑ ם וַ֜ נוּיִּזְ֗ בְּמַ 8ַֽלְלֵ יהֶ ֽ ם׃

And they were defiled in their acts, and spiritually adulterous in their deeds

An emphatic parallel structure in v.39 highlights the corrupting nature of Israel’s actions ” ותחנף א רץ “ ,Previously the psalmist stated that they defiled the land .(” ויטמאו במעשיהם “)

(v.38), with innocent blood, now they themselves become ritually unclean 78 (s. Lev 15:26) through their deeds. The second half of the verse continues to explain how the Israelites refers to the physical act זנה desecrated the land, through spiritual adultery. Literally the term of unfaithfulness, involving a man and his wife (Pr 6:26), or a woman of loose morals (Gen

וְ לֹ֤ א יִשָּׁפFֵ֙ דָּ ֣ ם נָקִ֔ י בְּ קֶ ֣ רֶ ב אַרְ צְ B֔ אֲשֶׁ ר֙ יְהוָ֣ ה “ ,atoned for, the bloodguilt pollutes the people, as Deut 19:10 indicates .a verse that possibly influenced the psalmist’s choice of words ;” אֱ Nהֶ֔ יB נֹתֵ ֥ ן לBְ֖ נַחֲלָ֑ ה וְהָ יָ֥ ה 8ָלֶ֖ יB דָּמִֽ ים׃ 78 McCann (1996:1111) also refers to this as Levitical ritual impurity, relating it to the results of idolatry, as in Ezek 20:30-31 and Hos 5:3, 6:10.

Page <210> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

34:31, 38:15). 79 In this context, however, the term refers to a spiritual harlotry, portraying Israel’s propensity to chase after foreign gods, thus proving “unfaithful” to YHWH. 80 The use

... כִּ ֤ י “ ,in the context of spiritual idolatry is also attested in Hos 5:3 , טמא together with , זנה of

s. also Ezek 20:30 81 ). Israel’s sinful deeds again find mention) ” 8ַתָּה֙ הִ זְנֵ ֣יתָ אֶפְרַ ֔ יִם נִטְמָ ֖ א יִשְׂרָאֵ ֽ ל׃

also associated in Psalm , מעשיהם and מעלליהם ,in v.39 through the repetition of two terms

By repeating the .”תֶּ ן־לָהֶ ֣ם כְּפ8ֳָלָ ם֘ וּכְ רZַֹ֪ מַ 8ַֽלְלֵ֫ יהֶ ֥ ם כְּמַ 8ֲשֵׂ ֣ ה יְ֭דֵ יהֶ ם תֵּ ֣ ן לָהֶ ֑ ם הָשֵׁ ֖ ב גְּ מוּלָ ֣ם לָהֶ ֽ ם׃ “ ,28:4 latter, the stanza creates an inclusion with v.35 that encapsulates the acts of spiritual idolatry that defiled the land.

40 וַ יִּֽחַ ר־אַ ֣ ף יְהוָ ֣ה בּ8ְַמּ֑ וֹ וַ֜יְתָ 8ֵ֗ ב אֶ ת־נַחֲ לָתֽ וֹ׃

And YHWH burned with anger against his people and despised his inheritance

After the relatively long description of Israelite sin, v.40 begins recording YHWH’s response; to become angry (Gen , חרה אף The phrase .” וַיִּֽחַ ר־אַ ֣ ף יְהוָ ֣ה בּ8ְַמּ֑ וֹ “ ,he is angered with his people

ו8ְַתָּה֙ הַנִּ ֣יחָ ה לִּ֔ י וְיִֽחַ ר־אַפִּ֥ י “ ,1Sam 20:30) frequently describes God’s anger against Israel ,30:2

Ex 32:10; s. also Ex 4:14 against Moses, and Num 11:1), as indeed it) ” בָהֶ ֖ ם וַאֲכַלֵּ ֑ם וְאֶ 8ֱֽשֶׂ ֥ ה ...... does here. More importantly, a similar picture of God’s anger being aroused on account of אַ ֣ F׀ לֹֽ א־שָׁ ֣ ב יְהוָ֗ה מֵ חֲר֤ וֹן אַ פּוֹ֙ הַ גָּד֔ וֹל אֲשֶׁ ר־חָרָ ֥ ה אַפּ֖ וֹ בִּֽ יהוּדָ ֑ה “ ,child sacrifice appears in 2Kings 23:26

in which Manasseh’s leading of Judah into detestable ,” 8ַ֚ ל כָּ ל־הַכּ8ְָסִ֔ ים אֲשֶׁ ֥ ר הִכ8ְִ יס֖ וֹ מְ נַשֶּׁ ֽ ה׃ practices incurs God’s wrath. In the psalm, as a result of YHWH’s anger being aroused, he

79 The physical act of prostitution recalls the apostasy with Baal Peor, when the Israelites physically prostituted .” וַיֵּ֥ שֶׁ ב יִשְׂרָאֵ ֖ ל בַּשִּׁטִּ ֑ ים וַיָּ ֣ חֶ ל ה8ָָ֔ ם לִזְנ֖ וֹת אֶ ל־בְּ נ֥ וֹת מוֹאָ ֽ ב׃ “ ,themselves, as recorded in Num 25:1 80 For the sense of spiritual unfaithfulness, see Ex 34:15 and Jer 3:1. The word also has the sense of turning astray and subsequently being far from God, as Ps 73:27 indicates. The very notion of Israel whoring after other gods repeats throughout the psalm, since they did the same thing at Mt Horeb (vv.19-23), and with Baal Peor (vv.28-31). 81 The poignant imagery of Israel’s unfaithfulness to God finds mention in various places in biblical literature (such as the Hosea verse mentioned above and Jer 2:20); however, a marked concentration is especially evident in the . Chapters 16 and 23 are particularly graphic concerning the spiritual unfaithfulness of both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms.

Page <211> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

appears in 1Ki 21:26 , תעב ,The same word 82 .” יתעב את נחלתו “ ,utterly despises his inheritance

.s) ” וַיַּת8ְֵ ֣ב מְ אֹ֔ ד לָלֶ ֖כֶ ת אַחֲרֵ ֣ י הַ גִּלֻּלִ ֑ים ...“ ,to describe Ahab’s abominable acts in chasing after idols

נחלה Almost ironically the psalmist employs the term .( אהב also Ps 119:163 where it opposes to describe his people, a term which so often conveys the intimate relationship shared between

” אַשְׁרֵ ֣ י הַ֭ גּוֹי אֲשֶׁ ר־יְהוָ ֣ה אֱ Nהָ ֑ יו ה8ָָ֓ ם ׀ בָּחַ ֖ ר לְנַחֲלָ ֣ה לֽ וֹ׃ “ ,Israel and YHWH, as witnessed in Ps 33:12

(s. also Is 63:17 and Jer 10:16). The psalmist places the term in a negative context to demonstrate the extent of YHWH’s anger, revealing how far he has been driven, even to the point of hating his inheritance, his beloved people. Such imagery is reinforced when this verse epitomizes enjoyment within the נחלה where ,” להתהלל עם נחלתך “ ,is compared with v.5 confines of a close relationship with God. 83

41 ְ וַיִּתּנֵ ֥ם בְּ יַד־גּוֹיִ ֑ם וַ ֽ יִּמְשְׁ ל֥ וּ בָ֜הֶ֗ ם שֹׂנְאֵ יהֶ ֽ ם׃

And he delivered them into the hand of the nations, and their haters ruled over them

As a result of his great anger against Israel, YHWH delivers them into the hands of the nations. His punishment, meted through delivering his people into enemy hands, characterizes ” וַיִּֽחַ ר־אַ ֤ ף יְהוָה֙ בְּ יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ ל וַ ֽ יִּתְּ נֵם֙ בְּ יַד־שֹׁסִ֔ ים ... “ ,the punitive action frequently recorded in Judges

(2:14; s. also 3:8, 4:2, 6:1, 10:7). In light of the previous references to the sacrificing of children to idols, however, the psalmist also recalls events from the First Temple era. One ,” וַיִּמְאַ֙ ס יְהוָ֜ ה בְּכָ ל־זֶ ַ ֤ רע יִשְׂרָאֵ ל֙ וַי8ְַנֵּ֔ ם וַ ֽ יִּתְּ נֵ ֖ם בְּ יַד־שֹׁסִ ֑ ים ... “ ,such instance is recorded in 2Ki 17:20

,in the present verse גוי describing the Northern Kingdom’s exile by Assyria. The word together with its appearance in v.35, creates an instance of “measure for measure”: the very people from whom the Israelites learned their religious practices have become their forms an inclusion with v.10. The יד together with שנא oppressors. Similarly, repetition of connection between the verses returns Israel to where they began: suffering at the hand of

are of Deuteronomic ” חרה אף “ According to Briggs (1969:353), both this word together with the phrase 82 ” חרה אף “ :influence. Additionally, Richardson (1987:144) notes that the former develops the latter a step further .depicts the subsequent action תעב describes thoughts and feelings, whereas 83 Concerning this word, we can read two meanings: the “inheritance” can refer to both the land and the people (s. Hacham [1981:291]).

Page <212> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 their oppressors. Moreover, we ironically see the same God who delivered Israel from the hand of their haters in v.10 delivering them back into the hand of those who hate them.

42 וַיִּלְ חָ צ֥ וּם אוֹיְבֵ יהֶ ֑ ם וַ֜ יִּכָּנְע֗ וּ תַּ ֣ חַ ת יָדָ ֽ ם׃

And their enemies oppressed them and they (Israel) were subdued under their hand

Verse v.42 a intensifies v.41 b, stressing that Israel’s enemies not only ruled over them, but ... וְגַ ם־רָאִ֙ יתִי֙ “ ,oppressed them too, even as the Israelites were oppressed by the Egyptians

Ex 3:9), which recalls the scene in the second stanza that) ” אֶ ת־הַ לַּ֔חַ ץ אֲשֶׁ ֥ ר מִצְרַ ֖יִם Nחֲצִ֥ ים אֹתָ ֽ ם׃ recorded events occurring in Egypt. The connection with v.10 in the second stanza creates an Like v.41, the irony of God previously . יד : אויב :: אויביהם : ידם :instance of chiasmus delivering the Israelites from the hand of their oppressors to him now delivering them into the to “humble”, “subdue”, or “bring , כנע hand of their enemies continues. Inclusion of the verb

when the ,” וַיִּכָּ ֽנְ עוּ֙ הַפְּלִשְׁ תִּ֔ ים וְ לֹא־יָסְ פ֣ וּ ע֔ וֹד לָב֖ וֹא בִּגְב֣ וּל יִשְׂרָאֵ ֑ ל ... “ ,low”—as in 1Sam 7:13

,in v.38. Thus כנען Philistines were subdued at the hands of Israel—creates a wordplay with the very people whose gods the Israelites served have now become their oppressors. The occurs in two other places in biblical literature, and only one of these ” כנע ... תחת יד “ phrase

84 .” וַתִּ כָּנַ ֤ע מוֹאָב֙ בַּ יּ֣ וֹם הַה֔ וּא תַּ ֖חַ ת יַ ֣ד יִשְׂרָאֵ ֑ ל וַתִּשְׁ קֹ֥ ט ... “ ,mentions Israel and an enemy, Jud 3:30

Unlike this context, however, Israel in v.42 is subdued by their enemy, and not vice versa. Verse 42 closes the ninth and longest stanza, nine verses, detailing the climax of Israel’s sins, human sacrifice, and the zenith of their punishment, deliverance into the hands which , יד of their enemies. This reality is punctuated by the inclusion in vv.41-42 formed by encompasses the description of Israel’s oppression at the hand of their enemies and those who rule over them. Unlike the incident with Baal Peor, however, nobody stands in the gap to intercede for the people and avert judgment.

84 The other instance occurs in Job 40:12, enumerating how God brings down the proud.

Page <213> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

43 פּ8ְָמִ֥ ים רַ בּ֗ וֹת יַצִּ֫ ילֵ ֥ם וְ֭הֵמָּ ה יַמְר֣ וּ ב8ֲַצָתָ ֑ ם וַ֜יָּמֹ֗ כּוּ בּ8ֲַ וֹנָ ֽם׃

Many times he saved them but they rebelled in their council, and they were debased in their iniquity

Without relating to specific instances in Israel’s history, this new stanza summarizes the persistent pattern of sin and salvation characteristic of Israel’s relationship to God throughout God delivered them ,” פעמים רבות “ ,the history of their existence in the land. 85 The many times recalls not only the sequence of sin and deliverance depicted in Judges, but also the monarchic era. Despite the many times he saved them, they continually rebelled by persistently walking in their own council. Unlike the beginning of the psalm, a degree of detachment is discernable as the psalmist now distinguishes between his community and the -rather than the first , המה forefathers. The psalm employs the third-person plural pronoun person common plural characteristics of v.6 that included the psalmist and his generation here recalls the rebellion מרו together with the unrighteous forefathers. Repetition of encountered in vv.7 and 33, at the Sea and against Moses respectively, and expresses the continuity of rebellion from the deliverance at the Sea of Reeds through to the era of Israel’s kings (s. Neh 9:26). Within the psalm’s layout, rebellion marks both the beginning and end of the historical narration. Israel’s rebellion through walking in their own council, mentioned .” לא חכו לעצתו “ ,here, recalls their failure to wait for God’s council in v.13

, וימכו ,The psalmist employs a rare word to describe the result of the Israelite rebellion

self debasement; a word only found in two other places in the Bible. 86 ,(מכך from the root)

בַּ 8ֲצַלְתַּ ֖ יִם יִמַּ ֣ F הַמְּקָרֶ ֑ ה וּבְשִׁ פְל֥ וּת יָדַ ֖יִם “ ,Literally, it means to bring low physically, as in Ecc 10:18

עון but the present context implies a moral degradation. At least two meanings of ,” יִדְ N֥ ף הַבָּ ֽיִת׃ are relevant to v.43’s context. On one hand, it refers to the people’s sin and self degradation that incurred God’s wrath, as attested in v.19. On the other hand, it may additionally be וַ יֹּ֥אמֶ ר קַ ֖ יִן אֶ ל־יְהוָ ֑ה “ ,interpreted as the punishment brought about by their sin, as in Gen 4:13

to save/deliver”, and recalls instances in which“ , הושיע creates a link within the psalm to הציל Semantically 85 YHWH had accomplished this for his people, as in vv.8, 10, and 21. ,a word meaning “to be poor , מוך I should also note that this could constitute a corruption of the verb 86 destitute”. If this is the case, then we would have another strong connection with priestly material because the root only appears in Lev 25:25, 35, 39, 47, and 27:8.

Page <214> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

where Cain’s punishment for iniquity is more than he can bear (s. also 1Sam ,” גָּד֥ וֹל 8ֲ וֹנִ ֖י מִ נְּ שֹֽׂ א׃

28:10 and 2Ki 7:9).

44 וַ֭יַּרְ א בַּצַּ ֣ר לָהֶ ֑ ם בְּ֜שָׁמְע֗ וֹ אֶ ת־רִ נָּתָ ֽ ם׃

But he saw their distress and heard their cry

continues to govern verse v.44; thus, many ,” פעמים רבות “ ,The previous adverbial phrase

here does not just have the simple ראה The verb .” וַ֭יַּרְ א בַּצַּ ֣ר “ ,times YHWH saw their distress meaning “to see”, but to look upon with compassion (s. Gen 29:32 and 1Sam 1:11), and to וַיַּ ֥ רְ א אֱ Nהִ ֖ ים אֶ ת־בְּנֵ ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ ֑ ל וַיֵּ ֖ דַ ע “ ,notice with the intention of intervening and helping (s. Ex 2:25

God sees Israel’s suffering with the intention of delivering them). Often in biblical ,” אֱ Nהִֽ ים׃

connotes suffering at the hands of one’s enemies, as צרר literature, as it does here, the root

s. also) ” ... תָ בֹ֙ אוּ מִלְחָמָ֜ ה בְּאַרְ צְכֶ֗ ם 8ַ ל־הַצַּר֙ הַ צֹּרֵ ֣ ר אֶתְ כֶ֔ ם וַהֲרֵ עֹתֶ ֖ ם בַּחֲ צֹצְר֑ וֹת ... “ ,seen in Num 10:9

1Ki 8:37 and Ps 143:12). Thus, God not only sees their distress, in the present context, but also hears their call. The correspondence between seeing and hearing in the present verse emphasizes YHWH’s attentiveness to his people; moreover, the link with v.25 via the word contrasts Israel’s and YHWH’s attitudes towards each other. God sees and listens to their שמע

whereas they fail to listen to his advice. Such a contrast reflects his ,( רנתם ) cry of distress compassion, in spite of their behavior, he is faithful to them. As seen from Ps 105:43, the

can imply a shout of joy and rejoicing, however, here it expresses an entreaty, or , רנה word

וְאַ ָ֞ תּה אַ ל־תִּתְ פַּלֵּ ֣ל׀ בּ8ְַ ד־ה8ָָ ֣ם הַ זֶּ֗ ה וְאַ ל־תִּשָּׂ ֧ א “ ,cry of supplication to God, as Jer 7:16 indicates

.(s. also 1Ki 8:28, Ps 119:169) ” ב8ֲַדָ ֛ ם רִ נָּ ֥ה ...

45 וַיִּזְ כֹּ֣ ר לָהֶ ֣ם בְּרִ ית֑ וֹ וַ֜יִּנָּחֵ֗ ם כְּ רֹ֣ ב ( חַסְ דּוֹ ) [ חֲסָדָ ֽ יו]׃

And he remembered his covenant to them, and was merciful according to his great loving kindness

Page <215> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

Verse 45 continues describing God’s response to his people’s dire situation: he remembers his covenant for their sake, i.e. for their benefit. The specific identification of the covenant alluded to here is unclear. Because, however, we know the psalmist has in part been influenced by Priestly literature, we can surmise the reference is to the Sinaitic covenant, as which ,” וְזָכַרְתִּ֥ י לָהֶ ֖ ם בְּרִ ֣ ית רִ ִ אשֹׁנ֑ים אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר הוֹצֵ ֽאתִ י־אֹתָ ם֩ מֵאֶרֶ ֙ ץ מִצְרַ ֜ יִם... “ ,seen in Lev 26:45 specifically depicts a covenant with the people who had just received their freedom. 87 Moreover, the contexts in which v.45 and Lev 26:45 appear also correspond. In both instances it is after the Israelites have sinned and have been punished through exile that YHWH remembers his covenant and preserves them in the land of their enemies (Lev 26:44). remind the reader of v.7, and raise another contrast between the ” רב חסד “ and זכר Together people and YHWH. He remembers them according to his loving kindness, but they fail to remember his kindness. Usually in biblical literature, when God acts in remembrance of a covenant he relents from punishment, or intervenes to save his people (Gen 9:15, Ex 2:24, and 6:5), and that is also the case here. The second colon effectively repeats the sentiment of the first: YHWH’s remembrance relent, turn back from”; s. Ex“) ינחם ,of Israel corresponds with the mercy he shows them

32:12, and Ps 90:13 where it means “to have pity”). This behavior accords with his great loving kindness towards his people. Though this kindness is not specifically mentioned in the accounts recorded in the psalm’s main body, it has been an ever-present factor. God’s actions are not based on Israelite behavior, which has been sinful and rebellious. Only because of his loving kindness, which is eternal as seen in v.1, the Israelites were not entirely destroyed by their enemies, or by YHWH himself.

46 וַיִּתֵּ ֣ ן אוֹתָ ֣ ם לְרַחֲמִ ֑ ים לִ֜ יפְנֵ֛ כָּ ל־שׁוֹבֵ יהֶ ֽ ם׃

He was merciful to them before their captors

In remembering his covenant, God responds compassionately towards his people in v.46.

,used as an expression of punishment, but here it is reversed נתן Verse 41 saw the verb

87 Certain commentators raise other possibilities such as the Davidic Covenant and the Abrahamic Covenant; s. Kraus (1988b:322); and Allen (2002:73), in light of Ex 2:24. The consensus, however, for various reasons, remains with the Sinaitic covenant; s. Ibn Ezra, Cohen (2003:123), and Richardson (1987:201).

Page <216> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

s. Deut 13:18). More) 88” נתן ... לרחמים “ ,signifying an expression of pity and mercy

וְסָ לַחְתָּ ֤ ל8ְַמּBְ֙ אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר חָ ֽטְ אוּ־לָ֔ specifically, this phrase directly corresponds with 1Ki 8:50, “ F

Just as Solomon called for 89 .” וּלְכָ ל־פִּשְׁ 8ֵ יהֶ ֖ ם אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר פָּשְׁ עוּ ־בָ ֑ F וּנְתַתָּ ֧ ם לְרַחֲמִ ֛ ים לִפְנֵ ֥י שֹׁבֵ יהֶ ֖ ם וְרִֽחֲמֽ וּם׃

God to show mercy towards the Israelites after punishing them via exile, so too the psalmist states that God has indeed granted Solomon’s petition, and has shown Israel mercy through s. Gen 34:29 and Ps 137:3). Further strengthening the) שוביהם ,the hand of their captors association with Solomon’s prayer are the confessional statements opening the historiographical narrative in v.6. Additionally, Lev 26:44 is recalled by v.46, whereby God declares that he will not abhor Israel in the land of their enemies. The summary of Israel’s cycle of rebellion and deliverance 90 in the tenth stanza ends on a positive note with v.46. Contrasting with the close of stanzas five and seven, God’s mercy is not directly invoked by a mediator, but appears simply as an expression of his own goodness. Verse 46 terminates the psalmist’s historical recitation that began in v.7, and the positive ending sets the stage for the psalm’s closing verses.

47 הוֹשִׁ ֵ֙ י8נוּ׀ יְה֨וָ ֤ה אֱ Nהֵ֗ ינוּ וְקַ בְּצֵ נוּ֘ מִֽ ן־הַגּ֫ וֹיִ֥ם לְ֭הֹדוֹת לְשֵׁ ֣ ם קָדְשֶׁ ֑ B לְ֜הִשְׁתַּ בֵּ֗\ַ בִּתְהִלָּתֶ ֽ B׃

Save us YHWH our God, and gather us from the nations to proclaim your holy name, and to boast of your praiseworthy deeds

Without a doubt, the climax of Psalm 106 appears here in what is effectively the last verse. With a variety of lexical links to numerous incidents recited in the psalm, v.47 both launches from, and supplies meaning to, previous events. Unlike vv.7-46, no literary-historical texts are recalled, and the psalmist entreats God’s assistance. ,hearkens back to vv.8 and 10 , הושיענו ,The opening imperative cry by the psalmist recalling the God who delivered his people from both the Egyptians and the sea. YHWH’s proven ability to save in the past forms the cornerstone of the psalmist’s hope. For the first

88 The lamed in this expression represents either an emphatic particle, or the second accusative object marker for . נתן 89 Even though the majority of Solomon’s prayer in 1Ki 8 is considered a later expansion, especially the section linked to the psalm, s. DeVries (1985:121) and Mulder (1998:376), the literary connection still forces us to read these words in the context determined by Solomon. 90 As Kroll (1987:314) and Allen (2002:73) have already argued, the cycle described in vv.43-45 was probably inspired by Judges.

Page <217> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 time in the psalm, the psalmist appeals to YHWH’s intimate relationship with his people by The plea is further . אלהינו ,with the God of the people , יהוה ,identifying the covenant name

;s. Gen 41:35, gathering food) קבצנו ,detailed by the psalmist’s imperative cry to gather them

Deut 13:17, gathering spoil), from the nations. 91 Echoes of God gathering Israel from among

וְשָׁ֙ ב יְהוָ ֧ה אֱ Nהֶ ֛ יB אֶ ת־שְׁ בוּתְ the peoples in which he has scattered them appear in Deut 30:3, “ ֖B

Like Deut 30:3, the psalmist hopes .” וְרִחֲמֶ ֑ B וְשָׁ֗ ב וְקִבֶּצBְ֙ מִכָּ ל־הָ 8ַ֣מִּ֔ ים אֲשֶׁ ֧ ר הֱפִֽ יצְ B֛ יְהוָ ֥ה אֱ Nהֶ ֖ יB שָׁ ֽמָּ ה׃ that after Israel repents, God will gather them from the nations. The reason the psalmist offers for YHWH to rescue his people is that they in turn may The idea of proclaiming thanks to .” להדות לשם קדשך “ ,proclaim thanks to his holy name

In spite of the 92. הודו : ליהוה :: יהוה : להדות :YHWH creates an inclusion for the whole psalm negative tone apparent in the psalm’s composition, both the beginning and the end contain the וַ֭ יּוֹשִׁ י8ֵ ם “ ,in the present verse recalls v.8 , שם ,same statement of thanksgiving. God’s name

which in turn provides justification for any deliverance the Lord ,” לְמַ 8ַ֣ ן שְׁמ֑ וֹ לְ֜ הוֹדִ֗ יZַ אֶ ת־גְּ בוּרָתֽ וֹ׃

to“ , שבח may procure: for his namesake, and not according to Israel’s behavior. The hitpael of speak out” or “boast about”, only occurs here in the Bible (excluding 1Chr 16:35, which which , להדות adopts verses from this psalm). From the present context it is associated with also connotes speaking out and declaring. 93 Giving thanks, and proclaiming the deeds of YHWH constitutes an act that the psalm identifies as the principle reason for God’s heroic deeds on Israel’s behalf—a principle seen in v.8, whereby he saved them so that they could proclaim his deeds. With this understanding, what could be perceived as a degree of coercion appears on the part of the psalmist. If the declaration of God’s mighty deeds is indeed contingent on his acts of deliverance, then for the people to declare once again his praises, he

also lends to this idea. Only after the Israelites were תהלה must act to save them. Repetition of

,” וַיַּאֲמִ ֥ ינוּ בִדְ בָרָ ֑ יו יָ֜שִׁ֗ ירוּ תְּהִלָּתֽ וֹ׃ “) delivered at the sea did they trust God and sing his praises v.12); similarly, God’s deliverance is needed now so they can once again respond with praise.

91 With respect to the nations among which the Israelites find themselves scattered, the greatest likelihood is that the psalmist is here referring to the Babylonian exile. We shall revisit this issue in the section on dating. 92 See the following verse for the question of whether v.48 is organic. 93 See close reading for Ps 105:1.

Page <218> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

48 בָּר֤ וּF־יְהוָ֙ ה אֱ Nהֵ ֪ י יִשְׂרָ אֵ֡ ל מִ ן־הָ ֤ עוֹלָ֙ם׀ ו8ְַ֬ ד הָ עוֹלָ֗ ם וְאָמַ ֖ ר כָּ ל־ה8ָָ ֥ ם אָמֵ֗ ן הַ ֽלְ לוּ־יָ ֽהּ׃

Be blessed YHWH God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting; and all the people said “amen” Praise Yah

Verse 48 is not organic to Psalm 106, and was probably added at a later stage in the Psalter’s composition. This is apparent from two observations. First, the close reading of Psalm 106 showed how the psalm progressed from praise, to recounting sin, to a petition for God to deliver the people on account of his namesake and merciful character. Consequently, v.47 forms the psalm’s natural climax with the request; therefore, v.48 does not naturally fit in with this overall scheme. Second, the structure of v.48 recalls a fixed formula used in ending name of God”—expression of eternity—(optional“— ברוך :the Psalter’s first three books

:Table 5 reveals the similarity . אמן—(blessing

Table 6.

ברוך Optional Eternity God אמןאמןאמן

Ps 41:14 בָּ֨ר֤ וּF יְהוָ֙ ה׀ אNֱ֨הֵ ֤ י יִשְׂרָ אֵ֗ ל מֵ֭הָ עוֹלָ ם ו8ְַ ֥ ד הָ עוֹלָ֗ ם אָ֨מֵ ֥ ן׀ וְאָמֵ ֽ ן׃

Ps 72:19 וּבָר֤ וּF שֵׁ ֥ ם כְּ בוֹד֗ וֹ לְע֫ וֹלָ ֥ ם וְיִמָּלֵ ֣א כְ֭ בוֹדוֹ אֶ ת־כֹּ֥ ל הָאָ֗רֶ ץ אָ֨מֵ ֥ ן׀ וְאָמֵ ֽ ן׃

Ps 89:53 בָּר֖ וּF יְהוָ ֥ה לְ֜ עוֹלָ֗ ם אָ֨מֵ ֥ ן׀ וְאָמֵ ֽ ן׃

Ps 106:48 בָּר֖ וּF יְהוָ֙ ה אֱ Nהֵ ֪ י יִשְׂרָ אֵ֡ ל מִ ן־הָ ֤ עוֹלָ֙ ם׀ ו8ְַ֬ ד הָ עוֹלָ֗ ם וְאָמַ ֖ ר כָּ ל־ה8ָָ ֥ ם ןאָמֵ֗

The repetition of this pattern suggests a common hand, independent of the psalmist, inserted all four doxologies. 94 Notwithstanding this fact, a number of associations arise between the doxology and and a , אלהים the psalm itself. The name “YHWH” creates both continuity with v.47, as does literary link with the psalm’s opening. That God should be blessed from everlasting to everlasting corresponds with his eternal beneficence mentioned in the first verse: in as much

94 This synopsis finds agreement among modern commentators such as Duhm (1920:249), Seybold (1996:418ff.), and McCann (1996:1112). The fact that the doxology also appears in 1Chr 16:36 indicates the divisions of the Psalter were already in place at the time of Chronicles’ composition. Contrary to this school of thought, Weiser (1965:682f.) suggests the doxology is organic and that this factor influenced the arranger of the Psalter in placing Ps 106 at the end of Book IV.

Page <219> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

creates ” הללו יה “ as his kindness is eternal, so he should eternally be praised for it. The final an inclusion for the entire psalm, and in spite of a negative and mournful tone dominating throughout, encloses the entire composition with words of praise.

MEANING

As lucidly demonstrated in v.47, Psalm 106 constitutes a confession of sin and cry for YHWH to assist the exiled community by delivering them from the hand of their captors, and returning them to their land. The feelings of detachment between YHWH and Israel are expressed in two ways throughout the psalm. First, the repetitive cycle of sin recounted from beginning to end, in addition to its gradual intensification, tangibly accentuates the feelings of abhorrence YHWH bears towards his people. Second, only scant references to the closeness and intimacy between God and his people appear, a theme commonly found in Exodus psalms. The structure contributes to the meaning since the first part of the confession, vv.1- 12, predominantly speaks of the good works YHWH performed on behalf of Israel. On the background of his goodness, the remaining stanzas document Israel’s rebellious response that never improves as the psalm progresses. Because the actions of the Israelites are utterly disdainful from beginning to end in the psalm, the psalmist cannot base his plea for compassion on their behavior. Consequently, he constructs his request upon YHWH’s benevolent nature; because the psalmist knows that YHWH is a merciful God, he can hope that God will listen to his request. An important, and yet easily overlooked, theme found in the psalm is the exalted role of certain individuals. This concept manifests itself in at least two ways: first, of all the historiographic psalms in the Psalter that refer to the Exodus, 95 only Psalm 106 raises the status of individuals in Israelite literary history to being anything close to “heroic”. The prevailing image presented in Exodus psalms is that of YHWH as the ultimate hero, who intercedes on behalf of his people to defend them against their enemies, usually appearing in the form of other nations. Psalm 77 briefly mentions Moses and Aaron as those who led Israel in the desert, but they adopt an instrumental role, and it is God who leads his people through them. 96 David is mentioned in Psalm 78:70, but forms the object of God’s actions: God takes

95 This includes Psalms 66, 77, 78, 81, 95, 105, 106, 114, 135, and 136. 96 Additionally, we must remember that in all likelihood this verse is a later gloss that does not appear in early translations of the Septuagint.

Page <220> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 him and makes him a shepherd for his people. At no stage does David himself take the initiative to perform an act worthy of praise and reward. The Patriarchs and Joseph are similarly recalled in Psalm 105, where they all function passively in a psalm recounting God’s control of history in the execution of his promise. Psalm 106 alone portrays individuals, in this instance Moses and Phinehas, with the capability of acting on their own accord and performing noteworthy deeds. In presenting individuals in this light, the psalmist unites his personal situation with the literary history he has recited. As seen from the close reading of v.4, even though the psalm is community oriented, the psalmist singles himself out as a righteous individual in his prayer of intercession for the nation. In this respect he likens himself to Moses and Phinehas, aligning his current situation with theirs: Israel is under punishment due to their sin and needs someone to stand in the gap and intercede for them.

DATE

Concerning the date of Psalm 106, the most conspicuous evidence stems from the penultimate verse. Verse 47 constitutes a plea for help, that YHWH would save his people and, most Additionally, v.27 suggests a 97 .(” וקבצנו מן הגוים “) importantly, gather them from the nations context of exile because it mentions dispersal among the nations, a punishment that was not decreed for the refusal of the Promised Land. Since Psalm 106 is primarily a community oriented confession lamenting the exile, we can assume with some degree of assurance that the psalm was composed whilst Israel was still captive. Furthermore, because there is no apparent distinction in the psalm between the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, it is reasonable to assume that the entire nation was in exile. In view of these data, it is prudent to suggest the psalm was written during, or just after, the Babylonian exile. To further the assertion that the psalm constitutes a product of the Exile one can adduce additional linguistic and internal evidence. With respect to language, two words

מלל appearing in the psalm reveal the probability of Aramaic influence on the psalmist. First appears in v.2, which is a standard word in Aramaic for “speaking” and is much less common is considered by some 99 to be an ( שבח hitpael of) השתבח ,in Biblical Hebrew. 98 Additionally

97 In light of events recorded in the psalm, it is most logical to assume the Babylonian exile. 98 There are some doubts concerning this word because it appears in a Phoenician text: wbl kn mtmll bymty ldnnyn (“And there was no one speaking against the Dananians in those Days”). This would imply the word was known in a West Semitic context before the Exile; see Dahood (1981:67).

Page <221> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

קום as a late synonym for עמד Aramaism. 100 Two other points for consideration are the use of

v.27).101 Together, the evidence cited above precludes any) ארצות v.30) and the plural form) possibility of the psalm originating during the exile of the Northern Kingdom or any other period prior to the Babylonian exile. Though most scholars agree 102 with this hypothesis, some prefer to adopt a more conservative stance. Weiser (1965:680) postulates that the psalm’s date cannot be determined with any degree of certainty and that vv.46-47 do not necessarily presuppose the Exile. Additionally, Keil and Delitzsch (1982:151) assert that the psalm is Davidic since part of it is put in the mouth of David by the chronicler in 1Chr 16. None of the above theories, however, stands against the preponderant weight of evidence indicating a later date.

99 See Allen (2002:67). 100 At this point, I must stress that this evidence alone cannot confirm a late date, but should only be used to supplement more weighty evidence. Concerning the reliability of using Aramaic as an indicator of date, s. Hurvitz (1968:85). 101 Polzin mentions both of these (1976:148 and 127 respectively). Concerning the latter, he says: “Late language represented by Chronicles prefers plural forms of words used earlier primarily in the singular”; s. also Hurvitz (1972:173). 102 See for example Kraus (1988b:317), Driver (1972:384f.), Hoffman (1999:133), and McCann (1996:1110).

Page <222> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

SOURCES

Table 6 presents the sources employed by the psalmist to recreate Exodus events. 108 In addition to the Torah, the psalmist was Table 7. 103 apparently influenced by Ezekiel, as seen Ps 106:9 Is 63:13 — Ps 106:10 Is 63:9 — from vv.23, 26, and 27. Moreover, vv.9 and Ps 106:11 Ex 14:28 P 10 also suggest some access to Isaiah; Ps 106:12 Ex 1 4:31 -15:1 NS however, the direction of borrowing Ps 106:14 Num 11:4 JE concerning this assumed source is somewhat Ps 106:17 Num 16:32-33 JE Ps 106:18 Num 16:35 + 11:1 P + JE ” ויתאוו תאוה “ obscure. The keywords Ps 106:19 Ex 32:4 , Deut 9:16 D undoubtedly link Psalm 106:13-15 with Ps 106:23 Deut 9:25 + Ezek 22:30 D Numbers 11, since they do not repeat Ps 106:24 Deut 1:32 D elsewhere in biblical literature and speak of Ps 106:25 Deut 1:27 D Ps 106:26 Num 14:29 -30 + Ezek 20:23 P the same context. 109 With respect to the Ps 106:27 Ezek 20:23 — source of Ps 106:19, even though two Ps 106:28 Num 25:3 JE possibilities present themselves, Ex 32:4 and Ps 106:29 Num 25:8 -9 P104 Deut 9:16, Deuteronomy is a more Ps 106:30 Num 25:7 + 17:15 P105 +P 106 preferable option for the following reasons: Ps 106:31 Gen 15:6 JE Ps 106:38 Num 35:33 P107 appears as the name for the חרב ,first

103 Verses 106:9 and 10 are tentatively addressed in the section on allusions because of the high level of uncertainty surrounding the direction of borrowing between the psalmist and Isaiah. I accept here the possibility of a common tradition, or Isaiah borrowing from the Psalm. 104 Here a conflict arises between the views of Driver (1972:67), who argues for P, and Campbell and O’Brien (1993:263), who argue a non-sourced tradition. I have chosen to represent the source as P because of the additional witnesses of Budd (1984:277) and Eissfeldt (1966:189). 105 A similar conflict appears here. Driver (1972:63) argues P for Num 25:7, and Campbell and O’Brien (1993:263) claim a non-sourced tradition for the same verse. I have chosen to represent it as P, due to the support of Budd (1984:277) and Eissfeldt (1966:189). 106 I have included this reference to Genesis, even though it possesses no relation to the Exodus tradition, because it bears a special relevance to the psalmist’s portrayal of the Exodus. Because the Torah, or documents that were used in its compilation, are assumed to be in existence at the time of the Exile, the highest probability is that the psalmist borrowed from Genesis. 107 In this instance, I have chosen to represent the verse as P. Driver (1972:69) claims it is P, whereas Campbell and O’Brien (1993:263) argue a non-sourced tradition; however, both Budd (1984:379) and Eissfeldt (1966:189) concur with Driver. 108 See Appendix C for a more detailed comparison between the sources and the psalm verses. 109 Primarily due to the psalm’s relative lateness, it is more probable that the psalmist had in his possession a text reflecting Num 16, from which he wrote vv.16-18. In spite of the possibilities of the psalmist’s rendition representing an alternate tradition, the present study treats the psalmist’s version as an instance of interpretation in the following section.

Page <223> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 mountain of God; 110 second, the idea of intercession forms a common theme between the psalm and Deuteronomy; third, among the numerous words connecting the psalm to the

In addition to these . חמה and השמיד Torah, only Ps 106:23 and Deut 9:19 employ the words points of similarity, both texts finish the account with God’s anger being stayed by the intercessional work of Moses. Exodus concludes by describing the slaughter of three thousand Israelites at the hands of the Levites, who volunteer to perform God’s instructions to slay those involved in the idolatry. With respect to Moses’ act of intercession, the psalmist reinforces the image by further alluding to Ezekiel 22:30. The marker associating these two

which only ever occurs in the context of intercession in these ,” עמד בפרץ “ texts is the phrase two locations. Concerning the direction of borrowing between the psalm and Ezekiel, nothing can be said for certain. Even though I have chosen to portray Ezekiel as the source, the possibility also exists that Ezekiel read from the psalm, or a common tradition, oral or otherwise, served both authors. At least two markers link Psalm 106 with Deut 1—the phrase ” רגן באהל “ ,and the description of the Israelites complaining in their tents (1:32) ” האמין דבר“

, פוץ :Concerning the allusion to Ezek 20:23, the markers employed by the psalmist are .(1:27)

The psalmist’s account of the incident at Meribah in which 111 .” ארצות and , יד , נשא , זרה , גוים

God provided water for the Israelites is most probably based on Numbers 20:1-12. This is more evident from the contextual congruence between the two texts than the presence of lexical markers. Only Num 20:1-12 recalls the whole of the Israelite rebellion together with waters of Meribah”) also“) ” מי מריבה “ the transgression by Moses and Aaron. The phrase appears in Deut 32:51 112 and Num 27:14, but both instances serve only as reminders of the event narrated in Num 20:1-12. They fail to mention the people’s involvement in the proceedings and concentrate on Moses’ unfaithful act, thus providing a reason for why he did not enter the Promised Land. Exodus 17:1-7 presents itself as another potential source simply because it mentions the provision of water and the place name “Meribah”; however, in this account no record exists of Moses transgressing God’s command in any way.

110 This designation is the preferred choice of Deuteronomy in depicting the mountain. There is a remote possibility that the psalmist employed it simply to form a poetic association with 106:9, which uses the lexically . ויחרב similar form 111 It is interesting to note here the chiastic relationship between the psalm and the source. This lends to the idea of the psalmist purposefully alluding to the passage in Deuteronomy; concerning this phenomenon, see Saidel (1956:149-88). 112 Deuteronomy 33:8 additionally mentions the location, but the context is specifically related to the testing of the Levites.

Page <224> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

From the sources examined thus far, Psalm 106 presents the clearest examples of all sources from the Documentary Hypothesis being employed. In this instance, it would almost appear as though the psalmist had before him a copy of the Torah that resembled MT’s Pentateuch. For the first time in our investigation we witness direct quotes from D as a source, as opposed to influence from Deuteronomic redactors. Evidence of a priestly influence arises with the inclusion of Phinehas’ act of zeal. The P account of the desert itinerary is built around four covenants, one of which is that between God and Phinehas. 113 The presence of all four sources in Psalm 106 further solidifies the probability that they had been combined before, or at least during, the exile. Of particular interest, concerning the sources, is the allusion from 106:12 to Ex 14:31-15:1. Most scholars agree that the song starting from Ex 15:1 constitutes an entity separate from the traditional Pentateuchal sources that was inserted into the Exodus narrative. Because, however, the psalm recognizes the narrative of Ex 14:31 in close association with the song, it would appear that at the time of the psalm’s composition the insertion had already been completed.

PROCESS OF SELECTION From the psalmist’s corpus, as outlined above, two prevalent themes have apparently dictated his selection: first, sin, with its respective punishment; second, intercession. The sins recalled are limited to Israel as a nation, and the shortcomings of the Patriarchs and their respective families are exempt from any accusations. Similarly, the psalmist omitted, or at least marginalized, instances in which individuals have sinned. He fails to mention Aaron and Miriam’s rebellion as recorded in Numbers 12, even though it is strikingly similar to Dathan’s rebellion, which is recalled. This avoidance may stem from the quantity of people involved. In Aaron and Miriam’s case it was only two individuals and therefore not classed as corporate that participated in the rebellion. 114 ( עדה ) sin, whereas with Dathan we read of a congregation

Likewise, the psalmist omits Num 15:32-40, which reports of an individual who is caught collecting firewood on the Sabbath. Under the same assumption mentioned above, because this incident only involved one individual no mention was made. With the exception of these two incidents from the Torah, every major instance of Israel’s rebellion in the desert has been recalled by the psalm in some way. Accompanying the transgressions, the psalmist often

113 Concerning this summary of P’s desert account, see Rofé (1999:41). 114 Another possibility for this exemption is that the psalmist is predisposed to protecting the reputation of those he might conceive as “divinely appointed” leaders. This inclination is apparent in his portrayal of Moses’ rebellion at Meribah, in which the psalmist levels most of the blame at Israel, and not against Moses himself.

Page <225> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 includes the punishments meted out in return. 115 Because of the psalmist’s plan to focus on instances of rebellion it is only natural to expect an omission of the lawgiving at Sinai. Though the number of instances in the Torah of one man interceding to save a nation is limited, the psalmist as carefully selected words that alluded to all occurrences in the desert. Even though he has only explicitly mentioned two instances—Moses interceding after the golden calf incident (v.23) and Phinehas staying the plague (v.30)—other instances are recalled. 116

ALLUSIONS

DELIVERANCE FROM EGYPT Even though one cannot specifically pinpoint the psalmist’s source for his recounting of Israel’s departure from Egypt, one can still identify a process of interpretation and adjustment in his work. 117 The psalmist introduced the element of rebellion in his retelling of events, which was presumably interpreted from Ex 14:10-12, a text detailing how Israel complained against Moses and God when they were caught between the sea and the Egyptian army. This addition of the rebellion at the sea makes the psalmist’s account unique among other Exodus quotes in the selected psalms. Elsewhere, when the event is remembered, it either magnifies the greatness of YHWH’s might, or highlights his mercy towards Israel. Though both these elements are present in Psalm 106, they are offset by a recollection of Israelite sin. This

115 This is not, however, always in accordance with the Torah. 116 See the section on allusions to Baal Peor. 117 Due to the uncertainty surrounding the direction of borrowing, I can only tentatively remark on the associations between Ps 106 and Is 63. A number of similarities, both linguistic and contextual, associate the two texts. Isaiah 63:7-14 begins with a declaration in which the speaker proclaims the Lord’s kindness, and the good things YHWH has done for his people. It also speaks of God delivering Israel, not because of their inherent ל8ֲַשׂ֥ וֹת ל֖ וֹ שֵׁ ֥ ם “) goodness, but because of his love and mercy. Moreover, YHWH acting for his namesake forms an important part of the pericope. In light of God’s mercy towards Israel, Is 63 records (63:12 ,”…עוֹלָ ֽ ם׃ their response, rebellion. All of these features are present in Psalm 106. Additionally, Isaiah 63:10 enumerates God’s response to their rebellion, describing how he battled against them, and although different words appear in Psalm 106, the same idea is evident. Furthermore, Is 63:13 recalls Moses’ role in the Exodus, and reports the .” מוֹלִ יכָ֖ ם בַּתְּ הֹמ֑ וֹת כַּסּ֥ וּס בַּמִּדְבָּ֖ ר לֹ֥ א יִכָּשֵׁ ֽ לוּ׃ “ ,desert journey with words similar to those in our psalm In spite of the similarities between the two sections, two conspicuous differences also arise. First, Moses is recalled as a leader, one who led the Israelites through the sea, in Is 63:12 with respect to the Exodus. Though God clearly instigates events, he nevertheless elicits Moses’ assistance in the task. Contrasting this notion in Psalm 106, Moses does not play any part in the sea crossing. It is God alone who divides the water and leads the people through. By contrasting the two usages of the sea crossing, the psalmist exalts the role of God and his mercy in the Psalm. The psalmist additionally adds the destruction of the Egyptians to highlight God’s care for his people, another aspect absent from Isaiah. Second, Isaiah only devotes a short space to the sins Israel committed against God and his response, and more time to portraying YHWH’s work in deliverance and care for his people. Psalm 106, as we have already discussed, devotes most of its energies to enumerating Israel’s sins.

Page <226> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 addition of rebellion, of course, accommodates the psalmist’s overall intention of depicting a rebellious people who have disobeyed YHWH from their birth as a nation to the Exile.

— שונא ,and , אויב , צרים—Three times in vv.10, 11 epithets are given to the Egyptians and though from the context it is clear to whom these terms refer, the actual name “Egyptians” never appears. Though such an omission is slight, the author’s intent may indeed primarily be to portray a victory by YHWH over unnamed enemies. In emphasizing this, the psalmist creates a more abstract scenario in which YHWH delivers his people despite their sin. Such a scenario embodies the hope of the psalm: in spite of all their transgressions, YHWH will once again deliver Israel from their present enemies. Another conspicuous omission in the psalm is Moses’ role in the deliverance at the sea. Elsewhere in the psalm he figures as an important character who averts the Israelites’ destruction, and yet he is not included as God’s assistant , one who led Israel though the sea. This omission highlights God’s involvement in the proceedings and helps demonstrate that ultimately deliverance belongs to him alone.

CRAVINGS IN THE DESERT Numbers’ rendition of events 118 begins with a group of people who presumably were not ,” התאוו תאוה “) those who tagged along ), 119 that first felt gluttonous desires) אספסף ,Israelites v.4). Their cravings subsequently influence the Israelites to weep and complain because of the lack of variety in their diets. Upon hearing the complaints, Moses becomes distressed and God’s anger is aroused. As a response, God promises to send meat for the Israelites to eat in

והיה “) such abundance that it will come out of their nostrils and become loathsome 120 to them

:v.20). At this point in the narrative, the precise reason for God’s anger is revealed ,” לכם לזרא because the people were upset at having left Egypt. After promising the meat, a wind from

118 The account in Numbers 11 is interwoven with another, possibly more dominant, account of Moses and the division of his authority among the seventy elders. Within this tapestry, the quail narrative draws the user to compare the complaints of Moses with those of the Israelites; additionally, the story in the original context functions etiologically, providing the origin behind the place name Kibroth Hattaavah. For the psalmist, however, these matters are not important, and he selects only those aspects of the account that highlight an instance of Israel’s sin and its ensuing punishment. These issues create a thread connecting all of the psalmist’s selected sources. 119 See Budd (1984:124), and close reading on v.15. 120 BDB 266 defines the word thus, whereas the Septuagint uses the Greek χολεραν , referring to a violent stomach illness such as cholera or dysentery (s. LSJ 1997).

Page <227> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

.v.31) that falls around the Israelites’ camp , שלוים ) YHWH brings in an abundance of quail

Whilst the Israelites were still gathering it, however, a very severe plague strikes them. Within the psalmist’s reuse of his source he is careful to omit certain incidents and nuances for the sake of an improved compliance with his work, and also casts events in a who are the , אספסף purely negative light. 121 His reuse of Numbers 11 fails to include the instigators of the evil desires in the source, relieving Israel of the full burden of guilt. In omitting such a group from his work, the psalmist solely blames the Israelites for the sin, removing any excuse of a “third party” inciting the people to complain against YHWH. Even though the psalmist undoubtedly alludes to the quail incident of Numbers 11, he the psalmist ,שלו In failing to mention .( שלו ) ”omits the specific mention of the word “quail broadens the indictment against Israel to portray a general portrait of their wanton desires, suggesting that their desire was not just for meat and a variation in diet. Furthering the general ’not mentioned in Numbers) נסה employs the stem ,”…וַיְנַ סּוּ־אֵ֗ ל בִּֽ ישִׁ ימֽ וֹן׃ “ ,portrayal, Ps 106:14 rendition of events), which serves as a general reminder of Israel testing YHWH at the waters Ex 17:2 (s. also times the Israelites tested God in the ”…מַ ה־תְּ נַסּ֖ וּן אֶ ת־יְהוָ ֽה׃ “ of Massah wilderness in Num 14:22). The broader scope of wanton desires incorporates the underlying cause of Israel’s complaint in Numbers 11, not so much the hankering for a variation in their diet, but the desire to return to captivity in Egypt (s. Num 11:20). In doing so, they rejected the work YHWH did for them. Even from the source, the desire for meat seems somewhat artificial because we know from a number of places (e.g., Ex 12:38 and 17:3) that the Israelites were relatively rich with respect to flocks and herds. In addition to the above, the psalmist effects further adjustments to his source. In order to heighten the Israelites’ sin, he inserted v.13, a verse explicitly mentioning the speed at which they forgot YHWH’s deeds. This addition creates the image of consecutive events, an image different from the Torah, which includes the bitter waters at Marah, the giving of Manna, and the deliverance from the Amalekites. Additionally the psalmist adds that Israel implying they acted too hastily, a sin not , עצה never waited for God’s instruction, 122

121 The provision of meat in Numbers is not always employed in a negative light, Psalm 105:40 views the incident as a positive manifestation of God’s mercy in provision, as do later biblical interpreters such as Josephus, who interprets it as an example of provision, see Antiquities 3:4 (Whiston [1995:79]). 122 The idea of waiting for God’s instruction and council, though not immediately clear from the source, is mentioned by Josephus in his rendition of events in Numbers, “…and accordingly he exhorted them to continue

Page <228> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 mentioned in the source. Such an addition, recalled again in v.43, may constitute a word of encouragement to the psalmist’s readers, encouraging them to be patient in waiting for God to

Num) ” ... וְהָ יָ ֥ה לָכֶ ֖ם לְ זָרָ ֑ א ... “ deliver them from exile. In v.15 the psalmist replaces the phrase

in v.15, 123 and it is quite possible this was done to alleviate ” ... וַיְשַׁלַּ ֖ח רָ ז֣ וֹן בְּ נַפְשָׁ ֽ ם׃ “ with (11:20

If this . זרא a potential difficulty in the source, which employs the hapex legomenon

,however ; רזון with the word זרא assumption is correct, then the psalmist would have replaced at least to the modern reader, such a motivation seems strange because the rephrasing involves a similarly ambiguous word. 124

DATHAN ’S REBELLION ,against Moses (16:2 , ויקמו ) Numbers 16 reports that Korah, Dathan, and Abiram rose up together with a number of other prominent men from the congregation. Their accusation was that Moses had set himself and Aaron above the rest of the congregation. The issue at stake v.5), and whom the Lord had chosen. Moses , הקדוש ) concerned who YHWH considered holy is dismayed at the accusation, and devises a test of censors, whereby the rebel group together with Aaron are to offer incense to God, who would thus select for himself, via the offerings, those he considered holy. The leaders of the rebellion remain in their tents when the suggestion is made (v.12), and two hundred and fifty of their representatives present themselves before the Lord. YHWH’s anger is aroused and he instructs the congregation to separate themselves from the dwelling of the leaders; at this point, the text recalls Korah, Dathan, and Abiram as the primary instigators. God vents his anger upon them causing the

v.32), and the earth is ,” ותפתח הארץ ... ותבלע אתם “) ground to open up and consume them

.v.33) together with their property ,” ותכס עלי הם הארץ “) reported to have covered them over

At this point in the narrative, attention turns to the two hundred and fifty representatives. issues forth from the Lord and consumes them as they (16:35 , אש ) Numbers recalls that fire offer incense.

quiet, and to consider that help would not come too late, though it come not immediately”, Antiquities 3:4 (s. Whiston [1995:79]). . רזון and זרא Here, the possibility exists that the psalmist is playing on the graphical similarities between 123 124 The close reading for this verse details the numerous possibilities for this word.

Page <229> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

Psalm 106 begins by recalling that a group of men were jealous of Moses and Aaron v.16), which reflects the dispute in , קדוש ) v.16), and initially refers to Aaron as being holy)

to express the rebellion as opposed ויקנאו Num 16:5. The psalmist, however, chose the word

would produce an unwelcome יקמו in Num 16:2. A possible motivation for this is that ויקמו to

but for a righteous , ויעמד association with Phinehas’ righteous act in v.30. He also rose up purpose. Even though the psalm specifically mentions the leaders Dathan and Abiram, the name Korah is omitted, contrasting the source that names him first among the rebel group. As mentioned in the close reading, the psalmist probably omitted this name to protect the later musical guild that went by the same name. Other signs exist suggesting the psalmist avoided defaming the name of prominent individuals support this theory. 125 After recalling the fate of v.17)—the psalm ,” תפתח ארץ ותבלע “) the leaders—the earth opened up and swallowed them turns to the remainder of the faction. Though it fails to mention the trial by censor v.18) that came out from the Lord to consume the wicked , אש ) specifically, it recalls the fire congregation.

REFUSAL OF LAND Deuteronomy 1:22-40 is set in the context of Moses recounting the history of the Israelites’ forefathers just before they enter into Canaan. Moses recounts in their presence all that transpired in the first attempt at conquering the land. He reminds them of how they selected twelve men from each of the tribes for a reconnaissance mission, and how they returned with fruits and produce. The report concerning the land itself was positive, but the Israelites

v.27) because they also heard that the indigenous ,” ותרגנו באהליהם “) complained in their tents population were fearsome warriors. Moses challenges the Israelites by saying that in spite of v.32). In ,” ובדבר ... מאמינם “) all YHWH had done for them, they still had no faith in their God

v.34) and vows that none of ,” וישמע יהוה את קול דברי כם “) the end, God hears their complaints that generation will enter the land that he promised them, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb. As a punishment, YHWH decrees that they are to wander in the desert for forty years.

125 See section on the golden calf.

Page <230> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

,v.24 )—expressing the Israelites’ rejection) מאס Within Ps 106, selection of the word and even despising, of the Promised Land—interprets 126 events recounted in Deut 1. 127 Humanly and rationally speaking, one can understand the response of the Israelites in the source. Twelve men were sent out to survey the land and brought back a report of what they saw, a good land that had fearsome inhabitants. One naturally would expect a disconcerting response. This aspect of reality is ignored and even marginalized by the psalmist, who reduces

128 חמדה the event to an act of unbelief by the Israelites. The further addition of the adjective goes some way to intensify the nature of the rejection: even when God strives to offer the וירגנו “) Israelites a pleasant land, they refused to accept it and complain in their tents

v.25). The psalmist paints the picture of the whole Israelite community rejecting ,” באהליהם

v.24), and in order to create this ,” לא האמינו לדברו “) the promise of God and not trusting him image he naturally omits any mention of Joshua and Caleb, the two spies who returned with the same report but believed YHWH could accomplish what he promised. Contrasting Deuteronomy, in which God hears the sound of the Israelites’ complaints, the psalmist uses .(v.25 ,” לא שמעו בקול יהוה “) the same phrase to denote the Israelites’ disobedience

After recounting the desert generation’s sin, the psalmist continues by merging two separate instances of punishment: wandering in the desert for forty years, which led to the death of the rebellious generation, assimilates with the Exile, the reality in which the psalmist’s generation find themselves. The psalmist accomplishes this assimilation by alluding to Ezek 20:1-26 (esp. v.23). 129 In this section, YHWH recounts instances of the Israelite forefathers’ previous rebellions and rejections of God’s laws whilst in Egypt. When the children of those delivered from Egypt similarly reject God’s laws in the desert, YHWH

126 Both verses 24 and 25 contain instances in which the psalmist juxtaposes a source with its interpretation. In v.24 the Israelites refused the land (source) which stems from them not believing in his promise (interpretation, rationale for the refusal). Similarly, the complaint in the tents (source) equates to them not hearkening to his voice. 127 It is worth noting that the verses selected by the psalmist appear in the center of a concentric structure, s. Christensen (2001:29), in Deut 1 that deals with the rejection of Canaan. Thus, it is likely that the psalmist specifically selected these verses to emphasize, even as the source does, this idea of punishment for the rejection of the Promised Land. 128 This phrase may have formed an alternative designation for Canaan adopted at some time around the Exile and after; it occurs in Jer 3:19 and Zech 7:14. Semantically, a wordplay could be in effect here: previously the Israelites were guilty of harboring wanton desires, and now they refuse a desirable land. 129 Similar words appear in Ezek 22:15 but these reflect a continuation of the thread originating from chapter 20, which speaks of the forthcoming exile. We should also note that like the psalmist, Ezekiel stands as an intercessor of sorts because he forms the mouthpiece for the people in 20:1-2 when they approach him to enquire God’s will.

Page <231> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

,” נשאתי את ידי להם “) first determines to destroy them, but then relents and instead swears

v.23) them among , להפיץ ) v.23) that he would scatter , במדמר ) v.23) to them in the wilderness

, ארצות ) v.23) throughout the lands , ולזרות אותם ) v.23) and disperse them , בגוים ) the nations v.23) because of their failure to obey him. In the context of Ezekiel, this oath represents a declaration of the Exile (of which the prophet himself is a victim) whilst Israel was still in the desert. 130 In merging the two events, the Exile and the desert generation’s punishment, the psalmist describes for us his current situation, exile: just as the desert generation were punished for not believing God’s word, so too were subsequent generations, which led to the psalmist and his contemporaries exile to Babylon. The amalgamation of the desert generation’s punishment and the psalmist’s generation’s punishment (exile) corresponds with the psalmist’s words in v.6, in which he confesses the sins the fathers together with those of his generation (together they fall under the same judgment).

GOLDEN CALF In Deuteronomy 9, Moses reminds the Israelites of their own sin by recalling events at Horeb, when he ascended the mountain to receive the Law. Whilst up the mountain, God tells Moses v.12). At , מסכה ) to return to the people because they have strayed and made a molten image

v.14) and building a new nation , ואשמידם ) this point, YHWH suggests destroying them starting with Moses. Moses then descends from the mountain with the tablets of the covenant, and discovers for himself that the Israelites had indeed made for themselves a molten calf

v.16). In his anger, Moses throws down the tablets, breaking them, and returns ,” מסכה עגל“) up the mountain to intercede for the people. In addition to God’s anger against Israel, he also (v.20 , להשמידו ) expresses his anger with Aaron, to the point that he was ready to destroy him had not Moses also interceded for him. Like other accounts mentioned by the psalmist, his portrayal of the Israelites worshipping the image of the calf appears out of sequence with his presumed source. The psalm locates it after the congregation’s wanton desires, and Dathan’s rebellion, whereas the source in Numbers mentions it before these two events.

130 See Greenberg (1983:368) and Eichrodt (1970:269f.).

Page <232> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

In the psalmist’s account of the golden calf, no mention of the law explicitly appears; this is a little surprising because transgression of God’s law is a primary theme in the psalm. Similarly unexpected is the omission of Aaron’s negative involvement. In the source, it was Aaron who managed the project of forging the idol, and Moses had to intercede to avert God’s anger from him. 131 The psalmist’s reuse of Deut 9 is approximately restricted to the first and last verses of his account, vv.19 and 23. In between these verses, the psalmist adds his own interpretation of the events. His additions primarily serve to heighten the seriousness of the Israelites’ sin. Perhaps the most conspicuous comes with the addition of a polar expression that compares God’s magnificence with the sight of a bull 132 eating grass. The psalmist’s interpretation is in the following verse (v.21), recasting Israel’s rebellion as an שכחו furthered by his use of expression of their forgetting what God had done for them. The dramatic threefold repetition of YHWH’s acts of deliverance at the Reed Sea, 106:21 b-22 (which links to v.8), directly contrasts his mercy towards Israel with their response towards him, emphasizing the extent of their sin. By employing repetition, the psalmist heightens the severity of the transgressions and consequently the anger felt by God. Thus, when we read v.23, the actions of one man, being able to turn aside such wrath, becomes so much more pronounced. The overall context in which the golden-calf incident is framed also differs between Deuteronomy and the psalm. Deuteronomy 9 is set just before Israel crosses over the Jordan into the Promised Land. At this point, Moses recounts all of Israel’s rebellious and sinful behavior during their desert wanderings. In reciting those events, it is Moses’ hope that the people will learn from their past and not repeat the same mistakes once they have crossed over into the Promised Land. Thus, the purpose is to remind the Israelites of their past to encourage improved behavior in the future. The psalmist, on the other hand, recalls this incident to confess the transgressions of the people—after Moses’ hope of improved behavior failed—in the hope that YHWH will again be gracious unto them and bring them back from captivity.

131 A degree of doubt arises concerning the omission mentioned here because the text in Deuteronomy (9:20) may constitute a later gloss to harmonize events with Exodus’ rendition of the golden calf. Aaron appears strangely absent from the Deuteronomy pericope up until this point. Furthermore, Loewenstamm (1992b) has at the end. Notwithstanding ” בָּ 8ֵ ת הַהִ וא “ shown that Deut 9:20 reveals signs of a later gloss because of the phrase such evidence, the probability still exists that Aaron was omitted because he is also conspicuously absent from the psalmist’s rendition of events at the waters of Meribah. is also an addition to intensify the way we perceive ( שור ) The psalmist’s description of this idol as a bull 132 Israel’s sin and rebellion because it reflects aspects of Canaanite worship; s. Phillips (1973:70).

Page <233> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

v.30) who ,” עמד בפרץ “) ,In Ezekiel 22, God searches for one man to stand in the gap is to intercede on behalf of Israel so that he could spare them. Unfortunately, in this instance, nobody was found and as a result Judah was sent into exile. This situation contrasts with Psalm 106:19-23. In the context of the psalm, the Israelites sin, but unlike Ezekiel’s record, someone is found to mediate for them. By including the allusion to Ezekiel, the psalmist develops the idea of intercession, showing that without one man to intercede for the people, they suffer God’s wrath; conversely, the intercessory actions of just one man are enough to turn God’s anger from the nation. This theme is important to the psalmist since he ultimately casts himself in the position of that one man who intercedes for the people to divert God’s punitive anger. 133

BAAL PEOR Numbers 25 reports how the Israelites, whilst staying in Shittim, prostituted themselves with v.2). The people ,” לזבחי אלהיהן “) Moabite women, who invited them to sacrifice to their gods

v.2) and bowing to the Moabite gods. Israel thus joined , ויאכל ) responded by eating

v.3), an act which raised YHWH’s anger ,” ויצמד ... לבעל פעור “) themselves with Baal Peor against them. As a punitive measure, God instructs Moses to impale publicly all those who had prostituted themselves in this way. At this time, an Israelite man brought a Midianite woman over to the tabernacle in the sight of Moses and the Israelite community. When v.7) from the assembly, and taking a spear in ,ו יקם ) v.7) saw this, he arose , פינחס ) Phinehas his hand, he stabbed the man and the woman in the sight of all. At this point in Numbers, we are told that a plague, presumably sent as punishment when the idolatry began, was stopped v.8) even though no explicit record of its outbreak was ever made. Because ,” ותעצר המגפה “) of his zealous actions, God makes a covenant of peace with Phinehas and his descendants (v.13). Though the points of association are strong, the psalmist has, just like other allusions in the psalm, chosen to omit certain references from his source, those issues that he deemed .is emphasized in the source (s ( קנא ) unimportant or contrary to his message. Phinehas’ zeal

Num 25:11 and 25:13), and though no reference to it appears in the psalm, it nevertheless

133 See the close reading for further details on this topic.

Page <234> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 constitutes an important part of Phinehas’ character that reinforces his act of intercession. A possible motivation for this omission is that the psalmist wanted to avoid an internal negative

.which also appeared in the recounting of Dathan’s rebellion , קנא association with the root

Just as the psalmist chose words to create internal allusions through repetition, here he alters a word to avoid such an allusion. The specific nature of the sin committed by the Israelites, and Phinehas’ violent act that ended it, are details the psalmist has presumably omitted for censorship 134 and because they ultimately were not important to his message. Avoiding mention of the above also means it was not incumbent upon the psalmist to explain exactly what occurred in Num 25:6. 135 Another important alteration concerns the nature of the covenant made with Phinehas. The psalmist’s decision 136 .(25:12) ” בריתי שלום “ ,Numbers refers to it as a covenant of peace to alter this phrase may have been dictated by the overall message of the psalm which opposes any notion of peace between God and Israel. In omitting the reference to the covenant of peace, the psalmist replaces the blessing with an allusion to Gen 15:6 that describes Abraham for believing God’s word. Thus, Phinehas is ,צדקה ,being attributed with righteousness likened to a character who believed and trusted God’s word. Consequently, Phinehas is individually characterized with the very trait the Israelites lacked in the psalm: believing, having faith, and trusting in God (s. v.24). Being attributed with the same blessing Abraham received, Phinehas’ status is also elevated to that of Abraham, suggesting that God viewed both individuals in the same way. 137 The Numbers account of the idolatry with Baal Peor is somewhat unclear with respect to the plague. Though its end is recorded in Num 25:8, no record appears concerning exactly when the plague started. This lacuna in the source is resolved by the psalmist because his

134 This is how Fishbane (1985:398) primarily interprets the act, but in the psalm’s context, we should also consider the psalmist’s principal themes, including that of intercession. Though he may indeed be alleviating the cruelness and harshness of Phinehas’ actions, he is also interpreting the act according to a theme central to his psalm, one man acting on behalf of the people to stay God’s wrath. 135 The precise nature of the act eliciting Phinehas’ response is not altogether clear from the account in Numbers. 136 Noordtzij (1983:242) calls this as an everlasting relationship of peace with God. Such a reward, however, is contradicted in the psalm since even the descendants of Phinehas, in view of the psalm, would not be at peace with God. Some later interpreters see this covenant as a statement declaring that Phinehas would live forever. Support for this comes from Jud 20:28 in which Phinehas is still alive long after his contemporaries have died. Further support for this idea appears in Numbers Rabba 21:3, and Tg Pseudo-Jonathan Num 25:12-13. 137 His elevation of Phinehas’ status may indeed be further proof that the psalmist himself is a priest and a descendant of Phinehas.

Page <235> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 account implies that the plague began after the Israelites joined themselves with Baal Peor. 138 v.30) alludes to) ” ותעצר המגפה “ Additionally, the psalmist’s employment of the phrase

Numbers 17:15. Though the phrase also appears in 2Sam 24:21, 139 depicting an end to the plague caused by David ordering a census of the people, the similar context of Numbers 17:15 suggests it influenced the psalmist. Numbers 17 speaks of a plague separate to the one instigated by the worship of Baal Peor. It describes an instance when Israel complained about the high number of God’s people who died after Dathan’s rebellion. This complaining angers YHWH and he sends a plague on the people as punishment. Reacting to this, Moses instructs Aaron to light a censer and bring it to the altar, an act which succeeds in halting the plague v.15). The important point of association between this act and the psalm is ,” והמגפה נעצרה “) the description of Aaron. After he succeeded in stopping the plague, he is depicted as standing between the living and the dead. Such a description reflects the notion of intercession: one man preventing a calamity upon a nation. This same theme is also critical to Psalm 106 because the psalmist sees himself in that role. 140

WATERS OF MERIBAH Only two verses are devoted to describing the provision of water at Meribah, and like many of the other episodes recounted by the author, this one occurs out of sequence. The incident’s placement, however, approximately corresponds with Deut 32:51, where it appears immediately prior to the Israelites entering into the Promised Land, as reflected in our psalm. In Numbers 20:1-13, after Miriam’s death, the Israelites were without water and

v.3) and Aaron complaining that they should have remained in , משה ) gathered against Moses

138 An interesting act of interpretation occurs in this verse, v.29, which may constitute an attempt by the psalmist to reflect the ambiguity in the source. The psalmist effectively makes two separate statements concerning the coming of the plague: first, that God was angered; second, that a plague broke out. Though it is implicit from the context, the psalmist does not explicitly state that God sent the plague as a result of his anger. Instead, one event is simple stated after the other. 139 We should not be too hasty in rejecting this passage as an allusion because it too contains the important idea of the effects one man’s actions have on a larger community. Though the psalmist is primarily concerned with the positive effects, such as interceding to God on the people’s behalf, the text in Samuel provides an antithesis: the sinful effects of one man bringing destruction to the nation. The idea of an antithesis to heighten the positive example also occurs in Ps 106:23, which alludes to Ezekiel (see above, concerning the golden calf). 140 A glance at the psalm’s overall context in relation to its source reveals other alterations. The primary purpose of Num 25 is to clarify the special position of Phinehas’ descendants within the circle of Aaronite priests, and to highlight the moral degradation of certain elements within Israelite leadership; s. Num 25:4, and Noordtzij (1983:240). The latter element contributes to the psalm’s development because it demonstrates the depth at which the rebelliousness of the Israelites had reached, even to members of the leadership. The former element, however, is dropped in its entirety by the psalmist. Instead, he further adapts the narrative to exemplify how one man’s righteous act can effectively save the entire nation from God’s punitive wrath.

Page <236> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

Egypt because they now lacked water in the desert. Moses and Aaron then fall on their faces before God (vv.6-8) who instructs them to order a rock to yield water. Moses subsequently takes Aaron’s rod and angrily chastises the people before striking the rock with the staff, whereupon water gushes out. God then punishes Moses and Aaron for not affirming his sanctity before the people, the punishment being denial of entry into Canaan. These events .(v.13 ,” מי מריבה “) reportedly transpire at the waters of Meribah

From the psalmist’s source, two notable alterations occur: the omission of Aaron’s involvement in the affair, and a heightening of Israel’s role. The omission of Aaron is partly understandable since he does not play an important part in the source. In many ways his role is that of a hapless victim caught up in events beyond his control. Numbers 20 recognizes Moses as the protagonist who acts and speaks, and yet Aaron is punished for what appears to be Moses’ sin. 141 In mentioning the people’s involvement, the psalmist adapts the source to the overall pattern and central message of the psalm—highlighting the Israelites’ persistent rebellion. Primary emphasis on the people’s sin mollifies the degree of accountability ascribed to Moses in the source. In Numbers no question arises concerning Moses’ (and Aaron’s) culpability, irrespective of the people’s actions. Moses failed to sanctify God’s name in the presence of the Israelites (Num 27:14), and for this he is punished by being denied entrance into the Promised Land. The psalmist’s rendition of events is somewhat apologetic with respect to Moses: because of the people’s behavior, Moses is angered and sins on their account. Such an emphasis on the people driving Moses to sin has particular relevance to Ps 106:19-23; after Moses intercedes to turn God’s fury away, they repay him by bringing wickedness upon him. 142

REORDERING Concerning the psalmist’s overall scheme for the arrangement of his selected material it is difficult to assert categorically that he had a single strategy in mind. It is clear, however, that he has rearranged material to suit his specific purposes. While an all-encompassing strategy

141 See Propp (1992:601). 142 At this point, it is worth noting that Deut 1:34-37 may have influenced the author’s work to some degree, and he may even have attempted to harmonize the two texts. Deuteronomy 1 forms part of a recital depicting Moses’ refusal of entry into Canaan, and in v.37 YHWH denies Moses entry to the land because of the Israelites’ refusal it is relevant because Aaron is מריבה to enter it at the first opportunity. Even though no reference appears here to not mentioned, similar to the psalm, and Moses’ denial of entry into the land comes as a direct result of Israel’s actions.

Page <237> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 eludes us, I hope now to suggest motives that may have influenced the psalmist in his arrangement of the psalm. 143 The order of events in both psalm and source are listed below.

PSALM 106 EXODUS (E)/N UMBERS (N)

1) Reed Sea Crossing 1) Reed Sea Crossing (E) 2) Egyptians’ Destruction 2) Egyptians’ Destru ction 3) Song of the Sea 3) Song of the Sea 4) Desire for Quail Bitter Waters at Marah (E) 5) Dathan’s Revolt Manna (E) 6) Golden Calf Massah/Meribah (E) 7) Moses’ Intercession Lawgiving (E/N) 8) Rejection of Land 6) Golden Calf (E) 9) Baal Peor 4) Desire for Quail (N) 10) Meribah Aaron’s Rebellion (N) 8) Rejection of Land (N) 7) Moses’ Intercession (N) 5) Dathan’s Revolt (N) 10) Meribah (revisited?) (N) Bronze Serpent (N) Bilaam (N) 9) Baal Peor (N)

On the whole, we can see that the psalmist pays some respect to the chronological ordering of events in his source. His work begins with the crossing of the Reed Sea, he continues to portray the desert period, and proceeds from there to the conquest and habitation of Canaan. This sequence of events reflects the Pentateuch and former prophets. His decision to place the quail incident first, before events at Sinai, may reflect two possible motivations. First, it could have been viewed together with the manna account and ordered according to Exodus as a pre- Sinai event. Supporting this view is the fact that quail are not specifically mentioned in the psalm, only “desires”, which may encompass both the desire for meat and for bread. Second, the psalmist may have sought to order events from the least to the most severe. Thus, the quail

143 Now I must at least acknowledge the possibility that the psalmist worked with a vorlage reflecting a different order from that which we have today. Though this is possible, it is also a less likely scenario because of the relatively late date of the composition.

Page <238> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 incident was, in his view, the least serious. Because the desire for food is natural and understandable, he may have conceived it as being more excusable. 144 The placement of Dathan’s rebellion, occurring much later in the source, also appears before the events at Sinai, and here too the psalmist may have been motivated by the second rationale mentioned above: arrangement according to severity. Since Dathan’s rebellion only involved a smaller section of the community and is only indirectly leveled against YHWH (via his leadership), the instance of rebellion may have been deemed more trivial. Following Dathan’s rebellion is the account of the golden calf. This represents a sin more severe than all of those preceding, possibly reflected in the psalmist’s extra effort to remind the reader of the deliverance at the Sea together with the theological interpretation of the event in v.20. Though this incident represents an escalation in the transgression’s deplorability, it is ameliorated to some extent by the act of intercession that follows. Moses’ intercession should be read together with the Promised Land’s rejection and Phinehas’ act of intercession. Together, these events teach of the importance of intercession. With the righteous acts of individuals, God’s anger can be stayed even though the community commits idolatry, as in Moses and Phinehas’ case. But without an intercessor, the people suffer under God’s punishment. One reason for the placement of Phinehas’ act so late in the proceedings is that it heightens the impact of his deeds. After sin has multiplied and become habitual for Israel, a place still exists for effective intercession. This theme would have been important to the psalmist, since he would have stood at a time much later in Israel’s history, after the habitually rebellious behavior became more ingrained in Israelite society. The account of Meribah is primarily employed by the psalmist as an apologetic for why Moses, even after his intervention to save the people, was denied entrance to Canaan. It additionally highlights Israel’s ingratitude, since it reveals that after he had prevented their destruction, they repay him by provoking him to sin. With this account, we witness the psalmist returning to a semblance of chronological ordering, since this was one of the last events occurring before Israel crossed the Jordan into Canaan. Following this incident the psalmist retells instances of child sacrifice. The declining nature of the sin is evident in the broadening of its effects. Previously each man’s sin defiled him, and him alone, and he was punished for it. In this later incident, however, the sin of the people affects both their innocent children in addition to the land, which becomes polluted. Consequently, the act of rebellion

144 We should also be aware of the possibility that from the source, it was not the Israelites who instigated the .(who accompanied them from Egypt (Num 11:4 ( אספסף) complaints but the riff-raff

Page <239> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 should certainly be considered worse than all of its predecessors, completing the picture of progressive severity.

JUXTAPOSITION

PSALMS 105—106 After a general introduction of praise (vv.1-7) exhorting the audience to praise and remember v.8) of land to , דבר ) YHWH’s deeds, Ps 105 establishes its primary theme: God’s promise

Abraham and his descendants. It continues by recalling incidents from the Patriarchs’ lives

, שלח ) and proceeds to enumerate events in Joseph’s life. The psalm recalls how God sent v.17) a man before the Patriarchs, who is further identified as Joseph. He is sold as a slave and , שלח ) bound as part of a process in which God tests him. After a designated period, God sends

v.20) and appoints him ruler over all he , ויפתחהו ) v.20) for the king, who releases Joseph owned. After this, the psalm continues by recounting Jacob’s sojourn to Egypt, the land of

v.23) and the events leading to Israel’s oppression and enslavement. In order ,” ארץ חם “) Ham

v.26) Moses and Aaron, and through them he , שלח ) to secure their emancipation, God sends works signs against the Egyptians, the plagues. Among the plagues, it is specifically noted v.28) against his word, and ,” לא מרו “) v.28) darkness, which did not rebel , שלח ) that God sent

v.32). As a result of the plagues being unleashed against the land of Ham , אש ) a flaming fire

v.27), YHWH secures the Israelites’ freedom and leads them out into the ,” ארץ חם “) wilderness with silver, gold, and much rejoicing. When they became hungry during their v.40) for food, and he provided them with meat, bread, and , שאל ) desert sojourn, they asked water as an expression of his kindness. At this point, the psalm recalls that God performed all v.42) to , דבר ) of these deeds on behalf of Israel because he remembered his holy promise

v.43) with which God delivered Israel, and , רנה ) Abraham. The psalm then reiterates the joy proceeds to explain YHWH’s desired response to his benevolence (s. close reading on Psalm 105:45). In each of the above contexts, the words cited appear in a positive light, i.e. a background in which YHWH assists the Israelites in some way, bringing about the fulfillment of his purposes.

Page <240> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

Psalm 106 adopts a number of the aforementioned common words and reworks them into a wholly negative context concerning God’s relationship with Israel. Following the introduction, Psalm 106 continues to recount Israel’s sinful past as part of a national confession of sin. After recounting how God delivered them from the sea and Pharaoh’s army, the psalm speaks of the Israelites’ evil desires for food, contrasting the more polite request in v.15) leanness to , ישלח ) v.15) and also sends , שאלתם ) Psalm 105. God answers their request their soul as punishment. Subsequent to this, a group of Israelites, Dathan and his company, instigate a rebellion against Moses and Aaron. As a response to the insurrection, the rebel

, אש ) v.17) and swallows Dathan, and a fire , תפתח ) group is punished when the ground opens v.18) is kindled in their company. Psalm 106 reports three other instances of sin: idol worship with a calf idol, the Israelites’ refusal of the Promised Land, and a further instance of idolatry v.33) against Moses at the waters ,ה מרו ) with Baal Peor. After this, we hear of Israel rebelling of Meribah, causing him to speak rashly with his lips. The following section in the psalm details Israel’s acts of child sacrifice soon after the conquest, and then the psalm summarizes v.43) numerous , ימרו ) their actions whilst they dwelt in the Promised Land. They rebelled times and were punished by YHWH, who permitted their enemies to oppress them. God, .v.44) and take pity on them , רנתם ) however, would hear their cry

In each instance above, keywords link Psalm 106 with Psalm 105, however, the apparent reversal from positive to negative 145 acts as a tool for highlighting the comparison between the two works. Psalm 105 portrays the work of a benevolent God who, from his own initiative, acts in mercy towards Israel so that they in turn would obey him. Contrasting this, Psalm 106 depicts Israel’s response. They constantly rebel against him, failing to respond correctly to his kindness. As a result, YHWH is forced to punish them with the same measure of his earlier mercy to them. are Psalms 105:23, 27 ” ארץ חם “ The only two places in the Bible that use the phrase and 106:22, 146 and this fact alone certainly suggests that one psalmist was familiar with the work of the other. Moreover, the arranger of the Psalter may even have used this phrase as a

145 Here, I have opted to portray the reversal in terms of positive to negative because this reflects the order of the psalms as they appear in the Psalter. One could also view the change as being from negative to positive if we understand that Psalm 105 was written after Ps 106 and the author of the former psalm sought to place a positive slant on the negative reporting of the desert events. .” אהלי חם “ ,Notwithstanding the similar phrase in Psalm 78:51 146

Page <241> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 reason to juxtapose the two works. 147 Irrespective of which psalm was written first, a sequential reading of the two compositions with regard to this phrase is insightful. Psalm 105 first employs the phrase as part of a detailed description of God’s work in redeeming the Israelites from slavery, a portrayal that includes the multiplication of Jacob’s family, the Egyptians’ change of heart and the plagues wrought against them. With this in mind, when the reader continues to read the same phrase in Psalm 106, he has a lucid and fuller picture of the magnificent deeds performed in the land of Ham (Ps 106:22). Psalm 106 does not the psalm reminds ,” ארץ חם “ ,specifically mention the plagues against Egypt, but via the link

completes a lacuna in ” ארץ חם “ the reader of the events. In a similar fashion, the phrase

Psalm 105. Psalm 105 fails to recall the events of the Reed Sea, jumping from Israel’s however, the ,” ארץ חם “ departure from Egypt to the desert wandering. Via the linking phrase reader is brought to Ps 106:22, which recalls the miracle at the Reed Sea. represents a promise that YHWH makes to Abraham and his דבר ,In Psalm 105:8

is fulfilled in v.42 when , דבר ,descendants to give them the land of Canaan. This promise

YHWH proves faithful and grants Israel the land of Canaan, in addition to the toil of the indigenous population. Contrasting this situation, in light of God’s proven faithfulness to his Israel fails to trust in him when the time first came for them to conquer the land , דבר ,promise

(106:24). The two prominent themes appearing in both psalms—deeds and remembrance— further augment the comparison mentioned above. Numerous synonyms appear in the two works reflecting these notions (as seen from the close reading). Psalm 105 recounts how God remembers his promise by performing deeds to help save Abraham and his seed. YHWH acts by rebuking those who threaten the Patriarchs, sends Pharaoh to release Joseph, 148 sends the plagues against Egypt to emancipate his people, feeds his people in the desert, and generously bestows upon them the land of Canaan, which he had promised. Contrasting this, Psalm 106 disparagingly narrates how Israel does not remember God’s deeds. Regarding forgetfulness, v.7 states they did not remember the multitude of his mercies, v.13 says they quickly forgot

147 Keil and Delitzsch (1982:21) have suggested this as a possible motive for juxtaposition. 148 This is a valid reading of the verse even though a few commentators and modern translations disagree; it better fits the psalm’s theme of YHWH’s omnipotence.

Page <242> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 his deeds, and v.21 describes how they forgot the God who saved them. 149 Just as we previously recognized individual words redeployed in inverted contexts, so too these two themes in Psalm’s 105 and 106 appear in reversed contexts. 150 Following the aforementioned contrast, the juxtaposition of Psalms 105 and 106 reinforces an important and established lesson from biblical tradition. It implores the listeners to remember God’s deeds in history, because forgetting these deeds leads to dissolute behavior. Psalm 105 is primarily a call to remember God’s works as an aid to obedience (s. v.45). Following this, Psalm 106 graphically describes the consequences of forgetting (106:13-14). Deuteronomy similarly reflects this lesson. Deut 8:15-18 enumerates various deeds God performed for the Israelites, v.19 then directly associates forgetting God’s acts for Israel in the past with committing sinful actions: walking after other gods. In addition to the contrasts mentioned above, Psalm 106 constitutes a corrective compliment to Psalm 105. Reading Psalm 105 alone suggests the wilderness events occurred without any rebellious behavior and Israel was fully compliant and cooperative with God’s purposes. Verse 40 suggests Israel never complained for food and water, but politely requested food to eat, and God stood ready to supply their needs. By way of contrast, a sequential reading of Psalm 105 and Psalm 106 corrects any misconceived ideas, recounting numerous instances of rebellion (Ps. 106:7, 33, 43). God did answer their request (complaint) for food, but sent them leanness with it (106:15); there was fire sent against Israel’s enemies (105:32), but also against them (106:18). Via certain keywords appearing in both psalms,

v.14), and) ויתאוו ,(v.6) העוינו ,(v.6) חטאנו :Synonyms for wicked deeds ubiquitously occur in Psalm 106 149 .(v.39) ” ויטמאו במעשיהם ויזנו במעלליהם“ 150 Contrast as a rationale for juxtaposition is by no means a rare phenomenon, and we often witness instances in biblical literature of events juxtaposed with the intention of emphasizing the deeds of an individual. First Samuel 25 recounts the conflict between David and Nabal. David sends messengers to Nabal requesting a share of Nabal’s profits claiming that in some part, he deserves it, because he and his men protected Nabal’s shepherds. After Nabal declines David’s request, David’s action is swift, he gathers his men, puts on his sword and vows to kill Nabal, who offers no direct threat to David’s life. Immediately after this account, we read the account of Saul’s pursuit of David with the intention of taking his life. During this pursuit, David has the opportunity to kill Saul, but instead chooses to spare him. The juxtaposition of these two stories highlights David’s behavior. In the first story, the author portrays him as a man who is quick to kill for a relatively negligible affair. The second account emphasizes David’s remarkable restraint for the Lord’s anointed, and when he has an opportunity to kill someone who was trying to kill him, he refuses. In another example, Genesis 11:1-9 recounts the Mesopotamian’s actions; they strive to make a name for themselves by disobeying God’s command to go out Because of their disobedience, God .(” ... פְּר֥ וּ וּרְ ב֛ וּ וּמִ לְא֥ וּ אֶ ת־הָאָ ֖ רֶ ץ וְכִבְשֻׁ ֑ ...הָ “ into all of the earth (Gen 1:28 instigates their dispersal throughout the world; they fail to achieve their quest for fame. The following story describes Abraham obeying God’s call to fill the earth; consequently, he receives the very thing the Mesopotamians desired through disobedience, a name. The juxtaposition of these stories emphasizes Abraham’s obedience in contrast to the Mesopotamian’s disobedience.

Page <243> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

Psalm 106 responds to 105 sending a clear message that Israel’s history during the Exodus was not a picture of total obedience.

PSALMS 106—107 Psalm 107 is essentially a psalm of thanksgiving for various calamities—that an individual or community may undergo—in which God intervenes to deliver. 151 Though the psalm depicts numerous situations, one cannot claim indisputably that the psalmist intended to enumerate specific instances in Israelite literary history. The end of the psalm reveals a purpose beyond simply that of thanksgiving, it exhorts the reader to learn from past events. The psalm begins v.1) that is addressed to the ,” הדו ליהוה כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו “) with a call to praise (1-3)

v.3). 152 It ,” ומארצות קבצם “) redeemed of YHWH, and those he has gathered from the lands then continues (vv.4-10) to speak of his provision of sustenance and how he led individuals in

v.5) with sustenance even , נפשם ) v.4), and provided their weary souls , בישימון ) a desert

in ,( נפש ) though they had rebelled. The idea of YHWH as one who satisfies the hungry soul that deserve praise. Verses 10- ( נפלאות ) v.9, is adopted as an example of his wonderful works

16 portray a deliverance from captivity that was induced through rebellion against his council v.11). Similarly vv.17-22 speak of an affliction that was brought on by ,” המרו ... עצת עליון “)

v.18) of the afflicted abhorred all manner , נפשם ) God as punishment for sin in which the soul of food; whilst in their distress, however, he healed them. As a response to this, they are v.22). Verses 23-33 recount a ,” ויזבחו זבחי תודה “) exhorted to offer sacrifices of thanksgiving situation in which individuals are saved from a storm at sea, and during their distress, the ,v.26) of these individuals as melting. In order to deliver them , נפשם ) psalm depicts the souls however, YHWH stills the sea and guides them back to land. Next we see a return to the desert as vv.34-38 detail God’s work over Creation in transforming a desert into a habitable land by creating streams and pools of water. The final section returns to the theme of deliverance from domination by enemies, even though the oppression was instigated by

151 See also Allen (2002:88). 152 Verses 2 and 3 probably do not belong to the original work (s. Allen [2002:88]), and may have been added with the specific purpose of strengthening the relationship between the psalms.

Page <244> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

YHWH for disobedience. The concluding verse, as previously mentioned, consists of an admonition to learn from history, and the mercy YHWH had previously shown to man.

הודו ליהוה כי טוב “) Though both Psalms 106 and 107 start with exactly the same words

the contexts in which they appear differ significantly. Psalm 106 constitutes a ,(” כי לעולם חסדו

Lament that recounts Israel’s continuous rebellion against YHWH and his constant need to punish them for their actions. As a result of their behavior they are ultimately exiled to the land of their enemies and cry out to God for deliverance. On this background, the psalmist encourages the readers in v.1 to give thanks and declare praise to God for his everlasting compassion. For the psalmist, the mercy has not yet been effected, and he hopes for that which is unseen, and exhorts Israel to give thanks on the basis of that hope. In Psalm 107 the hope has been realized and God’s mercy has been manifest in deliverance. His eternal mercy is no longer a hope, but a realization and a reason to celebrate. 153 Though Psalm 107 may indeed have originated as a psalm of general thanksgiving, used by individuals who had undergone crises of varying descriptions, its position after Psalm 106 renews its meaning. When read after Psalm 106 it transforms from an abstract prayer of thanksgiving, covering a variety of scenarios, to a specific prayer of thanksgiving for the psalmist’s request in Ps 106 for God to deliver Israel from exile. Concerning this ,”v.3). The “lands) ” מארצות קבצם “ transformation, perhaps the most important phrase is

appears in Ps 106:27, in the same plural form as a description of lands throughout , ארצות which YHWH scattered those of Ezekiel’s generation. Furthermore, the psalmist’s plea in Ps the people from the nations. 154 Thus Psalm 106 paints (קבצנו ) is that God would gather 106:47 a picture of Israel scattered throughout the nations, and an individual’s plea for their return. In Psalm 107:3 we see YHWH has answered this plea from Ps 106, and has gathered the people from the four corners of the globe. Without this continuation in the form of Ps 107 there is no closure to Psalm 106 because the question remains: “was God faithful to the psalmist’s prayer?”

153 Here we should also note that Psalm 106 closes with the hope that if YHWH delivers the Israelites, they would then declare his praises. This is realized in Psalm 107, which declares his praises, giving thanks for God’s deliverance. also creates an association with Psalm 106 גאל Though no exact lexical correspondence exists, the word 154 because it frequently depicts YHWH’s redemptive work among the exiles in Babylon, and his returning them back to their land (s. Is 48:20, 62:12, and Micah 4:10). Consequently, the term here could refer to those whom God had returned from the Exile, including the psalmist.

Page <245> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

in Psalm 107 develop the notion of mighty acts that נפלאות The repeated references to appear in Psalm 106. Psalm 106 only speaks of those acts which God performed for Israel v.7). On the other hand, Psalm 107 ,” במצרים לא השכילו נפלאותיך “) ,whilst they were in Egypt employs the same term to describe a range of instances in which God intervenes to deliver people from danger and distress. In this instance, the consecutive reading broadens and develops the notion of God acting in might, showing that his ability to deliver continues throughout the generations. , ישימון in Pss 105-106 is the word ” ארץ חם “ Similar to the distribution of the phrase signifying the desert. Of the four times it occurs in the Psalter, its only consecutive appearance is between Psalms 106 and 107. 155 In both psalms it represents a synonym for the desert and forms the stage for corporate sin. Even though the reference in Psalm 107:4 is far from specific with regards to the incident being recalled, a consecutive reading of the psalms connects “those who wandered in the wilderness” with the desert generation of Psalm 106. A change in attitude occurs among the Israelites between Pss 106 and 107 with respect זבחי “) offered. Those sacrifices the Israelites formerly made to the dead זבחים to the sacrifices

v.37) of their sons and daughters to idols, are no , ויזבחו ) along with those (106:28 ,” מתים longer remembered. Replacing these aberrations, Psalm 107 only recalls correct sacrifices, offerings of thanksgiving presented on account of YHWH’s deeds (107:22). and 107:11, the only two places in the Bible they occur 106:43) ” מרה עצה “ The phrase together) also links the psalms, demonstrating that rebellion ultimately has its consequences. In Psalm 106, the Israelites are specifically indicted for repeatedly rebelling against God’s

v.43), which ultimately leads to a descending spiral of sin and ,” ימרו בעצתם “) council degradation. Psalm 107, however, is not specific concerning who rejected God’s council, but in both instances, the ultimate result of rejecting YHWH’s council is that the transgressors are soon humbled and brought low (s. 107:12).

PSALMS 105—107 A sequential reading of Psalm’s 105-107 represents a pattern often seen in Israel’s literary history that is particularly common to the : God’s faithfulness—Israel’s sinful

155 The other occurrences are in Ps 68:8, and the historiographic Psalm 78:40.

Page <246> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 response—God’s punishment—God’s subsequent deliverance. Psalm 105 depicts YHWH’s faithfulness to his people in history and closes with a statement determining his requirements of them: to obey his commandments. Psalm 106 follows by recounting how the Israelites failed to uphold these requirements and the ensuing punishment by God. The psalm is essentially a confessional call to repentance that escalates in intensity until the penultimate verse. Continuing the pattern, Psalm 107 constitutes a song of thanksgiving, probably originally written for general-purpose thanksgiving but due to its proximity to Psalm 106, it may also be read as a thanksgiving song for the occasion of God relenting and delivering Israel from the Exile. Linking these three psalms and reflecting the aforementioned sequence Shouts of joy” in Psalm 105:43 when the Israelites are brought“ . רנה of events is the word from their captivity are transformed to cries of distress in Psalm 106:44 as they suffer under is developed into a cry of רנה the hand of their oppressors. Finally, in Psalm 107:22 thanksgiving in light of God’s deliverance.

Page <247> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106

EXCURSUS 1 - THE BOOK OF MOSES Both Psalms 105 and 106 are positioned at the end of Book IV in the Psalter. 156 Even though the fourth book is most commonly associated with kingship, it may also be termed The Book of Moses 157 because Moses creates an inclusion for the collection. Both the opening and

תְּ פִלָּה֘ לְ מֹשֶׁ ֪ ה “ ,closing of this book explicitly mention his name. Psalm 90 bears the title

v.1), and as already noted, Psalms 105 and 106 frequently refer to this biblical) ” אִֽ ישׁ־הָאNֱ֫הִ ֥ ים figure. Furthermore, of the eight times the name “Moses” appears in the Psalter, seven of them occur in Book IV. The only instance in which it appears outside this collection is in Ps 77:21, which, as we have already seen probably represents a later addition. 158 Psalm 99:6

Samuel is) ” מֹ֨שֶׁ ֤ ה וְאַהֲ רֹ֙ ן׀ בְּֽ כֹהֲ נָ֗ יו ... “ ,recalls Moses and Aaron as being among YHWH’s priests also mentioned at this point). The psalm further hints towards the desert itinerary in v.7 by recalling instances ,” בּ8ְַמּ֣ וּד 8ָ֭נָ ן יְדַבֵּ ֣ר אֲ לֵ יהֶ ֑ ם “ ,stating that God spoke to them in a pillar of cloud such as Ex 19:9 and 33:9. Moreover, the mention of Moses and Aaron obeying the laws

Ps 99:7) also recalls the lawgiving at Sinai) ” שמרו עדתיו וחק נתן למו ... “ ,YHWH gave them during Israel’s desert journey. Furthering Book IV’s relationship with Moses is Psalm 103:7. יוֹדִ ֣ יIn this composition, the psalmist declares that God made his ways known to Moses, “ ַZ

.and the children of Israel ,” דְּרָכָ ֣יו לְ מֹשֶׁ ֑ ה

Additionally, concerning this group of psalms 159 we must note the concentration of Exodus psalms (95, 105, and 106), psalms recalling a period in which Moses plays a key role. The second half of Psalm 95, vv.8-11, even though it does not specifically mention Moses, patently recalls the desert period, when Moses served as Israel’s leader. Finally, with respect

156 Berlin (2004:1403) suggests that this placement was erroneous, and that the book should have concluded with Psalm 107 because it too alludes (somewhat vaguely in my opinion) to the Exodus tradition. This view is not necessarily well founded because by enforcing the cut-off point at Ps 106, the arranger unquestionably forges the inclusion with Psalm 90 that defines the book. 157 Concerning this collection, Wilson (1993a:75f.) states: “This introductory group of psalms hangs together around a common theme that I have chosen to call ‘Mosaic’ (because of the title of Psalm 90, the use of the old divine names “El Shadday” and “El Elyon”, references to Moses and Aaron, the Exodus wanderings and other thematic correspondences)”. Additionally McCann (1996:1040) says, “Book IV can be characterized as a Moses book”. 158 See close reading for Ps 106:16. The very fact that seven out of eight instances appear in Book IV furthers the assumption that Ps 77:21 represents a later addition. 159 As previously documented (s. Wilson [1993a:75]), the location of Book IV, especially with its primary themes of the wilderness tradition and the kingship of God (s. Pss 93:1, 95:3, 96:10, 97:1, 98:6, and 99:1), serves as a response to the demise of the Davidic covenant and the Israelites’ loss of land, themes documented in the close of Book III, Psalm 89.

Page <248> Chapter 3 - Psalm 106 to the selected psalms, the only two places where Moses is recalled in Exodus events occur within Book IV of the Psalter. 160 From the evidence presented above, it would appear that the decision to place Pss 105 and 106 at the end of Book IV represents a deliberate choice by an editor to define the general character of the Psalter’s fourth book. Rather than place these two compositions in any other location, the arranger placed them at the end, along with Ps 90 at the beginning, to create a collection of psalms that remember and even exalt the role of Moses during the desert era. With the establishment of the Mosaic character of Book IV arises the question: “what is a book of Moses doing within a book traditionally ascribed to David?” Two potential answers can be found to such a question, neither of which is mutually exclusive. First, as mentioned previously, the Book of Moses appears immediately after a psalm detailing the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, which amounts to no less than a cancellation of the Davidic kingship and thus God’s covenant with David. This composition, Psalm 89, comes at the end of a collection of psalms that frequently mention David in their titles. The development within the Psalter, as certain scholars have already noted, begins with a recollection of the Davidic covenant in the first three books, which then culminates at the end of Book III, Psalm 89, with the Davidic covenant ending. As a response to this, the editors of the Psalter would have then continued with the Book of Moses to point to a new way forward. Instead of lamenting the earthly kingship as exemplified in David, they found a resolution by hearkening back to the Mosaic model with God as Israel’s king and leader. Thus, the concentration of desert themes and a strong recollection of Moses as Israel’s leader serves to remind, and almost cry out for, the model of leadership found during the desert era. Within this model, God served as Israel’s king, hence the high number of kingship psalms, with Moses as his prophet. The second answer concerns the division of the Psalter into five books, usually viewed as a relatively late phenomenon. Such a division, coupled with the fact that the Psalter is frequently attributed to David, typically associates the five books of David with the five books of Moses, 161 the Torah. The association of a book of Moses within the book of David could, therefore, be viewed as an attempt by later editors of the Psalter to further the association between the works of these two prominent biblical figures. 162

160 As previously noted, though Psalm 77:21 mentions Moses and Aaron, the verse more than likely constitutes a later addition to the psalm. 161 See McCann (1994:659). 162 This notion accords with Kraus’ earlier observation that Psalm 78 constitutes an attempt to merge the Davidic covenant with Israel’s (1988b:129).

Page <249> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135

CHAPTER 4: PSALM 135

Psalm 135 is a Hymn of Praise that boasts of YHWH’s omnipotence, and provides examples of his great works in Creation and the Exodus. In addition to this, the psalm contrasts his ability with that of the nations’ idols. The Exodus content within the psalm constitutes a relatively small percentage of the entire work and is linked together with the Creation motif. The psalm’s most outstanding characteristic is its eclectic nature. From beginning to end, every verse contains at least an echo of other biblical texts. In spite of this eclectic quality, as we shall see, the psalm still functions as a unified composition with a single purpose.

STRUCTURE

According to content and linguistic characteristics, Psalm 135 divides into five units of varying length, as follows:

I. Introduction and reason to praise YHWH (1-5) II. YHWH’s omnipotence in Creation and history (6-12) III. Praise intermission; YHWH vindicates his people (13-14) IV. Impotency of other nations’ idols (15-18) V. Exhortation of Temple groups to praise YHWH (19-21)

The psalm’s opening section consists of two strophes: the first, vv.1-3, contains a general exhortation for a Temple group to praise YHWH, and the second, vv.4-5, provides a reason for his praise. Lexical indicators demarcate both strophes; the first three verses begin and end

Unifying . כי forming an inclusion; and vv.4-5 both begin with the particle שם with the word the whole stanza is the concentrated repetition of the Lord’s name and references to him. The section introduces three important themes that the psalm develops throughout its remaining verses. First, YHWH’s name and reputation, and the acts he performs that establish it; second, the close relationship between YHWH and his people, which is particularly prominent in the

Page <250> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135

v.5); third, the explicit mention of YHWH’s) אדנינו v.2), and) אלהינו ,(v.1) ” עבדי יהוה “ terms selection of Israel as a precious possession in v.4. 1 The second stanza begins with a general statement, claiming YHWH does as he pleases in any location, and then moves to exemplify ways in which his desires are practically outworked. Movement from the general to the particular forms a guiding principle throughout the psalm. As an expression of this principle, the second stanza develops the first by expanding the idea of YHWH’s reputation. Thus vv.6-12 detail some of the deeds wrought that generated YHWH’s fame. The first demonstration of his ability appears in v.7, with his involvement in maintaining Creation. Following this, the remainder of the stanza is dedicated to showing his interaction with his people: he delivers them from Egypt (vv.8-9), strikes mighty kings on their behalf (v.10-11), and grants them land as an inheritance (v.12). As the shortest section, stanza three consists of a two-verse intermission of praise. Associating the section with the opening verses, which contain the same theme, are the words v.14). Primarily, this short section develops the idea) כי vv.13 and 14), and) יהוה ,(v.13) שם

God’s relationship with his people, emphasizing that he vindicates them and is merciful to them. Subject matter clearly distinguishes section three from section four, 2 where the idols of the nations form the new subject introduced by v.15. The fourth stanza corresponds with section two, since both tackle the question of a deity’s ability: the fullness of God’s potency is vv.7 and 17) together with) רוח compared with the impotency of idols. Repetition of the word

עשה vv.6-7, 15 and 18) associate these sections. The psalmist employs the root) עשה the root

to עשה together with רוח to create an inclusion for the stanza. Additionally, he uses demonstrate that a God who controls the wind , bringing it from storehouses, and creates lightning for the rain, cannot compare with idols that have no breath and are formed by the hands of men. A further comparison appears in the portrayal of the worshippers of the respective gods. Those who worship YHWH are considered his treasured possession (v.4), whereas those who trust in idols are as useless as they are (v.18).

1 With respect to this division, only Hacham recognizes the individual units 1-3 and 4-5. The consensus is to isolate 1-4 as the opening section; see for example Keil and Delitzsch (1982:323f.), Allen (2002:285f.), and Weiser (1965:787-90). After this division, a number of variants arise between the exact divisions. 2 None of the aforementioned scholars disagree with this division.

Page <251> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135

The closing section 3 addresses the congregation that first appeared in vv.1-2, exhorting various Temple groups to bless YHWH. The stanza reintroduces the imperative forms witnessed in the first stanza, along with the repetitions of YHWH’s name, two factors solidifying the correspondence between the two stanzas. Other common attributes between and a returned focus to those worshipping in the , בית the two sections are the repetition of

which forms ,” הללו יה “ ,Temple courts. The final words of the psalm repeat its opening words an inclusion for the whole composition.

CLOSE READING

1 הַ ֥לְ לוּ יָ֙ הּ׀ הַ֭לְ לוּ אֶ ת־שֵׁ ֣ ם יְהוָ ֑ה הַ ֽלְ לוּ 8ַבְדֵ ֥ י יְ הוָ ֽה׃

Praise Jah, praise the name of YHWH; (give) praise servants of YHWH

The psalm begins with a call to worship that in many respects resembles Psalm 105. Particularly noticeable are the repeated imperatives and the divine name. Three repeated יה ) form a prominent part of v.1, the first two employ synonyms for God , הללו ,imperatives

as the verb’s object, and the last addresses the audience in the vocative. Each (” שם יהוה “ and

, יה of the opening imperatives recognizes YHWH in some way: first in the abbreviated form

עבדי “ and finally as an identifier for the worshiping community ,” שם יהוה “ then his name

in this context may be interpreted as his character, a synonym for who , שם ,His name .” יהוה

שׁשָּׁ֙ ם 8ָל֪ וּ שְׁ בָטִ֡ ים שִׁ בְטֵ י־יָ֭הּ 8ֵד֣ וּת לְ יִשְׂרָאֵ ֑ ל לְ֜ הֹד֗ וֹת “ ,he is. Psalm 122:4 demonstrates a similar use

where ascending to give thanks to his name equates to thanking YHWH himself ,” לְשֵׁ ֣ ם יְהוָ ֽה׃

, כבוד ,”can be rendered “honor שם ,s. also Ps 54:8, 113:2, and 148:5). Alternatively) portraying God’s fame, which stems from his mighty acts. Psalm 102:16 reflects such an the nations that fear his name ,” ויִֽירְ א֣ וּ ג֭וֹיִם אֶ ת־שֵׁ ֣ ם יְהוָ ֑ה וְֽכָ ל־מַלְכֵ ֥י הָ֜אָ֗רֶ ץ אֶ ת־כְּ בוֹדֶ ֽ B׃ “ ,interpretation stand in awe of his deeds, a sentiment enumerated in the psalm’s following verses (s. also Gen 12:2 and 2Sam 8:13). At this juncture, the psalm only hints towards the deeds that generate a

3 All the aforementioned scholars agree to this division.

Page <252> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135 fearsome reputation, but later in the psalm explicit examples appear. Naturally, the two ,mentioned above are not mutually exclusive since one’s personality שם potential meanings of essence and character, are often reflected in his deeds, which subsequently generate a reputation. Though biblical literature frequently identifies individuals as servants of the Lord— Moses in Deut 34:5, Joshua in Jos 24:29 and Jud 2:8, and David in Ps 18:1 4—v.1 evidently refers to a body of people who have aligned themselves with the God of Israel. This designation becomes clear in the psalm’s final verses when it addresses the congregation again, and singles out numerous groups—House of Israel, House of Aaron, House of , and the fearers of YHWH—assembled at the Temple to worship the Lord. In opening the הַ ֥לְ לוּ יָ֙ הּ ׀ הַ֭לְ לוּ 8ַבְדֵ ֣י יְהוָ ֑ה “ ,psalm with these words, the psalmist draws our attention to Ps 113:1

where all of the same words appear, but in the present psalm the word ,” הַ֜ לְ לוּ אֶ ת־שֵׁ ֥ ם יְהוָ ֽה׃ order undergoes an inversion. The lexical similarities positively testify to an instance of borrowing even if the direction of reuse is not clear at this stage, one author certainly has prior 5 knowledge of the other’s work.

2 שֶׁ֭ 8ֹֽמְדִ ים בְּבֵ ֣ית יְהוָ ֑ה בְּ֜חַ צְר֗ וֹת בֵּ ֣ית אֱ Nהֵ ֽ ינוּ׃

Those standing in the house of YHWH, in the courts of the house of our God

The second verse consists of a relative clause further detailing the location of those invited to praise YHWH : standing in the house of God, in the courts of the Temple. The corresponding

intimately identify YHWH as the God of those worshiping in the יהוה and אלהינו words

4 The designation also frequently appeared in Psalm 105; s. vv.6, 17, 25, 26, and 42. 5 Both Beentjes (1982) and Saidel (1956) have devoted time to researching the phenomenon of lexical inversions in biblical allusion. The former quotes many examples of the phenomenon, but resists positing a concrete motivation for such a textual alteration; in spite of this, he does tentatively suggest that certain inversions reflect an author’s desire to alter a negative instance into a positive one, Beentjes (1982:521), a motivation irrelevant to this context. The latter suggests this type of inversion occurs when an author seeks to signify he is deliberately alluding to a specific text. While this holds true for a select group of occurrences it becomes problematic with Psalm 135 whereby other textual associations appear without inverted words. The psalmist’s alteration in word order reveals a deviance from the expected double imperative form: imperative—vocative—imperative—(continuation), as seen in Judges 5:12 and Jeremiah 31:21; s. also Watson (2001:358f.). The deviance, placing the vocative after the second imperative, is best explained by the psalmist’s need to adapt the first verse to the second verse, in which he employs a relative pronoun. Were the order not reversed, the relative pronoun would take the divine name as its antecedent, which in turn would render an unacceptable reading. Such an alteration reveals the author’s conscious adaptation of his sources to suit his needs.

Page <253> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135

Temple, 6 and the remainder of the psalm repeatedly emphasizes this close kinship. A general in the house of“ ,” בית יהוה “ ,description of the worshippers’ location appears in the first colon

in“ ,” בחצרות בית אלהינו “ ,the Lord”, and the second colon further details the precise location the courts of our God” (the same parallel pair 7 additionally occurs in Pss 84:11 and 92:14). 8

it is not associated with the people, as with v.1, but with , יהוה Though v.2 mentions the name a building. Up until this point, every noun mentioned in the psalm has, in some way, been related to YHWH: his name, his servants, and his house.

3 הַ֭לְ לוּ־יָהּ כִּ י־ט֣ וֹב יְהוָ ֑ה זַמְּר֥ וּ לִ֜שְׁמ֗ וֹ כִּ ֣ י נ8ִָֽ ים׃

Praise Yah, surely YHWH is good; make music to his name for it is pleasant

and creates an inclusion ,” הללו יה “ Continuing to exhort the audience to praise, v.3 repeats with v.1 that defines and closes the opening strophe. Further reinforcement of the section’s in v.3 can be כי Both occurrences of . שם demarcation occurs with the second appearance of understood causally, providing a rationale for praising and making music to YHWH, but they also serve asseveratively, placing a stronger emphasis on the act of worship itself. 9 At least

The . נעים and טוב two valid interpretations for this verse exist with respect to the subjects of first, and most popular among the modern commentators, 10 interprets these words as attributes to God, “praise God because he is good and make music to him for his name is pleasant ”. Alternatively one may read, “Praise the Lord for it is good, make music to his name for it is pleasant”, where the act of praise and worship itself is intrinsically considered a good and

and the ש Two factors here point towards a possible period in which the psalm was written: the relative particle 6 mention of an extant Temple. The section on dating will further discuss these potential signs of lateness. 7 These words often appear together in biblical literature, see 2Ki 21:5, Jer 19:14, 26:2, and Ezek 8:16. 8 The relationship between these two colons illustrates Kugel’s description of the fundamental mechanics of parallelism, which condenses into “A is so, and what’s more, B”, where “B” surpasses “A” in detail or intensity, Kugel (1981:1-59). Within the context of v.2, “A” corresponds to the house of the Lord, and “B” equates to the more specific descriptor: the courts of the Temple. This definition opposes those scholars, such as Oesterley (1962:540), who suggest two separate congregations are being addressed, those in the courts and the ministering priests who stand inside the Temple. and argues that an aspect of emphasis typically , כי Muilenberg (1961:147) details numerous functions for 9 often appears after an urgent imperative, in this instance כי accompanies each occurrence. He also notes that .see also Psalms 6:5-6, 12:2, 25:16, and 69:18 ,” הללו יה“ 10 See for example: Hacham (1981:505), Duhm (1920:282), and Briggs (1969:479); each of whom denies any alternate reading.

Page <254> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135

ט֗ וֹב לְ הֹד֥ וֹת לַ יהוָ ֑ה וּ לְזַמֵּ ֖ ר לְשִׁמְ pleasant activity. Such an understanding compares with Ps 92:2, “ ֣B

where the act itself of giving thanks and making music to God is undoubtedly ,” 8ֶלְ יֽוֹן׃ considered good because the following verses further emphasize this sentiment (s. also Ps 54:8). Verses 1-3 introduce the main subject of the psalm, YHWH, emphasizing his character, as opposed to his works. The opening also introduces three elements that have an important function in the remainder of the psalm: God’s people, his house and his reputation.

4 כִּֽ י־י8ֲַ קֹ֗ ב בָּחַ ֣ ר ל֣ וֹ יָ ֑הּ יִ֜שְׂרָ אֵ֗ ל לִסְ גֻלָּתֽ וֹ׃

For Yah has chosen Jacob for himself, Israel for his treasured possession

The second part of the first stanza (vv.4-5) supplies more reasons for the praise of YHWH, opens the statement. In the present verse, the particle כי and like the first section the particle serves both causally and emphatically (“surely”), stressing the selection of Israel; additionally, it opens a new strophe within the stanza (as in Am 5:12 and Ps 5:5) 11 that focuses on the frequently appears in Isaiah יעקב // ישראל reason for praise. The synonymous word pair

(29:23, 41:8, 42:24, 44:1, 5, 21, 23), in addition to other historiographic psalms such as 78:5, s. also 81:5, 105:10, 23, and 114:1). By specifically) ,” וַיָּ ֤ קֶ ם 8ֵד֙ וּת׀ בְּֽ י8ֲַ קֹ֗ ב וְ תוֹרָ ה֘ שָׂ ֤ ם בְּ יִשְׂרָ ֫אֵ ֥ ל ...“ recalling the name of Jacob, 12 the selection process receives added attention. Esau and Jacob were twins, and simply because God exercised his prerogative of selection, Jacob was loved, The psalm 13 .” ... הלוֹא־אָ֙ ח 8ֵשָׂ ֤ ו לְיַ 8ֲֽ קֹב֙ נְאֻ ם־יְהוָ֔ה וָ אֹהַ ֖ ב אֶ ֽ ת־י8ֲַ קֹֽ ב׃ “ ,as demonstrated by Mal 1:2 provides no information concerning why Israel was selected, or what was expected of them; the psalmist only concerns himself with the fact that they were chosen. Referring to the indicates a special possession, or treasure, 14 just like precious metals סגלתו selection, the term

11 See Muilenberg (1961:157). 12 Goulder (1998:286) further suggests this name stems from the old northern psalms; the Dan psalms (46 and 84), and the Bethel Psalms 75, 76, 77, and 81. 13 See also Romans 9:10-15, where the selection of Jacob over Esau exemplifies God’s sovereign freedom of choice, as opposed to works. 14 Concerning this word, Weinfeld (1972:226 n. 2) draws attention to an Ugaritic text (PRU V, no. 60:7, 12) in which a vassal is referred to as sglt by his sovereign. The word apparently belonged to treaty and covenant terminology and describes the special relationship between a sovereign and vassal. According to Weinfeld, the basic meaning is to set aside a property for good (as in the case of the psalm) or evil intentions. Greenberg (1995) further attests to this word being related to the Akkadian root skl , which denotes private savings acquired

Page <255> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135

.s) ” כָּנַ ֤סְתִּ י לִי֙ ַ גּם־כֶּ ֣סֶ ף וְזָהָ֔ ב וּסְ גֻלַּ ֥ת מְלָכִ ֖ ים וְהַמְּדִ ינ֑ וֹת ... “ ,such as silver and gold, as Ecc 2:8 states also 1Chr 29:3). However, this word also recalls that moment during the Exodus when God כִּ ֣ י 8ַ ֤ם קָ דוֹשׁ֙ אַתָּ֔ ה לַ יהוָ ֖ה אֱ Nהֶ ֑ יB בּBְ֞ בָּחַ ֣ ר׀ “ ,selected for himself 15 a people from among the nations

Deut 7:6; s. also Deut 14:2 and) ” יְהוָ ֣ה אֱ Nהֶ֗ יB לִהְ י֥וֹת לוֹ֙ ל8ְַ ֣ם סְ ֔ גֻלָּה מִ כֹּל֙ הָ 8ַֽמִּ֔ ים אֲשֶׁ ֖ ר 8ַ ל־פְּנֵ ֥י הָאֲדָמָ ֽ ה׃

Ex 19:5). 16 Notably, before Psalm 135 enumerates any of YHWH’s saving deeds, or acts in Creation, it recalls his selection of Israel as a special people. It is possible to interpret this placement in at least two ways: 1) the psalmist considers Israel’s selection as YHWH’s most important act in history, and thus he positioned this event first; 17 2) v.4 pre-empts the ensuing verses: God chose Israel through the historical deeds soon to be enumerated.

5 כִּ ֤ י אֲנִ ֣י יָ֭דַ 8ְתִּ י כִּ י־גָד֣ וֹל יְהוָ ֑ה וַ֜אֲ דֹנֵ֗ ינוּ מִכָּ ל־אֱ Nהִֽ ים׃

For I know that YHWH is great; and our God (is greater) than all gods

Verse 5, like v.4, declares YHWH’s greatness, where it is not the selection of Israel that the clause of v.5 further proclaims God’s כי psalmist lauds, but God’s supremacy. The opening greatness, and links to the previous verse; the particle loses its causal meaning and bears an almost exclusively asseverative function. 18 Partially unexpected is the first-person singular declaration opening v.5, which has led certain scholars 19 to amend the text; the preservation of this form, however, solidifies an association with Ex 18:11, 20 when Moses’ father-in-law

עתָּ ֣ ה יָד8ְַ֔תִּ י “ ,personally declares God’s greatness after hearing about all he has done for Israel

,in vv.1, 3 שם The allusion recalls the word .” כִּֽ י־גָד֥ וֹל יְהוָ ֖ה מִכָּ ל־הָאֱ Nהִ ֑ ים כִּ֣ י בַדָּ בָ֔ ר אֲשֶׁ ֥ ר זָד֖ וּ 8ֲלֵ יהֶ ֽ ם׃ translated as “reputation”. It was YHWH’s reputation that inspired Jethro’s declaration,

over time, which later in the Bible came to mean “…a dear personal possession, a ‘treasure’ only in the sense of that which is treasured or cherished” (p277). 15 Another potential way of reading this verse is from Israel’s perspective, “that Jacob selected YHWH for himself, and YHWH selected Israel for his treasured possession”, thus reflecting a bi-directional selection process. 16 Psalm 135 employs this word in a context radically different from those found in the Torah. These differences are detailed later in the chapter. 17 Kroll (1987:399f.) further enumerates, “In the minds of the Israelites the foremost reason for praising was the election of the Jewish people as the chosen nation of God”. 18 See Garsiel (1999a:241). or ” דעו כי “ should read ” כי אני ידעתי כי “ Duhm (1920:282), for example, claims a copyist has erred here, and 19 .both of which are tempting alternatives ,” הודו לו“ 20 It is interesting to note that both this verse and 2Chr 2:4 appear in contexts involving non-Israelites.

Page <256> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135 though he did not witness the deeds first hand, after hearing about them he declared God’s greatness. Similarly, though the psalmist had not witnessed firsthand the deeds he is about to enumerate, because he has heard of them, he can declare YHWH’s supremacy.

in v.2, and together אלהינו corresponds with אדנינו The first-person plural suffix on they further express the intimate relationship between YHWH and his people. Thus, even though a personal declaration appears in the verse’s opening words, the final words recognize

אלהים the community’s relationship to God. With respect to the , v.5 employs

but referring to , אדנינו with a different meaning to v.2, not referring to YHWH who is called other gods. It is possible to understand the present verse as embodying the message of the entire psalm: YHWH is greater than all other gods. His greatness is demonstrated in history, as the ensuing verses exemplify, and also in the characterization of the other gods, to whom he is compared. Similar proclamations of YHWH’s status above all other gods are echoed ,” ...כּי־ גָד֥ וֹל אֱ Nהֵ ֖ ינוּ מִכָּ ל־הָאֱ Nהִֽ ים׃ “ ,throughout the Bible, such as Hiram’s declaration in 2Chr 2:4 after Solomon requested wood from him for building the Temple. Likewise, Ps 95:3 s. also Ps) ” כִּ ֤ י אֵ ֣ ל גָּד֣ וֹל יְהוָ ֑ה וּמֶ ֥לֶ F גָּ֜ד֗ וֹל 8ַ ל־כָּ ל־אֱ Nהִֽ ים׃ “ ,proclaims his kingship over all other gods

96:4).

6 כֹּ֤ ל אֲשֶׁ ר־חָפֵ ֥ ץ יְהוָ֗ ה 8ָ֫שָׂ ֥ ה בַּשָּׁמַ ֥ יִם וּבָאָ ֑רֶ ץ בַּ֜ יַּמִּ֗ ים וְכָ ל־תְּ הוֹמֽ וֹת׃

Everything that YHWH desires he does, in heaven on the earth in the seas and all the depths

“God accomplishes anything he desires, in any place”, this is the fundamental claim of v.6 and the message of the second stanza, which also demonstrates such a claim. In biblical express an earthly sovereign’s power to act as he 21 עשה and חפץ literature, the two verbs

וַיְהִי֙ כְּכַ לּ֣ וֹת שְׁ Nמֹ֔ ה לִ ְ בנ֥ וֹת אֶ ת־בֵּ ית־יְהוָ ֖ה וְאֶ ת־בֵּ ֣ית הַמֶּ ֑לֶ F וְאֵת֙ “ ,pleases, as 1Ki 9:1 demonstrates

.suggesting Solomon accomplished whatever he desired (s ,” כָּ ל־חֵ ֣שֶׁ ק שְׁ Nמֹ֔ ה אֲשֶׁ ֥ ר חָפֵ ֖ץ ל8ֲַשֽׂ וֹת׃ also Ecc 8:2-3). The two words, expressing a degree of omnipotence, similarly appear as a

21 The somewhat unexpected perfect, qatal , form bears a present meaning here (as in Gen 14:22 and Am 5:21); s. also Chisholm (1998:95 n. 70). Also, concerning this form, JM (365) notes, “In some poetic texts celebrating the greatness of God, the use of the tenses, of qatal especially, is very peculiar”. Similarly, Driver (1998:15f.) also recognizes a present use of qatal .

Page <257> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135

,In the present context .” ... אֹמֵר֙ 8ֲצָתִ ֣ י תָק֔ וּם וְכָ ל־חֶ פְצִ ֖ י א8ֱֶשֶׂ ֽ ה׃ “ ,self description of God in Is 46:10

22 ;” ארץ and , שמים , עשה the sphere in which God has dominion is expressed by the words however, these words additionally recall YHWH’s activities in Creation, 23 as in Ex 31:17, By alluding to .” ...כִּ י־שֵׁ ֣שֶׁ ת יָמִ֗ ים 8ָשָׂ ֤ ה יְהוָה֙ אֶ ת־הַשָּׁמַ ֣יִם וְאֶ ת־הָאָ֔רֶ ץ וּבַ יּוֹם֙ הַשְּׁ בִ י8ִ֔ י שָׁבַ ֖ ת וַיִּנָּפַ ֽ שׁ׃“

Creation, the psalmist attributes certain rights to YHWH: he is able, that is permitted, to evidently תהמות exercise his will in heaven and earth, because he created them. Though contains mythical 24 connotations and allusions, the context here suggests a concrete meaning אֲפָ פ֤ וּנִ י מַ֙ יִם֙ 8ַ ד־נֶ֔פֶ שׁ תְּה֖ וֹם יְסֹבְבֵ ֑נִ י ס֖ וּף “ ,depicting the deep depths of the sea—as Jonah 2:6 attests

.(where the deep waters engulf him (s. also Amos 7:4 and Ezek 31:4 ,” חָ ב֥ וּשׁ לְ רֹאשִֽׁ י׃

Verse 6 enumerates the geographical limits of YHWH’s rule in descending order: the heavens, the highest place, moving down to the earth, into the sea and finally down to the depths. Such a detailed merismic 25 list encompasses everything lying between heaven and the ,” וֵ ֽאNהֵ ֥ ינוּ בַשָּׁמָ ֑יִם כֹּ֭ ל אֲשֶׁ ר־ חָפֵ ֣ץ 8ָשָׂ ֽ ה׃ “ ,depths. On the whole, the present verse recalls Ps 115:3 which also devotes a significant number of verses to polemicizing the idols of the nations. The contexts in which this phrase appear, however, differs in both psalms. Psalm 115:3 employs these words to introduce the denunciation of idols, whereas the same phrase in our psalm precedes literary-historical examples of God acting as he pleases in heaven and earth. 26

7 מַ 8ֲֽלֶ ֣ה נְשִׂאִ ים֘ מִקְצֵ ֪ה הָ֫אָ ֥רֶ ץ בְּ רָ קִ ֣ ים לַמָּטָ ֣ ר 8ָשָׂ ֑ ה מֽ וֹצֵ א־ר֜ וּ\ַ מֵאֽ וֹצְ רוֹתָ ֽ יו׃

Raising clouds from the ends of the earth, making lightning for the rain, and bringing the wind from his storehouses

22 Duhm (1920:282) suggests this verse is a later addition, “denn v.6 (=115 3 b) ist von fremder Hand beigeschrieben”, but this is unlikely because the ideas contained within form an important part of the psalm’s message. God’s ownership rights to the world, stem from his creation of it, and justify his apportioning land as he pleases. 23 See Norin (1977:121), who specifically links this verse with the Creation account of Gen 1. At this point, we should also note that we have another instance of the Creation motif in an Exodus psalm. We shall return to the relationship between the two motifs in the conclusions, after we have analyzed the last of the selected psalms. 24 The mythical allusion relates to God’s primordial battle with the sea (monster)—as alluded to in Hab 3:10, Is 51:9, Psalm 104:6-7 and also Kraus (1988b:493)—and victory over it. See close reading for Ps 78:15. 25 A totality expressed in an abbreviated form. Such lists are not necessarily limited to two elements; see Watson (2001:322f.). This psalm employs a more detailed list; more often, only the words “heaven” and “earth” summarize all that exists between them (Is 44:24, 48:13, Jer 4:28). 26 A number of other significant differences exist, but these will be discussed later in the chapter.

Page <258> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135

As an example of YHWH executing his will in the physical heavens, v.7 depicts how he and makes lightning for ,” מעלה נשאים מקצה הארץ “ ,raises clouds from the ends of the earth

Notwithstanding the fact that the Lord’s name is not mentioned .” ברקים למט ר עשה “ ,the rain

,still refers to him as its subject. Within the context of v.7 מעלה in this verse, the participle 27

,are best understood as clouds, or vapors that rise up from the earth, 28 as in Pr 25:14 נשאים

which also contains references to rain and other ,” נְשִׂ יאִ ֣ ים ַ וְ֭רוּ\ וְגֶ ֣שֶׁ ם אָ ֑יִן אִ֥ ישׁ מִ֜תְהַ לֵּ֗ ל בְּמַתַּ ת־שָׁ ֽקֶ ר׃“

,”extremity“ , קצה ,in the previous verse כל storm elements (cf. Jer 10:13). Together with stresses totality, the total area of his jurisdiction (s. Pss 19:7 and 61:3). Furthering the picture of omnipotence is the idea of storehouses for the elements, 29 in this case the wind, that only

30.” מוצא רוח מאוצרותיו “ ,God has access to, and from which he brings them

unites vv.6 and 7 and expresses עשה : ארץ :: ארץ : עשה The chiastic arrangement

YHWH’s dominance over Creation, he created the world and does as he pleases in it. Furthering the notion of dominance is the image of YHWH conjuring up a storm with rain, elements that additionally recall , including instances , ברקים ,and lightning ,מטר

ק֤ וֹל רַ 8ַמBְ֙ ׀ “ ,when YHWH appears in judgment with visible displays of power. 31 Psalm 77:19

recounts how the earth quakes at God’s thunder ,” בַּגַּלְגַּ֗ ל הֵאִ ֣ ירוּ בְרָ קִ ֣ ים תֵּבֵ ֑ל רָ גְזָ ֖ה וַתִּרְ 8ַ ֣שׁ הָאָ ֽרֶ ץ׃

with the ,” הֵ ִ ֣ אירוּ בְרָ קָ ֣ יו תֵּבֵ ֑ל רָ אֲתָ ֖ ה וַתָּחֵ ֣ ל הָאָ ֽרֶ ץ׃ “ ,and lightning; Ps 97:4 presents a similar picture

27 This participle also emphasizes God’s continual role in Creation, constantly raising clouds, thus portraying him as a constant sustainer of the world. Driver (1998:165), consequently, describes its usage as a “ continuous manifestation ”. (Garsiel (1999a:242 . עננין See also the Septuagint, which translates νεφελη , “clouds”; and the Tgs. that read 28 thus understands the verse as depicting the movements of the clouds across the sky; he also notes the association this imagery shares with Baal mythology . 29 Keil and Delitzsch (1982:325) evidently detect this imagery when they state, “What is intended is the fullness of divine power…”. Cf. Deut 28:12 which depicts the rain being kept in a storehouse; Job 38:22 speaking of the snow and hail in storehouses; Psalm 33:7 similarly implies a storehouse for the sea. probably stems from the source text’s influence, s. Keil and Delitzsch , מוציא This defective form, for 30 Allen (2002:286), however, suggests that a desired assonance with . ויוצא in this instance Jer 10:13 ,(1982:325) may also have motivated the psalmist. This would not be out of character for the psalmist מאוצרותיו the form because later in the psalm he similarly utilizes epistrophe (end repetition). 31 These storm elements, in addition to their allusion to ancient Israelite literature, recall earlier Canaanite works. Loewenstamm (1992a:247) claims, “All of these elements certainly originate in the traditions surrounding , the Canaanite god of thunder, lightning and rain.” For Weiser (1965:790), however, this storm imagery primarily alludes to a hypothetical autumnal festival, for which supplications for winter rains form a crucial part.

Page <259> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135 earth trembling before his lightning bolts. 32 The image of God appearing in judgment continues into the following verses that reveal how YHWH judged the kings and peoples of the world in addition to his own people. From v.7 a lucid association with Jer 10:13 emerges, ,(repeated in 51:16) ” ... וַיּ8ֲַלֶ ֥ה נְשִׂאִ ֖ ים מִקְצֵ ֣ה ( אֶרֶ ץ) [ הָאָ ֑רֶ ץ] בְּרָ קִ ֤ ים לַמָּטָ ר֙ 8ָשָׂ֔ ה וַיּ֥וֹצֵ א ר֖ וּ\ַ מֵ אֹצְ רֹתָ ֽ יו׃“ whose context similarly contains a denouncement of foreign idols. Though the lexical similarity is clear, unlike the association in v.1, the word order is perfectly preserved.

8 שֶׁ֭הִכָּ ה בְּ כוֹרֵ ֣ י מִצְרָ ֑יִם מֵ֜אָדָ֗ ם 8ַ ד־בְּהֵמָ ֽ ה׃

Who struck the firstborn of Egypt, from man to beast

Moving on from YHWH’s involvement in Creation, the following verses focus on his intervention in history. The psalm also progresses from a general description of YHWH working on a day to day basis, to a specific example of his magnificent deeds in Israelite literary history. Further emphasizing the break in section is the change in verb form: from a

relating to הכה portraying continual involvement with Creation, to the perfect מעלה participle a specific instance in history. Extending the emphasis on totality 33 in the present verse is the Usually, whenever the destruction of the firstborn appears, only the human . עד בהמה phrase firstborn are referenced (s. Pss 78:51, 105:36, and 136:10). Psalm 135, however, unique among the selected psalms, additionally recalls the destruction of animals, adding an emphasis on the totality of destruction, which corresponds with the totality of YHWH’s rule, as expressed in the previous verse via the extended merismus. Thematically, the previous section recalled a picture of YHWH’s appearing in judgment, here in v.8, that judgment is vented out against the Egyptians. The present verse ...וְ הִכֵּ יתִ ֤ י “ ,evidently recalls the smiting of the Egyptians’ firstborn, as recorded in Ex 12:12

The association to this specific location in Exodus is .” כָ ל־ בְּ כוֹר֙ בְּאֶ ֣רֶ ץ מִצְרַ ֔ יִם מֵאָדָ ֖ ם ו8ְַ ד־בְּהֵמָ ֑ ה... particularly pertinent because it describes a judgment against the Egyptians and their gods: 34

additionally appear in contexts depicting God’s work in Creation, as Jer 10:13 and מטר and ברק The words 32 51:16 suggest. .and the extended merismus in v.6 , כל Cf. vv.6 and 7 with respect to the word 33 34 The very notion of God judging the gods of Egypt during the plagues is reflected in a Midrash on Ex 12:29, “What could possibly be the sin of the cattle? Rather this was to prevent the Egyptians from saying, ‘Our god brought this punishment upon us. How mighty is our god who has thus prevailed. How mighty is our god who

Page <260> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135

which corresponds with the latter portion of this ,” ... וּבְכָ ל־אֱ Nהֵ ֥ י מִצְרַ ֛יִם אֶ 8ֱֽשֶׂ ֥ ה שְׁ פָטִ ֖ ים אֲנִ֥ י יְהוָ ֽה׃“ psalm that further characterizes the gods of the nations. Though the striking of the firstborn often appears in the selected psalms (s. 78:51, 105:36, 136:10), here it is positioned as though it were the first plague. By positioning it thus, the psalmist apparently stresses its 35 significance.

9 שָׁלַ ֤ח׀ אֹת֣ וֹת וּ֭מֹפְתִ ים בְּ תוֹכֵ ֣כִ י מִצְרָ ֑ יִם בְּ֜פַרְ עֹ֗ ה וּבְכָ ל־8ֲבָדָ ֽ יו׃

(And) sent signs and portents in the midst of Egypt, against Pharaoh and all his servants

God’s judgment on the Egyptians continues in v.9. Only now, however, after the psalmist ,” אתות ומופתים “ ,recalls the killing of the firstborn, do we hear of the mighty acts and signs

God wrought on Israel—referring to the plagues. A peculiarity concerning the plagues’ quote

More often . שלח ,as it appears here concerns the verb describing the sending of the plagues

as in שים as in Neh 9:10 and Deut 6:22, or , נתן than not, biblical literature employs the verb

here in this שלח By employing .” שָׂ ֽ מוּ־בָ֭ ם דִּ בְרֵ ֣ י אֹתוֹתָ ֑ יו וּ֜ מֹפְתִ֗ ים בְּאֶ ֣רֶ ץ חָ ֽ ם׃ “ ,Pss 78:43 and 105:27

,” שָׁ ֣לַ ֽ ח חֹ֭שֶׁ F וַיַּחְשִׁ ֑ F וְ לֹֽ א־מָ֜ ר֗ וּ אֶ ת־( דְּ בָרָ וו ) [ דְּ בָרֽ וֹ ׃] “ ,context, the psalmist recalls Psalm 105:28 which depicts God sending darkness against the Egyptians and its subsequent obedience. 36

frequently appear together with a specific reference to the plagues wrought מופת and אות Both on Egypt during Israel’s deliverance. In addition to Pharaoh being struck by plagues, so are all draws attention to v.1, which calls עבדיו Repetition of the phrase .” ובכל עבדיו “ ,of his servants upon the servants of the Lord to praise him. In comparing the destinies of the two groups of servants mentioned, we see that YHWH’s servants are afforded the pleasure of standing in his courts and praising him, which, as we saw, can be construed as a pleasurable experience, whereas the servants of Pharaoh are plagued. was not affected by this punishment.’ (Mekhilta Pisha 13, I 98, s. Hammer [1995:58]). In this instance, the gods of the Egyptians are the cattle, and they are judged because they too fall victim to the plague of the firstborn. 35 The specific mention of the firstborn’s slaying is particularly relevant to this psalm because it unambiguously displays the work of God’s hand. Loewenstamm (1992a:101) recognizes the uniqueness and directness of this plague when he claims: “The narrative is shrouded with mystery in order to enhance its power…there is no natural affliction imaginable which would kill all its victims in a moment and all of whose victims would be the firstborn”. 36 Additionally, the previous depiction of storm elements could be seen as a recollection of the plague of hail in Ex 9:13-34.

Page <261> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135

10 שֶׁ ֽהִ כָּ ה גּוֹיִ ֣ם רַבִּ ֑ ים וְ֜הָרַ ֗ ג מְלָכִ֥ ים 8ֲ צוּמִֽ ים׃

Who struck great nations and killed powerful kings

The present verse continues recalling God’s past intervention in history, and the reappearance similar to v.8, relates to YHWH in v.5. Switching from God’s work ,ש of the relative particle in delivering the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, however, v.10 recalls YHWH’s acts that enabled them begin inheriting land. As a reminder of v.8, when God struck the firstborn of

here. Just as שהכה the psalmist repeats the phrase ,” שֶׁ֭הִכָּ ה בְּ כוֹרֵ ֣ י מִצְרָ ֑יִם מֵ֜אָדָ֗ ם 8ַ ד־בְּהֵמָ ֽ ה׃ “ ,Egypt he went before Israel striking down the firstborn of Egypt to deliver his people, he now strikes strong nations, (s. Dan 8:24), or numerous nations (as Pr 7:26 implies). Repetition of the root further links the two incidents as though they occurred at the same time, notwithstanding נכה the numerous events transpiring in the desert between the aforementioned acts of God. The

... יִֽהְ י֖וּ הֲרֻ ֣גֵ י מָ ֑וֶ ת בַּח֣ וּרֵ יהֶ֔ ם מֻכֵּ י־חֶ ֖רֶ ב “ ,similarly appears in Jer 18:21 נכה // הרג word pair

expressing the prophet’s desires for those who conspire to kill him. Concerning the ,” בַּמִּלְחָמָ ֽ ה׃

it could be understood here as a type of merismus that exemplifies a , מלך // גוי parallel pair totality of peoples, those struck by YHWH. Such a nuance to the parallel is discernable in Ps 37 .” וְ יִשְׁתַּחֲ ווּ־ל֥ וֹ כָ ל־מְלָכִ ֑ ים כָּ ל־גּוֹיִ֥ם יַ 8ַֽבְדֽ וּהוּ׃ “ ,72:11

The near exact quotation from Ps 136:17-18, 38 reflected in Ps 135:10, overwhelmingly suggests an association with the neighboring psalm as opposed to a location in the Torah or the Prophets. 39 YHWH advancing before Israel and personally smiting the inhabitants of וְאֵ ֣לֶּ ה מַלְכֵ ֣י הָאָ֡רֶ ץ “ ,Canaan forms only a single perspective of the conquest events. Joshua 12:7

accredits victory to Israel, and Josh 10:20 names ,” אֲשֶׁ ר֩ הִ כָּ ה֙ יְהוֹשׁZַֻ֜ וּבְנֵ ֣י יִשְׂרָ אֵ֗ ל בּ8ְֵ ֤בֶ ר הַ יַּרְדֵּן֙ ...

Joshua and the Israelites as being responsible for slaying the five kings. Because, however,

s. Gen 17:6, Is 41:2, and) מלך then גוי Notwithstanding this verse, the expected word order for this word pair is 37 Ps 102:16), whereby the reference to “king” represents an intensification of “nation”, in accordance to Kugel’s definition of parallelism (s. Kugel [1981:1-59]). 38 At this juncture in 4QPs n, s. Flint (1998:42f.), a merge occurs between Psalm 135 and the corresponding passage in Psalm 136; this merger, however, is not reflected in the other Qumran rendition of Ps 135, 11QPs a. 39 Of course, two options exist concerning the direction of borrowing, and this issue will be further detailed later in the chapter. Scholars, such as Allen (2002:291), automatically assume Psalm 135 borrows from 136.

Page <262> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135

YHWH constitutes the principle figure in the present psalm, and his reputation is being flaunted, the psalmist has chosen to portray YHWH as the destroyer of kings and nations, without human intermediaries.

11 לְסִ יח֤ וֹן׀ מֶ ֤לֶ F הָאֱ מֹרִ ֗ י וּ֭לְ עוֹג מֶ ֣לֶ F הַבָּ שָׁ ֑ ן וּ֜לְכֹ֗ ל מַמְלְכ֥ וֹת כְּנָ 8ַֽ ן׃

Sihon king of the Amorites and Og king of Bashan and all the kingdoms of Canaan

Further details of the kings and peoples slain by God appear in v.11, which reveals their identities as Sihon king of the Amorites and Og king of Bashan, 40 and all the kingdoms of Canaan—contrasting Psalm 136, which only mentions the kings and fails to recall the conquest of lands west of the Jordan. In a noticeable opposition to v.10’s two verbs, v.11 contains no verbs, and only lists the victims of those who fought with YHWH. A peculiarity arises here, however, whereby only the kings east 41 of the Jordan are mentioned specifically by name, and the remaining kings who dwelt west of the Jordan are merely referred to as 42 .” ממלכות כנען“

12 וְנָ ַ ֣ תן אַרְ צָ ֣ם נַחֲלָ ֑ה נַ֜חֲ לָ֗ ה לְ יִשְׂרָאֵ ֥ ל 8ַמּֽ וֹ׃

Then he gave their land as an inheritance, an inheritance to Israel his people

As the final verse of the stanza, v.12 further states that God—who created and maintains the world, acts as he pleases in it, and intervenes in history—chose to bestow the land of the conquered kings to his special people as an inheritance. Similar to Ps 136:2 1-22 , the deployment of the terraced pattern in this verse emphasizes the importance of the statement

is particularly common in Deuteronomy where it ” לתת… ארץ ...נחלה “ being made. The phrase

v.10) is reflected in a Dead Sea Scrolls , מלכים עצומים ) The description of Og as a powerful, or mighty king 40 tradition in 4Q373 1 a+b , 2, which claims he had a sword like a Cedar and a shield like a tower; s. Martínez and Tigchelaar (1998:738f.). 41 Concerning the sole mention of the kings from east of the Jordan, Goulder (1998:217) hypothesises that the psalm was written during the early Exile (a theory conveniently fitting his overall notions concerning the compilation of Book IV of the Psalter and Nehemiah), thus he claims the recollection of the Exodus mirrors the release from Babylon, and the references to Og and Sihon look forward to a time in which the Transjordan will once again belong to Israel. A possible explanation for this lack of detail concerning the precise naming of the west Jordanian kings is that the psalmist only had before him the five books of the Torah, and thus could not refer to events occurring in Joshua. Such an opinion is maintained by Loewenstamm (1992a:40). . גוי and ממלכה Passages such as Jer 1:10, 18:7, and Zeph 3:8 witness the free interchange of 42

Page <263> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135 appears under similar circumstances (s. 4:38, 15:4, 19:10, 24:4, 25:19, 26:1, and 29:7). signifies a possession, usually property, that is נחלה ,Similarly, in Psalm 135’s context inherited, or passed from one party to another—typically a father to his children as in Num Additionally, however, the same .” ... אִ ֣ ישׁ כִּֽ י־יָמ֗ וּת וּבֵ ן֙ אֵ ֣ין ל֔ וֹ וְהַ 8ֲֽבַרְתֶּ ֥ ם אֶ ת־נַחֲ לָת֖ וֹ לְבִתּֽ וֹ׃ “ ,27:8 word often describes the special relationship between God and his people, where they, as a Ps) ,” אַשְׁרֵ ֣ י הַ֭ גּוֹי אֲ שֶׁ ר־יְהוָ ֣ה אֱ Nהָ ֑ יו ה8ָָ֓ ם׀ בָּחַ ֖ ר לְנַחֲלָ ֣ה לֽ וֹ׃ “ ,people, are recalled as his inheritance

33:12, s. also Ps 28:9). Such an allusion corresponds with the various other words and phrases .( v.12) עמו v.4) and) סגלתו in the psalm expressing this intimate relationship, such as

” כל אשר חפץ יהוה עשה ... ובארץ “ ,YHWH’s ability to act as he pleases in the whole world

.to his people for an inheritance ( ארץ ) v.6), is demonstrated here as he allots a portion of land)

The picture presented in this stanza resonates with the psalm’s overall theme, YHWH is depicted as the one who fights Israel’s battles and grants them land, without any involvement of human intermediaries. Though such a portrayal contrasts the accounts in Joshua and Judges in which the Israelites fight numerous battles and their relationship to God is less than perfect, it agrees with the picture presented in Psalm 105 of Israel enjoying a close and positive relationship with YHWH, who fights for them and grants them an inheritance of ,here creates a comparison with v.10. The latter portrays those people עמו land. Reference to

who were struck down by YHWH, along with their mighty kings, whereas the former , גוים presents a people who are loved by, and have an intimate relationship with, the same God.

13 יְ֭הוָ ה שִׁמְ B֣ לְ עוֹלָ ֑ם יְ֜הוָ֗ ה זִכְרְ B֥ לְ דֹר־וָ דֹֽ ר׃

YHWH your name is eternal, YHWH your memory (is) for all generations

From YHWH’s interventions in history, the psalm now returns to the theme of praise, with a and his reputation , יהוה ,reminder of the key elements from section one: the name of the Lord

An important temporal shift also accompanies the change in stanza. Until this point, the . שם

,( v.6) חפץ ,( v.5) ידעתי ,( v.4) בחר psalm has predominantly relied on perfect verbs—such as

v.9 )—to represent past and present actions. The current section, in) שלח v.8 ), and) הכה

Page <264> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135 contrast, employs imperfect verbs to express the present-future: God’s eternal name and his frequently עולם and ” לדר ודר “ memory for future generations. The corresponding phrases

43 s. Job 18:17, Is) זכר and שם occur together in biblical literature (s. Pss 33:11 and 85:6), as do

26:8), often depicting a reputation and the memory of one’s past actions. Thus, in Proverbs

the remembrance of a man’s deeds constitutes a ,” זֵ ֣כֶ ר צַ֭דִּ יק לִבְרָכָ ֑ה וְשֵׁ ֖ ם רְשׁ8ִָ ֣ ים יִרְ קָ ֽ ב׃ “ ,10:7 blessing. Similarly within the context of Psalm 135, the deeds previously recorded create the memory which should be remembered for future generations. The psalmist uses the wording of the present verse to magnify YHWH’s fearful reputation, and in doing so he additionally cf. Ps) ” ...זֶ ה־ שְּׁמִ ֣ י לְ עֹלָ֔ ם וְזֶ ֥ה זִכְרִ ֖ י לְ דֹ֥ ר דֹּֽ ר׃ “ ,recalls God’s words concerning himself in Ex 3:15

creates a , יהוה : לשמו :: יהוה : שמך ,The distant parallelism between vv.13 and v.3 .(102:13 link between the current section and the first section. Additionally cementing this link between the sections is the fact that both verses constitute words of praise directed to YHWH.

14 כִּֽ י־יָדִ ֣ ין יְהוָ ֣ה 8ַמּ֑ וֹ ו8ְַ ל־8ֲ֜בָדָ֗ יו יִתְ נֶחָ ֽ ם׃

Surely YHWH vindicates his people , and is merciful to his servants

Verse 14 provides a reason for the exclamation of praise in the previous verse, even though a

in this verse comes secondary to its function as an asseverative particle כי causal rendering of

often contains the דין emphasizing YHWH’s gracious actions towards his people. Though sense “to judge”—that is to apportion good to those who do good and punish those who do it often carries a—” וְה֗ וּא יִשְׁ ֽ פֹּט־תֵּבֵ ֥ ל בְּצֶ ֑דֶ ק יָדִ֥ ין לְ֜אֻמִּ֗ ים בְּמֵ ישָׁרִֽ ים׃ “ ,evil, as in the case of Ps 9:9 sense of implied innocence, in which the petitioner, certain of his righteous position, requests that God punishes his enemies or removes him from his distress. Thus, a better interpretation here is “to vindicate”. First Samuel 24:16 records David’s words to Saul after David דין of

David’s .” וְהָ יָ ֤ה יְהוָה֙ לְדַ יָּ֔ ן וְשָׁפַ ֖ ט בֵּ ינִ ֣י וּבֵ ינֶ ֑ B וְ יֵ֙רֶא֙ וְיָרֵ ֣ ב אֶ ת־רִ יבִ֔ י וְ יִשְׁ פְּטֵ ֖נִ י מִ יָּדֶ ֽ B׃ “ ,spared his life innocence is assumed and the result of the vindication is his rescue (s. also Ps 54:3). With this

43 It is noticeably common in Leviticus, describing perpetual ordinances for future generations (6:11, 7:36, 10:9, and 23:14, 21).

Page <265> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135 understanding, the psalmist casts 44 an interpretive light on the preceding events. The instances in which God has intervened in history to save the Israelites and punish their enemies presumes their innocence, and ignores occurrences in which this same people have disobeyed should not be considered a future form, suggesting ידין and angered him. 45 The imperfect form

God will vindicate his people from an unnamed catastrophe, but as an ongoing action, 46 whereby the psalmist recognizes YHWH’s constant vindication of his people, beginning with the interventions previously mentioned and continuing into the time of the psalmist. The recalls v.9, and again draws a comparison between servants: those of עבדיו appearance of

Pharaoh (and presumably the gods of the Egyptians) are punished with the plagues, even ... וְהִכֵּ יתִ ֤ י כָ ל־בְּ כוֹר֙ בְּ ֶ א֣רֶ ץ מִצְרַ ֔ יִם מֵאָדָ ֖ ם ו8ְַ ד־בְּהֵמָ ֑ ה וּבְכָ ל־אֱ Nהֵ ֥ י מִצְרַ ֛ יִם אֶ 8ֱֽשֶׂ ֥ ה שְׁ פָטִ ֖ ים אֲנִ֥ י “) judged

Ex 12:12), whereas the servants of YHWH are vindicated and comforted. In ,” יְהוָ ֽה׃

them also (Gen 27:42, 37:35), granting them יתנחם vindicating his people, YHWH comforts deliverance from their enemies and bringing them to a place of rest. The notion of God being gracious to one party and venting his anger on another has lead, in certain contexts, to the וְכָלָ ֣ה אַפִּ֗ י וַהֲ נִ חוֹתִ ֧ י חֲמָתִ ֛ י בָּ֖ ם “ ,as “to vent one’s anger” (s. Ezek 5:13 יתנחם interpretation of

portraying God’s anger with Israel). As with v.7, the degree of replication 47 ,” וְהִ נֶּחָ ֑מְתִּ י ... between the verse as it appears in the psalm and another location in biblical literature is

.(Deut 32:36) ,” כִּֽ י־יָדִ ֤ ין יְהוָ ה֙ 8ַמּ֔ וֹ ו8ְַ ל־8ֲבָדָ ֖ יו יִתְ נֶחָ ֑ ם ... “ ,precise, without any lexical differences

15 8ֲצַבֵּ ֣י הַ֭ גּוֹיִם כֶּ ֣סֶ ף וְזָהָ ֑ ב מ8ֲַ֜שֵׂ֗ ה יְדֵ ֣י אָדָ ֽ ם׃

The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands

.(may also conclude a parable or section, or give meaning to an oracle; s. Muilenberg (1961:146 כי The word 44 In v.14, it does not give meaning to an oracle, but closes the section and provides a reason for the previous historical events. 45 On numerous instances during their desert journey, Israel grumbled about their hardships, and rebelled against God. Exodus 15:24 reports grumbling at the waters of Meribah, Ex 32 recounts the golden-calf idolatry, and Num 14 tells of the community’s rebellion at the report of the spies. Psalms 105, 114, and 136 similarly refrain from reporting negative instances from Israel’s past. 46 Gibson (1994:75f.) elaborates upon such a deployment of the imperfect. 47 In this context, one could also render it as “revenge”; s. Gen 27:47 where Esau comforts himself with thoughts of revenge.

Page <266> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135

The fourth stanza relocates the reader’s attention from YHWH and his servants to the gods of the nations, and highlights the inabilities of these gods by contrasting them with YHWH’s

, עצבים ,activities in Creation and history. The gods of the nations are here depicted as idols that have been constructed with silver and gold. Such materials commonly appear in ו8ְַתָּ ֣ ה׀ ִ ֣ יוֹספוּ לַחֲ טֹ֗ א וַיּ8ְַשׂ֣ וּ לָהֶם֩ מַסֵּ כָ֙ ה מִכַּסְפָּ ֤ם “ ,polemical descriptions of gods, such as Hos 13:2

and Deut 4:28. Though silver and gold may be indicative ,” כִּתְ בוּנָם֙ 8ֲצַבִּ֔ ים מ8ֲַשֵׂ ֥ ה חָרָשִׁ ֖ ים כּPֻ֑ ה ... of riches and God’s blessing (Gen 24:35, 1Ki 10:21), when they appear in the contexts of other gods they cease representing riches and transform into symbols of inadequacy. ,in this verse draws one’s attention to those in v.10 whom were struck גוים Repetition of suggesting the nations who formed these gods from silver and gold were not subsequently delivered by them. Such a depiction reveals a subordination of these other gods to YHWH. If God defeated the nations, and their gods could not save them, then he is more superior. A contrasting gods formed by the hands of men ,עשה further comparison is induced via the root

v.7). 48) ” ... בְּ רָ קִ ֣ ים לַמָּטָ ֣ ר 8ָשָׂ ֑ ה ... “ ,and the God who makes lightning for the rain ,” מעשה ידי אדם“

16 פֶּ ֽ ה־לָ֭הֶ ם וְ לֹ֣ א יְדַבֵּ ֑רוּ 8ֵ ינַ ֥ יִם לָ֜הֶ֗ ם וְ לֹ֣ א יִרְ אֽ וּ׃

Mouths 49 they have but do not speak; eyes they have but do not see

Verses 16-17 further demean the foreign gods via a series of clauses that, on one hand, compares them with created beings, but on the other hand, denigrates them to a status below ,but lack the ability to speak ,” פה להם “ ,such creatures. In this verse they are ascribed mouths

The further description of having eyes and not seeing suggests these idols are .” ולא ידברו“

שִׁמְ עוּ־נָ ֣א זֹ֔ את 8ַ ֥ ם סָכָ ֖ל וְאֵ ֣ ין לֵ ֑ב 8ֵ ינַ ֤ יִם לָהֶם֙ וְ לֹ֣ א יִרְ א֔ וּ “ ,foolish. God’s indictment of Israel in Jer 5:21

48 When reading this verse, it is difficult not to think of the instance in which Israel attempted to forge their own god from gold (Ex 32:23ff.). is singular, here the intention is plural. JM (1996:498) states: “Almost any noun may פה Though the Hebrew 49 be used as a noun of species or of category – the generic use – and then it is equivalent to a plural…” In Ps 135:16, it may be understood that all of these idols have a mouth of some description.

Page <267> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135

demonstrates this association, where the foolish people have unseeing ,” אָ זְנַ ֥ יִם לָהֶ ֖ ם וְ לֹ֥ א יִשְׁמָ ֽ עוּ׃

50 eyes and deaf ears.

17 אָ זְנַ ֣ יִם לָ֭ הֶ ם וְ לֹ֣ א יַאֲזִ ֑ינוּ אַ֜ ף אֵ ין־יֶשׁ־ר֥ וּ\ַ בְּפִ יהֶ ֽ ם׃

Ears they have but do not hear; and there is no breath in their mouths

The derision of foreign gods continues here in v.17 as the psalmist further depicts the idols as Though the author employs .” אזנים להם ולא יאזינו “ ,having ears but being unable to hear

the fourth 51 and ultimate colon breaks this rhythm ,” ... להם ולא ... “ ,repetition in vv.16 and 17

אף אין “ ,to create an emphatic denial of the idols’ capabilities. The somewhat peculiar phrase

introduces the second colon in v.17, and carries with it a variety of nuances. Regardless ,” יש of its various interpretations, 52 the basic understanding is the same: these idols do not possess primarily functions as a particle of emphasis “even”, it אף breath, and do not breathe. Though also recalls the word “nose”, which suits the context depicting other facial organs. 53 The which, as opposed to the , רוח emphatic nature of the final statement is stressed by the word other facial entities, is critical for human existence. It is possible to live without the ability to speak, see, or hear; but from the moment there is no breath in one’s mouth he dies (cf. Gen ,represent life). By mentioning the breath of one’s mouth רוח and אף and Job 27:3, where 7:22

the psalmist recalls God’s work in Creation, where YHWH forms the heavens ,” רוח בפיהם“

50 It is possible to detect a degree of irony between vv.9 and 16. The psalm depicts the idols as being unable to see here, and v.9 portrays God as working signs and portents, acts intended to be seen (s. close reading for v.9). 51 Zakovitch (1987) discusses important aspects of the literary pattern three-plus-one, where three represents a mathematical superlative and four was thus viewed as surpassing it. as a pleonastic element which should be discarded, e.g., Kraus יש Many commentators simply interpret 52 (1988b:491); Briggs (1969:480), who claims the whole verse is an addition; Dahood (1981:262), who also relates it to the Ugaritic emphatic phrase bl i ¾ bn lh , “surely he has no son”; Weiser (1965:788) and the BHS also ,An alternative solution is to correct the verse according to the assumed source, Ps 115:6 . יש suggests deleting Attractive as this may be, it also excessively stifles the psalmist’s creative ability. Talmon .” ... להם ולא יריחון“ (1960:172f.) presents another possibility, suggesting an intentional double meaning with synonymous particles juxtaposed in the middle of a sentence. Within such a rubric, two meanings are upheld: one that explicitly denies and the other that poses a rhetorical question presupposing a negative ;” אף אין רוח בפיהם “ the idols any breath .” אף יש רוח בפיהם “ ,answer 53 Most modern commentators accept both of these possible renderings; s. Seybold (1996:503) and Garsiel (1999a:243). Hacham (1981:609), however, interprets it as a particle of emphasis where it carries a meaning . גם stronger than

Page <268> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135

Such an .” בִּדְבַ ֣ר יְ֭הוָ ה שָׁמַ ֣יִם נ8ֲַשׂ֑ וּ וּבְר֥ וּ\ַ פִּ֜ יו כָּ ל־צְבָאָ ֽ ם׃ “ ,by the breath of his mouth, Ps 33:6 allusion compels a comparison between YHWH, who created the heavens by the breath of his mouth, and the false gods, who do not posses breath for their own lives.54 Additionally, further recalls v.7, and compares God—who brings the wind from its רוח repetition of storehouses, thus exhibiting dominance over this element—and the idols, which do not even have breath within their bodies.

creates an inclusion enveloping vv.16-17, which depict the facial פה Here in v.17 features of the nation’s idols and derides their impotency. The attribution of facial organs ascribed to these idols contrasts the lack of such anthropomorphisms employed in God’s description, and yet even without such physical attributes, he accomplishes works beyond the capability of his counterparts. A similar description of idols occurs in Psalm 115:5-6, where much of the same vocabulary appears. However, the contexts of the two psalms differ significantly, with our psalmist recalling fewer elements. Psalm 135 only includes facial features in its depiction of the idols, whereas Psalm 115 continues to detail arms, legs, and throat. 55

18 כְּ֭ מוֹהֶ ם יִהְ י֣וּ עֹשֵׂ יהֶ ֑ ם כֹּ֭ ל אֲשֶׁ ר־בֹּטֵ ֣\ַ בָּהֶ ֽ ם׃

Their makers will be like them, and all those who trust in them

In v.18 attention turns from the idols to those who worship them, just as the idols were ineffective and foolish, so too are those who trust in them. Here, the psalm’s continued

v.8), and the) ” ְ֭ כּמוֹהֶ ם יִהְ י֣ וּ עֹשֵׂ יהֶ ֑ ם כֹּ֭ ל אֲשֶׁ ר־בֹּטֵ ֣\ַ בָּהֶ ֽ ם׃ “ ,association with Psalm 115 is evident

created עשה omission of the “arms” and “legs” becomes more pronounced. Just as the word

54 Though this description of the other gods is somewhat sarcastic and demeaning, highlighting their uselessness and impotency, we should still be aware of the fact that the psalmist recognizes a need to mock them in such a way. Ironically, even though these gods are ineffectual, an extant propensity among the psalmist’s community to serve and worship such idols must have been present; otherwise, such a denouncement would be irrelevant. Concerning the need to denunciate other gods, Oesterley (1962:541) claims this section reflects an advanced stage of monotheism, one that surpasses merely stating YHWH’s dominance over other gods, and explicitly identifies these gods as ineffectual idols. He also suggests this castigation of foreign idols came at a time when Israelites were being seduced by Hellenism, claiming, “this denunciation against idols may well have had a greater significance than appears at first in view of the fact that Hellenism had a great fascination for many ” (op. cit.). 55 There is a clear instance of literary borrowing here, even if the direction of borrowing cannot be determined at this stage in our examination.

Page <269> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135 an earlier inclusion in vv.6-7, so too it demarks here the open and close of the stanza, and

linking the , כל אשר : עשה :: עשיהם : כל אשר ,forms part of a chiastic arrangement with v.6 second and fourth stanzas. Moreover, the root closely associates those who worship the idols, A similar association between .” מעשה ידי אדם “ ,with the idols themselves ,” כמוהם יהיו עשיהם“ people and their object of worship is expressed in v.14. Contrasting v.18, however, in v.14 the relationship is positive, and the people (Israel) who worship the deity (YHWH) are vindicated by him.

19 בֵּ ֣ית יִ֭שְׂרָ אֵ ל בָּרֲכ֣ וּ אֶ ת־יְהוָ ֑ה בֵּ ֥ ית אַ֜הֲ רֹ֗ ן בָּרֲ כ֥ וּ אֶ ת־יְהוָ ֽה׃

House of Israel bless YHWH; House of Aaron bless YHWH

The final stanza constitutes an exhortation to various Temple groups to praise YHWH, and like the previous section, bears a strong resemblance to Psalm 115. 56 The language of this

56 The tight relationship between Ps 115 and Ps 135 deserves a slightly more detailed examination because of all the similarities we have witnessed thus far. It is my opinion that Psalm 135 constitutes the later of the two works primarily because of the nature of its composition. Up to this point we have seen that every verse bears a close relationship with other biblical texts, and because the psalm is probably very late (as we shall soon see), it is most logical to assume that the psalm has borrowed from all of the texts reflected therein. Psalm 115 is a community lament in which the community faces an enemy who taunts them and their trust in YHWH. The opening of Psalm 115 (v.1) directs the reader to God and his grace and truth. Following this, v.2 unexpectedly switches focus to an enemy’s mocking cry against Israel, sarcastically asking “where is your God?” The direct reply to this quotation is that he is in heaven (v.3) and does as he pleases. The response continues in vv.4-8 as the psalm denounces the gods of the nations as idols with the appearance of men but without life. Also relating to the mocking in the second verse, vv.9-11 instruct the community on the appropriate response to such taunts: trust in the Lord because he is their help and strength. Verses 12-14 recall YHWH’s faithfulness to Israel in the past (v.12) and this sparks hope for the future, that he will bless them once again; this hope is related to the taunt in v.2 since a future blessing implies a future deliverance. Verses 15 and 16 return to focus on YHWH and his exaltedness, declaring heaven belongs to him (recalling v.3). Another reminder of the threat posed by the nations in v.2 materialises in v.17. The fact that the dead cannot praise YHWH applies an amount of indirect pressure on him to deliver them from the threat of the enemy: if he fails, he receives no praise. Finally, v.18 closes the psalm with a note of praise, in which the congregation agrees to continue praising God forever. Whether this stems from a surety that God will deliver, or a note of fatality—that come what may, for good or ill, they will continue to praise him—is unclear. Psalm 115:1-2 form a critical part of the psalm’s plot because they effectively introduce the danger and the threat to the community. Psalm 135, however, ignores these verses because it is essentially a psalm of praise. Notwithstanding this fact, one can still discern Psalm 135 responding to the chants of the enemy calling out “where is your God? (v.2)” Instead of a response claiming that he is in heaven, however, and that the people should trust in him, Ps 135 responds by asserting that YHWH can act, and has previously succeeded in delivering them. Furthermore, this psalm continues to claim that the nations who enquire “where is your god?” do not actually serve gods at all, but only idols, made with human hands and incapable basic human abilities. The fact that God dwells in Jerusalem (v.21) also improves Psalm 115’s response to the enemy’s mocking. Psalm 135 asserts that he is not in heaven, but with the people in Jerusalem (v.21), far closer to his people than Psalm 115 implies. Additionally, Psalm 135 stresses that though YHWH dwells in Jerusalem, his jurisdiction, and the area in which he rules exceeds this: the heavens, earth, seas, and depths—everywhere!

Page <270> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135 section reflects similar characteristics to that in the opening section: plural imperatives from a speaker to those congregated at the Temple, and repetition of the divine name. The reference

here in v.19 addresses all Israelites (as in Ezek 12:27, and ,” בית ישראל “ ,to the house of Israel

Amos 5:25) who are gathered at the Temple. From this general reference, the psalm moves to which in all likelihood refers to a specific group of ,” בית אהרן “ ,the house of Aaron

where ,” וַיֶּאֱסֹ֥ ף דָּ וִ ֛יד אֶ ת־בְּנֵ ֥י אַ ֽהֲ רֹ֖ ן וְאֶ ת־הַ לְוִיִּֽם׃ “ ,individuals. Such a group appears in 1Chr 15:4

in Chronicles corresponds ” בני אהרן “ David gathers together the sons of Aaron. The phrase

בני in 135:19, and verses such as Ezek 37:16 attest to the freedom at which ” בית אהרן “ with

are interchangeable. First Chronicles 15:4 further attests to the sons of Aaron and בית and

Levi.

20 בֵּ ֣ית הַ֭לֵּוִ י בָּרֲכ֣ וּ אֶ ת־יְהוָ ֑ה יִֽ רְאֵ ֥ י יְ֜הוָ֗ ה בָּרֲכ֥ וּ אֶ ת־יְהוָ ֽה׃

House of Levi bless YHWH; Fearers of YHWH bless YHWH

Verse 20 continues with the blessing formula that began in the previous verse and further

and the Fearers of ;” בית לוי “ ,identifies another two groups of worshipers: the House of Levi

The House of Levi refers to another subgroup that functioned within the .” יראי יהוה “ ,the Lord

כִּ ֣ י אֶ ל־הַ֠ לְּשָׁ כוֹת יָבִ֙ יאוּ בְנֵ י־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ ל וּבְנֵ ֣י הַ לֵּוִ֗ י אֶ ת־תְּ רוּמַ ֣ ת הַדָּ גָן֘ הַתִּ יר֣ וֹשׁ “ ,Temple. Nehemiah 10:40

mentions the same group of individuals, even though it employs the slightly ,” וְהַ יִּצְהָ ר֒ ...

The final colon in v.20, in some respects, continues . בני different, but interchangeable, word the repetition that began in v.19 by mentioning a Temple group, but this rhythm is broken as opposed to the expression ,” יראי יהוה “ ,with the identification of the Fearers of the Lord

a) ” יראי יהוה “ ,Another break in repetition stems from the name of the specific group .” בית-X“ term frequently appearing in the Psalter 15:4, 25:12, 128:1, 4), which fails to recall Israel or his descendants, but all who fear YHWH. The designation may refer to a group of

Finally, it is possible to describe the relationship between the two psalms as a “before and after” scenario. Before YHWH intervenes to save his people they are threatened and mocked, as a result, the people are encouraged to trust in God. After God has intervened and delivered them from the hand of their enemies (Ps 135), Israel praises God, the tables are turned and Israel mocks the gods of the nations.

Page <271> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135 worshippers that were not physical descendants of Jacob, but nevertheless worshipped and may equally refer to all the faithful ” יראי יהוה “ served YHWH. On the other hand, the phrase amidst Israel (see Mal 3:16 and Ps 22:24) who have attended the Temple service. The break in rhythm presents another example of the literary pattern three-plus-one.

21 בָּ֨ר֤ וּF יְהוָ֙ ה׀ מִצִּ יּ֗וֹן שֹׁ֨כֵ ֤ן יְֽרוּשָׁ לִָ֗ ם הַ ֽלְ לוּ־יָ ֽהּ׃

Be blessed YHWH in 57 Zion, who dwells in Jerusalem, Praise Yah

After the psalm exhorts the worshippers to bless YHWH, it now addresses God, requesting ” ברוך יהוה “ that the congregation’s praise is acceptable to him. In the psalms, the formula usually depicts the response to a specific deed. 58 Within this stanza, however, no such reasoning is immediately apparent, unless we assume gratitude is expressed simply because he dwells in Zion. A glance, however, at the entire context of the psalm, which recounts God fighting for his people (vv.8-11), and the bestowing of land to them (v.12), creates a good reason to praise God. Although Zion 59 evidently refers to Jerusalem (2Sam 5:6-7, 1Ki 8:1, 2Ki 19:21), it more importantly signifies the place from which YHWH rules and reigns, and the place from which he goes out to deliver his people (Am 1:2, Ps 14:7, and 20:2). The idea of YHWH delivering Israel is similarly echoed in the psalm: deliverance from Egypt, and defeat of Canaanite kings. Almost in total contrast to the entire psalm—where God is never ascribed human attributes, unlike the idols in the previous sections—YHWH is ascribed with The psalm’s final two words duplicate 60 .” שכן ירושלם “ ,an earthly location in which he dwells

and create an inclusion for the whole psalm. For all that he has ,” הללו יה “ ,the opening words

as this provides a better reading. This interchange is a known מ instead of ב Here I have interpreted a 57 phenomenon caused by graphic similarity; see Tov (1992:244-49). 58 He hears the voice of supplications (28:6), shows his mercy (31:22), accepts prayer (66:20), supports his people (68:20), gives power and strength to his people (68:36), teaches statutes (119:12), and trains hands for war (144:1). 59 Zion is particularly prominent in the Songs of Ascent (125:1, 126:1, 128:5, 129:5, 132:13, 133:3, and 134:3); although this collection does not include Ps 135, the fact that it mentions Zion may have motivated an editor to juxtapose the two. 60 The fact that God’s dwelling appears after recollections of his going out to battle and defeating kings and nations—effectively fighting for Israel—reflects an ancient pattern in which God returns to his dwelling place to reign after defeating his enemies. The Baal Cycle employs this pattern, whereby Baal builds a dwelling place after defeating Yam and Judge River, s. Parker (1997:131-34); similarly in Enuma Elis, Marduk defeats Tiamat, creates the world with her remains and soon after declares “A house I shall build, let it be the abode of my pleasure”, Foster (1997:400). This psalm recalls God defeating his enemies and then dwelling in his residence, Zion. Psalm 68 recalls a similar pattern, s. Klingbeil (1999:130-35).

Page <272> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135 done for his people, and for his greatness in comparison with the idols of the nations, the only fitting response is to praise him. The last stanza with its various references to the groups within the Temple similarly returns us to the place in which the psalm began, the house of the . בית Lord, via repetition of the word

MEANING

Psalm 135 primarily consists of a Hymn celebrating YHWH’s omnipotence, superiority over idols, and selection of Israel. The first verse of the second stanza speaks of his control over Creation, with particular emphasis on meteorological elements, and the remainder of the stanza is devoted to his domination over human enemies, where he personally fights against them. His supremacy is particularly evident in the last verse of the stanza where he bestows

Such an expression implies that the land he .( נחלה ) land to his people as an inheritance bestowed first belonged to him, and that he then granted it to Israel. This fact, together with the allusions to Creation, suggests YHWH possesses ownership rights of all that was created. The fourth stanza recalls the impotency of the idols, which, when compared with God’s deeds, further emphasizes his greatness. In addition to magnifying YHWH’s greatness, the psalm polemicizes the gods of the nations. Not only does it portray them as merely the work of men’s hands (v.15), but they are also depicted as impotent, having facial features but being unable to use them (16-18). The precise context of such polemical language can only be assumed at this stage, but one can surmise that such words were written to discourage worshipping such idols, at a time when religious syncretism may have been on the rise. As an implicit response to rejecting such idols, the Israelites are led to choose YHWH instead. Another important point the psalm stresses is the closeness of YHWH’s relationship with Israel. Short phrases throughout the psalm often express this intimacy: Israel was elected because God chose them (v.4), and they are his treasured possession (v.4); both of these phrases appear before his works in Creation and history are mentioned, suggesting a more pronounced emphasis on the act of selection. Additionally, Israel relates to YHWH as “our v.5); he bestows land to them as an inheritance (v.12); and he vindicates and is , אלהינו ) ”God merciful to them (v.14). Such an emphasis on YHWH’s intimacy with his people ultimately serves as an encouragement for them to cling to him and reject the nations’ idols.

Page <273> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135

DATE

As with the previous psalms, we shall first look at the primary evidence for the determination of Psalm 135’s date. Linguistically, the psalm offers a relatively rich yield of data concerning

together with the active participle ש its origins. In v.2, the psalm employs the relative particle

participle” 61 does not appear in First Temple literature, a corpus+ש “ Because the form . עמדים

participle”, we should accept the construction as a sign of+ה “ preferring the alternative form

-v.12) used to indicate a past) ונתן and והרג ,lateness. 62 Additionally, the weqatal forms completed act, 63 reflect an Aramaic 64 influence that is often considered late. 65 The psalm’s which constitutes a group peculiar ,” בית לוי “ final stanza recalls the Temple group known as to later literature, as Ezek 40:46, 1Chr 23:24, and 24:20 indicate; moreover, corresponding texts in Samuel and Kings fail to mention such a group. 66 Further linguistic evidence may also v.2), which) ” בית אלהינו“ be cited that suggests a postexilic dating, such as the phrase predominantly 67 surfaces in postexilic literature, Joel (1:16), Ezra (8:17, 25, 30, 33; 9:9) and — introducing a verb’s direct object 69 ל Nehemiah (10:33-40, passim; 13:4); 68 the preposition

כל “ the phrase ; הרג form the two direct objects of the verb לסיחון and לעוג as in v.11 where

61 For more details on the distribution and linguistic equivalence of this construction, see Hurvitz (1972:156). suggests lateness; s. Ecc 1:11, Ezra 8:20, 1Ch 5:20, 27:27. Scholars ש The presence of the relative particle 62 such as Allen (2002:288) adduce the particle alone as evidence for lateness, but when considered together with the participle it constitutes more solid proof. 63 See Allen (2002:288). With respect to this claim, he presumably appeals to the fact that the majority of instances in which this construction occurs, waw plus perfect, are in later writings; s. also Driver (1998:§130). 64 Concerning the appearance of Aramaisms in the text, I would like to emphasize that the mere presence of an isolated Aramaic form is not enough to claim the entire text is late; s. Hurvitz (1968), whose work has since been reinforced by Rendsburg (2003a), who has refuted a number of claims to lateness on the bases of Aramaic. The very presence of Aramaic features may only be indicative of a text written in a dialectal variant IH (Israelian Hebrew). Notwithstanding the aforementioned observations, I would like to emphasize two points concerning the dating of Psalm 135. First, this psalm is less likely to have been written under the influence of Israelian authors because it does not fall into the corpus of Israelian Hebrew, as defined in Rendsburg’s comprehensive listing (2003b:8, 224). This observation raises the chances of any Aramaisms appearing in this psalm stemming from the influence of the postexilic era. Second, a concentration of Aramaic forms together with the other LBH forms strengthens the notion of the Aramaisms reflecting a late influence and thus significantly increases the possibility of the psalm’s lateness. 65 Driver (1998:§131) notes that this feature derives from heavy Aramaic influences during a later period. 66 Cp. 2Kings 11:18 and 2Chr 23:7. 67 This excludes its appearances in the Psalter. .(cp. Ex 23:19 and Neh 10:37. See also Hurvitz (1972:174 ,” בית אלהים “ For the SBH linguistic equivalent of 68 69 This phenomenon most probably derives from the influence of Aramaic on LBH; s. GKC §117 n, and more recently Hurvitz (1972:174).

Page <274> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135

v.19 ). 71 Another) ” בית אהרן “ ,and the reference to the house of Aaron ; 70” אשר חפץ עשה general indication of Psalm 135’s date presents itself in v.2, which addresses those standing in the house of the Lord. Such a statement recognizes a functional extant Temple; therefore, it is unreasonable to assume the psalm was written during the Exile: ca. 587 BCE until the rebuilding of the Second Temple, ca. 515 BCE.72 Further evidence concerning the date appears in v.11., which virtually mimics Psalm 136:19-20. Because the association cannot reasonably be viewed as coincidental, 73 we must assume an instance of borrowing. When we ולכל “ ,consider, however, the nature of the additional material that appears in Psalm 135:11

the likelihood arises that Psalm 135 borrowed from Psalm 136. This scenario is ,” ממלכות כנען more likely because a later author would have been more troubled by the representation of the conquest as consisting only of the Transjordanian lands. Thus, he would have sought to correct the earlier work to reflect his situation more accurately. Due to the preponderance of evidence presented above that suggests a postexilic date for the psalm, we shall accept this for our working hypothesis. 74 Confirming this assumption, the majority of scholarly opinion opts for a postexilic origin for Psalm 135. 75

70 Hurvitz (1982) has demonstrated that this is a LBH variant of a legal formula known in SBH and Aramaic. 71 See Day (2004). 72 For this date, see Bright (1998:372) and Meyers (1992:363). 73 See the following section for further support of borrowing between the two psalms. he ;” אין יש “ Norin (1977:156) additionally adduces what he considers an “un-classical use” of the phrase 74 explicitly states, “…äusserst unklassische weise benutzt”, but fails to supply further evidence of why it is “un - classical”. 75 Most scholars either explicitly claim the psalm’s postexilic date, without citing evidence, or implicitly agree with this assumption. Kraus (1988b:492), without adducing evidence, states: “Even Psalm 135, which is to be dated in a very late time…”. Similarly, Schaefer (2001:317ff.) claims: “Jerusalem and the Temple have been rebuilt and are functioning”. Additionally, both Seybold (1990:504) and Terrien (2003), without explicit justification, assume a postexilic date for the Psalm. It is possible to adduce additional evidence from slightly older sources such as Driver (1972:384f.). He mentions Professor Cheyne’s work, Origin of the Psalter , which further places the psalm in the Maccabean period; and Briggs (1969:478), who claims the psalm cannot be earlier than the Greek period (though this assessment should be treated with caution due to his propensity to date all psalms to the Greek period unless overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise). Other authors, such as Hoffman (1983:111) and McCann (1996:1218-21) acquiesce on the issue of dating, and only Weiser (1965:789 ) suggests the possibility of pre-exilic origins, stating, “Just as in the case of Psalm 115 so here the possibility of pre-exilic origin has to be seriously considered”.

Page <275> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135

SOURCES

No doubts arise concerning the associations between Table 8. Psalms 135 and 136. A degree of uncertainty, however, is Ps 135:4 Dt 7:6, 14:2 D apparent concerning Psalm 135:4’s sources, 76 where at Ps 135:8 Ex 12:12 P least three associations can be identified via the keyword Ps 135: 9 Dt 34:11 D Ps 135:10 Ps 136:17-18 — Ex 19:5, Deut 7:6, and 14:2, all of which have a : סגלה Ps 135:11 Ps 136:19-20 — — Ps 135:12 Ps 136:21 -22 , בחר similar context to the psalm. The additional word however, excludes Ex 19:5, which narrows down the association to the two Deuteronomy texts; because these two texts are nearly identical, no further effort will be made to isolate them, and the following section addresses them both. The lexical congruity between Psalm 135 and Exodus 18:11 removes all doubt concerning the association between these two texts. There are four possible sources for Psalm 135:8—Ex 12:12, 29, Num 33:4, and Ps 136:10. Exodus 12:29 and Num 33:4 should be excluded because they omit the additional which appears in the psalm. Even though Psalm 135 depends on ,” מאדם עד בהמה “ detail of

Psalm 136 elsewhere (see below), we should similarly disregard the latter psalm because it too omits the aforementioned phrase. Consequently, the most probable source is Ex 12:12 because it includes the added detail of the destruction of man and beast. Numerous possibilities arise for v.9’s associations. Ex 8:17 presents a reasonable possibility since it too when depicting the sending of plagues. With respect to lexical שלח includes the root

וַתִּתֵּ ן אֹתֹ֙ ת וּמֹֽפְתִ֜ ים בְּפַרְ 8ֹ֤ ה “ ,congruencies concerning the remaining words, Neh 9:10

וַיִּתֵּ ֣ ן יְהוָ֡ה אוֹתֹ֣ ת וּ֠מֹפְתִ ים גְּ דֹלִ ֙ ים וְר8ִָ ֧ ים׀ בְּמִצְרַ ֛יִם בְּפַרְ 8ֹ֥ ה וּבְכָ ל־בֵּ ית֖ וֹ “ ,and Deut 6:22 ,” וּבְכָ ל־8ֲבָדָ יו֙ ...

also present themselves as viable possibilities, even though they both adopt the root ,” ל8ְֵ י נֵ ֽינוּ׃

,to portray the sending of the plagues. Notwithstanding these possibilities, Deut 34:11 נתן

stands ” לְכָ ל־ הָ אֹ֙ת֜ וֹת וְהַ מּוֹפְתִ֗ ים אֲשֶׁ ֤ ר שְׁ לָ חוֹ֙ יְהוָ֔ה ל8ֲַשׂ֖ וֹת בְּאֶ ֣רֶ ץ מִצְרָ ֑יִם לְפַרְ 8ֹ֥ ה וּלְכָ ל־8ֲבָדָ ֖ יו וּלְכָ ל־אַרְ צֽ וֹ׃“

to depict “sending” 77 in שלח as the best association for v.9, because it includes the root addition to numerous lexical matches for the remaining words. Only two Documentary Hypothesis sources are reflected in Psalm 135’s citations from the Pentateuch, D and P. Due

76 See Appendix D for a closer comparison between the Psalm’s verses and those of the sources. 77 Another difference is that Moses forms the object of the root in Deuteronomy. For more details on this association, see the following section.

Page <276> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135 to the lateness of the composition, however, it would be unwise to even suggest that the author was unaware of the other traditions.

עבדי Psalm 135:2 contains specific lexical similarities with Ps 134:1 via the phrase

bears a recognizable ” ברוך יהוה מציון “ ,additionally, Psalm 135:21 ; יהוה עמדים בבית יהוה

Together, these links create an undeniable .” יברכך יהוה מציון “ ,similarity to Ps 134:3 association between the two works. Concerning the direction of borrowing, it is more probable that Psalm 135 appropriated material from Psalm 134, and not the other way round Ps 135:2), which) ” שעמדים “ Ps 134:1), to) ” העמדים “ because of the change in phrase represents a later linguistic equivalent. 78 With regards to the borrowing between Psalms 135 and 136, we must turn to the nature of Psalm 135 for help in establishing who borrowed from whom. Due to the intensive eclectic nature of the psalm, 79 it is most reasonable to assume that Psalm 136 constitutes the source for Psalm 135. If, as shown above, Psalm 135 has evidently appropriated a significant quantity of material from Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Psalm 134, then in continuing to compose his collage of biblical texts it is only reasonable to assume he additionally borrowed from Psalm 136. 80 Furthermore, a diachronic adaptation appears between the two psalms. in v.18 to וַ יַּ הֲ רֹג Psalm 136, the earlier composition, employs the earlier wayiqtol form

appears in , וְהָרַ ג ,represent a past completed act, whereas the later equivalent weqatal form

Psalm 135:10.

PROCESS OF SELECTION From the sources established above, we can argue that the psalmist, when composing the psalm, most probably worked with texts reflecting Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Psalm 136 to retell the Exodus. It would appear from his selection of events that he had very little interest in the desert itinerary per se, and thus all events transpiring therein have been omitted. Due to the psalm’s overall tenor, it is easy to see why the psalmist omitted the idolatry narratives—

78 See the section on dating concerning these. Even though Ps 135:2 does not contain Exodus material, demonstrating that it reuses material from Ps 134 lends weight to Ps 135’s overall eclectic nature, evidence that is required later in establishing the relationship between Ps 135 and 136. 79 See close reading; esp. vv.5, 7, and 14. 80 Admittedly, this constitutes the most tenuous evidence. Coupled, however, with the claim by certain scholars that Psalm 135 originates from a very late stage in the postexilic era; s. Allen (2002:288) and Kraus (1988b:492), there is enough reason to eliminate the possibility of three psalms reusing Psalm 135.

Page <277> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135 such accounts conflict with the positive nature of the relationship between God and Israel depicted in the psalm. Moreover, such instances conflict with the psalmist’s intent of portraying idols strictly as the possession of other nations. Almost as an inclusion of the Exodus, he chose to enumerate those instances of YHWH’s fighting for his people that occurred at the beginning of the Exodus, in Egypt, and the end, the Transjordanian battles. With the psalmist’s intent on demonstrating YHWH’s goodness towards his people, it is somewhat surprising that he failed to include any mention of the provision narratives, or the battle with the Amalekites, since these too reflect YHWH fighting for his people. Concerning the provision in the wilderness accounts (bread, water, and meat), because each one is associated with an instance of Israelite murmuring, it is possible to see why they may have been omitted. Similarly, with respect to the battle against Amalek, the psalmist may have viewed it as a narrative portraying Israel’s punishment for doubting God’s presence among them. Thus, he would have deemed it unsuitable to the psalm’s overall tenor. In addition to the smiting of kings, the psalmist has selected one other incident from the Exodus, YHWH’s selection of Israel as a special people. Of all the selected psalms, this constitutes the most explicit reference to the selection of Israel. Rather than including any of the conditional aspects that accompanied the status of “God’s people”, the psalmist opted only to include God’s selection of Israel. By combining the act of selection with a denunciation of idols in vv.15-18, the psalmist provides further encouragement to his generation to choose YHWH as their God: not only are the idols of the nations impotent, but YHWH, who is omnipotent, has initiated an interest in Israel.

ALLUSIONS

ISRAEL ’S SELECTION The previous sections established that Psalm 135:4 reuses either Deut 7:6 or 14:2. Clear lexical similarities exist between the two Deuteronomy passages, and they both unarguably refer to the same event: the selection of Israel. Irrespective of the exact source text in Deuteronomy, the psalmist has reframed and manipulated the source’s meaning with respect to the conditional aspect of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 7:6 and 14:2 recall Israel’s selection as a treasured possession as a reason and motivation for obedience. The former relates to God commanding Israel to destroy all of the nations they are about to dispossess along with their altars and wooden images, and not to intermarry with them. This they should do because they

Page <278> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135

to YHWH. For the same (7:6 , סגלה ) people and a special possession (7:6 , בחר ) are a chosen reason, YHWH instructs the Israelites not to shave the front of their heads for the dead in Deut 14:23. Opposing this conditional notion, Psalm 135 purely adopts the idea of selection as a reason to praise YHWH, and the psalmist suppresses all notions of obedience. The psalm’s context focuses on the closeness and intimacy of the relationship between Israel and YHWH 81 as a reason for praise and celebration, thus any conditional aspects of that relationship are deemed unimportant and consequently omitted.

PLAGUES AGAINST EGYPT The similarities between the psalm and source are striking in this instance. Each of the words, or roots, in 135:8 also appears in the source text (Ex 12:12). Additionally, their contexts are identical: both depict the plague against the firstborn of the Egyptians. The selection of this particular verse as a source represents a rare instance in which the plague against the firstborn is conceived as a judgment against the gods of Egypt. Exodus’ attention to this detail is reflected in Psalm 135, which speaks of the impotency of the other gods and YHWH’s supremacy over them. Another important detail adopted from the source text is the inclusion The addition of this phrase contributes to the psalmist’s .” מאדם ועד בהמה “ of the phrase

v.5, 6, 9, 11, 18), and the) כל ,.abundant deployment of phrases emphasizing totality, 82 e.g extended merismus depicting YHWH’s reign in v.6. With regard to the psalmist borrowing this verse, the primary alteration to the source is contextual: the striking of the firstborn is the last of the plagues mentioned in the psalmist’s source, but this same plague appears first in the psalm before it recalls the remaining plagues. One potential reason for reversing the sequence would be to cast the first nine plagues in light of the final plague. The plague against the firstborn represents an undeniable forthright assault by YHWH himself 83 against the Egyptians. Unlike the other plagues, no natural intermediaries participate, like Moses and Aaron, or creatures such as locust and flies etc. By first mentioning the plague of the firstborn and then recounting the remainder of the plagues, omitting specific details concerning how they came about, the psalmist creates the impression that YHWH directly inflicted Egypt with each plague. Due to the lateness of the psalm, we

81 Peppered throughout the psalm, as previously mentioned, are numerous phrases emphasizing the close and .( עמו ) vv.12, and 14 ,( אדנינו ) v.5 ,( לסגלתו ) intimate relationship between God and his people: v.2 .also appears in Jer 50:3 ” מאדם ועד בהמה “ ,As an expression of totality 82 83 See close reading for v.8 for Loewenstamm’s comments on the final plague.

Page <279> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135 can be sure that the psalmist was cognizant of the original ordering of the plagues and adapted the source to suit to his composition. Even if he were only familiar with a plagues’ tradition such as that in Ps 78 or 105, the aforementioned adjustment would still be apparent in his work. Unlike the previous example, the quote from Deut 34:10-11 does not belong to a plagues’ narrative, but from a passage treating Moses’ death. After he dies, Israel mourns for him for thirty days in the plains of Moab, and then Deuteronomy states that there has never arisen a prophet like him through whom the Lord had worked such portents and mighty acts,

וְ לֹֽ ָ֙ א־קם נָבִ֥ יא 8֛ וֹד בְּ יִשְׂרָאֵ ֖ ל כְּ מֹשֶׁ ֑ ה...לְכָ ל־הָ֙ אֹת֜ וֹת וְהַ מּוֹפְתִ֗ ים אֲשֶׁ ֤ ר שְׁ לָ חוֹ֙ יְהוָ֔ה ל8ֲַשׂ֖ וֹת בְּאֶ ֣רֶ ץ מִצְרָ ֑יִם לְפַרְ 8ֹ֥ ה “

,When we compare the source’s wording and Psalm 135:9 .(34:10-11) ” וּלְכָ ל־8ֲבָדָ ֖ יו וּלְכָ ל־אַרְ צֽ וֹ׃

Within Psalm . שלח one of the first noticeable divergences appears in the object of the verb

135’s context, YHWH directly sends the plagues against the Egyptians; whereas, the source depicts Moses being sent bearing YHWH’s judgments, bringing the plagues against the Egyptians. At first glance it seems strange that the psalmist would draw our attention to this verse because the psalm’s message primarily concentrates on YHWH and the deeds of power he performed to deliver the people he loves, thus removing any mention of intermediaries from the psalm. The very fact that the psalmist quotes from this particular location, however, indicates a vague desire to recall Moses, albeit indirectly, in the enacting of the Exodus, since the source does not focus on God’s deeds, but elevates Moses’ role in the Exodus.

TRANSJORDANIAN CONQUEST With regards the Transjordanian conquest, the psalmist effects numerous subtle, but meaningful, adjustments whilst transferring his source to its new context. Psalm 135:10 an alteration producing ,” גוים רבים“ in the source (Ps 136:17), with ” מלכים גדולים“ replaces two decisive effects. First, it creates a link within Psalm 135 between the nations whom

8ֲצַבֵּ֣ י הַ֭ גּוֹיִם “ ,YHWH struck and those who fashion idols with their own hands and serve them

v.15). From this association, one can infer that the nations’ idols) ” כֶּ ֣סֶ ף וְזָהָ ֑ ב מַ֜ 8ֲשֵׂ֗ ה יְדֵ ֣י אָדָ ֽ ם׃ lacked any capability to deliver them from YHWH’s hand, thus emphasizing his supremacy. decidedly suggests a multitude of nations struck, as opposed to only רבים Second, the word the Amorites, suggested in the source. This alteration complies with the psalmist’s intent on

Page <280> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135 widening his source’s scope to include the conquest of the entire land of Canaan, and not just the Transjordan. 84 Apparently with a similar motivation to the previous example, 135:11 witnesses the which reflects the psalmist’s changing perspective ,” ולכל ממלכות כנען “ addition of the phrase towards the conquest and giving of land. Rather than simply stopping at the defeat of the Transjordanian kings, Psalm 135 continues by referring to the conquest during Joshua’s lifetime. Psalm 136’s motivation for exclusively recording events found in the Torah may be tied to the Psalm’s historical reality. It may reflect an era in which the Torah alone was highly circulated and considered divinely inspired. 85 Such a reality may have changed when Psalm 135 was written, and to reflect this alteration, the psalmist sought to broaden the perspective of his source concerning the conquest. Yet in spite of this change, still only two kings are specifically mentioned by name. 86

JUXTAPOSITION

PSALM 134—135

that is directed ,” ... בָּרֲ כ֣ וּ אֶ ת־יְ֭הוָ ה ... “ ,Psalm 134 opens with an exhortation to bless YHWH

... 8ַבְדֵ ֣י יְהוָ ֑ה הָ עֹמְדִ֥ ים “ ,towards an unspecified group standing in the Temple praising him

v.1). The second verse continues with this theme supplying them with more) ” בְּבֵ ית־יְ֜ הוָ֗ה ... details on how they should praise: with arms extended. Finally, it invites a blessing from God

and remembers YHWH as maker of heaven and ,” יְבָרֶ כBְ֣ יְ֭הוָ ה מִצִּ יּ֑וֹן ... “ ,upon those worshipping

.” ... עֹ֜שֵׂ֗ ה שָׁמַ ֥ יִם וָאָ ֽרֶ ץ׃ “ ,earth

Opening in a similar fashion, Psalm 135 addresses a group identified as YHWH’s vv.1-2). After recalling) ” ... 8ַבְדֵ ֥ י יְהוָ ֽה׃ שֶׁ֭ 8ֹֽמְדִ ים בְּבֵ ֣ית יְהוָ ֑ה ... “ ,servants who stand in his house

in the source are indeed small. The (136:18) אדירים and (135:10) עצומים The semantic differences between 84 however, in this instance may reflect the psalmist’s desire to remain true to the biblical , עצומים selection of wording. The latter word is never used to describe either the kings or the nations conquered by Israel. On the other hand, instances such as Deut 4:38, 7:1, and 9:1 attest to the former word. 85 Of course, the question of canonization, the process in which the Bible was written, assembled, and updated, cannot be dealt with in this space. Consequently, when I speak of a canon here, I am simply referring to a period when the books of the Torah, more or less reflecting MT, were considered a single unified collection viewed by many as being God inspired, and closed with respect to adding and subtracting material. For more on the complexities of canonization see Anderson (1969) and Gamble (1992). 86 Loewenstamm (1992a:40) tentatively suggests here that the psalmist only had the Torah available to him and consequently mentions the only two Canaanite kings recalled therein.

Page <281> Chapter 4 - Psalm 135

Israel’s selection as a treasured people, it then recounts YHWH’s ability to do as he pleases in v.6). A demonstration of these abilities is) ” ... 8ָ֫שָׂ ֥ ה בַּשָּׁמַ ֥ יִם וּבָאָ ֑רֶ ץ ... “ ,heaven and earth enumerated as the psalm portrays his work in history on behalf of his people. After a brief intermission of praise (vv.13-14), the psalm proceeds to denounce the impotency of idols and then exhorts various Temple groups to bless YHWH. The final words of the psalm constitute

.(v.21) ” בָּ֨ר֤ וּF יְהוָ֙ ה׀ מִצִּ יּ֗ וֹן ... “ ,a call for God to be blessed in 87 Zion

The number of lexical correspondences demonstrated above cannot result from mere coincidence, and so must stem from one psalmist borrowing from another, and from the dating evidence, we can be sure Ps 135 appropriated material from Ps 134. 88 From a contextual standpoint, the comparison above demonstrates that the author of Psalm 135 not only borrowed a significant portion of material from Ps 134, but carefully selected elements the ,” ברכו את יהוה “ from the opening and close of his source. With the exception of the phrase opening words of Ps 134 appear in the opening of Ps 135; and respectively, closing words found in Ps 134 corresponds with closing words in Ps 135. Such an arrangement reflects the psalmist’s awareness of his source’s structure. Psalm 135 develops Ps 134, detailing an otherwise abstract psalm. The latter simply exhorts those standing in the courts to bless YHWH, without supplying a rational for doing so. Psalm 135 recognizes this theme and develops it by specifying reasons for praising YHWH: selecting Israel as a treasured people (v.4), sustaining the created order (v.7), delivering his people from their enemies (vv.8-11), and giving his people the land of their in its last ברך enemies (v.12). Also complementing Ps 134 is Ps 135’s deployment of the root verse. Psalm 134 employs it to express a blessing from YHWH to the people, “may they be blessed”, presumably in response to worshiping in v.2. This act is reversed in Psalm 135:21, whereby the worshippers are requested to bless/praise him in response for all he has done for them. 89

87 Concerning the interpretation of the preposition, see the close reading for this verse. 88 Cf. the shared vocabulary between Psalms 136 and 137, in which few common words appear. 89 The following chapter addresses the relationships between Pss 135 and 136, after it surveys Ps 136.

Page <282> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136

CHAPTER 5: PSALM 136

As the last of the selected psalms, Psalm 136 is closely related to its predecessor in the Psalter, Psalm 135. The present composition constitutes a relatively short liturgical hymn that devotes thirteen verses to the Exodus motif. Together with the Exodus, it includes a relatively

כי לעולם “ ,detailed portrayal of Creation. The psalm’s most outstanding feature is its refrain

,which recalls the nature of God’s mercy. This refrain was, in all likelihood 1 ,” חסדו responsorial, i.e. the congregation chanted the words in response to a congregational leader.

STRUCTURE

The majority of commentators agree upon the rudimentary structure of Psalm 136, however, the more precise divisions between each section and the rationale behind the numerous divisions generates a plethora of solutions. I have primarily divided the psalm according to theme 2 and the recurring pattern of “general to specific” 3—repetition has also influenced my decision in certain instances. The psalm can thus be divided as follows:

I. Introductory praise lauding YHWH’s supremacy (1-3) II. Praise for YHWH’s work in Creation (4-9) III. Praise for YHWH’s work in the Exodus (10-22) a. Deliverance from Egypt (10-15) b. Defeat of Transjordan Kings (16-22) IV. Praise summary for YHWH’s deliverance of Israel and provision to Creation (23-26)

1 With respect to this refrain, a possibility exists that the psalm existed in an earlier form without its addition. Though no conclusive proof can be offered for this theory, two factors strengthen the probability of this reality. First, Psalm 135 reuses a number of verses from the psalm, as we have already seen, and in doing so it does not repeat the refrain. This is slightly peculiar because Ps 135 frequently recites from its sources word-for-word, without omitting phrases. Second, the terraced parallelism appears to be abruptly interrupted by the refrain in vv.21-22. 2 This decision automatically sets my division at odds with numerous commentators because the different criteria employed by various interpreters for the division of the psalm—lexical verses thematic—inevitably produce varying results. 3 This principle is partially reflected in Bazak’s Geometric-Figurative structure of the psalm that divides it according to a presentation of upright and inverted triangles formed by each of the sections.

Page <283> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136

The opening three verses undoubtedly 4 identify themselves as the introductory stanza by their and parallelism 5. Within this section, the psalm’s primary ,” הודו ל ... “ repetition of the phrase theme is established: give thanks to God because of his everlasting grace. YHWH’s omnipotence over all earthly and heavenly rulers is explicitly established at the beginning of the composition. The second stanza also presents no problems in recognition, 6 with Creation at the start of the verses הודו emerging as the stanza’s subject. Additionally, the absence of and the references to YHWH via the active participle decidedly indicate a break from the opening verses. Within this section, the first instance of the “general to particular” pattern emerges; v.4 states the general, “he performs unfathomable and mighty deeds”, and the stanza’s remainder adds specific detail by recalling his magnificent deeds in creating the world. Verses 10-22, section three, outline Israel’s history from their leaving Egypt, when Egypt’s firstborn were struck, to their entrance into Canaan, the defeat of the two Transjordanian kings. Temporally, this division distinguishes itself from the psalm’s remainder: the events occurring within it transpire long after the world’s creation. Further division of this stanza into strophes, however, presents a few complexities. I have opted to exclude v.16 7 from the first strophe in this stanza because of its incongruence with the “general to particular” pattern described above. The strophe opens with a general statement of God smiting the Egyptians, which is subsequently detailed in its ensuing verses; he smote them via their firstborn and also by means of the Reed Sea. Following on from this incident, the second strophe in the stanza begins with the general statement that God led Israel in the desert, v.16, and subsequently recounts his conquest of the Transjordanian lands, and creates a degree of ישראל bestowal of it to Israel as an inheritance. 8 The repetition of continuity between the two strophes.

4 There is a clear consensus among scholars concerning this division. See for example Kraus (1988b:496), Allen (2002:293), and Seybold (1996:502). 5 See close reading. 6 The aforementioned authors also concur with this. 7 Many scholars, perhaps wisely, have refrained from further dividing the stanza into strophes and have preserved vv.10-22 as a composite unit describing the whole of the Exodus from Egypt; s. Dahood (1981:265), McCann (1996:1224), and Hacham (1981:530). For those scholars who have attempted to divide this stanza further into strophes both Kraus (1988b:496-99) and Allen (2002:292f.) have opted to include this verse in the first strophe of the stanza, they both understand it as summarizing the contents of the first strophe. Among the scholars in agreement with my assessment is Seybold (1996:502). 8 The duration of Moses’ leadership of Israel augments this conception of the wilderness period. He led them up until the crossing of the Jordan, that is, after the defeat of Sihon and Og.

Page <284> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136

The psalm’s final stanza acts as a summary of events previously recorded. With respect to Israel, God remembered them in their low estate and delivered them from their enemies. The reference to YHWH’s provision of food to all flesh links the last stanza with the second, which similarly recalls YHWH’s relationship with Creation in general. Scholars do not generally contest the final stanza’s delimitation, but some disagreement exists concerning its time frame. Some, as I have, opt to interpret it as a recapitulation of God’s benevolence during the wilderness wanderings. 9 Others understand it as an association between God’s acts of grace in the remote past to his grace for the contemporaneous generation. 10 The last verse

which appears ,” הודו ל ... “ of the stanza, and psalm, recalls the opening section via the phrase at the beginning of the first three verses.

CLOSE READING

1 הוֹד֣ וּ לַ יהוָ ֣ה כִּ י־ט֑ וֹב כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

Proclaim thanks to YHWH for it is good, for his mercy is eternal

Like Psalms 105 and 135, Psalm 136 opens with an exhortation to proclaim thanks to YHWH. 11 The parallelism in the first three verses implores the reader to thank God on account of his everlasting grace. Verse 1 contains the only explicit mention God’s name in the entire psalm, from this point onward, the psalm refers to him either implicitly as the subject of

his undeserved love manifesting , חסד ,a participle, or by means of an epithet. YHWH’s grace itself in acts of benevolence, 12 constitutes the psalm’s primary theme. Not only does the psalm but it also articulates the motif in its ,” כי לעולם חסדו “ constantly repeat this motif in the refrain main section (vv.4-25) since each act mentioned expresses his grace. Within the context of YHWH is good primarily because :” כי טוב “ v.1, one can read the refrain as an explanation of

9 See Allen (2002:299). 10 McCann (1996:1224) additionally suggests that these verses refer to the return of Israel from the Babylonian exile. 11 See close reading for Psalm 105:1. usually implies a benevolent action as opposed to just a feeling. In Ps 13:6, trusting in חסד The concept of 12 God’s grace equates to rejoicing in his salvation—physical act of deliverance—, similar associations are present in Psalm 77:8-12.

Page <285> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136 his grace never ends. 13 The entire first verse constitutes a set formula for the praise of God that is well attested in Second Temple literature 14 (s. 1Chr 16:34, Ps 106:1, and a condensed form in 2Chr 5:13, 7:3, and Ezra 3:11).

2 ה֭ וֹדוּ לֵ ֽאNהֵ ֣י הָאֱ Nהִ ֑ ים כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

Proclaim thanks to the God of gods, for his mercy is eternal

and parallelism with v.2, further reiterates the call to declare God’s ,” הודו ל ... “ Repetition of

a superlative— 15” אלהי האלהים “ eternal grace. In this instance, however, the psalm employs form similar to the title —to identify YHWH, instead of the divine name. The here represents a degree of progression because it ascribes ” אלהי האלהים “ appearance of further characteristics to YHWH: he is the God of gods, more superior in nature and deed. In the present verse, the psalmist states this characteristic of YHWH, and in the psalm’s remainder he further enumerates YHWH’s supremacy by detailing acts unique to him.

3 ה֭ וֹדוּ לַאֲ דֹנֵ ֣י הָאֲ דֹנִ ֑ים כִּ ֖ י לְ עֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

Proclaim thanks to the Lord of lords, for his mercy is eternal

and ” הודו ל ... “ Following on from v.2, v.3 continues the repetition of the imperative phrase

and like v.2 refers to YHWH with a superlative. The ,(” כי לעלם חסדו “) the reason for praise only difference between the verses concerns the superlative used, instead of “God of gods”, :It is possible to view this term as a merismus with the previous verse .” אדני האדנים “ we see

“God of gods” portrays the ruler of the heavens and all heavenly beings, whereas “Lord of lords” depicts earthly rulers. YHWH’s domination of earthly rulers is further enumerated in

כִּ֚י יְהוָ ֣ה אNֱֽהֵ יכֶ֔ ם ה֚ וּא “ the psalm (s. vv.15, 17, and 18). Together, vv.2-3 recall Deut 10:17, 16

can also be read as a particle of emphasis, reading: “surely his love endures forever”, as in Is כי The second 13 7:9; see also GKC §159ee. 14 This constitutes an important consideration for determining the Psalm’s date. 15 This is the only other location in biblical literature where the two superlatives appear together. 16 See Gen 40:1, 42:10, Jud 3:25, and Neh 3:5.

Page <286> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136

which resides in a context recounting God’s grace to Israel ,” אֱ Nהֵ ֣ י הָ ֽאֱ Nהִ֔ ים וַאֲ דֹנֵ ֖י הָאֲ דֹנִ ֑ים... through his selection of them. Within Psalm 136’s opening three verses, two important features characterizing the entire psalm appear. First, the psalm’s primary subject, YHWH, is firmly established, in addition to the specific quality warranting him worthy of praise; second, the literary pattern “general to particular” is also established. The pattern first manifests itself with regards to the divine name: YHWH’s name/reputation first appears (general), and is then subsequently described (particular).

4 לְ עֹ֨שֵׂ ֤ ה נִפְלָא֣ וֹת גְּ דֹל֣ וֹת לְבַדּ֑ וֹ כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

To the one who alone performs great wonders, for his mercy is eternal

After a relatively short introduction of praise, the psalm begins enumerating specific aspects of YHWH’s grace. This enumeration is first accomplished in general terms, v.4, and as the

is absent from the present הודו psalm continues more details are added. Though the initial verses, it is implicitly understood from the “ lamed +participle” construction. Thus, in v.4 we גדולות and נפלאות may read, “give thanks to the one who performs…”. 17 The two words commonly represent God’s supernatural deeds of power, 18 actions too difficult for man to accomplish. More specifically, as we have witnessed in the earlier psalms, these nouns often

נֶ ֣ גֶ ד אֲ֭ בוֹתָ ם 8ָ ֣שָׂ ה “ ,refer to God’s acts of deliverance during the Exodus. Psalm 78:12 records

” נִ֭פְלָ אוֹת בְּאֶ ֣רֶ ץ חָ ֑ ם נ֜ וֹרָ א֗ וֹת 8ַ ל־יַם־סֽ וּף׃ “ and similarly Ps 106:22 states ,” פֶ ֑לֶ א בְּאֶ ֖רֶ ץ מִצְרַ ֣יִם שְׂדֵ ה־צ8ַֹֽ ן

(s. also Ps 77:12, 78:4, 32, and 106:21-22). By employing such terminology at this point in the psalm, the psalmist hints towards the ensuing content. As a continuation of God’s uniqueness and exalted position—originally witnessed in vv.2-3 where YHWH is proclaimed ,לבדו ,God of gods” and “Lord of lords”—the psalm qualifies here that YHWH alone“ accomplishes great deeds. This adverbial qualifier extends to every exploit delineated within the psalm: YHWH alone accomplishes them.

17 This view is also supported by Allen (2002:296) and Hacham (1981:510). 18 See close reading for Psalm 78:4 for more detail.

Page <287> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136

5 ְ לעֹשֵׂ ֣ ה הַ֭שָּׁמַ יִם בִּתְ בוּנָ ֑ה כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

To the one who makes heaven with understanding, for his mercy is eternal

in the creation of גדלות and נפלאות Verses 5 and 6 expound on v.4 by describing God’s

from the previous verse associates the great עשה heaven and earth. Repetition of the verb deeds YHWH performs with the creation of heaven. The Bible frequently remembers God’s

and ” כִּ ֣ י שֵׁ ֽשֶׁ ת־יָמִ ים֩ 8ָשָׂ֙ ה יְהוָ֜ ה אֶ ת־הַשָּׁמַ ֣יִם וְאֶ ת־הָאָ֗רֶ ץ ... “ work in creating heaven: Ex 20:11 states

The .” בִּדְבַ ֣ ר יְ֭הוָ ה שָׁמַ ֣יִם נ8ֲַשׂ֑ וּ וּבְר֥ וּ\ַ פִּ֜ יו כָּ ל־צְבָאָ ֽ ם׃ “ ,Ps 33:6 similarly echoes this sentiment

however finds no witnesses in the Torah, but is reflected in wisdom , בתבונה addition of literature and the Prophets. Proverbs 3:19 suggests God established the earth with wisdom, and Jer 10:12 paints a similar picture. The addition ,” יְֽהוָ֗ ה בְּ חָ כְמָ ֥ ה יָ ֽסַ ד־אָ ֑רֶ ץ כּוֹנֵ ֥ ן שָׁ֜מַ֗ יִם בִּתְ בוּנָ ֽה׃“

adds another dimension to God’s creative works complementing unequalled 19 בתבונה of power with wisdom.

6 לְ רֹקַ ֣ ע הָ֭אָרֶ ץ 8ַ ל־הַמָּ ֑יִם כִּ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

To the one who stretches the land on the waters, for his mercy is eternal

Further explicating God’s work in Creation, v.6 focuses on the creation of land. The “lamed +participle” construction appears again as YHWH is depicted as “stretching out” or “spreading out” (2Sam 22:43 and Is 40:19) the land 20 over the earth. Though this description ,that appears in both רקע hints towards the Creation narrative in Genesis 1, especially the root

,represents the firmament used to separate upper and lower waters רקיע in Genesis the noun

Gen 1:6), whereas here it verbally) ” וַ יֹּ֣אמֶ ר אֱ Nהִ֔ ים יְהִ֥ י רָ קִ ֖ יZַ בְּת֣ וֹF הַמָּ ֑יִם וִ יהִ ֣ י מַבְדִּ֔ יל בֵּ ֥ ין מַ ֖יִם לָמָ ֽ יִם׃“

19 The addition of this word also presents certain problems to the reading of the Psalm. If we understand the bet as that of accompaniment, s. Dahood (1981:266) and also Psalm 104:24, then it would suggest that someone/something else was present with God at Creation. This suggestion conflicts with the previous verse that emphasized God alone does great deeds. The notion of wisdom accompanying God during Creation is additionally reflected in the Tg. traditions of Genesis; s. McNamara (1992:52). Ludwig (1993:350-55) astutely observes that this particular Creation ,” רקע ארץ “ Concerning the phrase 20 expression usually appears in the context of God caring for his Creation. This conclusion is especially relevant with respect to v.25.

Page <288> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136

usually has the meaning of רקע portrays God spreading the earth over the water. 21 The verb spreading something out over another object (s. Ex 39:3 and Num 17:4), and though Job Job) ” תַּרְ קִ ֣ יZַ 8ִ֭מּוֹ לִשְׁחָ קִ ֑ ים חֲ֜ זָקִ֗ ים כִּרְאִ֥ י מוּצָ ֽ ק׃ “ ,recalls God spreading out the sky with this verb

... אָ נֹכִ ֤ י יְהוָה֙ 8ֹ֣שֶׂ ה כֹּ֔ ל נֹטֶ ֤ ה שָׁמַ יִ֙ם֙ לְבַדִּ֔ י רֹקַ ֥ ע “ ,only Isaiah sees God stretching out the earth ,(37:18

as an expression denoting power and ability. Together, vv.6 and 7 create a ,(44:24) ” הָאָ ֖רֶ ץ ... merismus formed by the words “heaven” and “earth”. In stating that God created both heaven and earth, the psalmist implies everything between them and the ensuing three verses further detail this general picture.

7 לְ֭ עֹשֵׂ ה אוֹרִ ֣ ים גְּ דֹלִ ֑ים כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

To the maker of great lights, for his mercy is eternal

This stanza continues with God’s Creation activities by specifying created elements in the וְהָ י֤וּ “ ,heavens. The general allusion to Genesis is once again clear (s. for example Gen 1:15

however, a difference in spelling suggests the ,(” לִמְ אוֹרֹת֙ בִּרְ קִ ֣ ַ יZ הַשָּׁמַ֔ יִם לְהָאִ ֖ יר 8ַ ל־הָאָ ֑רֶ ץ וַ ֽ יְהִ י־כֵ ֽ ן׃

אורים “ wording originated from another source. Genesis fails to recall the specific phrase

.Gen 1:16) to refer to the creation of the sun) ” הַמְּ אֹרֹ֖ ת הַגְּ דֹלִ ֑ים “ and uses ” גדלים

לְעֹ֨שֵׂ ֤ ה “ ,does recall the great deeds mentioned in v.4 גדלים ,Notwithstanding this difference

thus directly associating YHWH’s magnificent deeds with the earth’s ,” נִפְלָא֣ וֹת גְּ דֹל֣ וֹת לְבַדּ֑ וֹ... creation, and more specifically the creation of light. Further augmenting this association is the which also occurs in v.4. At this point, with respect to the light God created , עשה repetition of during Creation, it is not clear to which light the psalmist is alluding. The light of Gen 1:3, or the greater and lesser lights recorded in Gen 1:14-18 on the ,” וַ יֹּ֥אמֶ ר אֱ Nהִ ֖ ים יְהִ ֣ י א֑ וֹר וַ ֽ יְהִ י־אֽ וֹר׃“ fourth day. The second view is more favorable since the psalmist specifically continues to mention the sun and moon.

21 Some see in this imagery a mythological association. Berlin argues that it recalls a picture of God subduing the sea by setting the land upon it (Berlin [2004:1434f.]) .

Page <289> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136

8 אֶ ת־הַ֭שֶּׁמֶ שׁ לְמֶמְשֶׁ ֣לֶ ת בַּ יּ֑וֹם כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹ לָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

The sun to rule in the day, for his mercy is eternal

, את Continuing the depiction of heavenly lights, v.8 details the sun’s creation. The particle

links this verse with the , עשה which identifies the verse as an accusative clause for the verb preceding one. The psalmist in v.8 continues developing and detailing the previously mentioned great light in v.7. In order to achieve this, he again recalls Genesis 1:16, which וַיַּ 8ַ֣ שׂ אֱ Nהִ֔ ים אֶ ת־שְׁנֵ ֥י הַמְּ אֹרֹ֖ ת הַגְּ דֹלִ ֑ים אֶ ת־הַמָּא֤ וֹר “ ,depicts a greater light created to rule the day

Strangely, however, the Genesis account does not explicitly mention .” הַגָּ דֹל֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ ֣לֶ ת הַ יּ֔ וֹם... the sun, only a reference to the “great light”. By specifically mentioning the sun, the psalmist וַ יֹּ֥אמֶ ר “ ,excludes any possibility of a reference to the first light created by God in Gen 1:3

22 .” אֱ Nהִ ֖ ים יְהִ ֣ י א֑ וֹר וַ ֽ יְהִ י־אֽ וֹר׃

9 אֶ ת־הַ יָּרֵ ֣\ַ וְ֭כוֹכָבִ ים לְמֶמְשְׁ ל֣ וֹת 23 בַּלָּ ֑יְלָ ה כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

The moon and stars to rule in the night, for his mercy is eternal

A further description of YHWH creating heavenly bodies appears in v.9, and like v.8, the Here a similar . את present verse represents a continuation of v.7 linked via the particle process of explication occurs whereby the psalm recalls the lesser light mentioned in Gen which relates the light to the moon and ,” ... וְאֶ ת־הַמָּא֤ וֹר הַקָּ טֹן֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ ֣לֶ ת הַ לַּ֔ יְלָ ה וְאֵ ֖ ת הַ כּוֹכָבִֽ ים׃ “ ,1:16

does not appear in Genesis. Evidently, the three ( ירח ) ”stars even though the word “moon verses of this stanza allude to and describe Creation, omitting the creation of plants, animals, and man; but an important question remains unanswered: why does the author only mention

22 The Creation account, as it appears here, reflects the different social circumstances between the psalmist and the author of his source. The Genesis account was probably written at a time when the author sought to avoid the specific mention of the sun, so as not to recall the sun god Shamash; s. Milgrom (2004). Such a constraint does not concern our psalmist who felt at liberty to specify by name both the sun and moon. 23 The rare plural form here is the subject of some debate. Some scholars, such as Allen (2002:294), opted to remove the mention of the stars as a gloss and in so doing reduce the plural form to a singular. I have opted to preserve it for two reasons. First, as Keil and Delitzsch (1982:329) suggest, the plural form denotes the dominion of both the moon and the stars; second, the parallel word pairing of singular and plural nouns is an attested phenomenon in Biblical Hebrew, one that psalmists may employ for variance; s. Berlin (1985:44f.).

Page <290> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136 these aspects of Creation, and how does this affect the psalm’s interpretation. 24 Perhaps the best answer to this question arises when examining the aspects of Creation upon which he focuses: the heavens, earth, and lights. Each of these entities can be considered eternal and never ending. The same sun that arose yesterday will arise today and tomorrow continually. Similarly, the stars at night, the moon, the heavens and the earth are also considered constant and eternal entities. These contrast other elements of Creation that come into the world and die, e.g., fish in the sea, plants, animals, and man. Taking this fact into consideration, one could surmise the psalmist has only included eternal and constant elements of Creation 25

” כי לעולם “ because these properly reflect the constancy of YHWH’s grace towards Creation

.Additionally, we must note that other psalmists associate Creation with God’s grace . חס דו

,” ... חֶ ֥סֶ ד יְ֜הוָ֗ ה מָ לְאָ ֥ ה הָאָ ֽרֶ ץ׃ בִּדְבַ ֣ר יְ֭הוָ ה שָׁמַ ֣יִם נ8ֲַשׂ֑ וּ וּבְר֥ וּ\ַ פִּ֜ יו כָּ ל־צְבָאָ ֽ ם׃ “ ,Psalm 33:5-6 states clearly linking his grace with the creation of the heavens by his word, and their hosts, by the breath of his mouth. 26

10 לְמַכֵּ ֣ה מִ֭צְרַ יִם בִּבְ כוֹרֵ יהֶ ֑ם כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

To the one who struck 27 Egypt with their firstborn, for his mercy is eternal

After describing YHWH’s work in Creation, v.10 opens a new section by introducing his mighty deeds that brought about Israel’s emancipation from Egypt. The verse begins by recalling the Exodus with the striking of the Egyptians’ firstborn. Even though an obvious break exists with regard to subject matter, from Creation to Exodus, a degree of continuity is evident. Verse 9 depicts a scene from Creation with respect to the night sky, and the smiting בַּחֲצִ ֣ י הַ לַּ֗ יְלָ ה וַ ֽיהוָה֘ הִכָּ֣ ה כָ ל־בְּ כוֹר֘ “ ,of the Egyptians’ firstborn occurs in the middle of the night

Ex 12:29). Biblical literature often depicts the plague on the firstborn in) ” בְּאֶ ֣רֶ ץ מִצְרַ יִם֒ וַיְהִ ֣ י׀

24 At this point, we should note that the order of Creation between the psalm and the account in Genesis is more or less the same. 25 Radak similarly concurs with this assessment; s. Cohen (2003:211). 26 It is also possible to view the exclusive mention of heavenly bodies as the psalmist setting a universal stage for the proceeding events, which take place on earth. Even though the representation of Creation in the present psalm is incomplete, we must note again a further association between the Exodus and Creation motifs. This relationship will be discussed further in the conclusions. 27 The participle with a past meaning is seen from Gen 25:28; s. also Gibson (1994:§111).

Page <291> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136

and the ,” ... וְהִכֵּ יתִ ֤ י כָ ל־בְּ כוֹר֙ בְּאֶ ֣רֶ ץ מִצְרַ ֔ יִם ... “ ,words similar to v.10, as exemplified by Ex 12:12

.(s. also Num 8:17, 33:4, Ps 105:36, and 135:8) ,” וַיַּ ֣ F כָּ ל־בְּכ֣ וֹר בְּמִצְרָ ֑יִם ... “ ,Psalms, Ps 78:51

Notwithstanding the fact that many Egyptians died when the angel of death passed through Egypt’s midst, the psalm still includes this instance as an example of God’s grace, thus raising the question: how can slaughtering hundreds of Egyptians be considered an act of grace? 28 At this stage, it is best to conclude that the psalmist is confining the bounds of his composition primarily to portray YHWH’s mercy to Israel alone.

11 וַ יּוֹצֵ ֣א יִ֭שְׂרָ אֵ ל מִ תּוֹכָ ֑ם כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

And brought Israel from their midst, for his mercy is eternal

After God struck the Egyptians, Israel could depart from their midst. A rare instance of waw consecutive in v.11 continues the thought of the previous verse and unites the two verses. The highlights the Egyptians’ helplessness as Israel departed, though מתוכם added emphasis of

Israel was among them, the Egyptians were powerless to prevent Israel from leaving in light recalls the sentiment of Deut 4:34, portraying מתוכם ,of YHWH’s power. 29 Additionally

אוֹ׀ הֲ נִסָּ ֣ ה אֱ Nהִ֗ ים לָ֠ בוֹא “ YHWH extracting one nation, Israel, out from the midst of another

.”לָקַ֙חַ ת ל֣ וֹ גוֹי֘ מִקֶּ ֣רֶ ב גּוֹי֒ בְּמַ סֹּת֩ בְּ אֹתֹ֙ ת וּ בְ מוֹפְתִ֜ ים ...

12 בְּיָ ֣ד חֲ֭ זָקָ ה וּבִ זְר֣ וֹZַ נְ טוּיָ ֑ה כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

With a strong hand and an outstretched arm, for his mercy is eternal

Verse 12 returns the psalm’s focus from Israel’s deliverance to God’s work in effecting it, detailing the way in which the redemption occurred: with a strong hand and an outstretched

constitutes an anthropomorphism well ” ביד חזקה ובזרוע נטויה “ arm. The parallel phrase

28 Ibn Ezra astutely notes at this point that grace is indeed revealed to Israel because they were spared from this judgement, and because God took vengeance on their enemies, s. Cohen (2003:210); Radak similarly perceives this as an act of grace, ( ibid. 211). ... לא “ ,(This sentiment is also echoed by Ibn Ezra with regards to the following verse; s. Cohen (2003:210 29 which implies that Israel departed in the strength and boldness that the Lord ,” כעבדים הבורחים מפני אדוניהם empowered them with and not as frightened slaves that needed to flee in secret.

Page <292> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136 attested in Deuteronomy that exclusively describes God acting on behalf of Israel to deliver them. Particularly descriptive of YHWH wielding his power in deliverance is the expression

.(s. also Ex 7:5) ” נָטִ֙ יתָ֙ יְמִ ֣ ינBְ֔ תִּבְל8ֵָ ֖מוֹ אָ ֽרֶ ץ׃ “ echoed in the Song of the Sea, Ex 15:12 , זרוע נטוי

Throughout this stanza, none of Israel’s leaders are recalled—even though Moses and Aaron, out their arms to help bring about the ( נטה ) in the Exodus rendition of events, stretch deliverance from Egypt (s. 7:19, 8:1, 9:22, 10:12)—it is God alone who acts according to his grace.

13 לְ גֹזֵ ֣ר יַם־ ס֭ וּף לִגְזָרִ ֑ ים כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

To the one who split Yam Suf into pieces, for his mercy is eternal

A change in scene, from the midst of Egypt to the Reed Sea, marks a change in strophe. Once again the “ lamed +participle” construction subtly recalls YHWH as the primary instigator of events. Though the allusion clearly indicates the splitting of the Sea, the Torah never recalls with respect to the Reed Sea; at this point, one would expect to see the ” גזר ... גזרים“ the phrase

The plural noun 30 .” וְאַתָּ֞ ה הָרֵ ֣ ם ֶ ֽ את־מַטְּ B֗ וּנְטֵ ֧ ה אֶ ת־יָדְ B֛ 8ַ ל־הַ יָּ ֖ם וּבְק8ֵָ ֑הוּ ... “ ,as in Ex 14:16 בקע word

employed by the psalmist here reflects a covert representation of the Exodus in Gen 31, גזרים

15:17. Genesis 15 recalls Abraham’s sacrifice to God. After Abraham arranges the pieces of the sacrifice into two lines, YHWH, in the form of a flaming torch, passes between the pieces. The picture of the flaming torch passing between the pieces of sacrifice that Abraham offered anticipates the manner in which YHWH would lead the Israelites through the sea (in a pillar of fire by night and a cloud by day; Ex 13:21). 32

is absent from biblical Creation traditions, its association to mythological tradition has גזרים Though the word 30 long been recognized; s. Kraus (1988b:499). The psalmist might have selected this word because of its connection to earlier traditions that depict God’s battle with the sea monster at the earth’s creation (s. Is 27:1, Is 51:9-10, Ps 89:9-10, and Job 26:12). Fishbane (1979:13ff.) further explores the primordial battle motif in the Hebrew Bible, in which the enemy is given numerous names such as Yam, Rahab, and Tanin. This imagery resonates with the psalm because it associates the current section with the Creation motif, recalled in the previous stanza, and demonstrates God’s supreme command over all he created. 31 Dahood’s rendering as a dual form is thus feasible (1981:266). 32 See Zakovitch (1991:60) and (1996).

Page <293> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136

14 וְה8ֱֶבִ ֣ יר יִשְׂרָאֵ ֣ ל בְּ תוֹכ֑ וֹ כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

And brought Israel from its midst, for his mercy is eternal

After splitting the sea, YHWH led the Israelites safely through it. God actively bringing Israel v.14), corresponds with v.11, Israel) ” וְה8ֱֶבִ ֣ יר יִשְׂרָאֵ ֣ ל בְּ תוֹכ֑ וֹ ... “ ,out from the midst of the Sea

reinforce the יש ראל and תוך going out from the midst of Egypt, 33 where the repetition of

וַ יּוֹצֵ֣ א יִ֭ שְׂרָ אֵ ל “ ,association. God first brought the Israelites from the midst of the Egyptians

and now he brings them out from the midst of the sea. A similar account appears in ,” מִ תּוֹכָ֑ ם

.” בָּ ֣קַ ע יָ֭ם וַיַּ 8ֲֽבִ ירֵ ֑ ם וַ ֽ יַּצֶּ ב־מַ ֥יִם כְּ מוֹ־נֵ ֽד׃ “ Psalm 78:13

15 וְנ8ִֵ֨ ֤ר פַּרְ 8ֹ֣ ה וְחֵ יל֣ וֹ בְ יַם־ס֑ וּף כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

And overturned Pharaoh and his soldiers into Yam Suf, for his mercy is eternal

It was not enough for God to deliver Israel from Egypt and open the Sea for them to pass through, as a coup de grâce he hurls Pharaoh and his army into the sea. The wording in the ... וַיְנ8ֵַ ֧ר יְהוָ ֛ה אֶ ת־מִצְרַ ֖יִם בְּת֥ וֹpresent verse specifically relates to events recorded in Ex 14:27, “ F

appears as a piel in relation to the נער the only other location in biblical literature where ,” הַ יָּ ֽם׃

Exodus. The specific mention of Pharaoh within the context of the Sea crossing elsewhere only appears in Psalm 135:9 among the selected psalms. For Psalm 136, the reference alludes back to v.3 and the declaration of God being “Lord of lords”, a fact echoed here in a practical example of YHWH’s domination over a human lord. As with v.10, God’s eternal mercy here ” ים סוף “ should be viewed in light of its expression towards Israel. The second mention of creates an inclusion with v.13 that closes the strophe and envelops a description of events transpiring at the Sea of Reeds. This inclusion bears some similarity to Psalm 105:23, 38, also demarks events occurring within Egypt. 34 With the end of this מצרים where the word

33 Ibn Ezra similarly understands this as an act of grace because the waters did not collapse on Israel, and they were able to walk safely in its midst; s. Cohen (2003:210). 34 See close reading for v.38.

Page <294> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136 strophe, the picture of God’s eternal grace specifically towards Israel receives further emphasis.

16 לְ מוֹלִ ֣יF 8ַ֭ מּוֹ בַּמִּדְבָּ ֑ר כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

To the one who led his people in the desert, for his mercy is eternal

The theme of leading continues here, with the location changing from the sea to the desert. Verse 16 represents a general introduction to ensuing events, representing the psalm’s tendency to develop stanzas from “general to particular”. 35 God leading Israel through the and even ,” הַ מּוֹלִ֙ יכBֲ֜ בַּמִּדְבָּ ֣ר׀ הַ גָּ דֹ֣ ל וְהַ נּוֹרָ ֗ א... “ desert, as recorded here, best reflects Deut 8:15

appears in Ps 106:9, the context differs because the present ” ויוליכם ... מדבר “ though the phrase psalm reflects Israel’s deliverance through the sea as opposed to the desert in Ps 106. At this point, it is noticeable that the psalmist omits all events transpiring in the wilderness. No mention appears of Israel’s complaining and rebellion that often characterizes this period. 36 Similarly, the psalmist refrains from mentioning the more positive events during this period, such as the provision of water, meat, and bread. 37

17 לְ֭מַכֵּ ה מְלָכִ ֣ ים גְּ דֹלִ ֑ים כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

To the one who strikes great kings, for his mercy is eternal

After recounting YHWH’s work in leading Israel through the desert, the psalmist brusquely moves to the Transjordanian battle accounts. From the start of v.17, the psalmist draws our the smiting of the Egyptians. Just as God struck ,” לְמַכֵּ ֣ה מִ֭צְרַ יִם בִּבְ כוֹ רֵ יהֶ ֑ ם ... “ ,attention to v.10 the Egyptians and Pharaoh, so he now strikes other great kings. From this verse we are also mentioned in the opening stanza, and can relate the striking of גדלות reminded of YHWH’s

35 See the discussion on the structure. 36 See Chapters One and Three. 37 This single verse describing the whole of the desert period, essentially ignoring all events therein, breaks the flow of heroic deeds ascribed to YHWH in the psalm. Thus, it could be seen as a later addition to the composition, whereby an editor felt compelled to make some reference to the desert period.

Page <295> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136

לְעֹ֨שֵׂ ֤ ה “ ,mighty kings to one of the great deeds God performed as an expression of his grace

.(v.4) ” נִפְלָא֣ וֹת גְּ דֹל֣ וֹת לְבַדּ֑ וֹ ...

18 וַ֭יַּהֲ רֹג מְלָכִ ֣ים אַדִּ ירִ ֑ ים כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

And killed mighty kings, for his mercy is eternal

Through the repetition and parallelism between vv.17-18, the psalmist emphasizes God’s נכה and הרג superiority over kings and his ability to destroy them. The parallel word pair 38 forcefully accentuates the fate of the great kings. Once again, the global view of God’s grace is restricted, the benevolence towards his people leads to the destruction of others. The psalm terms absent from the , אדירים and גדולים glorifies the kings’ status through the modifiers

Pentateuch’s description of the Transjordanian kings indicated below. By elevating their status, the psalmist exalts YHWH’s standing: however great and mighty they were, YHWH was greater because he overcame them. Furthermore, the psalm heightens the perception of God’s ability in battle by failing to mention any human elements from his source: Moses, Aaron, and the Israelites are absent from the psalmist’s rendition of events, and the psalm recalls the situation as though YHWH alone fought and killed mighty kings. This situation contrasts Numbers 21:24-25, which recounts Israel working alone to secure a military victory over a Transjordanian king.

19 לְ֭סִ יחוֹן מֶ ֣לֶ F הָאֱ מֹרִ ֑ י כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

Sihon king of the Amorites, for his mercy is eternal

After v.18 casts a general reference to great and majestic kings, the present verse begins revealing their full identities, the first being Sihon king of the Amorites. In the psalmist’s rendition of events, he was directly killed by God. The lamed at the beginning of the verse וְ יוֹאָב֙ וַאֲבִ ישַׁ ֣ י “ ,here functions as a direct-object indicator, in a similar fashion to 2Sam 3:30

38 See close reading for Ps 135:10.

Page <296> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136

s. also Job 5:2), although it may be interpreted otherwise.39 Here, the) ” אָחִ֔ יו הָרְ ג֖ וּ לְאַבְנֵ ֑ר ... psalm recalls events recounted in Numbers, when the Israelites defeated Sihon and took his also) ” ... וַיֶּאֱ סֹ֙ ף סִ יחֹ֜ ן אֶ ת־כָּ ל־8ַמּ֗ וֹ וַיֵּצֵ֞ א לִקְרַ ֤ את יִשְׂרָאֵ ל֙ … וַיַּכֵּ ֥הוּ יִשְׂרָאֵ ֖ ל לְפִ י־חָ ֑רֶ ב... “ ,land, Num 21:23-24

Deut 2:24-37).

20 וּ֭לְ עוֹג מֶ ֣לֶ F הַבָּשָׁ ֑ ן כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

And Og king of Bashan, for his mercy is eternal

In addition to YHWH smiting Sihon, as recalled in the previous verse, he treats Og the king ... וַיֵּצֵ֣ א “ ,of Bashan in the same way. The psalmist in vv.19-20 recalls events in Num 21:33-35

s. also) ” עוֹג֩ מֶ ֽלֶ F־הַבָּשָׁ֙ ן לִקְרָ אתָ֜ ם ה֧ וּא וְכָ ל־8ַמּ֛ וֹ לַמִּ לְחָמָ ֖ ה אֶדְרֶ 8ִֽ י׃ ... וַיַּכּ֙ וּ אֹת֤ וֹ וְאֶ ת־בָּנָ יו֙ וְאֶ ת־כָּ ל־8ַמּ֔ וֹ ...

appearing twice in the plural and twice in the , מלך Deut 3:1-7). The fourfold repetition of singular, tightly unites vv.17-20. This preoccupation with earthly kings and leaders—also witnessed in the specific mention of Pharaoh’s destruction, as opposed to the destruction of the Egyptians—reflects an important issue the psalmist sought to address when writing the psalm: YHWH’s dominance over earthly leaders. Together, Israel’s battles with Og and Sihon represent the initial battles for the possession of Canaan. With respect to the other selected psalms, and indeed other historiographic psalms, only Psalm 135 mentions these two Canaanite kings. 40

21 וְנָתַ ֣ ן אַרְ צָ ֣ם לְנַחֲלָ ֑ה כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

And gave their land as an inheritance, for his mercy is eternal

As a climax to defeating the two aforementioned kings, YHWH redistributes their land as an links God’s function as ,” לְ רֹקַ ֣ ע הָ֭ אָרֶ ץ 8ַ ל־הַמָּ ֑יִם ... “ ,from v.6 ארץ inheritance. Repetition of creator of the earth to his role in apportioning it to his people, thus justifying his actions:

39 It could be understood as an explicative lamed , and thus interpreted as “namely” (s. Jer 1:18, Ex 27:19, and also KB [vol. 2, 508]); or as a lamed of emphasis, s. 1Chr 28:21, and KB (vol. 2, 510). For understanding it as direct object marker, see the section on dating. 40 The fact that only two kings are mentioned may result from the psalmist’s limited sources; he may have only had access to Torah manuscripts. Loewenstamm (1992a:40) argues that didactic texts employing early history primarily depend on the Torah.

Page <297> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136 because he created the land he can bestow it as he sees fit. Though the wording of v.21 commonly appears in Deuteronomy, 41 the association with Deut 4:34-38 is particularly

” לְ הוֹרִ ֗ ישׁ גּוֹיִ ֛ם גְּ דֹלִ ֧ ים ו8ֲַצֻמִ ֛ ים מִמְּ B֖ מִפָּנֶ ֑יB לַהֲבִֽ יאBֲ֗ לָ ֽתֶ ת־לBְ֧ אֶ ת־אַרְ צָ ֛ם נַחֲלָ ֖ה כַּ יּ֥ וֹם הַ זֶּ ֽה׃ “ noticeable

(4:38). Both instances portray God as the subject, and describe the means by which he delivers Canaanite lands to Israel. From a reading of v.21, the psalmist creates the allusion that only the lands of Og and Sihon were conquered and given to the Israelites, because the remaining conquest activities are not enumerated. 42

22 נַ֭חֲ לָ ה לְ יִשְׂרָאֵ ֣ ל 8ַבְדּ֑ וֹ כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

An inheritance to Israel his servant, for his mercy is eternal

Continuing from v.21, the current verse identifies the object of God’s giving, Israel. The creates a terrace pattern with the previous verse and reinforces the נחלה emphatic repetition of idea that God gave the land of the aforementioned kings to Israel as an inheritance, 43 a notion ,recalls v.11 ישראל the psalmist may have sought to emphasize to his community. The word

and creates an inclusion surrounding events from God bringing his ,” וַ יּוֹצֵ ֣א יִ֭שְׂרָ אֵ ל מִ תּוֹכָ ֑ם ...“

עמו people out of one land to settling them into another. Additionally, the two intimate terms

together with the third-person suffixes, form an inclusion around the present , עבדו v.16 ) and) stanza. Together, vv.21 and 22 create a climax for the stanza, and divert attention from the destruction of great kings to the resulting action: as a result of their death God can bestow their land to his people. Two stylistic alterations individualize these verses: the terraced pattern, 44 as opposed to regular 45 parallelism; the change in verb form at the start of v.21, up until this point the psalm has almost exclusively employed the active participle as opposed to the perfect .

41 See close reading for Ps 135:12. 42 Cf. Ps 135:11. 43 See KB (vol. 2, 687) for this nuance of the definition. 44 From the various functions of this verse pattern prescribed by Watson (2001:208-12), he suggests that the psalmist here employs the device to create tension ( ibid. 209). 45 By “regular”, I am referring to A : B :: A : B parallelism as opposed to the A : B :: B : C pattern here.

Page <298> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136

23 שֶׁ֭בְּשִׁ פְלֵ נוּ זָ ֣כַ ר לָ ֑נוּ כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

That in our lowly position he remembered us, for his mercy is eternal

Verse 23 opens a new section in the psalm that primarily summarizes the events narrated thus far. 46 Whilst Israel was in a low estate, YHWH remembered them. Placement of the phrase first in v.23, creates an instance of casus pendens 47 emphasizing the peoples שבשפלנו

has YHWH as its antecedent, since he is the primary subject ש suffering. The relative particle in the psalm; 48 it is he who remembered Israel in their low esteem. YHWH’s ability to כּי־רָ ֣ ם יְ֭הוָ ה וְשָׁפָ ֣ל יִרְאֶ ֑ ה וְ֜גָ בqַֹ֗ מִמֶּרְחָ ֥ ק “ ,remember those in a low estate is reflected in Ps 138:6

represents here a , זכר ,As with the other selected psalms, God’s remembrance 49 .” יְיֵדָ ֽ ע׃ positive action, and an expression of his faithfulness, as witnessed in Psalm 105:8 concerning

s. also) ” זָ ַ כ֣ר לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם בְּרִ ית֑ וֹ דָּבָ ֥ ר צִ֜ וָּ֗ ה לְאֶ ֣לֶ ף דּֽ וֹר׃ “ ,the maintenance of his promise to Abraham

78:38-39, and 106:45).

24 וַיִּפְרְ קֵ ֥ נוּ מִצָּרֵ ֑ ינוּ כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

And set us free from our oppressors, for his mercy is eternal

Explicating 50 the previous verse, v.24 enumerates exactly how God remembered Israel in their from their oppressors. Though the basic meaning of the , ויפרקנו ,lowly position: he freed them

is “to remove” or “to take away” as in Gen 27:40, it also bears the meaning of “to פרק root deliver” in certain texts such as Lam 5:8. 51 With this deliverance, we again witness the

46 Not all agree with this assessment; Seybold states, “Mit einem Bekenntnis im Wir-Stil spricht die hinter dem Keil and Delitzsch (1982:330) are also ;” חסד Psalm stehende Gemeinde von eigenen Erfahrungen mit JHWH’s to the Babylonian exile (as does ” זכר לנו “ of a similar opinion. Radak (s. Cohen [2003:211]) similarly relates Hamari, ibid. 209), which in effect describes a contemporaneous act of salvation for the psalmist. Others, such as Allen (2002:299), see this statement as a summary of all God’s deeds towards Israel’s forefathers that have been recited in the psalm. 47 The change in the main verb’s position from initial to second for emphasis; s. JM §156. 48 Keil and Delitzsch (1982:330) similarly relate the relative particle to v.22b, which contains the last reference to YHWH. and BDB 1050, along with ; מרומים See also Ecc 10:6, the only other instance in the Bible, where it opposes 49 KB (vol. 4, 1632) that both define a similar meaning. 50 This constitutes a legitimate function of the waw consecutive; s. JM §118 j. 51 See KB (vol. 3, 973f.).

Page <299> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136

“general to specific” principle where the general remembrance (v.23) materializes into a more probably represents a general reference מצרינו specific deliverance. In the immediate context to the enemies of the psalmist’s generation, and of Israel’s enemies on the whole. The v.10), however, also creates a wordplay 52 recalling YHWH) מצרים to מצרינו similarity of acting on behalf of his people to deliver them from Egypt.

25 נֹתֵ ֣ ן לֶ֭חֶ ם לְכָ ל־בָּשָׂ ֑ ר כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

He provides food to all creatures, for his mercy is eternal

Up until this point in the psalm, we have noted how God’s grace was expressed specifically to Israel in kindness, and to the other nations—the kings particularly—in defeat and destruction. Now, as if to correct any misconceptions that YHWH only relates harshly to other nations, the psalm recalls his provision to all men. 53 The broadening perspective here, relating to all mankind, associates v.25 with the second stanza that addressed Creation. In both instances all mankind are affected as opposed to just Israel. Even though v.25 begins with an active ,.it lacks the lamed preposition that accompanied this form in earlier verses (e.g , נתן ,participle

recalls v.21, which records YHWH bestowing land , נתן ,vv.4, 5, 6, 7, and 13). The verb itself

YHWH is remembered in the present verse for his grace and .” וְנָתַ ֣ ן אַרְ צָ ֣ם לְנַחֲלָ ֑ה ... “ ,to Israel

,which can be interpreted either as all men (Is 49:26, 66:23 ,(” כל בשר “) provision to all flesh and Job 34:15), or as all creatures, man and beast (Gen 8:17 and 9:11). 54 Almost by way of compensation, the psalmist now refers to God’s ability to provide food. Within the psalm’s

see close reading for ,” וַיֶּ֣ פֶ ר אֶ ת־8ַמּ֣ וֹ מְ אֹ֑ ד וַ֜ יַּ 8ֲֽצִמֵ הוּ מִצָּרָ ֽ יו׃ “ ,A similar play on these forms appears in Psalm 105:24 52 this verse in Chapter Two. is a phrase generally found in texts describing God caring for ” אל השמים “ Andrews’ assumption (1991) that 53 his Creation concurs with the notion of an expanded world view concerning God’s grace. 54 A notable contrast arises when comparing v.25 with the remainder of the psalm. To be sure, the notion of God as a provider of food often accompanies his portrayal as the divine judge, apportioning punishments and rewards עֹשֶׂ ֛ ה מִשְׁפַּ ֥ ט יָת֖ וֹם וְאַ לְמָנָ֑ ה וְ אֹהֵ ֣ ב גֵּ֔ ר “ ,according to their actions. This is apparent from passages such as Deut 10:18 עשֶׂ ֤ ה מִשְׁ פָּט֙ ׀ “ ,that directly associate the provision of food with judgement, and Psalm 146:7 ,” לָ֥ תֶ ת ל֖ וֹ לֶ֥ חֶ ם וְשִׂמְלָ ֽ ה׃ which similarly associates the two ideas. Taking this into ,” ל8ֲָ שׁוּקִ֗ ים נֹתֵ ֣ ן לֶ֭ חֶ ם לָרְ 8ֵבִ֑ ים יְ֜ הוָ֗ ה מַתִּ֥ יר אֲ סוּרִֽ ים׃ consideration, Ps 136 implies that those kings and nations struck by YHWH were somehow punished for transgressions they committed, as opposed to being innocently struck as part of YHWH’s display of grace towards Israel.

Page <300> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136 immediate context, it is possible to read this as an allusion to YHWH’s provision of bread and meat to the Israelites during their desert sojourn. 55

26 ה֭ וֹדוּ לְאֵ ֣ ל הַשָּׁמָ ֑יִם כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

Proclaim thanks to El of the heavens, for his mercy is eternal

With respect to sentence structure, the last verse returns us to the opening stanza via the which appeared in the opening stanza’s first three verses. Repetition of ,” הודו ל ...“ phrase 56 this formula creates an inclusion with the opening, re-emphasizing the psalm’s primary אל “ purpose: giving thanks to YHWH for his eternal grace. The psalmist recalling YHWH as

constitutes an apt description of the second stanza because it primarily recalls his 57” השמים

echoes other texts where God ” אל השמים “ activity in creating the heavenly bodies. The phrase

,” כֹּֽ ה־אָמַ֞ ר הָאֵ ֣ ל׀ יְהוָ֗ ה בּוֹרֵ ֤ א הַשָּׁמַ֙ יִם֙ ... “ ,is remembered as the creator of heaven, such as Is 42:5 which in turn hints towards deeds wrought during Creation like those mentioned in vv.5-9.

MEANING

inculcates the principal purpose of Psalm 136, a ” כי לעולם חסדו “ The perpetual repetition of celebratory Hymn of Thanksgiving that rejoices in YHWH’s eternal grace. Though none would doubt the psalm’s primary purpose, a need still arises to qualify the specific aspects of God’s grace the psalm celebrates. The composition dedicates most of its verses to the Exodus tradition, 10-22, and within this pericope, even though Israel are clearly recipients of God’s grace, the same does not hold true for the kings and peoples mentioned. Pharaoh and the

55 A further degree of compensation becomes evident if we accept the reference of “all flesh” as a recollection of all creatures created on the fifth and sixth days of Creation. In light of this assumption, the psalmist returns to remind the reader of the rest of YHWH’s works in Creation (in addition to the previously mentioned heavenly bodies). 56 We should not be surprised by this similarity between the beginning and the end of the psalm because it frequently characterizes Hymns; s. Gunkel and Begrich (1998:40). first, it was originally employed by :” אל השמים “ Andrews (1991) reveals three important facts about the term 57 the Persians to describe the highest authority in any given pantheon, thus, they used it to refer to the God of Israel; second, it was a title exclusively adopted for use in international communications; third, within national circles, the local name for the deity was used. With this information, we can see that the employment of this phrase complies with the more international stance the psalm asserts at its conclusion, mentioning the provision of food to all flesh.

Page <301> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136

Egyptians are struck (vv.10, 15) by God, and he also smites and kills both Sihon and Og (17- 20). Due consideration should also be given to vv.21-22 that assert the lands of the aforementioned individuals were bestowed to Israel as an inheritance. In view of these facts we must reconsider, or at least modify our initial assessment of the psalm’s purpose. Psalm 136 is a Hymn of Thanksgiving celebrating God’s grace, but more specifically it encourages its listeners to praise YHWH for his grace towards his people, with particular regard to the deliverance from Egypt and the bestowal of land as an inheritance. In addition to the main purpose outlined above—whether the psalmist intended to or not—a number of other themes arise from the composition. One such theme concerns the establishment of God’s relationship with Creation, and more specifically with man. Compared with the other selected psalms, only Psalm 136 independently speaks of God’s generic relationship with mankind, in v.25 the psalm depicts God as a provider for all Creation. Though other historiographic psalms include the participation of other nations, they are stereotypically portrayed as aggressors to Israel. Contrasting this, Psalm 136 mentions an important positive relationship between God and all mankind. Though it only consists of a single verse, it acknowledges the idea of YHWH as a God who is merciful to all nations. And yet, when we compare the number of verses detailing his grace to Israel with the verses dedicated to his mercy towards the nations, the grace shown to his people is obviously far greater. 58

DATE

Perhaps the most conclusive primary evidence for dating Psalm 136 stems from its choice of as a relative particle. The close reading of v.26 has ש as an epithet for God, and ” אל השמים“ already demonstrated the relative lateness of the former expression. 59 It originated in the Persian period and entered Israelite vocabulary after the Exile. Though ABH and SBH 60 attest

it only appears within early texts influenced by the ,ש to isolated instances of the particle

Northern dialect. Taking into consideration this caveat, all appearances of the particle occur in

58 Whether intentional of not, the exclusive mention of the Transjordanian lands suggests that Israel, irrespective of its size at the time of writing, had a legitimate claim to these territories. 59 Andrews (1991:52) states, “The Origin of the title, therefore, should be sought in the diplomatic terminology of the Persian administration”. He also demonstrates that its distribution is unique to LBH ( ibid . 45-49). Berlin (2004:1434) similarly deems it late, but for different reasons. She argues that it originated at a time when “…God was not imagined as localized at the Temple”. 60 See for example Jud 5:7 and 2Kgs 6:11.

Page <302> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136 relatively late texts: exilic or postexilic. 61 Consequently, we should assume that the Psalm is either late, or possesses Northern origins. Supporting the possibility of a late date is the

and the use of the , הרג as a direct object marker for the verb ל psalm’s use of the preposition

to indicate a past completed act in v. 21. 62 וְנָתַ ן weqatal form

Secondary evidence concerning Psalm 136’s lateness stems from various scholars. even though it also appears in , רקע Hoffman (1983:111-12) argues for the late use of the verb earlier texts such as Ex 39:3. Notwithstanding the later appearances, however, concerning this —as the verb’s object ארץ word, plausible evidence for lateness arises when it is coupled with depicting God spreading out the earth at Creation. This combination is unique to the psalm and Is 42:5 and 44:24. Thus, one could argue that the two authors were influenced by phraseology prominent in the exilic/postexilic period. Certain scholars additionally view the

redeem” or “rescue”) as an example of Aramaic usage,63 and“) פרק interpretation of consequently assume direct influence from exilic or postexilic circumstances. Additionally, —constitutes late vocabulary, though the distribution of the noun form שפל Keil asserts that only in Ecc 10:6—casts some doubt on this assumption. 64 Additionally, the fact that Ps 136 reflects a liturgical 65 composition also lends some weight to a late dating, 66 although it is not entirely dependable because liturgies may have been compiled before the Exile.

61 As in Ezra 8:20, 1Ch 5:20, 27:27, and Ecc 1:11. 62 For more information on these forms, see the dating of Psalm 135. 63 The distribution of this root with the meaning of “deliver” certainly raises suspicion because it only appears in Lam 5:8). The Aramaic usage of this word as “redeem” is) ” 8ֲבָדִ ים֙ מָ ֣ שְׁ לוּ בָ֔ נוּ פֹּרֵ ֖ ק אֵ ֥ ין מִ יָּדָ ֽ ם׃ “ ,one other late text particularly pertinent to the Tgs., where it frequently describes the Exodus, and God redeeming Israel from Egypt (s Tg. Neofiti Deut 5:15, 26:8, Ex 6:6, 13:13, and Lev 25:25). In addition to the Aramaic usage, evidence with a meaning of פרק also emerges from the Dead Sea Scrolls that reinforces the late understanding of 4Q215 1-3,2); s. Martinez and Tigchelaar (1997:454). Among biblical)” וילך בשבי וישלח לבן ויפרקהו “ :”deliver“ scholars, Keil and Delitzsch (1982:330) attest to its lateness claiming it is “…the customary Aramaic word for redemption…”; Allen (2002:295) similarly agrees with this assessment. Together, the evidence presented here suggests that the vocabulary belongs to LBH. 64 Hoffman (1983:112) also adduces this as evidence, but wisely acknowledges the doubt concerning the whose distribution raises כי לעולם חסדו distribution. Evidence that should also be considered is the phrase suspicion: Chronicles (6), Ezra (1), Psalm 118, 106, and 107, Jeremiah. With the exception of Jeremiah, all of the above texts date to either the exilic or postexilic periods. 65 Numerous scholars adduce this evidence as a conclusive sign of lateness; see for example Driver (1972:384f.), Fohrer (1974:292), and Hoffman (1983:111f.). 66 Mowinckel (1962:vol 1, 85) asserts a late date, stating, “It may be due to later developments that Hymns occasionally give a more graphic and epic description of one of Yahweh’s great works…or one of his qualities”. Such a statement accords with the focus of Psalm 136 where a single aspect of God’s grace is being celebrated. Gunkel also determines the psalm’s lateness on intuitive grounds, claiming that Psalm 136 accords with the nature of later works that “…use current models…finally result in ‘Sacerdotal’ poetry…lacks a rigid order”,

Page <303> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136

The primary evidence discussed above, and the majority of secondary evidence, suggests a postexilic composition date for Psalm 136. The primary evidence alone suffices to determine a late date, and the secondary evidence further solidifies that position. Thus, I would argue that Psalm 136 originates from between the late exilic and early postexilic era. On the whole, 67 biblical scholars agree 68 on a late dating of Psalm 136, and the only remaining point of discussion relates to how late in the Exile the psalm may have been written, a question that few have chosen to pursue.

SOURCES

The Torah sources for Ps 136:11, 12, 19-20, and 21-22 can quite certainly be ascribed to

Ps 136:12) frequently appears in) ”ב יד חזקה ובזרוע נטויה “ Deuteronomy. The Phrase

Deuteronomy within portrayals of the Exodus from Egypt, depicting how God delivered Israel. 69 Additionally, the phrase appears in other literature influenced by Deuteronomy such as Jer 21:5 and 2Chr 6:32. In the latter two books, Table 9. however, the phrase does not appear in the same Ps 136:11 Deut 4:34 D context as Deuteronomy (the Exodus), but instead Ps 136:12 Deut 4:34 D depicts a general portrayal of YHWH displaying Ps 136:15 Ex 14:27 JE Ps 136:19-Ps 136:20 Deut 2:24-3: 3 D his might. The words describing God leading his Ps 136:21 -22 Deut 4:38 D Ps) ” למוליך עמו במדבר “ ,people through the desert

136:16 ), are also well attested in Deuteronomy (s. 8:2, 15, and 29:4), but entirely foreign to

Numbers and Exodus within the same context.70 Both Deuteronomy (chapter 2) and Numbers (chapter 21) recount the Israelites’ battles against Og and Sihon. However, because the Deuteronomy account alone associates both battles as part of God’s plan for land distribution,

Gunkel and Begrich (1998:64). Similarly, Berlin (2004:1434) argues for a date in the late Exile stating, “These verses [23, 24] bespeak the exilic condition, the probable time of this psalm’s composition”. 67 The one notable exception is Norin (1977:145ff.), who predominantly relies on the psalmist’s use of sources, and his lack of adherence to fixed Pentateuchal traditions to arrive at a pre-exilic date. He states: “Zudem deutet der durchweg positive Grundton des Psalms darauf hin, dass er schwerlich nach der Zerstörung Jerusalems entstanden sein kann.” Norin’s analysis, however, does not properly consider the appearance of LBH within the psalm, and this fact affects his final decision. 68 See for example Kraus (1988b:47ff.), McCann (1996:1244), Driver (1972:384f.), Fohrer (1974:292), and Hoffman (1983:111f.). 69 See Deut 5:15, 7:19, and 11:2; s. also Childs (1967), who positively identifies this phrase with . See Appendix E for a close comparison between the verses in the psalm and those in the sources. 70 Though the likelihood exists that these words were influenced by Deuteronomy, some doubts remain because of the general nature of the words, they are less confined to Exodus contexts.

Page <304> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136 the likelihood remains that Deuteronomy inspired the psalmist’s words. The previously listed Deuteronomic associations also concur with this assumption. With respect to the giving of

completes the Deuteronomic picture; it widely appears in ” לתת ארץ נחלה “ land, the phrase

Deuteronomy (e.g., 4:21, 4:38, 15:4, 19:14, and 24:4) and Deuteronomic literature as fixed terminology for God bestowing Canaan as an inheritance to Israel. 71 Further isolation of the psalmist’s sources from Deuteronomy present more of a challenge because many of the phrases mentioned above appear in a variety of locations. Two texts, however, from Deuteronomy, can be isolated with some certainty. The first is Deut 2:24-3:7, which details the Israelites defeating Sihon and Og. 72 The aforementioned verses constitute their only appearance in Deuteronomy. The second text is Deut 4:32-38, which contains a number of additional connections to our psalm. Psalm 136:12 contains the phrase א֣ וֹ׀ הֲ נִסָּ ֣ ה אֱ Nהִ֗ ים לָ֠ בוֹא לָקַחַ֙ ת ל֣ וֹ גוֹי֘ “ ,which also occurs in Deut 4:34 ,” ביד חזקה ובזרוע נטויה“

The verse in Deuteronomy .” מִקֶּ ֣רֶ ב גּוֹי֒ בְּמַ סֹּת֩ בְּ אֹתֹ֙ ת וּבְ מוֹפְתִ֜ ים וּבְמִלְחָמָ֗ ה וּבְיָ ֤ד חֲ זָקָה֙ וּבִ זְר֣ וֹZַ נְ טוּיָ֔ה ...

... לָקַחַ֙ ת ל֣ וֹ גוֹי֘ מִ קֶּ ֣רֶ ב “ ,additionally contains the idea of God taking one nation out of another

,Moreover .” וַ יּוֹצֵ ֣א יִ֭שְׂרָאֵ ל מִ תּוֹכָ ֑ם ... “ ,the same notion is expressed in Psalm 136:11 ,(4:34) ” גּוֹי֒ ...

לְ הוֹרִ ֗ ישׁ גּוֹיִ ֛ם “ ,the idea of giving land to Israel as an inheritance is recorded in similar words

Deut 4:38). Solidifying the) ” גְּ דֹלִ ֧ ים ו8ֲַצֻמִ ֛ ים מִמְּ B֖ מִפָּנֶ ֑יB לַהֲבִֽ יאֲ B֗ לָ ֽתֶ ת־לBְ֧ אֶ ת־אַרְ צָ ֛ם נַחֲלָ ֖ה כַּ יּ֥ וֹם הַזֶּ ֽה׃ above associations are two ideas that appear in both texts. First is the recollection of YHWH’s ... כִּ֥ י “ ,uniqueness with respect to his power and works. In Deuteronomy it is expressed in 4:35

לְעֹ֨שֵׂ ֤ ה “ ,and in the psalm, the same idea is reflected in v.4 ,” יְהוָ ֖ה ה֣ וּא הָאֱ Nהִ ֑ ים אֵ ֥ ין 8֖ וֹד מִלְבַדּֽ וֹ׃

Second is the apparent importance of heaven. In Deuteronomy, heaven .” נִפְלָא֣ וֹת גְּ דֹל֣ וֹת לְבַדּ֑ וֹ ...

מִ ן־הַשָּׁמַ ֛יִם “ ,is the location from which God spoke to the people when he gave them the law

and Psalm 136 primarily recalls YHWH’s creation of the heavens ,(4:36) ” הִשְׁמִֽ יBֲ8֥ אֶ ת־קֹל֖ וֹ ...

(s. vv.5-9), and portrays him as the God of the heavens (v.26). In light of the above associations, Deut 4:32-38 comprises the most probable source.

is particularly ( עבדו ) ,Concerning Deuteronomic ideology, Israel’s description as the “servant of God” in v.22 71 popular in the writings of Deutero-Isaiah (s. for example 41:8, 44:1, and 45:4). 72 At this point, Deut 1:4 should not be considered because it only refers to the incident in passing, and does not detail the battle or subsequent land distribution.

Page <305> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136

Contrasting the clearly Deuteronomic quotes mentioned above, only one specific quote from Exodus can be identified with any degree of certainty. 73 Exodus 14:27 depicts God

נער The piel .” ... וַיְנ8ֵַ ֧ר יְהוָ ֛ה אֶ ת־מִ צְרַ ֖ יִם בְּת֥ וֹF הַ יָּ ֽם׃ “ ,the Egyptians into the sea ( נער) ”shaking out“ appears three times in the Bible and only twice concerning the Exodus, Ps 136:15 and Ex 14:27. 74 The verse is traditionally split between the P (27 a) and JE (27 b) traditions; however, appears in the second half of the verse, which is ascribed נער the sentence containing the verb to JE. This fact alone does not necessarily suggest that the psalmist bore no knowledge of Ex 14:27 a. Overall, more so than any of the other selected psalms, Ps 136 clearly receives most of its influences from Deuteronomic literature.

PROCESS OF SELECTION As established earlier, the psalmist who composed Psalm 136 was primarily interested in creating a work for recital that recalled YHWH’s acts of grace towards his people. Consequently, it is relatively easy to see why certain incidents were selected from the Exodus tradition to help enforce his message. The deliverance from Egypt and the sea, together with YHWH fighting against Og and Sihon in order to give their land to his people all reveal YHWH as being eternally merciful to Israel. With this in mind, it is largely understandable why the psalmist omitted events concerning Israel’s sojourn in the desert, since this period bears the hallmark of murmuring against God, and rebellion. Notwithstanding the overall tenure of the desert sojourn, two incidents from this period have been surprisingly omitted: the provision stories (of water, bread, and meat), and the battle with Amalek. The former may have been overlooked because of the negative images accompanying the acts, murmurings against God occurred in each account. Another reason why the psalmist may have omitted them is that YHWH’s role as a warrior is absent from these accounts, yet common in the selections included by the psalmist. The omission of the Amalekite battle presents more of a mystery because it recalls an instance in which God fought for Israel. Two possible explanations for its omissions are: one, the psalmist may simply not have had access to this tradition; two, the negative associations 75 connected with the account proved too much of a deterrent to the psalmist.

73 A legitimate claim that Ps 136:11 borrows from Exodus 12:31 or 12:51 is plausible, but far from certain. 74 The other occurrence appears in Neh 5:13. 75 It is possible to see that the battle against the Amalekites arose because Israel questioned the presence of God in their midst; s. Rashi (Katzenelenbogen [1993:215]) and Zakovitch (1992:37f.).

Page <306> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136

ALLUSIONS

TRANSJORDANIAN CONQUEST Psalm 136’s reuse of the Sihon and Og traditions presents an example of a biblical interpretation of an interpretation. YHWH’s role in the Transjordan battles differs significantly between Deuteronomy 2-3 and Numbers 21. The Deuteronomic Sihon and Og narratives reuse 76 the Numbers 21 account with various alterations and additions, and Psalm 136 subsequently reuses this adapted account. Before continuing this examination, a few words must be said concerning Judges 11, which contains an account remarkably similar to our psalm. 77 Though Judges 11 contains an early rendition of the Transjordanian conquest tradition, it is unlikely the psalmist depended on Judges because only Sihon is mentioned there, as opposed to Sihon and Og in Psalm 136, and also because our source analysis positively revealed Psalm 136’s heavy dependence on Deuteronomy. 78 Just like Numbers 21, Deuteronomy recalls the Israelites’ journey by the Sea of Reeds and also their request for passage through the land of and Seir. At this point Deuteronomy details the death of the last of Israel’s former fighting men, those who failed to conquer Canaan on the first attempt. Additionally the Deuteronomic author excludes the battle with the Canaanite king of Arad. After skirting round Moab and Edom, both accounts retell the battles against both Sihon and Og. Notwithstanding these similarities, Deuteronomy casts new light on the situation. The battle with Sihon in Numbers appears incidental when compared with its Deuteronomic counterpart. Numbers recounts Israel’s request for passage through Sihon’s territory, and as a response he confronts them in battle. Deuteronomy, on the other hand, casts God as initiating the battle with Sihon, as part of the larger program of conquering and inheriting the land. The act of land-giving also features more prominently in Deuteronomy than Numbers, which recalls Israel’s inheritance of this land as an offshoot of defeating Sihon’s army. 79 Overall we can summarize by saying that for the author of

76 Concerning the lateness of the Sihon tradition in Deuteronomy in relation to Numbers, s. Weinfeld (1991:173- 78) and Clements (1994:307). The picture concerning the Og tradition is, however, slightly more obscure, s. Weinfeld (1991:181). 77 Another similar account we will not be including is the historical record found in Neh 9. This too records the story of Og and Sihon but was probably written after Psalm 136 and so cannot be considered a source. 78 Scholars such as Clements (1994:307) and Noth (1991:55) concur with this opinion. 79 We should also note that Deuteronomy fails to mention the Israelites’ sins, such as the complaints against Moses (see Num 21:5), and even suggests that Israel was somehow purged of their sins after the last of the rebellious generation died.

Page <307> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136

Deuteronomy, God is more active in the battles of the Transjordan, and that these conflicts mark the programmatic onset of Israel inheriting the land (s. Deut 2:24). Psalm 136, like Deut 2-3, intensely focuses on God’s involvement in the battles for the Transjordan and the bestowing of land to Israel. The conception of God initiating the battle with both kings, however, evolves much further in the psalm. Instead of merely initiating the battle, God personally fights and defeats these kings. The interpretation between Deuteronomy and Numbers saw the introduction of God’s role in the battle against Sihon, but here in the psalm God’s role is amplified again, and the role of men has been removed altogether. Additionally, the context in which the Transjordanian battles find themselves also significantly differs in the two accounts. For the author of Deuteronomy, the defeat heralds the commencement of God’s plan to give Israel the land of Canaan, and begins the Deuteronomic history, along with Joshua and Samuel, which continue to portray how the land was conquered. Contrasting this, Psalm 136 redeploys the same narrative towards the end of a sequence of events; indeed, it even constitutes the climax of God’s benevolence to Israel.

DELIVERANCE AT THE SEA After Egypt pursues the Israelites into the Yam Suf sea bed, YHWH instructs Moses to extend his arm over the sea so that the waters would return back over the Egyptians, their chariots, and their horsemen. 80 After Moses obeys this command, the pursuing Egyptians attempt to Ex 14:27) them into the , וינער ) flee from the water; however, God then intervenes by hurling sea. The waters then return, and Pharaoh’s horsemen, chariots, and soldiers are subsequently covered by the sea. Concerning the psalm’s rendition of the incident, two differences are particularly notable. First, the psalm entirely removes Moses’ role in events, and it only remembers God fighting on behalf of the Israelites. Second, the immediate context of Exodus seems more concerned with portraying a battle between YHWH and the Egyptians in general. In Ex 14:26 the waters return upon the Egyptians, at daybreak when the sea returns it was the Egyptians who fled, and it was the Egyptians who were hurled into the sea by God. Pharaoh is mentioned, but only as a qualifier to the army, it was his army. Psalm 136:15 seems to raise the profile of Pharaoh, placing him first in the list of those God hurled into the sea. By effecting this adjustment, the psalmist adapts the source to his purposes by portraying an

80 In contrast to the previous section’s ordering, I am treating the deliverance at the sea as a separate incident here because it is the only incident referring to the Book of Exodus. The other constituent parts are all linked to Deuteronomy.

Page <308> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136 earthly king battling against YHWH. Such a picture resonates with the later depictions of Og and Sihon, another two earthly kings, defeated by YHWH.

THE EXODUS In Deut 4 Moses instructs the Israelites on what they must do after they: settle in the land, rebel against YHWH by committing idolatry, are exiled by their enemies (4:25-28). If they seek God, obey him, and return to him, then he will remember the covenant he made with their fathers. Whilst in captivity, they must enquire of the past, to the great things YHWH did

,” גוי מקרב גוי “) v.34), taking for himself one nation out of another , מצרים ) for them in Egypt

ביד חזקה ובזרוע “) v.34) with trials and wonders and a mighty hand and outstretched arm

v.34). Moses explains that all this was done so that they might know YHWH alone is ,” נטויה

God. Deuteronomy further states that because YHWH loved Israel’s forefathers, he brought v.38) and gave the , גוים גדולים ) v.37) of Egypt to dispossess great nations , ויוצאך ) them out

.(v.38 ,” לתת לך את ארצם נחלה “) Israelites their land as an inheritance

In recounting the Exodus from Egypt, Psalm 136 first recalls the plagues (v.10) and

ויוצא ישראל “) then describes YHWH extracting his people from amongst the Egyptians

ביד חזקה ובזרוע “) v.11), which was done with a mighty hand and outstretched arm ,” מתוכם

v.12). The psalm proceeds to recall briefly the defeat of Pharaoh at the sea, and ,” נטויה

YHWH’s guidance of Israel through the wilderness. God’s work in the conquest is v.17) kings, as opposed to great nations, a change , גדלים ) remembered as being against great in line with depicting God’s omnipotence over earthly leaders. After striking them, he vv.21- ,” ונתן ארצם לנחלה ... לישראל עבדו “) bestows their land to his people for an inheritance

22). Overall, Psalm 136 sits in a context of praise and appreciation for what God accomplished for his people, and how he has been gracious to them. The psalmist fails to recall Israel’s idolatry that led to exile, as witnessed in Deuteronomy.

Page <309> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136

JUXTAPOSITION

PSALM 135—136 Psalm 135 begins with a call for all those standing in the Temple to praise YHWH (1-3) for his goodness. The reasons given for his praise are that he selected Israel for a special

v.5). The following verses then , אלהים ) possession, and that he is greater than all other gods

v.6) on , שמים ) v.6), anything he desires in any place: in heaven , עשה ) boast of his ability to do

v.6) or the depths. Verses 7-12 then cite examples of , בימים ) v.6), in the seas , ובארץ ) earth

YHWH acting in Creation and in the Exodus. As a climax to his acts in the Exodus, he strikes two kings and bestows their land to Israel. The following two verses (vv.13-14) constitute an

v.13) because he , זכרך ) interjection of praise that lauds YHWH’s eternal name and memory vindicates his people. Verses 15-18 describe the idols of the nations and ultimately denounce them and those who worship and depend on them. The final three verses constitute an exhortation to bless YHWH that is addressed to various Temple groups. Both lexical and contextual similarities associate Ps 135 and 136. Both psalms not only include historiographic material, but also address the same approximate era in Israel’s literary history, the Exodus. More specifically, they both contain allusions to Creation, the conflict with the Egyptians, and the giving of land. Each psalm employs the “giving of land” motif as the final act of God’s intervention in history, and they both neglect detailing any desert events, including the lawgiving at Sinai. With respect to the framework in which each song is presented, both are broadly set within a context of praise, responding to what YHWH in vv.1- הודו has done for his people. Psalm 136 manifests this through the overt repetition of

3, implicitly echoed throughout the psalm, 81 whereas Psalm 135:19, 20 exhorts various Temple groups to bless YHWH on account of his previously recited works in history. A consecutive reading of the two psalms reveals a broadening of perspective in relation to YHWH’s attitude towards, and relationship with, his people and the nations. Psalm 135 restricts itself, exclusively recounting the positive aspects of YHWH’s relationships to Israel, he chose them to be his people (v.4), and continually intervenes in history to save them are either ( גוים ) from their enemies (8-11). Contrasting this view, the remainder of mankind portrayed as enemies of YHWH and his people, or idol worshippers. Psalm 136 expands such

81 See Hacham (1981:510).

Page <310> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136 an outlook because it not only recognizes the intimacy of God’s relationship with Israel, but additionally establishes YHWH positively relating to the rest of mankind (Ps 136:25). The portrayal of other gods in Psalm 135 affects how the same notion is understood in but later on, the ,” כִּ י־גָד֣ וֹל יְהוָ ֑ה וַ֜אֲ דֹנֵ֗ ינוּ מִכָּ ל־אֱ Nהִֽ ים׃ ... “ Ps 136:2-3. Psalm 135:5 recalls the phrase

עצבי “ ,at all, but idols אלהים psalm details this expression by clarifying that these are not

there is no ,(136:2-3) ”ה וֹדוּ לֵ ֽאNהֵ ֣ י הָאֱ Nהִ ֑ ים ... “ v.15). Consequently, when one reads) ” הגוים need to admit the existence of other gods or deities because their real identities were explicated in the previous psalm: mere idols and the works of men’s hands. reveal two different aspects of Creation in the two עשה and , שמים , ארץ The words psalms, and a combination of the two ideas broadens our overall perspective on the nature of Creation. Often it is considered a single event occurring at the dawn of time (s. Gen 1:1) as Ps

מַ 8ֲֽלֶ ֣ה נְשִׂאִ ים֘ מִקְצֵ ֪ה הָ֫אָ ֥רֶ ץ “ ,indicates. Repetition of the above words in Psalm 135:7 136:5-6

however, reveals that Creation is also an ongoing ,” בְּרָ קִ ֣ ים לַמָּטָ ֣ ר 8ָשָׂ ֑ ה מֽ וֹצֵ א־ר֜ וּ\ַ מֵאֽ וֹצְ רוֹתָ ֽ יו׃ process continually sustained by YHWH: he maintains that which he created, keeps the clouds moving and creates lightning for rain. Additionally, the notion of YHWH’s ability to

Psalm 135:6 mentions . ים act as he pleases undergoes an expansion with respect to the word the sea as part of the domain in which he operates, an idea furthered in Psalm 136:13-14. The latter verses demonstrate YHWH acting as he pleases in regard to the sea: he splits it in order to bring his people through on dry land, and transforms it into a weapon to destroy his enemies. Thus an abstract idea in one psalm is exemplified in its neighbor. 82

PSALM 136—137 Words common to both Psalm 136 and 137 are prevalent in the Psalter and consequently fail to yield any plausible justification for the juxtaposition of the two psalms. Even though this fact negates any possibility of arrangement via lexical similarity, it is profitable to the global search for juxtaposition strategies. The fact that lexical similarity is not consistently employed as a strategy for positioning psalms in the Psalter provides us with a valuable water mark for gauging common words between psalms. It is only when comparing the relationships of other

82 The idea of exemplifying an abstract notion with a concrete example constitutes one of the defining points of Midrash ; s. Sarason (1999:155f.). In addition to the lexical associations mentioned above Ps 135:10-12 appropriates material from Ps 136 17-21. The section on allusions in the previous chapter has already addressed this matter.

Page <311> Chapter 5 - Psalm 136 historiographic psalms with this picture that we can fully appreciate the way in which the editor(s) of the Psalter were influenced by common vocabulary in the arrangement of compositions. The relationship between Psalms 136 and 137 thus serves as an example of psalms that have not been positioned according to lexical similarity. 83 Though an analysis of lexical similarities fails to provide a satisfactory rationale for the juxtaposition of Psalms 136-137, their contents suggest a convincing explanation for sequencing. The placement of Psalms 136 and 137 reflects the an editor’s desire to juxtapose two familiar themes: God’s historical deeds of deliverance (encompassing his supremacy and ownership of all Creation), and a cry for deliverance. Psalm 136, as witnessed in the close reading, lucidly depicts God’s acts of power in addition to his rights over Creation. Complementing this, Psalm 137 consists of a cry for help by a people undergoing oppression (vv.1-3), and a call for God to take vengeance upon Israel’s enemies (7-9). Psalm 89 reveals the same pattern. God’s deeds are first recounted: he ruled the swelling of the sea (v.10), Crushed Rahab and scattered the enemy (v.11), and owns all Creation (v.12). Building on this foundation, the psalm continues by portraying the oppressed state of those reciting the psalm and, more importantly, cries for help pleading: “how long will you hide your face…” (v.47). A similar juxtaposition of ideas emerges in Psalm 44, which begins with Israel remembering the deeds God had performed in days of old (v.2), how he planted their fathers in the land and drove out the previous inhabitants (v.3). Soon after, v.10 describes YHWH as forsaking the community and delivering them to their enemies. Later, v.26 depicts them prostrated in the dust, and the following verse explicitly enumerates their cry for help. This sequencing is reversed in Ps 77. God’s words of deliverance in the past appear at the end of the psalm, but they still constitute the basis from which the psalmist can find solace from his distress, which is enumerated in the first half of the composition. 84

83 In simple terms, what we are witnessing here is the proverbial “exception that proves the rule”. 84 See also Psalm 40 and Psalm 106 for similar examples of this type of juxtaposition.

Page <312> Conclusions

CONCLUSIONS

With our examination of the selected psalms complete, we return now to the questions posed at the beginning of the study concerning the psalmists’ use of the Exodus motif and the editors’ placement of Exodus psalms. The first of the remaining four sections addresses the questions concerning the sources employed by the psalmists, their nature, and arrangement. Following this is a discussion exploring the nature of the psalmists and editors’ work on the sources. Afterwards we turn to wider issues regarding the psalmists’ use of, and interaction with, the Exodus motif. The final section discusses the study’s contribution to the field of Psalms research. Before beginning with the sources, however, a few words need to be said concerning the diachronic order of the psalms in this study. With the dates established for each of the selected psalms it is possible to order them as follows: 78, 106, 136, 105, and 135; with Psalm 78 representing the earliest composition and Psalm 135 the latest. The determination of Psalm 78 as the earliest of the psalms raised few concerns because it presented conclusive evidence concerning the date of its composition. Psalms 105, 135, and 136 were all deemed postexilic, consequently Ps 106 must be placed after Ps 78 because it was written during the Exile. I have opted to represent Ps 105 as being later than Ps 136 simply because the former relies on relatively late traditions, in addition to texts known to have been amended at a stage later than their original composition. 1 Regarding Psalm 135, Chapter Four lucidly demonstrated its extremely late origins. From the aforementioned ordering, it is possible to notice an emerging trend between the purposes of the psalms, and the dates in which they were composed. The psalmists who wrote during the postexilic era employed the Exodus primarily for purposes of praise and worship, witnessed from Psalms 136, 105, and 135; whereas, the pre-exilic authors tended to emphasize more negative aspects of the tradition, employing the motif to reprimand and warn their audiences about the consequences of disobedience. 2

1 See close reading for Psalm 105:15, along with the section on sources for this composition. 2 This trend is reflected in the pre-exilic psalms 81 and 95, and the postexilic composition Psalm 114.

Page <313> Conclusions

THE PSALMISTS ’ SOURCES

BIBLICAL SOURCES Most of the material employed by the selected psalms, with respect to the Exodus tradition, originates from the Torah, with the books of Exodus and Numbers constituting the primary pool of data. In certain instances, psalmists turned to the , 3 and on even fewer occasions, they employed texts from Leviticus. For the most part, the legal material in the Torah was not relevant to the psalmists’ needs. With respect to the literary genres quoted from the Torah, there appear to be no specific preferences concerning poetic or narrative material. Poetic traditions from Deut 32 and Ex 15 appear as important to the psalmists as prose traditions from Ex 1-14, 16-21, and Num 11-14, 16, 20-21, 25. In isolated situations, the psalmists took advantage of biblical traditions outside of the Torah to recount Exodus events. Psalm 135:10-12 relies on the neighboring Psalm 136:17-22 for recounting the defeat of the Transjordanian kings Og and Sihon. In light of Psalm 135’s lateness, one cannot say for sure why the psalmist failed to utilize the Torah for data concerning these events. One possible reason is that he deliberately sought to link his work with its neighbor, and achieved the association by reusing a section of its text. 4 In spite of a relatively strict dependence on the Torah for the majority of the Exodus period, Psalm 105 turns to the poetry of Deutero-Isaiah, Is 48 and 51, to recount the Exodus from Egypt. Such a deviation mirrors the psalmist’s postexilic context in which the return to the from Babylon aptly reflects the original entrance into Canaan. Rather than recalling the journey from Egypt to the Promised Land, the psalmist opted to recount the journey via allusions to Isaiah 51:9-11, which depicts the exodus from Babylon. For the same reason, the “water from the rock” tradition in Psalm 105:41 recalls Is 48:21 more than the Torah traditions recounting the same events. 5 In addition to the Pentateuchal sources, the examination of the selected psalms uncovered numerous occasions in which the psalmists resorted to alternate traditions : a plagues’ tradition (78:44-51 6); a manna tradition (78:24-25), which may be reflected in Psalm 105:40; human sacrifice during the initial conquest period (106:37-38); and possibly a rebellion at the Reed Sea (106:7). 7 Unfortunately, we cannot verify the precise nature of such

3 See for example Psalm 135:14 (Deut 32:36) and Psalm 136:2-3 (Deut 10:17). 4 He may thus have sought this association to correct a position held by Psalm 136; see below. Furthermore, the literary associations with the preceding composition, Ps 134, strengthen the probability. 5 Psalm 106:9 also apparently uses Is 63:9-13 for its rendition of the wilderness tradition. 6 Here, we should also entertain the possibility that Ps 105:28-36 constitutes an alternate tradition. 7 Though it is not related to the Exodus tradition, we should also consider the destruction of Shiloh (Ps 78:60- 61), and wisdom’s role in Creation (Ps 136:5).

Page <314> Conclusions traditions, they could constitute either written accounts in the psalmists’ corpus that are no longer available to us, or, and perhaps more likely, oral traditions that were never committed to any form of written media. It is apparent, however, that the two earliest psalms, 78 and 106, more readily adopt such accounts; whereas, the later psalms generally avoid them. This observation suggests that psalms containing a high degree of quotations from texts closely resembling MT are more likely to bear a later compositional date than those frequently employing alternate traditions. A heuristic such as this cannot be adduced as primary evidence when engaged in the task of dating psalms, but should be considered valuable secondary evidence. To varying degrees, each of the selected psalms alludes to biblical traditions other than those relating to the Exodus. The two later psalms, Pss 135 and 105, often exhibit this tendency. Psalm 105 frequently alluded to Genesis because of its concern with the promise of land to the Patriarchs, and God’s preservation of that promise through subsequent generations. Psalm 135, on the other hand, alludes to an extensive range of texts throughout the composition. Most notable among these allusions are the texts it employs from juxtaposed psalms, Psalms 134 and 136:17-22. Additionally, on two different occasions the author of Psalm 106 adopts texts from Ezekiel 20 and 22—first, to strengthen the notion of intercession (22:30); then, to link God’s denying Israel access to Canaan during the Exodus with the psalmist’s present reality, exile (20:23).

THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS Overall, due to the limited scope of the study, it is difficult to assert any firm conclusions concerning the selected psalms adoption of the proposed sources to the Pentateuch. The primary limitations stem from the study’s focus on the Exodus motif, and not on other Pentateuchal traditions found within the selected works. Consequently, more source data could be uncovered relating to other Torah traditions excluded from the present study, e.g., Creation and the patriarchal narratives. In spite of the aforementioned limitations, however, two tentative conclusions can be made concerning Psalms 78 and 106. First, the data from Psalms 78 and 106 suggest that the sources of the proposed Documentary Hypothesis were already considered a unified and continuous text at the time of the Exile. Regarding Ps 78, the close reading revealed a heavy Deuteronomic influence in its composition. Additionally, even though the JE tradition evidently dominates Ps 78’s Exodus rendition, two instances arise suggesting the psalmist knew of the P tradition (Ps 78:13=Ex

Page <315> Conclusions

14:16, Ps 78:15=Num 20:8), thus it must have existed as a source before the exile, when the psalm was written. 8 With respect to Psalm 106, which was written during the Exile, the results of the source analysis also uncovered further evidence of P, in addition to JE and D. Second, concerning the interlaced nature of the sources in Psalm 106, one can conclude that the Song of the Sea had already been merged with the Exodus narrative by the time of the Exile. Such a deduction can be derived from Psalm 106:12, which links the two literary units.

THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE SOURCE MATERIAL Our examination of the selected psalms reveals that the various psalmists were not overly concerned with preserving the order in which events occurred in their sources. For the psalmists, the greater concern apparently lay in the desired impact of their message. Perhaps the clearest example of this phenomenon occurs in Psalm 135:4-9, which recalls the selection of Israel (v.4) before the plagues (vv.8-9). Because the psalm is relatively late, it is logical to assume that the psalmist knew that the selection of Israel chronologically occurs after the plagues were first wrought to deliver the Israelites from Egypt. Thus, even though the psalmist knew the ordering of events, he altered this sequencing to achieve a desired impact. Another outstanding example concerns Psalm 78’s portrayal of YHWH providing Israel with food and water in the wilderness (vv.15-16) before mentioning the plagues (vv.43-51). In this instance, it is certain that the psalmist knew that the latter preceded the former. Because of his desire, however, to demonstrate instances of Israel’s deliverance that did not include other nations, he chose instead to portray the provision of food in the desert first. Even though the psalmist clearly had a logical rationale for positioning each account, his ordering did not always comply with the expected norms of chronological arrangement. Reordering additionally appears in Psalm 105. Due to its date and apparent reliance on the Torah for the patriarchal narratives, the variances in the plagues’ narrative quoted within the psalm suggest the psalmist deliberately rearranged the material. 9 He would thus have known the order of the plagues in Exodus, and chosen to reorder them in his work. In this

8 Notwithstanding the possibility that the wording employed by the psalmist was subsequently adopted by P’s editor. This observation supports Kaufmann’s view on the origins of the Pentateuch more so than Wellhausen’s. The former argued for a synchronic development of the Pentateuchal traditions, whereas the latter argued for a diachronic development with P, the last of the sources, compiled after the Exile. For a summary on these two leading positions on the Torah’s sources see Rofé (1999:62-79). 9 The same is not true for Psalm 78’s reworking of the plagues because it probably represents an alternate tradition.

Page <316> Conclusions instance, the psalmist may have positioned the plagues with respect to their severity. Consequently, the author placed darkness first because he deemed it less severe than the other plagues. Similarly, the blood, frogs, and lice were not detrimental to the Egyptians’ health and were thus positioned early in the sequence. Escalating the threat, the hail and locust appear next because they destroy the crops, thus bearing a more direct and adverse affect on man by causing starvation. The degree of escalation concerning these judgments also surfaces in the psalmist’s choice to represent these plagues with two verses instead of one. The final level of escalation appears in the striking of the firstborn, the only plague, according to the psalmist, to cause physical harm to the Egyptians. Another possible motivation that may have influenced the author of Psalm 105 concerns the order of Creation. In this instance, the psalmist would have moved darkness to the first position to resonate with God removing darkness by creating light as the first act in Creation. Similarly, the last act in the plagues, smiting the firstborn, would correspond with God’s final work in Creation, man. Within this scenario, the plagues function as an undoing of the created order. In both of the scenarios mentioned above, the author’s source tradition was altered. Numerous instances of reordering also arise within Psalm 106’s rendition of rebellions during the wilderness period. It is possible to understand the ordering in Ps 106 along the lines of escalating severity. Within this rubric, the least severe rebellion occurs first, the wanton desires, where a possible sign of triviality appears in the obscure nature of the punishment. Though it still constitutes an act of rebellion, it pales in comparison to the detestable acts of child sacrifice recalled at the end of the psalm. 10

ASPECTS OF INTERPRETATION The study revealed that a variety of circumstances and motivations inspired the psalmists and the editors of the Psalter to alter the meaning of their source traditions. For the psalmists, the sources consisted of the verses and texts from the Bible, whereas the Psalter’s editors used the completed psalms as source texts. The more salient examples of alterations in meaning are discussed below. Before addressing the changes effected by the psalmists, however, I would

10 A few doubts arise concerning Ps 106 because we cannot be certain that the traditions in the psalmist’s possession reflected those in MT; consequently, he may have inserted the material in the order of his source. The concept of a book as we know it today, a bound collection of accounts arranged in historical order, is not necessarily what the biblical psalmists would have had at their disposal; s. Barton (1998). The psalmist may simply have possessed an unbound collection of traditions lacking any chronological order. Consequently, the order in which they occur in the psalm may indeed reflect the order in which the psalmist had them. Notwithstanding this, the previously quoted examples clearly reveal instances in which the psalmist ordered events to resonate with his purposes.

Page <317> Conclusions first like to emphasize that the psalmists also adduced their source material to strengthen and enforce specific points in their compositions. 11 The most outstanding examples appear in Psalm 106, where the theme of intercession is particularly high on the psalmist’s agenda. As part of that program, he includes multiple allusions to instances in which a lone individual represents Israel before God and successfully intercedes on their behalf, turning away YHWH’s anger. One instance of this phenomenon occurs in v.23, where Moses successfully staves God’s wrath after Israel worships a golden calf. This allusion primarily recalls the Torah’s rendition of events. In order to strengthen the idea of intercession, however, the

from Ezekiel 22:30, where God seeks an intercessor to ” עמד בפרץ “ author adopts the term stand in the gap for the nation. In this instance, the psalmist recalls both texts to strengthen the importance of intercession within the psalm. Another instance, again reinforcing the idea of in v.30. As seen from the ” ותעצר המגפה “ intercession, appears with Ps 106’s use of the phrase close reading, this phrase alludes to two instances of intercession. Firstly, it recalls the act of Phinehas, when he stopped the plague through his actions in Num 25. Secondly, the same words recall Aaron’s intercession on Israel’s behalf to halt a plague that broke out in Number’s rendition of Korah’s revolt (Num 17:15). In this example, the psalmist again alludes to two images to enrich a single event in his composition. 12

REMOVAL OF DEROGATORY INFORMATION Often, psalmists felt compelled either to remove, or at least moderate, data from their sources that they deemed derogatory, or excessively disparaging towards individuals, groups, or the general tenor of a composition. Psalm 105 refrains from recalling any hint of rebellion during the desert-wandering period. The picture presented by the psalmist consists of a journey from

11 This is, perhaps, the most well known function of biblical allusion; s. Watson (2001:302f.). 12 The degree to which the various psalmists preserved the wording in their sources varies significantly— assuming of course that the text forming the source closely reflects MT. Psalm 135 presents the strictest examples of word-form and word-order preservation. With Ps 135:7’s use of Jer 10:13, the psalm virtually preserves every single word from the source without the slightest alteration. A similarly precise replication of sources appears in v.14, which recalls Deut 32:36 (s. also Ps 105:1’s use of Is 12:4). Psalm 135:1 also replicates all of the words from the source (Psalm 113:1), but the psalmist slightly alters the word order. At the opposite end of the spectrum, we find instances in which scant lexical replication exists, if any at all, between the source and the psalm. Psalm 105:12-15 refers to instances within the Patriarchs’ lives when they faced mortal danger. Even though no doubts arise concerning the allusion, only a few lexical markers appear that allude to a wide range of texts. A slightly more extreme example occurs in Ps 78:60-66’s recollection of Israel’s defeat by the Philistines in 1Sam 4. The psalm doubtlessly recalls Israel’s defeat by the Philistines, but the associations between the texts are purely contextual with virtually no lexical markers linking them. For the most part, the psalmists’ preservation of words from their sources falls between the two aforementioned extremes, and even though they generally sought to preserve key lexical items in their sources, they felt at liberty to adjust them as various needs arose.

Page <318> Conclusions

Egypt to Canaan in which Israel only experiences joy and celebration, and never grumbles or complains at any stage. It was necessary for the psalmist to present such a picture of Israel because at the end of the psalm the condition for God’s kindness towards them becomes clear: they are to obey his laws. Had the psalmist introduced rebellion into the psalm during the desert wandering period, the impact of its raison d’être would have been severely compromised. 13 In Psalm 106, the psalmist removes Aaron from the rebellion at Meribah (106:32-33), 14 and though Israel’s esteemed leader, Moses, falls under condemnation, the psalmist is tangibly sympathetic to his cause. In the source, both Aaron and Moses are condemned for not honoring YHWH’s name when they perform his instructions in bringing water from a rock. For this, YHWH punishes both by forbidding them entrance into the Promised Land. In Psalm 106’s rendition, Israel shares in the burden of guilt since they cause Moses to sin, thus removing a degree of responsibility from him. Also in Psalm 106:16-18, we see an instance in which the psalmist omitted the name “Korah” from the list of perpetrators in Dathan’s rebellion. As noted in Chapter Three, such a move was probably undertaken to protect the ecclesiastical Second Temple school that bears his name (s. Pss 47:1, 48:1, and 49:1). The Torah records YHWH’s covenant with Israel as a conditional agreement, and only when Israel complies with his statutes are they eligible to receive the blessings it affords, and the privilege of being called a “treasured possession” from all peoples. The psalmist apparently views the conditional nature of this promise negatively with regards to the purposes of Psalm 135; in v.4 (alluding to Deut 7:6), he exclusively recalls the positive covenantal aspects: that Israel is God’s treasured possession. The relationship between Israel and YHWH, in contrast to the nations and their idols, constitutes a key theme in Psalm 135, and thus to introduce a potential weakness in the God–Israel relationship (Israel’s faithfulness to YHWH’s ordinances) would mollify the impact of the psalmist’s message. Another avoidance of negative data arises from the contextual change found in Psalm 135:14. This verse originally belonged to a disparaging text that derided Israel for its unfaithfulness to God, and lauded his faithfulness towards them irrespective of their religious infidelity (Deut 32:37).

13 See the section in Chapter Two that discusses the process of selection. 14 Other alternatives exist for interpreting the omission of Aaron from this event. The psalmist may only be including Moses because it was he who spoke to the Israelites (Num 20:10), and the psalm specifically alludes to the fact that the crime was verbal. Additionally, one could argue that the psalmist is exercising a degree of harmonization whereby texts such as Deut 1:37 and 3:26, which reflect Moses being punished on behalf of the people, have influenced his wording. In light of Psalm 106’s respect for Phinehas and the priestly Korahite school, however, it is more reasonable to suggest that the psalmist deliberately omitted Aaron from this incident.

Page <319> Conclusions

From such a negative background, the psalmist adopted a single verse and relocated it into a context in which God unconditionally vindicates his people and avenges their enemies. 15

EXALTING THE ROLE OF GOD The psalmists also effected additions and alterations designed to exalt the role YHWH adopts 16 in the source texts. One method employed by the psalmists to achieve this is to modify a simple verb form in the source to a causative form in the psalm. Psalm 78:13 demonstrates the method in its portrayal of YHWH splitting the sea. In the source, Ex 15:8,

qal ) before the Israelites, whereas the psalm) נִצְּב֥ וּ the waters simply stand in a heap

hifil ). A similar scenario exists in) וַ ֽ יַּצֶּ ב ,specifically reports that YHWH caused them to do so

Psalm 105’s portrayal of Israel’s rapid growth whilst in Egypt. The source, Ex 1:7, recalls a ... פָּר֧ וּ “ ,simple multiplication that occurs naturally, without YHWH’s direct intervention

Psalm 105:24, however, specifies that God actively multiplied them .” וַ ֽ יִּשְׁרְ צ֛ וּ וַיִּרְ בּ֥ וּ וַיַּ 8ַֽצְמ֖ וּ...

In performing this change, the psalmist .( וַ֜יַּ 8ֲֽצִמֵ הוּ ) and strengthened their numbers ( וַ יֶּ ֣פֶ ר) adapts the source to the framework of the psalm, which reflects YHWH’s omnipotence in every event, whether good or bad. YHWH is responsible for summoning the king to release Joseph from prison (105:20), but also accountable for calling a famine on the land (v.16), and causing the Egyptians to hate his people (v.25). The identity of Israel’s leader throughout the desert era frequently forms the subject of alteration. In the Torah, this role of leader usually involves a combination of YHWH, Moses, and Aaron; however, YHWH alone assumes the task in the selected psalms, as Psalms 78:53, 105:37, 106:9, 136:11-12, 14, and 16 demonstrate. In a similar vein, battles that are fought and won by the Israelites and YHWH together are recast, and the psalmist portrays them as though YHWH alone went forth to defeat Israel’s enemies, as with the destruction of Og and Sihon recorded in Psalm 136:19-20. Perhaps the most striking example of YHWH’s exaltation concerns the building of the Temple in Psalm 78. The Book of Kings lucidly

15 Even though it does not form part of the Exodus tradition, we can add Psalm 105’s recitation of the Joseph in Psalm 105:17’s recollection of ( נמכר ) narrative to these examples. The psalmist employs a passive form Joseph’s brothers selling him to a group of Midianite/Ishmaelite traders (s. close reading for this verse). In doing so, the psalmist masks the identity of those who sold Joseph—his brothers. Within the psalm’s context, Israel and the Patriarchs are all viewed positively, and an instance such as the sale of one’s own brother into slavery would disparage the nation’s founding fathers; consequently, the psalmist adapted the material before him to comply with the psalm’s tenor. 16 For a detailed discussion of this topic, see Seeligman (1996).

Page <320> Conclusions demonstrates that Solomon constructed the Temple after David had died (s. especially 1Kings 6), even though David first conceived the idea. Contrasting this picture, Psalm 78:69 fails to mention Solomon, and portrays YHWH himself building the Temple, establishing it as an eternal structure. Additionally, the impression gained from the psalm’s final verses suggests the construction occurred during David’s reign, as opposed to Solomon’s. 17

ADDRESSING PERCEIVED DISCREPANCIES IN THE SOURCE At certain points during their recitation of Exodus events, the psalmists apparently sought to address potential difficulties in their sources, and in doing so influence its reading. Psalm 135:11’s rendering of Psalm 136:19-20 adds two words of clarification to the source. The latter psalm only recounts God’s work in conquering the Transjordanian lands, bestowing them to his people as an inheritance. By way of correction, when the same text appears in Psalm 135, it contains an addition confirming that all of the lands of Canaan, both east and west of the Jordan, were conquered and bestowed to Israel as an inheritance. This addition arose because the author of Ps 136 apparently limited himself to working with the Pentateuch. As a result of this limitation, he only reports on events up until the end of his source material, the Transjordanian conquest. The author of Psalm 135, who drew upon a wider range of sources, was able to expand this picture and include a reference to other Canaanite lands. In another example, we see a degree of ambiguity arising in Numbers concerning the eruption of a plague that starts because of Israel’s idolatry with Baal Peor. The end of the plague is recorded in Num 25:8, but no record exists of its beginning. Psalm 106:29 addresses the issue of when the plague began by suggesting it broke out soon after the idolatry started, as a result of YHWH’s anger. A further example of this phenomenon arises with Psalm 105’s rendition of the plagues’ narrative (28-36), which evidently reorders and reduces the plagues from Exodus. In doing so, the psalmist creates a fluid account that avoids difficulties raised in the source concerning the deaths of all the cattle on three separate occasions—during the plagues of pestilence, hail, and striking of the firstborn. 18

17 In addition to God’s role being highlighted, there are occasions in which the role of men is similarly exalted. a title he never explicitly receives in the ,( בחר ) Psalm 105:26 refers to Aaron as being the chosen one of God In the same .(” קדוש יהוה “) Torah sources. Psalm 106:16 similarly portrays Aaron as the holy one of YHWH psalm, Phinehas’ act of intercession (vv.28-31) is attributed to him as righteousness, where the specific was previously reserved for Abraham (” ותחשב לו לצדקה “) designation of an act to an individual as righteousness when he believed God’s promise to him (Gen 15:6). 18 Two more examples deserve a mention here even though they do not form part of the Exodus motif because they represent examples of psalmists changing their sources traditions to address a perceived lacuna. First, a

Page <321> Conclusions

EVIDENCE OF EDITORIAL ACTIVITY IN ARRANGEMENT Before looking at how the editors and arrangers of the Psalter sought to influence the meaning of the individual psalms, which formed the basis of their sources, it is first prudent to review the indications of deliberate positioning. This study reveals clear signs of purposeful arrangement by uncovering: instances of rare words and phrases found between juxtaposed psalms, 19 clusters of more common words repeated between the psalms, 20 similar themes, 21 and chronological sequencing. 22 Before reviewing examples of the above, it is important to recall that concerning Psalms 136 and 137, no repeated words or phrases linking the two works together appeared. This fact alone strengthens the argument that in the forthcoming examples, the existence of such phenomenon is not incidental. With respect to rare words, Psalms 105:23, 27, and 106:22 constitute the only two Psalm 106 further links with Psalm 107 .” ארץ חם “ places in the Bible containing the phrase

which occurs four times in the Psalter, and is only found in juxtaposed , ישימון via the word

,”מ רה עצה “ psalms here (Psalms 106:14 and 107:4). Also linking these psalms is the phrase which, with respect to the Bible, only appears in Psalm 106:43 and 107:11. Just like the rare words and phrases, certain groups of words similarly appear together in juxtaposed psalms. appear together at the end of Psalm 104 and the , שיר and , זמר , שיח , שמח , יהוה The words beginning of Psalm 105, creating a smooth transition between the works. Additionally Psalm ברך יהוה “ ,” עבדי יהוה עמדים בבית יהוה “ ,” ברך את יהוה“ links to Psalm 134 via the phrases 135

reading of Psalm 78 together with the historical narratives in Samuel and Kings sheds important light on the loss of the Ark. The first book of Samuel, chapter 4, recounts the Israelites engaging in battle against the Philistines; and in a move to boost the soldiers morale, they bring with them the . The battle ends with the Israelites suffering heavy losses, and their enemies capturing the Ark. Within the context of Samuel, no explanation arises with respect to why Israel suffered such devastation by the Philistines, and why the centre of Israel’s religious system was taken from them. A reading of Psalm 78, however, directly identifies the devastation as God’s punitive action for a culmination of sins and rebellion against him stemming from Israel’s emancipation from Egypt. Second, the account of Joseph in Psalm 105 explains why an innocent man, Joseph, had to suffer at the hands of the wicked. The psalm implies that the suffering was necessary in order to purify and test Joseph in some way, preparing him for the task that lay before him. as a deciding factor in the ” מלאך יהוה “ See, for example, Rofé (2004:21) who quotes the example of 19 juxtaposition of Pss 34 and 35; and Keil and Delitzsch (1982:21), who classify this phenomenon as “external association”. 20 As a principle, this phenomenon is discussed by Cassuto concerning a number of biblical texts; s. Cassuto (1973d, 1973a). 21 See Keil and Delitzsch (1982:21), who suggest that the theme of “sacrifice” links Pss 50 and 51. 22 Nasuti (2005) specifically raises this as a potential strategy in the organization of certain psalms; and as a general principle for organization, see Rofé (1988), who adduces the arrangement of the Torah and Deuteronomic history as evidence of this rationale.

Page <322> Conclusions

and also connects with Psalm 136 through vv.10-12, which ,” עשה שמים וארץ“ and ,” מציון more or less replicate 136:17-22. 23 Concerning common themes, it is no coincidence that each of the selected psalms, broadly speaking, juxtaposes another psalm containing the Exodus motif. As we have already witnessed, Psalm 105 sits next to 106, and 135 next to 136. Regarding Psalm 78, its predecessor Psalm 77 also contains elements relating to Israel crossing the Reed Sea with the aid of God. 24 These broad associations, however, form only a small part of the connections between the psalms. At this point, I must emphasize that the ordering of the aforementioned psalms is chronological, that is to say the second of the juxtaposed works usually contains later historiographical data than its predecessor (though some overlap might exist). On a wider scale, another sign of editorial activity concerns the positioning of Psalms 105 and 106. These compositions appear together at the end of Book IV and represent the only Exodus psalms mentioning Moses’ role in the Exodus proceedings. 25 The positioning of these psalms here represents an apparent desire by an editor to complete an inclusion around Book IV. Psalm 90 opens Book IV with a mention of Moses in the title, and Psalms 105 and 106 close the book with another mention of Israel’s esteemed leader. 26

MOTIVATIONS FOR JUXTAPOSING PSALMS From the evidence presented in the selected psalms, we can postulate two motivations that influenced the Psalter’s editors and arrangers to juxtapose psalms. First, the arranger may have sought to correct or influence the meaning of another work. For example, after reading

23 Concerning the potential degree of influence the editors and arrangers may have had on individual psalms, I can only hypothesize three possible scenarios. First, the psalms may have remained unaltered during the process of arrangement. The editor would then have selected psalms sharing common vocabulary from a vast repository of poetry, and juxtaposed them when compiling his collection of compositions. Second, it is possible that in selecting psalms for inclusion into a smaller assemblage, the arrangers possessed the authority to alter certain words within the psalm in order to forge a stronger association with its neighbors. Thus, they would have actively sought to change isolated words in each psalm to create, or accentuate connections to the juxtaposed psalms. Third, some of the Psalter’s arrangers were themselves psalmists and poets who wrote certain compositions as a response to works with which they were previously familiar; thus, they actively created compositions in order to address issues in older works, or expound themes they deemed important in established psalms. Within this scenario, the arrangers would have possessed the freedom to borrow vocabulary and motifs from certain psalms and rework them into their own composition, addressing problems or developing ideas as they saw fit. Even though none of the aforementioned possibilities is mutually exclusive, the results patently suggest the Psalter’s editors and arrangers acquired an intimate familiarity with the songs in their available corpuses, and positioned them with deliberate plans and purposes in mind. 24 We should note that the theme also links Psalms 80 and 81, and though Ps 79 contains thematic associations with both Pss 78 and 80 it does not contain references to the Exodus motif. 25 See section on juxtaposition for Psalm 106. 26 See the discussion on the Book of Moses in Excursus 1.

Page <323> Conclusions

Psalm 78 from beginning to end, one can understand how the composition could generate an unhealthy degree of Judahite pride, because YHWH selected Judah as continued recipients of his undeserved favor, but rejected Ephraim. Psalm 79 automatically quells this perception because it demonstrates that the Southern Kingdom of Judah behaved no better than their northern counterpart, and was soon exiled for sinning and rebelling against YHWH. In another example, a misguided perception of the desert period could easily arise from reading Psalm 105 alone. It portrays this period as being somewhat euphoric, without any disobedience or causes for friction between YHWH and his people as he guided them through the desert. As if to correct this perception, Psalm 106 portrays a very different picture of this same era, redressing the balance, detailing numerous instances in which YHWH was forced to punish Israel for their disobedience. A slightly different example appears in the positioning of Psalms 135 and 136. The former informs us of the nature of foreign gods: idols that are impotent in reality, wielding neither power nor breath. This knowledge prepares us for לאלהי “ reading Psalm 136, which acknowledges the existence other gods. The very phrase

v.2 ) suggests at least two tiers of gods, lesser deities and YHWH himself who) ” האלהים presides over such deities. By first reading Psalm 135, the arranger demonstrates to the reader the exact nature of such gods, in reality they are merely idols. In a similar fashion to the above, the juxtaposition of psalms functions as a tool for addressing implicit or explicit questions arising from a particular work. 27 As an example, Psalm 106 consists of a confession of sins, and a plea to YHWH for deliverance from exile; it closes with a request for him to gather the exiles from the nations in which he has scattered

v.47). The implicit question arising from this composition is ,” ... וְקַ בְּצֵ נוּ֘ מִֽ ן־הַ גּ֫ וֹיִ֥ם ... “) them

“how did God respond to the plea?” Following this psalm, Psalm 107, a song of thanksgiving, וּֽמֵאֲרָ צ֗ וֹת קִ֫בְּצָ ֥ם מִמִּ זְרָ ֥ ח “) distinctly states that God has gathered people from foreign lands

v.3). By placing them in this particular order, the editor uses the latter ,” וּמִֽמּ8ֲַרָ ֑ ב מִצָּפ֥ וֹן וּמִיָּ ֽם׃ psalm to answer a question in the former. In another example of this phenomenon, we see a series of explicit questions asked in Psalm 77:8-10, which all raise doubts concerning YHWH’s faithfulness and the extent of his mercy. Following on from this, Psalm 78 demonstrates that even though his people persistently rebel and sin against him, and he duly punishes them for it, YHWH’s faithfulness does indeed last for generations.

27 This idea is by no means new; Zakovitch (1995) cites examples from the Abraham narratives.

Page <324> Conclusions

Juxtaposition of psalms also permits the development of ideas and themes. The positioning of Psalms 104-106 exemplify this idea, where a consecutive reading reveals a development in historical continuity from Creation (Psalm 104) through to the Exodus, up to the Southern Kingdom’s exile (Psalm 106). A similar degree of continuity exists between Psalms 77 and 79. The former begins recounting God’s magnificent works performed on behalf of his people at the Sea. Following this, Psalm 78 continues detailing the great deeds that God wrought for Israel and describes incidents up until the rejection Ephraim (possibly a representative of the Northern Kingdom). Psalm 79 then continues by recalling a later event, the exile of Judah and destruction of Jerusalem. In a similar vein, the juxtaposition of Psalms 134 and 135 develop the idea of praise. The first one, only three verses long, exhorts the listeners to praise God but fails to detail any of his works. 28 As a logical development to this, Psalm 135 continues by listing numerous factors that exalt YHWH over the gods of the nations, and thus provides a rationale for worshiping him.

* * *

Thus, I would like to conclude this section by stating that the work performed by the psalmists and redactors mentioned above constitutes clear examples of inner-biblical interpretation. Such interpretation occurs when a biblical author knowingly and actively influences the meaning or perception of his source text when transferring it into a new context. 29 Concerning the psalmists, each one would have read and understood his source one way, and, to varying degrees, altered the meaning when rewriting it. As shown, sometimes these alterations were relatively minor, and at other times they were more significant. With respect to the editors and redactors of the Psalter, the earlier paragraphs demonstrate that a similar process of interpretation occurred. Instead of using individual verses from their repository of biblical literature, however, the editors of the Psalter drew from complete psalms. Even though they were probably limited in their ability to alter their source material, they still apparently changed isolated words and phrases, and positioned their sources in such a way as to affect their readers’ understanding of the text. Thus, we can conclude that both the

28 These two concepts are often found together in Hymns; s. Gunkel and Begrich (1998:26-34). 29 McKenzie (1999:338) similarly defines inner-biblical interpretation as, “The process of reuse, reinterpretation, and reapplication of previous texts from within the Hebrew Bible”. His definition clearly resonates with the examples mentioned above.

Page <325> Conclusions psalmists and the editors of the Psalter should be classed as biblical exegetes, and their works be defined as inner-biblical interpretation.

THE PSALMISTS ’ USE OF THE EXODUS MOTIF

SHARED CONCEPTIONS OF THE EXODUS Together with the numerous alterations and adaptations performed by the psalmists, we should remember that each author bore fundamental conceptions about the Exodus motif. Irrespective of how these conceptions were expressed in the individual psalms, each composer recognized three aspects of the Exodus motif: first, it was a miraculous event in which YHWH intervened directly into the realms of men; second, the benefits of the intervention were exclusively to Israel; third, the interventions on Israel’s behalf were undeserved. Concerning the miraculous and supernatural acts in the Exodus, each author recognized that it was initiated by YHWH as an act of undeserved favor. The desired response to this undeserved favor varied for each work. Psalm 136, for example, employed it to encourage gratitude and induce an attitude of praise, whereas Psalm 105 employed it to encourage obedience. Even though each psalmist used it for a different purpose, the element of undeserved kindness is nevertheless ever-present. Regarding the relationship between these acts and the nation of Israel, each of the selected works reflects, to one degree or another, that God performed the deeds exclusively for the sake of his people. The psalms portrayed in this study patently reveal that the Exodus was an event benefitting Israel only, and other nations are therefore portrayed as enemies and obstructers of YHWH’s plans for his people. For the most part, the role of the other nations was adopted by Egypt and the Canaanites, but Psalm 105 also alludes to individuals such as Laban and the King of Gerar. In every instance, however, the non-Israelites are constantly portrayed as being rebuked, plagued, or killed.

THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE PSALMIST AND THE EXODUS In each of the selected compositions, the extent to which the psalmists sought to be associated and identified with the Exodus generation varied. Even though the degree to which they linked themselves to their forefathers’ acts varied only slightly, it is nevertheless possible to discern differences in the interaction reflected in the psalms. In certain circumstances, the psalmists detached themselves and their generation from the Exodus events, whereas at other times, the message they desired to convey demanded a much closer association between the

Page <326> Conclusions wilderness generation and the psalmist’s generation. In order to clarify this phenomenon, it is prudent to turn to the two opposite ends of the spectrum, Psalms 78 and 106. The best example of the intimacy with which the psalmists associated themselves, and their generation, to the Exodus generation appears in Psalm 106. Within this composition, the psalmist conceives a timeless continuum and chain of behavior that began with the Israelites stay in Egypt, and continued through to his lifetime and his present reality. In this conception, no distinction is made between the desert generation and his own, a fact evident from v.6, Here, the first-person common plural verbs closely .” חָטָ ֥ אנוּ 8ִ ם־אֲ בוֹתֵ֗ ינוּ ה8ֱֶוִ֥ ינוּ הִרְשָׁ 8ְֽ נוּ׃“ associate the psalmist’s generation with the transgressing forefathers; no distinction appears between the two generations with regard to sin. For the psalmist, all of Israel, past and present, is united together as a people who inherently rebel against God in spite of all he does for them. Because of the psalm’s confessional purposes, it was essential for the psalmist to link intimately all of Israel’s generations in this way. Contrasting the above example is Psalm 78. Within the psalm, the psalmist endeavors to fabricate a temporal and behavioral distance between his generation and that of the Exodus. One of the main purposes of the psalm is to warn his generation not to abuse God’s kindness by rebelling against his laws. In order to emphasize this point, the psalmist separates the sinful behavior of the past generations. At the time of writing the psalm, the psalmist’s generation were not yet guilty of the forefathers’ crimes and so it was necessary to create a degree of separation between the desert generation and the psalmist’s audience.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE EXODUS Though the relationships between the psalmists and their audiences varied between the psalms, in each composition, the events of the Exodus were never viewed as empty meaningless history. The Exodus may indeed have transpired hundreds of years before the psalmists penned their compositions, but the event carried concrete implications for the psalmists and their generations. Such implications are reflected in each psalm’s purpose. Because the close reading performed in the body of the research has already detailed the purposes of each composition, I shall provide only a brief summary here. For Psalm 78, the Exodus, along with excerpts from other historical narratives, functioned as a justification for the psalmist’s, and his generation’s, present reality. He employed it to ratify the selection of Judah, and David as God’s anointed king and leader of Israel. This was coupled with a justification and explanation of why Ephraim was rejected by

Page <327> Conclusions

YHWH. Because YHWH had employed supernatural acts to deliver Israel from Egypt and lead them to Canaan in Psalm 105, it was incumbent upon the psalmist’s generation to obey all of God’s commands as a response to the benevolence YHWH showed the psalmist’s forefathers. In Psalm 106, the Exodus constituted a history of sin and rebellion that began in Egypt and continued to the psalmist’s day. For the psalmist, the most significant implication was that he himself should stand before God, even as those before him such as Moses and Phinehas had, and confess these sins in the hope that YHWH would show himself merciful and return Israel from captivity. The psalmist depends on YHWH’s past faithfulness and mercy to found his plea for the nation’s deliverance. Psalm 135 employed the Exodus as an example of God’s omnipotence and supremacy over the gods of the nations. YHWH’s dominance over Creation generally, and Israel’s enemies specifically, were starkly contrasted with the inabilities of the nations’ idols. For the psalmist, here, the biggest implication came to his generation: in light of the comparison, they now were forced to choose whom they should serve. In the last of the selected psalms, Psalm 136, the past events of the Exodus primarily formed the basis for the psalmist’s generation to praise God for what he has done and his eternally merciful disposition towards his people, Israel. In each instance cited above, a lucid cause-and-effect relationship appears between the events of the Exodus and the psalmist (and his generation).

THE EXODUS AS A DIDACTIC MOTIF From the research on the selected psalms, it is possible to conclude that four of the psalmists have employed the Exodus motif as a means of imparting wisdom to its readers (only Psalm 136 lacks associations to wisdom literature). In this sense, the selected psalms can, to a certain degree at least, be associated with biblical wisdom literature. Here, I am using the term in its broadest sense, referring to literature that provides a guide by which its readers may conduct their lives. 30 Within such literature, according to Clifford, the authors “…sought to instruct the next generation, to solve specific problems…hand on ancestral traditions.” 31 Even though the degree to which four of the selected psalms varies with respect to their correspondence with the above definition, the associations are nevertheless evident. As witnessed from the close reading, Psalm 78 contained a significant amount of vocabulary that frequently appeared in biblical wisdom literature. Additionally, the first

30 See Fohrer (1974:313f.), who describes Psalm 78’s connection to wisdom literature in these terms. 31 See Clifford (1994:8). According to this broad definition, all of the selected psalms could be described as wisdom literature because they all hand down ancestral traditions to future generations.

Page <328> Conclusions section repeatedly emphasized the importance of reciting the heroic deeds of YHWH to subsequent generations. For the psalmist, the specific heroic acts that needed to be recited were primarily those performed during the Exodus (s. for example vv.23-25 and 44-51). In addition to the acts of the Exodus, the psalmist also raised the importance of reciting the laws that God had instituted to future generations (v.5). For the psalmist, recital of these issues ensured that future generations would be obedient to the laws of YHWH. This principle becomes evident through the psalm’s emphasis on the desert generation, which did not remember the works YHWH performed for them, even though they were temporally closer, and as a result, they were unfaithful to him and disobeyed his laws (s. vv.8, 10, and 37). Unlike Psalm 78, Ps 105 contains much less in the way of vocabulary specifically linked to wisdom traditions. In spite of this, its overall message resonates with wisdom ideals. 32 Psalm 105 teaches Israel why YHWH manipulated individuals, nations, and Creation in order to grant them the land of Canaan. These were conditional acts; Israel also had a responsibility to obey his laws. Consequently it is possible to understand the psalm as an incentive to live righteously, according to God’s laws. Psalm 106 only contains a single word v.3), however, like Psalm 78, it calls on the Exodus) אשרי ,associating it to wisdom literature motif as a negative behavioral example demonstrating an ungrateful response to God’s benevolence. Because the psalm lucidly demonstrates that persistent disobedience ultimately leads to exile, the psalm serves as an incentive to contemporaneous and future generations to be fully obedient to God’s laws and always remember the miraculous deeds he performed on their behalf by responding accordingly. Finally, Psalm 135 is least recognized as being associated with wisdom literature, and yet its message, particularly with regards to its structure, resonates with wisdom ideals. Via a comparison between the abilities of YHWH and those of the nations’ idols, the psalm presents its listeners with a choice. They must decide whether to choose YHWH, and be blessed as a result, or choose the idols of the nations, that are impotent and whose followers are as useless as them (v.18). In presenting the readers with this choice, the psalm recalls the two paths of the righteous and the wicked that often appear in wisdom literature. The righteous ultimately progress to a blessed future, whereas the wicked are destined for destruction. Perhaps the best example of these destinies appears in Psalm 1, which similarly recalls the fates of the wicked and the righteous (those who follow YHWH) as an incentive to obedience. Even though Ps

32 Incidentally, both Fohrer (1974:313f.) and Eissfeldt (1966:125) include Psalm 105 as belonging to the genre of Wisdom Poetry.

Page <329> Conclusions

135 is not specific in employing the terminology of wisdom literature, the connection is nevertheless evident.

RESTRICTED USAGE OF THE EXODUS MOTIF At this point, it is only appropriate to mention two purposes for which the Exodus motif is not used. The first, constitutes the antitheses of what we have already discussed with regard to the shared conceptions of the Exodus. Just as the psalmists all conceived the Exodus as a community affair, it is also worthwhile to state explicitly that the Exodus is never adopted on an individual level. The psalmists never employ the Exodus motif to state or describe a process that takes place in the life of an individual. Though it may initially seem strange that an author would take a community event and transform it to apply to an individual, this exact process takes place in later literature. In the New Testament, clear echoes of the Exodus tradition, which relate to a corporate experience, are adopted and applied to Jesus, an individual. 33 Second, and perhaps more surprising, is that the Exodus motif never adopts on an eschatological meaning for the psalmists. This is more surprising because in the Second Temple period there was an intense atmosphere of messianic expectation, 34 and the inauguration of a messianic kingdom. Admittedly, a very slight eschatological theme can be detected from Psalm 105’s merging of the Egyptian exodus with the Babylonian exodus. Realistically, however, the psalmist is simply reflecting his own historical reality in which God has already been faithful in returning the remnants of Israel to their land. In the New Testament again, however, we clearly see elements of the plagues’ tradition from Exodus recast into a context describing future events. Revelation 16 recalls: sores (v.2), the sea turning to blood (v.3), darkness (v.10), frogs (v.13), and hail (v.21).

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CREATION AND EXODUS Because none of the selected psalms exclusively depends on the Exodus motif, a number of other motifs and allusions to other biblical traditions frequently arise. The most prominent of these associations is to Creation, which should not come as a total surprise because biblical literature frequently unites the two motifs. 35 With respect to the selected psalms, associations

33 See Matt 2:15, which alludes to Hos 11:1 describing God leading Israel out of Egypt. 34 See Mitchell (2006:529). 35 Often in biblical literature authors portray the events of the exodus, especially the crossing of the sea, in terms reminiscent of a . The description found in Ps 77, before the amendment in the last verse, relates

Page <330> Conclusions with the Creation motif appear in different formats with varying degrees of intensity. With Psalm 105, the first hint towards the motif appears in the psalmist’s reorganization of the plagues into a sequence that partially reflects the Creation order. By placing darkness first and the killing of the firstborn last, the psalmist recalls the order of God dispelling darkness first, and creating man last during the six days of Creation. Another link to Creation concerns the placement of Psalm 104—a psalm celebrating YHWH’s work in Creation—immediately before Psalm 105, an Exodus psalm. In this instance, an arranger of the Psalter forged the nexus. Psalm 135:7 explicitly details God working in Creation, although the specific aspect of Creation intimated differs from the previous example because it depicts YHWH’s ongoing work in Creation, raising clouds and making lightning for the rain. Like Psalm 135, Psalm 136 additionally includes a reference to Creation within the body of the psalm. The latter psalm devotes five verses to the motif, vv.5-9, as opposed to one, and references God’s primordial work of Creation. With the associations between Creation and the selected psalms established, a more pressing question arises: how do the psalmists use Creation to support the Exodus motif? In Psalm 105 the Creation motif lends to the idea of an unraveling in the cosmic order that YHWH initiated against Egypt. Even though the plagues are depicted in a relatively harmless manner in this psalm, the depth and meaning of the work YHWH performed is intensified because he is portrayed as reversing the Creation order against the Egyptians. Instead of setting order to chaos, as in the Creation account, he reverts their land to primordial chaos by removing the rules that define and maintain the created order in their lives. This imagery enhances the plagues’ narrative and demonstrates the extent to which God was willing to act on behalf of his people: he was willing to undo Creation for their sake. The further association between Psalms 104 and 105, for the redactor, sets the Exodus events, in addition to the earlier patriarchal narratives, into its correct historical context. Moreover, it strengthens the comparison between the order instigated in Creation and the disorder wrought in the lives of the Egyptians. In Psalm 135, the psalmist recalls God’s work in Creation in what could be described as part of a curriculum vitae listing YHWH’s achievements. Adding to the achievements in Creation, the psalmist cites YHWH’s work in the exodus to exemplify God’s power and first to Creation, but was adjusted to create an Exodus psalm. Concerning Ps 77:16-19, Tate (1990:275) states, “The language of v.17 reflects the ancient motif of a divine struggle with chaotic forces in bringing forth creation”. Similar examples of authors combining these motifs occur in Ex 15:5-10, Is 51:9-11, 63:12-14, and Ps 114:3-5 (concerning Psalm 114, s. Allen [2002:142]). Furthermore, Nehemiah 9 directly links the two themes in a single prayer.

Page <331> Conclusions abilities. Such credentials constitute a critical part of the psalmist’s work as he constructs a case to emphasize and prove YHWH’s might and superiority over the idols of the nations. Thus for the psalmist, Creation represents an act of power and might that is comparable to that of the Exodus, and that establishes YHWH preeminent among the gods. Another function of Creation in Psalm 135 is to serve as a warrant for God’s further actions in the psalm. By including the fact that YHWH bears sole responsibility for sustaining the created order, the psalmist justifies God’s authority to apportion land as he sees fit. Verse 12 in the psalm recalls how YHWH bestowed the land of Og and Sihon to Israel as an inheritance. Just as the Creation story in Genesis can be understood as setting a literary stage for the events of the Exodus, so too in Psalm 136 it creates a background for the Exodus events in the psalm. By partially recounting Creation events, ending with the creation of nocturnal celestial bodies, the psalmist creates a nighttime scene that recalls the night that the angel of death passed through the midst of Egypt smiting their firstborn. Thus, the darkness of night constitutes a literary nexus between the motifs and establishes the setting for the striking of Egypt’s firstborn. Additionally, the inclusion of Creation extends the timeframe referred to within the composition. Instead of recalling acts from the Exodus to the psalmist’s era, God’s works are reflected as reaching all the way back to the dawn of time. In extending the temporal framework, the psalmist better reflects the eternal aspect of God’s grace, the primary purpose for writing the psalm.

REJECTED TRADITIONS A notable observation concerning the psalmists’ use of the Exodus is that they fail to recall all of the accounts and sub-motifs retelling Israel’s deliverance and the desert wandering period. 36 At this point, one can only hypothesize potential reasons for these omissions. With respect to the rebellion instigated by Aaron and Miryam against Moses in Num 12, its omission is relatively easy to understand because it did not constitute an instance of national rebellion. The event consists of an isolated incident in which Aaron and Miryam worked alone, without a group of followers. A similarly understandable omission concerns that of Bilaam and Balak in Num 22-24. Within this narrative, Israel does not actively participate in events, and the incident unfolds without their knowledge of it. With regards to Israel’s complaining in Num 21 that led to them being punished via God sending poisonous in their midst, it is possible to see how this narrative resonates

36 See the introduction for a list of the main sub-motifs.

Page <332> Conclusions with the message of Psalm 106, which seems to recall all instances of national rebellion. The reason for its omission, however, probably relates to the means by which Israel’s deliverance came, the bronze snake. Throughout the psalm, idolatry constitutes a sin that is heavily denounced (s. Ps 106:19-23, 28-31, 34-42 ); consequently, it would prove counterproductive for the psalmist to mention an image resembling an idol that provides a means of deliverance for Israel. Even though an allusion to the provision of water in the desert appears in two of the selected psalm, none of them recalls the incident at Marah (Ex 15:22-26), when the bitter waters were made potable through the intervention of Moses and God. Two potential reasons exist that would explain why an author would fail to recall them. First, the account is not presented as a serious instance of rebellion, but as a test that God designed to aid the Israelites in trusting him for future assistance. Due to this presentation of the event, it is not entirely suitable for the psalms focusing on national rebellion (78 and 106). Second, the event is portrayed more as a natural phenomenon. Moses, albeit through God’s direction, finds a natural solution to the problem of an undrinkable water supply, by throwing wood into the river. This incident is far less dramatic and indicative of divine power than that of YHWH causing an abundant water supply to materialize from a dry rock in the desert. When one reads the Exodus tradition as it appears in the Pentateuch from beginning to end, perhaps the most dominant aspect of the account is the lawgiving at Sinai. This incident in many ways constitutes the crux of the Pentateuchal account. It represents the time in which the physical descendants of Abraham enter into a covenant with YHWH, and the nation of Israel receives its legal and cultic rules for establishing its society in the Promised Land. Notwithstanding its prominence in the Pentateuch, none of the selected psalms specifically narrates the event, describing both God’s presentation of the covenantal agreement and Israel’s acceptance. In spite of the absence of explicit covenant declarations, it is nevertheless evident that the lawgiving at Sinai was known to each of the psalmists. Even though it is not specifically mentioned in detail, it is alluded to in four of the selected psalms (Pss 78, 105, 106, and 135), and the psalmist’s knowledge of it evidently influenced their recounting of the Exodus tradition. Perhaps the clearest evidence of lawgiving occurs in Ps 78. Even though this composition passes over the event in its narration of the desert itinerary, it does state in its introduction that YHWH established his laws for Jacob and his statutes for Israel (v.5). This act can be understood as one half of the two-way process of the Sinai covenant agreement.

Page <333> Conclusions

The psalm fails to mention Israel accepting the laws, and the people becoming a special possession to YHWH from among the other nations. Further evidence of the law’s influence on the psalmist appears when he describes Israel’s sin. In v.37 he states that Israel was not faithful to YHWH’s covenant, and further in v.56 they did not keep his decrees. In both of these instances, legal terminology describing the laws given at Sinai is echoed in the psalmist recitation of exodus events. Psalm 105 similarly avoids describing the giving of Torah between vv.38-39 in its desert narrative. At the end of the psalm, however, the Torah is plainly acknowledged as the psalmist uses the recollection of all the magnificent works attributed to YHWH in the psalm as an incentive for Israel to obey it. Overall, it is possible to understand that the psalm reflects both God selecting Israel, treating them kindly through his inherent goodness, in addition to the obligation they have to be obedient to him (v.45). Though no recollection of the lawgiving appears in Psalm 106, even though it recalls some of the events transpiring at Horeb, transgressions of these laws are cited by the psalmist. The wording of vv.35, 36, and 38 all indicate a knowledge of laws given at Mt. Sinai. Finally, Ps 135 mentions part of the lawgiving process at Sinai, God selecting Israel as a treasured possession from among the other nations. This record of the event, however, is only partial, and the Israelites agreement to this covenant, and its implications, are never recited. Interestingly enough, the subsequent denouncement of idols in the psalm is not based on religious legislation, but on existential observations concerning the nature of the idols. Israel’s battle with Amalek (Ex 17:8-16), which never appears in the selected Exodus psalms 37 is notable because opportunities arise in which the battle could have been successfully employed in at least one of the psalms. On one hand, it could be viewed positively as an example of YHWH assisting Israel in battle, even though his presence during the incident is somewhat muted. 38 Consequently, we would expect to see the account in Psalms 105, 135, or 136. On the other hand, one could interpret the event as a punitive measure by God to punish the Israelites for doubting his presence among them (Ex 17:7). 39 Within this scenario, Psalms 106 could have adopted the account to contribute towards the

37 In fact, none of the Exodus psalms recalls the incident. מטה “) The text alludes to God’s presence when it depicts Moses ascending a hill with the staff of God 38 in his hand. Additionally, at the end of the incident, God declares future vengeance on the (17:9 ,” האלהים descendants of Amalek. Cassuto (1967:204) also interprets God as fighting for his people in Exodus 17, stating: “The purpose of this passage is to show that just as the Lord was concerned to deliver the children of Israel from every danger to which they were subjected by the forces of inanimate nature, even so He was concerned to deliver them from the power of human beings who rose up in hostility…”. 39 For proponents of this view, see Rashi (s. Katzenelenbogen [1993:215]), followed by Zakovitch (1992:37f.).

Page <334> Conclusions picture of Israel’s persistent rebellion and punishment. In either event, one would expect at least an allusion to the tradition in one of the psalms. The final omission we shall discuss concerns the account of the God-fearing midwives in Ex 1:15-21. Rather than perform Pharaoh’s command to kill all of the male Hebrew children, the midwives preserve them, and YHWH subsequently rewards their actions. This omission is notable because the account does appear among the sectarian writings of Qumran. The scroll 4Q422 40 extensively utilizes two of the selected psalms, 78 and 105, to retell the Exodus, and includes a reference to the midwives account. Of all the psalms examined in this study, Psalm 105 was best suited for the account because it emphasized the protection of the Patriarchs and Israel from numerous forms of harm. In spite of this, the psalmist failed to include it in his composition. One can only speculate that the psalmist’s overwhelming emphasis on depicting YHWH’s acts for Israel caused him to exclude an account in which the efforts of man enabled deliverance for God’s people.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO PSALMS RESEARCH

The present study sheds new light on the work of biblical psalmists, specifically concerning the composers’ skill in transforming his biblical source texts into their reworked contexts. More than simply cutting and pasting sections of the source material into a psalm, the psalmists demonstrated a tangible degree of exegesis during the work of composition. This study has demonstrated that the psalmists’ work is that of a biblical interpreter, one who has reinterpreted and reapplied source material from one context, with one meaning, into a new context reflecting a different meaning. As a result of this discovery, the study extends the field of inner-biblical interpretation to include more of the psalms. For the most part, scholars have focused on the work of the Law and Prophets when investigating instances of exegesis between source and target texts within the Bible. Even though certain scholars have investigated isolated psalms concerning this phenomenon, 41 the Psalter has generally been neglected. The present study’s primary focus on the psalms, and its conclusions demonstrate

40 This scroll, also known as 4QParaphrase of Genesis and Exodus , recounts a series of events from Creation through to the striking of the Egyptians’ firstborn. Among the more notable incidents it includes are: the creation of the world, the fall, the flood, the righteous midwives, the commissioning of Moses, and the plagues. In addition to Genesis and Exodus, as mentioned above, the scroll also relies on Pss 78 and 105 for its recital of events. See Martínez (1998:855f.). 41 See the section on research in related fields in the Introduction.

Page <335> Conclusions that the Psalter constitutes a rich, and to date, unappreciated source for the research of inner- biblical interpretation. This study predominantly concurs with previous estimates of the dates of the selected psalms, and thus further supports them. A more important contribution to the dating of biblical texts effected by the present research concerns the addition of the linguistic methodologies. For the most part, scholars, when dating the selected psalms, have relied upon more subjective methods for dating. The present study, in contrast, adopts the more traditional techniques for dating and employs them together with more recent developments in linguistic techniques. This study additionally introduces the system of weighting dating evidence into primary and secondary categories. In doing so, not all evidence is viewed equal. As a result of adopting this system of evaluating data, it is possible to resolve potential conflicts that may arise in the dating evidence. To date, the majority of research on the selected psalms has primarily focused on the literary-historical data found therein. Though researchers have indeed been diligent in identifying the selected psalms as a group, their efforts have focused on the echoes of the Exodus tradition found within them. For the most part, scholarship has focused on these allusions to determine the origins and development of the Exodus tradition. In doing so, the psalms themselves have remained unappreciated as independent works that were woven together with a specific purpose in mind. The poetics employed within such works have seldom been noticed or fully appreciated, and few have highlighted the skill and careful consideration each psalmist invested in his work. As a response, the present research has focused on the aforementioned areas; consequently, it contributes significantly towards our understanding of the poetics involved in creating historiography, and further demonstrates that even though the psalmists drew from a vast repository of literary strands, they were careful in weaving them together to form a coherent and unified literary tapestry. The present study sheds further light on the close relationships existing between individual psalms. Overall, the tendency for modern scholarship leans towards analyzing each psalm as an independent unit bearing no relationship to the neighboring works. The results of the present study clearly demonstrate, or at least further confirm, that concrete links, which cannot be explained by chance or coincidence, exist between psalms in the Psalter. In certain instances, these links were both lexical and interpretive, while at other times, even though

Page <336> Conclusions lexical associations were not forthcoming, interpretive links were present. 42 By revealing the aforementioned associations between the psalms, the study compels us to alter our perception of the Psalter’s arrangement, forcing us to understand it as an example of biblical interpretation. In the same way that the psalmists reworked their sources, affecting the meaning therein, so too the arrangers and editors of the Psalter reworked the material in their possession to create new valances of meaning from older texts. Even though the data gained from the analysis of the Exodus sources were somewhat limited, they can form the basis for further research into the composition of the Pentateuch. The area of research most affected by the present study concern the date of the Pentateuch’s final composition. The possible presence of all four sources in Psalms 78 and 106 suggest that the proposed sources of the Pentateuch were already united at the time the psalms were composed—the earliest of these, Ps 78, was written between the reign of Josiah and the Exile. Furthermore, Psalm 106’s recognition of the Song of the Sea being united with the prose tradition in Exodus 14 demonstrates that the song not only existed at the time of the Exile, but had also already been inserted into the Exodus narrative. I must at this point reiterate again, however, that the constrained focus of the present study, the Exodus motif, limits the reliability of this discovery, and future research is necessary to take full advantage of this data.

42 To date, even though scholars have identified the phenomenon of lexical and thematic association between biblical texts, few have developed this idea further to reveal interpretational links forged by the associations. This developmental work constitutes another contribution to the field of Psalms studies made by the present study.

Page <337> Appendices

APPENDIX A—PSALM 78

Ps 78:13 בָּ ֣קַ ע יָ֭ם וַיַּ 8ֲֽבִ ירֵ ֑ ם וַ ֽ יַּצֶּ ב־מַ ֥יִם כְּ מוֹ־נֵ ֽד ׃

Ex 14:16 16 ֞ וְאַתָּה הָרֵ ֣ ם אֶ ֽ ת־מַטּBְ֗ וּנְטֵ ֧ ה אֶ ת־יָדְ B֛ 8ַ ל־הַיָּ ֖ם וּבְק8ֵָ ֑הוּ וְיָבֹ֧ אוּ בְנֵ ֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ ֛ ל בְּת֥ וֹF םהַיָּ֖ בַּ יַּבָּשָׁ ֽ ה׃

Ex 15:8 8 וּבְר֤ וּ\ַ אַפֶּיB֙֙ נֶ 8ֶ֣רְ מוּ מַ֔ יִם נִצְּב֥ וּ כְ מוֹ־נֵ ֖ד נֹזְלִ ֑ ים קָ ֽ פְא֥ וּ תְ הֹמֹ֖ ת בְּלֶ ב־ יָ ֽם׃

Ps 78:14 וַיַּנְחֵ ֣ ם בּ8ֶָנָ ֣ ן יוֹמָ ֑ ם וְכָ ל־ הַ֜ לַּ֗ יְלָ ה בְּא֣ וֹר אֵ ֽ שׁ׃

Ex 13:21 21 וַ ֽיהוָ֡ ה הֹלFֵ֩ לִפְנֵ יהֶ ם֙ יוֹמָ֜ ם בּ8ְַמּ֤ וּד 8ָ נָן֙ לַנְ חֹתָ ֣ ם הַדֶּ֔רֶ F וְלַ ֛יְלָ ה בּ8ְַמּ֥ וּד אֵ ֖ שׁ לְהָאִ ֣ יר לָהֶ ֑ ם לָלֶ ֖כֶ ת יוֹמָ ֥ ם וָלָ ֽיְלָ ה׃

Ps 78:15 יְבַקַּ ֣ ע צֻ֭רִ ים בַּמִּדְבָּ ֑ר וַ֜יַּ֗שְׁ קְ כִּתְ הֹמ֥ וֹת רַבָּ ֽ ה׃

Num 20:8 8 קַ ֣ ח אֶ ת־הַמַּטֶּ֗ ה וְהַקְהֵ ֤ ל אֶ ת־ה8ֵָדָה֙ אַתָּה֙ וְאַהֲ רֹ֣ ן אָחִ֔ יB וְדִ בַּרְתֶּ ֧ ם אֶ ל־הַסֶּ ֛לַ ע ל8ְֵ ינֵ יהֶ ֖ ם וְנָתַ ֣ ן מֵ ימָ ֑ יו וְ הוֹצֵ אתָ֙ לָהֶ ֥ ם

מַ יִ֙ם֙ מִ ן־הַסֶּ֔ לַ ע וְהִשְׁקִ יתָ ֥ אֶ ת־ה8ֵָדָ ֖ ה וְאֶ ת־בּ8ְִ ירָ ֽ ם׃

Ps 78:19 19 וַ ֽ יְדַ בְּר֗ וּ בֵּ ֽ אN֫הִ ֥ ים אָ֭מְ רוּ הֲ י֣וּכַ ל אֵ ֑ ל לַ 8ֲ רֹ֥ F שֻׁ֜ לְחָ֗ ן בַּמִּדְבָּ ֽ ר׃

Num 21:5 5 וַיְדַבֵּ ֣ר ה8ָָ֗ ם בֵּ ֽ אNהִ ים֘ וּבְ מֹשֶׁ ה֒ לָמָ ֤ ה הֶ 8ֱֽלִ יתֻנ֙וּ֙ מִמִּצְרַ ֔ יִם לָ מוּת֙ בַּמִּדְבָּ ֑ ר כִּ ֣ י אֵ ֥ ין לֶחֶ֙ם֙ וְאֵ ֣ ין מַ֔ יִ ם וְנַפְשֵׁ ֣ נוּ קָ֔צָ ה

בַּלֶּ ֖חֶ ם הַקְּ N קֵ ֽ ל׃

Ps 78:21 21 לָכֵ ֤ן׀ שָׁמַ ֥ ע יְהוָ֗ה וַ ֽ יִּתְ 8ַבָּ ֥ ר וְ֭אֵ שׁ נִשְּׂ קָ ֣ ה בְ י8ֲַ קֹ֑ ב וְגַ ם־אַ֗ ף 8ָלָ ֥ה בְ יִשְׂרָאֵ ֽ ל׃

Num 11:1-3 1 וַיְהִ ֤ י ה8ָָם֙ כְּמִתְ אֹ֣ נְנִ֔ ים רַ ֖ ע בְּאָ זְנֵ ֣י יְ הוָ ֑ה וַיִּשְׁמַ ֤ ע יְהוָה֙ וַיִּ ֣חַ ר אַפּ֔ וֹ וַתִּ ב8ְַ ר־בָּם֙ אֵ ֣ שׁ יְ הוָ֔ ה וַ תֹּ֖ אכַ ל בִּקְ צֵ ֥ ה הַ ֽמַּחֲ נֶ ֽה׃ 2

וַיִּצ8ְַ ֥ ק ה8ָָ ֖ ם אֶ ל־מֹשֶׁ ֑ ה וַיִּתְ פַּלֵּ ֤ל מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶ ל־יְהוָ֔ ה וַתִּשְׁ קַ ֖ ע הָאֵ ֽ שׁ׃3 וַיִּקְרָ ֛ א שֵׁ ֽ ם־הַמָּק֥ וֹם הַה֖ וּא תַּ ב8ְֵרָ ֑ ה כִּֽ י־ב8ֲָרָ ֥ ה בָ ֖ ם

אֵ ֥ שׁ יְהוָ ֽה׃

24 Ps 78:24 וַיַּמְטֵ֬ ר 8ֲלֵ יהֶ ֣ם מָ ֣ ן לֶאֱכֹ֑ ל וּדְ גַ ן־שָׁ֜מַ֗ יִם נָ ֣תַ ן לָ ֽ מוֹ׃

Ex 16:4 4 וַ יֹּ֤ אמֶ ר יְהוָה֙ אֶ ל־מֹשֶׁ֔ ה הִ נְנִי֙ מַמְטִ֥ יר לָ כֶ ֛ם לֶ ֖חֶ ם מִ ן־הַשָּׁמָ ֑יִם וְ יָצָא֙ ה8ָָ ֤ ם וְלָ ֽקְ וּ֙ ט דְּ בַ ר־י֣וֹם בְּ יוֹמ֔ וֹ לְמַ 8ַ֧ ן אֲ נַסֶּ ֛ נּוּ הֲ יֵלֵ F֥

בְּ תוֹרָתִ ֖ י אִ ם־לֹֽ א׃

26 Ps 78:26 יַסַּ ֣ ע קָ֭ דִ ים בַּשָּׁמָ ֑יִם וַ יְנַהֵ ֖ ג בּ8ְֻ זּ֣ וֹ תֵ ימָ ֽ ן׃

Num 11:31 31 וְר֜ וּ\ַ נָסַ ֣ ע׀ מֵאֵ ֣ ת יְהוָ֗ ה וַיָּ ֣ גָ ז שַׂ לְוִ ים֘ מִ ן־הַ יָּם֒ וַיִּטֹּ֙ שׁ 8ַ ל־הַ ֽמַּחֲ נֶ֜ ה כְּדֶ ֧רֶ F י֣וֹם כֹּ֗ ה וּכְדֶ ֤רֶ F יוֹם֙ כֹּ֔ ה סְבִ יב֖ וֹת הַ ֽמַּחֲ נֶ ֑ה

וּכְאַמָּתַ ֖ יִ ם 8ַ ל־פְּנֵ֥ י הָאָ ֽרֶ ץ׃

28 Ps 78:28 וַ֭יַּפֵּ ל בְּ קֶ ֣רֶ ב מַחֲ נֵ ֑הוּ סָ֜בִ֗ יב לְמִשְׁ כְּ נֹתָ ֽ יו׃

Num 11:31 31 וְר֜ וּ\ַ נָסַ ֣ ע׀ מֵאֵ ֣ ת ָ֗ יְהוה וַיָּ ֣ גָ ז שַׂ לְוִ ים֘ מִ ן־הַ יָּם֒ וַיִּטֹּ֙ שׁ 8ַ ל־הַ ֽ מַּחֲ נֶ֜ ה כְּדֶ ֧רֶ F י֣וֹם כֹּ֗ ה וּכְדֶ ֤רֶ F יוֹם֙ כֹּ֔ ה סְבִ יב֖ וֹת הַ ֽמַּחֲ נֶ ֑ה

Page <338> Appendices

וּכְאַמָּתַ ֖ יִ ם 8ַ ל־פְּנֵ ֥י הָאָ ֽרֶ ץ׃

Ps 78:29 29 וַ יֹּאכְל֣ וּ וַיִּשְׂ בּ8ְ֣ וּ מְ אֹ֑ ד וְ֜תַ ֽאֲ וָתָ֗ ם יָבִ֥ א לָהֶ ֽ ם׃

Num 11:4 4 וְהָ ֽ אסַפְסֻף֙ אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר בְּקִרְ בּ֔ וֹ הִתְאַ וּ֖ וּ תַּאֲוָ ֑ה וַיָּשֻׁ ֣ בוּ וַיִּבְכּ֗ וּ גַּ֚ ם בְּנֵ ֣י יִשְׂרָ אֵ֔ ל וַ יֹּ֣אמְר֔ וּ מִ֥ י יַאֲכִלֵ ֖נוּ בָּשָׂ ֽ ר׃

Ps 78:30 30 לֹא־ זָר֥ וּ מִתַּאֲ וָתָ ֑ ם ע֜ ֗ וֹד אָכְלָ ֥ ם בְּפִ יהֶ ֽ ם׃

Num 11:20 20 8ַ ֣ד׀ חֹ֣דֶ שׁ ִ֗ יָמים 8ַ ֤ ד אֲשֶׁ ר־יֵצֵא֙ מֵ ֽאַפְּכֶ֔ ם וְהָ יָ ֥ה לָכֶ ֖ם לְזָרָ ֑ א י8ַַ֗ ן כִּֽ י־מְאַסְתֶּ ֤ ם אֶ ת־יְהוָה֙ אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר בְּקִרְ בְּכֶ֔ ם וַתִּבְכּ֤ וּ

לְפָנָ יו֙ לֵ אמֹ֔ ר לָ ֥מָּ ה זֶּ ֖ה יָצָ ֥ אנוּ מִמִּצְרָ ֽ יִם׃

Ps 78:31 31 וְאַ ֤ ף אֱ Nהִי֙ ם׀ 8ָ֨לָ ֤ה בָהֶ֗ ם וַֽ֭יַּהֲ רֹג בְּמִשְׁמַ נֵּ יהֶ ֑ ם וּבַ חוּרֵ ֖ י יִשְׂרָאֵ ֣ל הִ כְרִֽ יZַ ׃

Num 11:33 33 הַבָּשָׂ֗ ר עוֹדֶנּ֙וּ֙ בֵּ ֣ין שִׁ נֵּ י הֶ֔ ם טֶ ֖רֶ ם יִכָּרֵ ֑ ת וְאַ ֤ ף יְהוָה֙ חָרָ ֣ ה ב8ָָ֔ ם וַיַּ ֤ F יְהוָה֙ בּ8ָָ֔ ם מַכָּ ֖ ה רַבָּ ֥ ה מְ אֹֽ ד׃

44 Ps 78:44 וַיַּהֲ פֹ֣ F לְ֭דָ ם יְאֹרֵ יהֶ ֑ ם וְ֜ נֹזְלֵ יהֶ֗ ם בַּ ל־יִשְׁתָּ יֽוּן׃

Ex 7:20 -21 20 וַיַּ 8ֲֽ שׂוּ־כֵן֩ מֹשֶׁה֙ וְאַהֲ רֹ֜ ן כַּאֲשֶׁ ֣ ר׀ צִוָּ ֣ה ָ֗ יְהוה וַיָּ ֤ רֶ ם בַּמַּטֶּה֙ וַיַּ ֤ F אֶ ת־הַמַּ יִ֙ם֙ אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר בַּ יְאֹ֔ ר ל8ְֵ ינֵ ֣י פַרְ עֹ֔ ה וּל8ְֵ ינֵ ֖י 8ֲבָדָ ֑ יו

וַיֵּהָ ֽפְכ֛ וּ כָּ ל־הַמַּ ֥ יִם אֲשֶׁ ר־ בַּ יְאֹ֖ ר לְדָ ֽ ם׃ 21 וְהַדָּ גָה֙ אֲשֶׁ ר־ בַּ יְ אֹ֥ ר מֵתָ֙ה֙ וַיִּבְאַ ֣ שׁ הַ יְאֹ֔ ר וְ לֹא־יָכְל֣ וּ מִצְרַ ֔ יִ ם לִשְׁתּ֥ וֹת מַ ֖יִם

מִ ן־ הַ יְאֹ֑ ר וַיְהִ֥ י הַדָּ ֖ ם בְּכָ ל־אֶ ֥רֶ ץ מִצְרָ ֽ יִ ם׃

Ps 78:45 45 יְשַׁ לַּ֬ ח בָּהֶ ֣ם 8ָ֭ רֹב וַ יֹּאכְלֵ ֑ם וּ֜צְפַרְדּZֵַ֗ וַתַּשְׁחִ יתֵ ֽ ם׃

Ex 8:17 17 כִּ ֣ י אִ ם־אֵ ינBְ֘ מְשַׁלֵּ ֣\ַ אֶ ת־8ַמִּ י֒ הִ נְנִי֩ מַשְׁ לִי֙\ַ בּBְ֜ וּבַ 8ֲבָדֶ ֧ יB וּֽב8ְַמְּ B֛ וּבְבָתֶּ ֖ יB אֶ ת־ה8ֶָ רֹ֑ ב וּמָ לְ֙א֜ וּ בָּתֵּ ֤ י מִצְרַ יִ֙ם֙

אֶ ת־הֶ 8ָ֣ רֹ֔ ב וְגַ ֥ם הָאֲדָמָ ֖ ה אֲשֶׁ ר־הֵ ֥ ם 8ָלֶ ֽיהָ ׃

Ps 78:46 46 וַיִּתֵּ ֣ ן לֶחָסִ ֣ יל יְבוּלָ ֑ם וִֽ֜ יגִ י8ָ֗ ם לָאַרְבֶּ ֽ ה ׃

Ex 10:4 4 כִּ ֛ י אִ ם־מָאֵ ֥ ן אַתָּ ֖ ה לְשַׁ לֵּ ֣\ַ אֶ ת־8ַמִּ ֑ י הִ נְנִי֙ מֵבִ֥ יא מָחָ ֛ ר אַרְבֶּ ֖ה בִּ גְבֻלֶ ֽ B׃

47 Ps 78:47 יַהֲ רֹ֣ ג בַּבָּרָ ֣ ד גַּפְנָ ֑ם וְ֜שִׁ קְ מוֹתָ֗ ם בַּ ֽחֲ נָמַ ֽ ל׃

Ex 9:25 25 וַיּFַ֙ הַבָּרָ ֜ ד בְּכָ ל־אֶ ֣רֶ ץ מִצְרַ ֗ ִ ים אֵ֚ ת כָּ ל־אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ ה מֵאָדָ ֖ ם ו8ְַ ד־בְּהֵמָ ֑ ה וְאֵת֙ כָּ ל־8ֵ ֤שֶׂ ב הַשָּׂדֶה֙ הִכָּ ֣ה הַבָּרָ ֔ ד

וְאֶ ת־כָּ ל־8ֵ ֥ ץ הַשָּׂדֶ ֖ ה שִׁבֵּ ֽ ר׃

Ps 78:48 48 וַיַּסְגֵּ ֣ר לַבָּרָ ֣ ד בּ8ְִ ירָ ֑ ם וּ֜מִקְנֵ יהֶ֗ ם לָרְשָׁפִֽ ים׃

Ex 9:23 23 וַיֵּט֙ מֹשֶׁ ֣ ה אֶ ת־מַטֵּ הוּ֘ 8ַ ל־הַשָּׁמַ יִ ם֒ וַ ֽיהוָ֗ ה נָתַ ֤ ן קNֹת֙ וּבָרָ ֔ ד וַתִּ֥הֲלַ F אֵ ֖ שׁ אָ ֑רְ צָ ה וַיַּמְטֵ ֧ ר יְהוָ ֛ה בָּרָ ֖ ד 8ַ ל־אֶ ֥רֶ ץ

מִצְרָ ֽ יִ ם׃

Ps 78:51 51 וַיַּ ֣ F כָּ ל־בְּכ֣ וֹר בְּמִצְרָ ֑יִם רֵ אשִׁ֥ ית א֜ וֹנִ֗ ים בְּאָהֳ לֵ י־חָ ֽ ם׃

Ex 12:29 29 וַיְהִ ֣ י׀ בַּחֲצִ ֣ י הַ לַּ֗ יְלָ ה וַ ֽיהוָה֘ הִכָּ ֣ה כָ ל־בְּ כוֹר֘ בְּאֶ ֣רֶ ץ מִצְרַ יִ ם֒ מִבְּ כֹ֤ ר פַּרְ ֙ עֹה הַ יֹּשֵׁ ֣ ב 8ַ ל־כִּסְא֔ וֹ 8ַ֚ ד בְּכ֣ וֹר הַשְּׁ בִ֔ י אֲשֶׁ ֖ ר

בְּבֵ ֣ית הַבּ֑ וֹר וְ כֹ֖ ל בְּכ֥ וֹר בְּהֵמָ ֽ ה׃

Page <339> Appendices

Ps 78:54 54 וַ֭יְבִ יאֵ ם אֶ ל־גְּב֣ וּל קָדְשׁ֑ וֹ הַ ר־ זֶ֗ ֜ה קָ נְתָ ֥ ה יְמִ ינֽ וֹ ׃

Ex 15:6 6 יְמִֽ ינBְ֣ יְהוָ֔ ה נֶאְדָּרִ ֖ י בַּ כֹּ֑\ַ יְמִֽ ינBְ֥ יְהוָ ֖ה תִּר8ְַ ֥ ץ אוֹיֵ ֽב׃

Ex 15:16 16 תִּ פֹּ֙ ל 8ֲלֵ ֶ ֤ יהם אֵ ימָתָ֙ה֙ וָפַ֔חַ ד בִּגְ דֹ֥ ל זְ רוֹBֲ8֖ יִדְּמ֣ וּ כָּאָ ֑בֶ ן 8ַ ד־י8ֲַ בֹ֤ ר 8ַמּBְ֙ יְ הוָ֔ ה 8ַ ֽ ד־י8ֲַ בֹ֖ ר 8ַ ם־ז֥ וּ קָנִֽ יתָ ׃

Page <340> Appendices

APPENDIX B—PSALM 105

23 Ps 105:23 וַיָּבֹ֣ א יִשְׂרָאֵ ֣ל מִצְרָ ֑יִם וְ֜י8ֲַ קֹ֗ ב גָּ ֣ר בְּאֶ ֽרֶ ץ־חָ ֽ ם׃

Ex 1:1 1 וְאֵ֗לֶּ ה שְׁ מוֹת֙ בְּנֵ ֣י יִשְׂרָ אֵ֔ ל הַבָּאִ ֖ ים מִצְרָ ֑יְמָ ה אֵ ֣ ת י8ֲַ קֹ֔ ב אִ֥ ישׁ וּבֵ ית֖ וֹ בָּ ֽ אוּ ׃

Ps 105:24 24 וַיֶּ ֣פֶ ר אֶ ת־8ַמּ֣ וֹ מְ אֹ֑ ד וַ֜יַּ 8ֲֽצִמֵ הוּ מִ צָּרָ ֽ יו׃

Ex 1:7 7 וּבְנֵ ֣י יִשְׂרָ אֵ֗ ל פָּר֧ וּ וַ ֽ יִּשְׁרְ צ֛ וּ וַיִּרְ בּ֥ וּ וַיַּ 8ַֽצְמ֖ וּ בִּמְ אֹ֣ ד מְ אֹ֑ ד וַתִּמָּלֵ ֥א הָאָ ֖רֶ ץ אֹתָ ֽ ם׃ פ

Ps 105:25 25 הָפַ F֣ לִ֭בָּ ם לִשְׂ נֹ֣ א 8ַמּ֑ וֹ לְ֜הִתְ נַכֵּ֗ ל בּ8ֲַבָדָ ֽ יו ׃

1 Ex 14:5 5 וַיֻּגַּד֙ לְמֶ ֣ לֶ F מִצְרַ ֔ יִם כִּ֥ י בָרַ ֖ ח ה8ָָ ֑ ם וַ֠יֵּהָפֵ F לְבַב֙ פַּרְ 8ֹ֤ ה ו8ֲַבָדָ יו֙ אֶ ל־ה8ָָ֔ ם וַ יֹּֽאמרוּ֙ מַ ה־זֹּ֣את 8ָשִׂ֔ ינוּ כִּֽ י־שִׁלַּ ֥חְ נוּ

אֶ ת־יִשְׂרָאֵ ֖ ל מ8ֵָבְדֵ ֽ נוּ׃

Ps 105:27 27 שָׂ ֽ מוּ־בָ֭ ם דִּ בְרֵ ֣ י אֹתוֹתָ ֑ יו וּ֜מֹפְתִ֗ ים בְּאֶ ֣רֶ ץ חָ ֽ ם׃

Ex 7:3 3 וַאֲנִ֥ י אַקְשֶׁ ֖ ה אֶ ת־לֵ ֣ב פַּרְ 8ֹ֑ ה וְהִרְ בֵּ יתִ ֧ י אֶ ת־אֹתֹתַ ֛ י וְאֶ ת־מוֹפְתַ ֖ י בְּאֶ ֥רֶ ץ מִצְרָ ֽ יִ ם׃

28 Ps 105:28 שָׁ ֣לַ ֽ ח חֹ֭שֶׁ F וַיַּחְשִׁ ֑ F וְ לֹֽ א־מָ֜ ר֗ וּ אֶ ת־( דְּ בָרָ וו ) [ דְּ בָרֽ וֹ] ׃

Ex 10:21 21 וַ יֹּ֙ אמֶ ר יְהוָ֜ ה אֶ ל־מֹשֶׁ֗ ה נְ טֵ ֤ ה יָ ֽ דְ B֙ 8ַ ל־הַשָּׁמַ֔ יִ ם וִ֥ יהִ י חֹ֖שֶׁ F 8ַ ל־אֶ ֣רֶ ץ מִצְרָ ֑יִ ם וְיָמֵ ֖ שׁ חֹֽשֶׁ F ׃

Ps 105:29 29 הָפַ F֣ אֶ ת־מֵ ימֵ יהֶ ֣ם לְדָ ֑ ם וַ֜יָּ֗מֶ ת אֶ ת־דְּ גָתָ ֽ ם ׃

Ex 7:20 -21 20 וַיַּ 8ֲֽ שׂוּ־כֵן֩ מֹשֶׁ ֙ ה וְאַהֲ רֹ֜ ן כַּאֲשֶׁ ֣ ר׀ צִוָּ ֣ה יְהוָ֗ ה וַיָּ ֤ רֶ ם בַּ מַּטֶּה֙ וַיַּ ֤ F אֶ ת־הַמַּ יִ֙ם֙ אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר בַּ יְאֹ֔ ר ל8ְֵ ינֵ ֣י פַרְ עֹ֔ ה וּל8ְֵ ינֵ ֖י 8ֲבָדָ ֑ יו

וַיֵּהָ ֽפְכ֛ וּ כָּ ל ־הַמַּ ֥ יִם אֲשֶׁ ר־בַּ יְאֹ֖ ר לְדָ ֽ ם׃ 21 וְהַדָּ גָה֙ אֲשֶׁ ר־בַּ יְאֹ֥ ר מֵתָ֙ה֙ ...

Ps 105:30 30 שָׁרַ ֣ ץ אַרְ צָ ֣ם צְפַרְדּ8ְִ ֑ ים בְּ֜חַדְרֵ ֗ י מַ לְכֵ יהֶ ֽ ם׃

Ex 7:28 28 וְשָׁרַ ֣ ץ הַ יְאֹר֘ צְפַרְדְּ 8ִ ים֒ ו8ְָ לוּ֙ וּבָ ֣ אוּ בְּבֵ יתֶ֔ B וּבַחֲדַ ֥ ר מִשְׁ כָּבBְ֖ ו8ְַ ל־מִ טָּתֶ ֑ B וּבְבֵ ֤ ית 8ֲבָדֶ יB֙֙ וּב8ְַמֶּ֔ B וּבְתַ נּוּרֶ ֖ יB

וּבְמִשְׁאֲ רוֹתֶ ֽ יB

Ps 105:31 31 אָ֭מַ ר וַיָּבֹ֣ א 8ָ רֹ֑ ב כִּ֜נִּ֗י ם בְּכָ ל ־גְּ בוּלָ ֽ ם׃

Ex 8:20 20 וַיַּ 8ַ֤ שׂ יְהוָה֙ כֵּ֔ ן וַיָּבֹא֙ 8ָרֹ֣ ב כָּבֵ֔ ד בֵּ ֥ יתָ ה פַרְ 8ֹ֖ ה וּבֵ ֣ית 8ֲבָדָ ֑ יו וּבְכָ ל ־אֶ ֧רֶ ץ מִצְרַ ֛יִם תִּשָּׁחֵ ֥ ת הָאָ ֖רֶ ץ מִפְּנֵ ֥י ה8ֶָ רֹֽ ב ׃

Ex 8 :13 13 וַיַּ 8ֲֽ שׂוּ־כֵ֗ ן וַיֵּט֩ אַהֲ רֹ֙ ן אֶ ת־יָד֤ וֹ בְמַ טֵּה֙וּ֙ וַיּFַ֙ אֶ ת־8ֲפַ ֣ר הָאָ֔רֶ ץ וַתְּהִי֙ הַכִּנָּ֔ ם בָּאָדָ ֖ ם וּבַבְּהֵמָ ֑ ה כָּ ל־8ֲפַ ֥ ר הָאָ ֛רֶ ץ הָיָ ֥ה

כִנִּ ֖ים בְּכָ ל־אֶ ֥רֶ ץ מִצְרָ ֽ יִ ם׃

Ps 105: 32 -33 32 נָתַ ֣ ן גִּשְׁמֵ יהֶ ֣ם בָּרָ ֑ ד אֵ ֖ שׁ לֶהָב֣ וֹת בְּאַרְ צָ ֽ ם׃ 33 וַיַּ ֣ F גַּ֭פְ נָ ם וּתְאֵ נָתָ ֑ ם וַ֜ יְשַׁ בֵּ֗ ר 8ֵ ֣ץ גְּ בוּלָ ֽ ם׃

1 Even though this verse speaks of slightly different circumstances, the common words still forge a viable link between the Psalm and the Exodus events recorded. See also the quote from Ex 7:3 below.

Page <341> Appendices

Ex 9:25 25 וַיּFַ֙ הַבָּרָ ֜ ד בְּכָ ל־אֶ ֣רֶ ץ מִצְרַ ֗ יִ ם אֵ֚ ת כָּ ל־אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ ה מֵאָדָ ֖ ם ו8ְַ ד־בְּהֵמָ ֑ ה וְאֵת֙ כָּ ל־8ֵ ֤שֶׂ ב הַשָּׂדֶה֙ הִכָּ ֣ה הַבָּרָ ֔ ד

וְאֶ ת־כָּ ל־ 8ֵ ֥ ץ הַשָּׂדֶ ֖ ה שִׁבֵּ ֽ ר׃

Ps 105:34 34 אָ֭מַ ר וַיָּבֹ֣ א אַרְבֶּ ֑ה וְ֜יֶ֗לֶ ק וְאֵ ֣ ין מִסְפָּ ֽ ר׃

Ex 10: 14 14 וַיַּ 8ַ֣ ל הָ ֽאַרְ בֶּ֗ ה 8ַ֚ ל כָּ ל־אֶ ֣רֶ ץ מִצְרַ ֔ יִ ם וַיָּ֕נַ ח בְּכֹ֖ ל גְּב֣ וּל מִצְרָ ֑יִ ם כָּבֵ ֣ ד מְ אֹ֔ ד לְ֠פָנָ יו לֹא־הָ יָ֙ ה כֵ ֤ן אַרְ בֶּה֙ כָּ מֹ֔ הוּ וְאַחֲרָ ֖ יו

לֹ֥ א יִֽהְ יֶה־כֵּ ֽ ן׃

35 Ps 105:35 וַ יֹּ֣אכַ ל כָּ ל־8ֵ ֣שֶׂ ב בְּאַרְ צָ ֑ם וַ֜ יֹּ֗ אכַ ל פְּרִ ֣ י אַדְמָתָ ֽ ם׃

Ex 10:15 15 וַיְכַ֞ ס אֶ ת־8ֵ ֣ין כָּ ל־הָאָרֶ ץ֘ וַתֶּחְשַׁ ֣ F הָאָרֶ ץ֒ וַ יֹּ֜ אכַ ל אֶ ת־ כָּ ל־8ֵ ֣שֶׂ ב הָאָ֗רֶ ץ וְאֵת֙ כָּ ל־ פְּרִ ֣ י ה8ֵָ֔ ץ אֲשֶׁ ֥ ר הוֹתִ ֖ יר הַבָּרָ ֑ ד

וְ לֹא־נוֹתַ ר֙ כָּ ל־יֶ ֧ רֶ ק בּ8ֵָ ֛ץ וּב8ְֵ ֥שֶׂ ב הַשָּׂדֶ ֖ ה בְּכָ ל־אֶ ֥רֶ ץ מִצְרָ ֽ יִם׃

Ps 105:38 38 שָׂמַ ֣ח מִצְרַ ֣יִם בְּצֵ אתָ ֑ ם כִּֽ י־ נָפַ ֖ ל פַּחְדָּ ֣ם 8ֲלֵ יהֶ ֽ ם ׃

Ex 15:16 16 תִּ פֹּ֙ ל 8ֲלֵ יהֶ ֤ ם אֵ ימָתָ֙ה֙ וָפַ֔חַ ד בִּגְ דֹ֥ ל זְ רוֹBֲ8֖ יִדְּ מ֣ וּ כָּאָ ֑בֶ ן 8ַ ד־י8ֲַ בֹ֤ ר 8ַמּBְ֙ יְ הוָ֔ ה 8ַ ֽ ד־י8ֲַ בֹ֖ ר 8ַ ם־ז֥וּ קָנִֽ יתָ ׃

Ps 105:40 40 שָׁאַ ֣ ל וַיָּבֵ ֣א שְׂלָ ֑ו וְלֶ ֥חֶ ם שָׁ֜מַ֗ יִם יַשְׂ בִּ י8ֵ ֽם׃

Ex 16:4 4 וַ יּ ֹ֤אמֶ ר יְהוָה֙ אֶ ל־מֹשֶׁ֔ ה הִ נְנִי֙ מַמְטִ֥ יר לָכֶ ֛ ם לֶ ֖חֶ ם מִ ן־ הַשָּׁמָ ֑יִם וְיָצָא֙ ה8ָָ ֤ ם וְלָ ֽקְ טוּ֙ דְּ בַ ר־י֣וֹם בְּ יוֹמ֔ וֹ לְמַ 8ַ֧ ן אֲ נַסֶּ ֛ נּוּ

הֲ יֵלֵ F֥ בְּ תוֹרָתִ ֖ י אִ ם־לֹֽ א׃

Ps 105:41 41 פָּ ֣תַ ח צ֭ וּר וַיָּז֣וּבוּ מָ ֑יִם הָ֜לְכ֗ וּ בַּצִּ יּ֥וֹת נָהָ ֽ ר׃

Is 48:21 21 וְ לֹ֣ א צָמְא֗ וּ בָּחֳרָ בוֹת֙ הֽ וֹלִ יכָ֔ ם מַ ֥ יִ ם מִצּ֖ וּר הִזִּ ֣יל לָ ֑מוֹ וַיִּבְ֙ קַ ע־ צ֔ וּר וַיָּזֻ ֖בוּ מָ ֽ יִ ם ׃

Ps 105:43 43 וַ יּוֹצִ ֣א 8ַמּ֣ וֹ בְשָׂשׂ֑ וֹן בְּ֜רִ נָּ֗ ה אֶ ת־בְּחִ ירָ ֽ יו׃

Is 51:11 11 וּפְ דוּיֵי֙ יְהוָ֜ ה יְ שׁוּב֗ וּן וּבָ ֤ אוּ צִ יּוֹן֙ בְּרִ נָּ֔ ה וְשִׂ מְחַ ֥ ת עוֹלָ ֖ ם 8ַ ל־רֹאשָׁ ֑ ם שָׂשׂ֤ וֹן וְשִׂמְחָה֙ יַשִּׂ יג֔ וּן נָ֖ סוּ יָג֥ וֹן וַאֲ נָחָ ֽ ה׃ ס

Page <342> Appendices

APPENDIX C—PSALM 106

Ps 106:9 9 וַיִּג8ְַ ֣ר בְּ יַם־ס֭ וּף וַ ֽ יֶּחֱרָ ֑ ב וַ יּוֹלִ יכֵ ֥ם בַּ֜תְּ הֹמ֗ וֹת כַּמִּדְבָּ ֽ ר ׃

Is 63:13 13 מוֹלִ יכָ ֖ ם בַּתְּ הֹמ֑ וֹת כַּסּ֥ וּס בַּמִּדְבָּ ֖ ר לֹ֥ א יִכָּשֵׁ ֽ לוּ׃

10 Ps 106:10 וַֽ֭יּוֹשִׁ י8ֵ ם מִ יַּ ֣ד שׂוֹנֵ ֑א וַ֜יִּגְאָ לֵ֗ ם מִ יַּ ֥ד אוֹיֵ ֽב׃

Is 63:9 9 בְּֽכָ ל־צָרָתָ ֣ ם׀( לֹא ) [ ל֣ וֹ] צָ֗ ר וּמַ לְאַ ֤ F פָּנָ יו֙ הֽ וֹשִׁ י8ָ֔ ם בְּאַהֲבָת֥ וֹ וּבְחֶמְלָת֖ וֹ ה֣ וּא גְאָלָ ֑ם וַ ֽ יְנַטְּלֵ ֥ם וַ ֽ יְנַשְּׂאֵ ֖ ם כָּ ל־יְמֵ ֥ י

עוֹלָ ֽ ם׃

11 Ps 106:11 וַיְ כַ סּוּ־מַ ֥ יִם צָרֵ יהֶ ֑ ם אֶחָ ֥ ד מֵ֜הֶ֗ ם לֹ֣ א נוֹתָ ֽ ר׃

Ex 14:28 28 וַ יָּשֻׁ ֣ בוּ הַמַּ֗ יִ ם וַיְכַסּ֤ וּ אֶ ת־הָרֶ כֶ֙ב֙ וְאֶ ת־הַפָּ ֣רָשִׁ֔ ים לְ כֹל֙ חֵ ֣ יל פַּרְ עֹ֔ ה הַבָּאִ֥ ים אַחֲרֵ יהֶ ֖ ם בַּיָּ ֑ם לֹֽ א־נִשְׁאַ ֥ ר בָּהֶ ֖ ם

8ַ ד־ אֶחָ ֽ ד׃

12 Ps 106:12 וַיַּאֲמִ֥ ינוּ בִדְ בָרָ ֑ יו יָ֜ שִׁ֗ ירוּ תְּהִלָּתֽ וֹ׃

Ex 14:31, 15:1 31 ְ ֙ וַיַּרא יִשְׂרָ אֵ֜ ל אֶ ת־הַ יָּ ֣ד הַ גְּ דֹלָ֗ ה אֲשֶׁ ר֙ 8ָשָׂ ֤ ה יְהוָה֙ בְּמִצְרַ ֔ יִם וַיִּֽירְ א֥ וּ ה8ָָ ֖ ם אֶ ת־יְהוָ ֑ה וַיַּ ֽאֲמִי֙ נוּ֙ בַּ ֽ יהוָ֔ ה וּבְ מֹשֶׁ ֖ ה

8ַבְדּֽ וֹ׃ פ 1 אָ ֣ ז יָשִֽׁ יר ־מֹשֶׁ ה֩ וּבְנֵי֙ יִשְׂרָ אֵ֜ ל אֶ ת־ הַשִּׁ ירָ ֤ ה הַ זֹּאת֙ לַ ֽ יהוָ֔ ה וַ יֹּאמְר֖ וּ לֵ אמֹ֑ ר אָשִׁ ֤ ירָ ה לַ ֽ יהוָה֙ כִּֽ י־גָ אֹ֣ ה גָּאָ֔ ה ס֥ וּס

וְ רֹכְב֖ וֹ רָמָ ֥ ה בַיָּ ֽם׃

Ps 106:14 14 וַיִּתְאַ וּ֣ וּ תַ֭אֲ וָ ה בַּמִּדְבָּ ֑ ר וַיְנַ סּוּ־אֵ֗ ֜ ל בִּֽ ישִׁ ימֽ וֹן׃

Num 11:4 4 וְהָ ֽ אסַפְסֻף֙ אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר בְּקִרְ בּ֔ וֹ הִתְאַ וּ֖ וּ תַּאֲוָ ֑ה וַ יָּשֻׁ ֣ בוּ וַיִּבְכּ֗ וּ גַּ֚ ם בְּ ֵ נ֣י יִשְׂרָ אֵ֔ ל וַ יֹּ֣אמְר֔ וּ מִ֥ י יַאֲכִלֵ ֖נוּ בָּשָׂ ֽ ר׃

Ps 106:16 וַיְקַ נְא֣ וּ לְ֭מֹשֶׁ ה בַּ ֽמַּחֲ נֶ ֑ה לְ֜אַהֲ רֹ֗ ן קְד֣ וֹשׁ יְהוָ ֽה׃

Num 16:3 וַיִּֽ קָּ הֲל֞ וּ 8ַ ל־ מֹשֶׁ ֣ ה ו8ְַ ֽ ל־ אַהֲ רֹ֗ ן וַ יּ ֹאמְר֣ וּ אֲלֵהֶ ם֘ רַ ב־לָכֶ ם֒ כִּ ֤ י כָ ל־הָ 8ֵֽדָה֙ כֻּלָּ ֣ם קְ דֹשִׁ֔ ים וּבְ תוֹכָ ֖ ם יְהוָ ֑ה וּמַדּ֥ וּZַ תִּֽתְ נַשְּׂא֖ וּ

8ַ ל־קְהַ ֥ ל יְ הוָ ֽה׃

17 Ps 106:17 תִּ פְתַּ ח־אֶ֭רֶ ץ וַתִּבְלַ ֣ע דָּתָ ֑ ן וַ֜תְּכַ֗ ס 8ַ ל־8ֲדַ ֥ ת אֲ בִ ירָ ֽ ם׃

Num 16:32 -33 32 וַתִּ פְתַּ ֤ ח הָאָרֶ ֙ץ֙ אֶ ת־פִּ֔ יהָ וַתִּבְלַ ֥ ע אֹתָ ֖ ם וְאֶ ת־בָּתֵּ יהֶ ֑ ם וְאֵ ֤ ת כָּ ל־הָאָדָם֙ אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר לְ קֹ֔רַ ח וְאֵ ֖ ת כָּ ל־הָרֲ כֽ וּשׁ׃ 33 וַיֵּרְ ֙ד֜ וּ הֵ ֣ ם

וְכָ ל־אֲשֶׁ ֥ ר לָהֶ ֛ ם חַ יִּ ֖ים שְׁ אֹ֑לָ ה וַתְּכַ ֤ס 8ֲלֵ יהֶם֙ הָאָ֔רֶ ץ וַ יֹּ אבְד֖ וּ מִתּ֥ וֹF הַקָּהָ ֽ ל׃

18 Ps 106:18 וַתִּ ב8ְַ ר־ אֵ ֥ שׁ בּ8ֲַדָתָ ֑ ם לֶ֜הָבָ֗ ה תְּ לַהֵ ֥ ט רְשׁ8ִָֽ ים׃

Num 16:35 35 וְאֵ ֥ שׁ יָצְאָ ֖ ה מֵאֵ ֣ ת יְהוָ ֑ה וַ תֹּ֗ אכַ ל אֵ ֣ ת הַחֲ מִשִּׁ ֤ ים וּמָ אתַ יִ֙ם֙ אִ֔ ישׁ מַקְרִ יבֵ ֖ י הַקְּ טֹֽרֶ ת׃ פ

Num 11:1 1 וַיְהִ ֤ י ה8ָָם֙ כְּמִתְ אֹ֣ נְנִ֔ ים רַ ֖ ע בְּאָ זְנֵ ֣י יְ הוָ ֑ה וַ יִּשְׁמַ ֤ ע יְהוָה֙ וַיִּ ֣חַ ר אַפּ֔ וֹ וַתִּ ב8ְַ ר ־בָּם֙ אֵ ֣ שׁ יְהוָ֔ ה וַ תֹּ֖ אכַ ל בִּקְצֵ ֥ ה הַ ֽמַּחֲ נֶ ֽה׃

Ps 106:19 19 יַ 8ֲ שׂוּ־8ֵ ֥גֶ ל בְּ חֹרֵ ֑ ב וַ֜יִּשְׁתַּחֲ ו֗ וּ לְמַסֵּכָ ֽ ה ׃

Deut 9:16 16 וָאֵ֗רֶ א וְהִנֵּ ֤ה חֲטָ אתֶם֙ לַ יהוָ ֣ה אֱ Nֽהֵ יכֶ֔ ם 8ֲשִׂ יתֶ ֣ ם לָכֶ֔ ם 8ֵ ֖גֶ ל מַסֵּכָ ֑ ה סַרְתֶּ ֣ ם מַהֵ֔ ר מִ ן־הַדֶּ֕רֶ F אֲשֶׁ ר־צִוָּ ֥ה יְהוָ ֖ה אֶתְכֶ ֽ ם׃

Page <343> Appendices

Ps 106:23 23 וַ יֹּ֗ אמֶ ר לְֽהַשְׁמִ֫ ידָ ֥ ם לוּלֵ֡ י מֹ֨שֶׁ ֤ ה בְחִ יר֗ וֹ 8ָמַ ֣ ד בַּפֶּ ֣רֶ ץ לְפָנָ ֑יו לְהָשִׁ֥ יב חֲ֜מָת֗ וֹ מֵ ֽהַשְׁחִֽ ית׃

Deut 9:25 25 וָ ֽאֶתְ נַ פַּ֞ ל לִפְנֵ ֣י יְהוָ֗ ה אֵ ֣ ת אַרְ בּ8ִָ֥ ים הַ יּ֛וֹם וְאֶ ת־אַרְ בּ8ִָ֥ ים הַלַּ ֖יְלָ ה אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר הִתְ נַפָּ ֑לְתִּ י כִּֽ י־ אָמַ ֥ ר יְהוָ ֖ה לְהַשְׁמִ֥ יד אֶתְכֶ ֽ ם׃

Ezek 22:30 30 וָאֲבַקֵּ ֣ שׁ מֵהֶ֡ ם אִ ֣ ישׁ גֹּֽדֵ ר־גָּ דֵ ר֩ וְ עֹמֵד֙ בַּפֶּ ֧רֶ ץ לְפָנַ ֛י בְּ ַ ֥ 8ד הָאָ ֖רֶ ץ לְבִלְתִּ ֣ י שַׁחֲתָ ֑ הּ וְ לֹ֖ א מָצָ ֽ אתִ י׃

Ps 106:24 24 וַֽ֭יִּמְאֲ סוּ בְּאֶ ֣רֶ ץ חֶמְדָּ ֑ ה לֹֽ א־ הֶ֜אֱמִ֗ ינוּ לִדְ בָרֽ וֹ ׃

Deut 1:32 32 וּבַדָּבָ ֖ ר הַזֶּ ֑ה אֵ ֽ ינְכֶם֙ מַאֲמִ ינִ֔ ם בַּ יהוָ ֖ה אֱ Nהֵ יכֶֽ ם׃

Ps 106:25 25 וַיֵּרָ גְנ֥ וּ בְאָהֳ לֵ יהֶ ֑ ם לֹ֥ א שָׁ֜מְע֗ וּ בְּק֣ וֹל יְהוָ ֽה׃

Deut 1:27 27 וַתֵּרָ גְנ֤ וּ בְאָהֳלֵ יכֶם֙ וַ תֹּ֣ אמְר֔ וּ בְּ שִׂ נְאַ ֤ ת יְהוָה֙ אֹתָ֔ נוּ הוֹצִ יאָ ֖ נוּ מֵאֶ ֣רֶ ץ מִצְרָ ֑יִ ם לָתֵ ֥ ת אֹתָ ֛ נוּ בְּיַ ֥ד הָאֱ מֹרִ ֖ י לְהַשְׁמִ ידֵ ֽ נוּ

Ps 106:26 26 וַיִּשָּׂ ֣ א יָד֣ וֹ לָהֶ ֑ ם לְהַפִּ ֥ יל א֜ וֹתָ֗ ם בַּ מִּדְבָּ ֽ ר ׃

Num 14:29-30 29 בַּ מִּדְבָּ ֣ ר הַ֠ זֶּ ה יִפְּ לוּ֙ פִ גְרֵ ֜ יכֶם וְכָ ל־פְּקֻדֵ יכֶם֙ לְכָ ל־מִסְפַּרְ כֶ֔ ם מִבֶּ ֛ן 8ֶשְׂ רִ֥ ים שָׁ נָ ֖ה וָמָ 8ְ֑לָ ה אֲשֶׁ ֥ ר הֲלִֽ ינֹתֶ ֖ ם 8ָלָ ֽ י׃ 30

אִ ם־אַתֶּ ם֙ תָּ בֹ֣ אוּ אֶ ל־הָאָ֔רֶ ץ אֲשֶׁ ֤ ר נָשָׂא֙תִי֙ אֶ ת־יָדִ֔ י לְשַׁכֵּ ֥ ן אֶתְכֶ ֖ ם בָּ ֑הּ כִּ֚י אִ ם־כָּלֵ ֣ב בֶּ ן־יְפֻ נֶּ֔ ה וִ יהוֹשֻׁ Zַ֖ בִּ ן־נֽ וּן׃

Ezek 20:23 23 גַּ ם־אֲ נִ֗ י נָשָׂ ֧ אתִ י אֶ ת־יָדִ ֛ י לָהֶ ֖ ם בַּמִּדְבָּ ֑ ר לְהָפִ ֤ יץ אֹתָם֙ בַּ גּוֹיִ֔ ם וּלְזָר֥ וֹ ת אוֹתָ ֖ ם בָּאֲרָ צֽ וֹת׃

Ps 106:27 27 וּ לְהַפִּ ֣ יל זַ֭רְ 8ָ ם בַּ גּוֹיִ ֑ם וּ֜לְזָ רוֹתָ֗ ם בָּאֲרָ צֽ וֹת ׃

Ezek 20:23 23 גַּ ם־אֲ נִ֗ י נָשָׂ ֧ אתִ י אֶ ת־יָדִ ֛ י לָהֶ ֖ ם בַּמִּדְבָּ ֑ ר לְהָפִ ֤ יץ אֹתָם֙ בַּ גּוֹיִ֔ ם וּלְזָר֥ וֹת אוֹתָ ֖ ם בָּאֲרָ צֽ וֹת׃

28 Ps 106:28 וַ֭יִּצָּ ֣מְ דוּ לְבַ 8ַ֣ ל פּ8ְ֑ וֹר וַ֜ יֹּאכְל֗ וּ זִבְחֵ ֥ י מֵתִֽ ים׃

Num 25:3 3 וַיִּצָּ ֥מֶ ד יִשְׂרָאֵ ֖ ל לְבַ 8ַ֣ ל פּ8ְ֑ וֹר וַיִּֽחַ ר־אַ ֥ ף יְהוָ ֖ה בְּ יִשְׂרָאֵ ֽ ל׃

Ps 106:29 29 וַ֭יַּכ8ְִ יסוּ בְּמַ 8ַֽלְלֵ יהֶ ֑ ם וַתִּ פְרָ ץ־בָּ֗ ֜ם מַ גֵּפָ ֽ ה ׃

Num 25:8 -9 8 וַ֠יָּ בֹא אַחַ ר֙ אִֽ ישׁ־יִשְׂרָ אֵ֜ ל אֶ ל־הַקֻּ בָּ֗ ה וַ יִּדְ קֹר֙ אֶ ְ ת־שׁנֵ יהֶ֔ ם אֵ֚ ת אִ ֣ ישׁ יִשְׂרָ אֵ֔ ל וְאֶ ת־הָאִשָּׁ ֖ ה אֶ ל־קֳ בָתָ ֑ הּ וַתֵּ 8ָֽצַר֙

הַמַּ גֵּפָ֔ ה מ8ֵַ ֖ ל בְּנֵ ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ ֽ ל׃ 9 וַיִּהְ י֕וּ הַמֵּתִ ֖ ים בַּמַּ גֵּפָ ֑ה אַרְ בּ8ָָ ֥ ה ו8ְֶשְׂרִ ֖ ים אָ ֽלֶ ף׃ פ

Ps 106:30 30 וַיּ8ֲַ מֹ֣ ד פִּֽ֭ ינְחָ ס וַיְפַלֵּ ֑ל וַ֜תֵּ 8ָצַ֗ ר הַמַּ גֵּפָ ֽ ה ׃

Num 17:15 וַ יָּ ֤שָׁ ב אַהֲ רֹן֙ אֶ ל־מֹשֶׁ֔ ה אֶ ל־פֶּ ֖תַ ח אֹ֣הֶ ל מוֹ8ֵ ֑ד וְהַמַּ גֵּפָ ֖ ה נ8ֱֶצָ ֽרָ ה ׃

Num 25:7 7 וַיַּ֗רְ א פִּֽ ינְחָס֙ בֶּ ן־אֶ ל8ְָ זָ֔ ר בֶּ ֽ ן־אַהֲ רֹ֖ ן הַ כֹּהֵ ֑ ן וַיָּקָ֙ם֙ מִתּ֣ וֹF הָ 8ֵֽדָ֔ ה וַיִּקַּ ֥ ח רֹ֖ מַ ח בְּ יָדֽ וֹ׃

Ps 106:31 31 וַתֵּחָ ֣שֶׁ ב ל֭וֹ לִצְדָ קָ ֑ ה לְ דֹ֥ ר וָ֜ דֹ֗ ר 8ַ ד־עוֹלָ ֽ ם׃

Gen 15:6 6 וְהֶאֱמִ ֖ ן בַּ ֽ יהוָ ֑ה וַיַּחְשְׁבֶ ֥הָ לּ֖וֹ צְדָ קָ ֽ ה ׃

Ps 106:38 38 וַיִּֽשְׁ פְּ כוּ֙ דָ ֪ ם נָקִ֡ י דַּ ם־בְּנֵ֨ יהֶ ֤ ם וּֽבְ נוֹתֵ יהֶ֗ ם אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר זִ֭בְּ חוּ ל8ֲַצַבֵּ ֣י כְנָ 8ַ֑ ן וַתֶּחֱ נַ ֥ ף הָ֜אָ֗רֶ ץ בַּדָּמִֽ ים ׃

Num 35:33 33 וְ לֹא־ תַחֲנִ ֣יפוּ אֶ ת־ הָאָ֗רֶ ץ אֲשֶׁ ֤ ר אַתֶּם֙ בָּ֔ הּ כִּ ֣ י הַדָּ֔ ם ה֥ וּא יַחֲנִ ֖יף אֶ ת־ הָאָ ֑רֶ ץ וְלָאָ ֣רֶ ץ לֹֽ א־יְכֻפַּ֗ ר לַדָּם֙ אֲשֶׁ ֣ ר שֻׁפַּ F ־בָּ֔ הּ

כִּ י־אִ ֖ ם בְּדַ ֥ ם שֹׁפְכֽ וֹ׃

Page <344> Appendices

APPENDIX D—PSALM 135

Ps 135:4 4 כִּֽ י־י8ֲַ קֹ֗ ב בָּחַ ֣ ר ל֣ וֹ יָ ֑הּ יִ֜שְׂרָ אֵ֗ ל לִסְ גֻלָּתֽ וֹ ׃

Deut 7:6 כִּ ֣ י 8ַ ֤ ם קָ דוֹשׁ֙ אַתָּ֔ ה לַ יהוָ ֖ה אֱ Nהֶ ֑ יB בּBְ֞ בָּחַ ֣ ר׀ יְהוָ ֣ה אֱ Nהֶ֗ יB לִהְ י֥ וֹת לוֹ֙ ל8ְַ ֣ ם סְ גֻלָּ֔ ה מִ כֹּל֙ הָ 8ַֽמִּ֔ ים אֲשֶׁ ֖ ר 8ַ ל־פְּנֵ ֥י

הָאֲדָמָ ֽ ה׃

Deut 14:2 2 כִּ ֣ י 8ַ ֤ ם קָ דוֹשׁ֙ אַתָּ֔ ה לַ יהוָ ֖ה אֱ Nהֶ ֑ יB וּבBְ֞ בָּחַ ֣ ר יְהוָ֗ ה לִֽהְ י֥וֹת לוֹ֙ ל8ְַ ֣ ם סְ גֻלָּ֔ ה מִ כֹּל֙ הָ 8ַֽמִּ֔ ים אֲשֶׁ ֖ ר 8ַ ל־פְּנֵ ֥י הָאֲדָמָ ֽ ה׃ ס

Ps 135:8 8 שֶֽׁ֭הִכָּ ה בְּ כוֹרֵ ֣ י מִצְרָ ֑יִם מֵ֜אָדָ֗ ם 8ַ ד־בְּהֵמָ ֽ ה ׃

Ex 12:12 12 ו8ְָבַרְתִּ ֣ י בְאֶ ֽרֶ ץ־ מִצְרַ יִ ם֘ בַּלַּ ֣יְלָ ה הַ זֶּ ה֒ וְהִכֵּ יתִ ֤ י כָ ל־ בְּ כוֹר֙ בְּאֶ ֣רֶ ץ מִצְרַ ֔ יִם מֵאָדָ ֖ ם ו8ְַ ד־בְּהֵמָ ֑ ה וּבְכָ ל־אֱ Nהֵ ֥ י מִצְרַ ֛ יִם

אֶ 8ֱֽשֶׂ ֥ ה שְׁ פָטִ ֖ ים אֲנִ֥ י יְהוָ ֽה׃

Ps 135:9 9 שָׁלַ ֤ח׀ אֹת֣ וֹת וּ֭מֹפְתִ ים בְּ תוֹכֵ ֣כִ י מִצְרָ ֑יִם בְּ֜פַרְ עֹ֗ ה וּבְכָ ל־8ֲבָדָ ֽ יו׃

Deut 34:11 11 לְכָ ל־ הָ אֹ֙ת֜ וֹת וְהַ מּוֹפְתִ֗ ים אֲשֶׁ ֤ ר שְׁ לָ חוֹ֙ יְהוָ֔ ה ל8ֲַשׂ֖ וֹת בְּאֶ ֣רֶ ץ מִצְרָ ֑יִ ם לְפַרְ 8ֹ֥ ה וּלְכָ ל־8ֲ בָדָ ֖ יו וּלְכָ ל־אַרְ צֽ וֹ׃

Ps 135:10 10 שֶֽׁ֭הִכָּ ה גּוֹיִ ֣ם רַבִּ ֑ ים וְ֜הָרַ ֗ ג מְלָכִ ֥ ים 8ֲ צוּמִֽ ים׃

Ps 136:17 17 לְ֭מַכֵּ ה מְלָכִ ֣ ים גְּ דֹלִ ֑ים כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

Ps 136:18 18 וַֽ֭יַּהֲ רֹג מְלָכִ ֣ ים אַדִּ ירִ ֑ ים כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ ׃

11 Ps 135:11 לְסִ יח֤ וֹן׀ מֶ ֤לֶ F הָאֱ מֹרִ ֗ י וּ֭לְ עוֹג מֶ ֣לֶ F הַבָּשָׁ ֑ ן וּ֜לְכֹ֗ ל מַמְלְכ֥ וֹת כְּנָ 8ַֽ ן׃

Ps 136:19 19 לְ֭סִ יחוֹן מֶ ֣לֶ F הָאֱ מֹרִ ֑ י כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

Ps 136:20 20 וּ֭לְ עוֹג מֶ ֣לֶ F הַבָּשָׁ ֑ ן כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

Ps 135:12 12 וְנָתַ ֣ ן אַרְ צָ ֣ם נַחֲלָ ֑ה נַ֜חֲ לָ֗ ה לְ יִשְׂרָאֵ ֥ ל 8ַמּֽ וֹ׃

Ps 136:21 21 וְנָתַ ֣ ן אַרְצָ ֣ם לְנַחֲלָ ֑ה כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

Ps 136:22 22 נַ֭חֲ לָ ה לְ יִשְׂרָאֵ ֣ ל 8ַבְדּ֑ וֹ כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

Page <345> Appendices

APPENDIX E—PSALM 136

136:11 11 וַ יּוֹצֵ ֣א יִ֭שְׂרָאֵ ל מִ תּוֹכָ ֑ם כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

2 Deut 4:34 34 א֣ וֹ׀ הֲ נִסָּ ֣ ה אֱ Nהִ֗ ים לָ֠ בוֹא לָקַחַ֙ ת ל֣ וֹ גוֹי֘ מִקֶּ ֣רֶ ב גּוֹי֒ בְּמַ סֹּת֩ בְּ אֹתֹ֙ ת וּבְ מוֹפְתִ֜ ים וּבְמִלְחָמָ֗ ה וּבְיָ ֤ד חֲ זָקָה֙ וּבִ זְר֣ וֹZַ

נְ טוּיָ֔ ה וּבְ מוֹרָאִ ֖ ים גְּ דֹלִ ֑ים כְּ֠ כֹל אֲשֶׁ ר־8ָשָׂה֙ לָכֶ֜ ם יְ הוָ ֧ה אֱ Nהֵ יכֶ ֛ם בְּמִצְרַ ֖יִ ם ל8ְֵ ינֶ ֽיB׃

136:12 12 בְּיָ ֣ד חֲ֭ זָקָ ה וּבִ זְר֣ וֹZַ נְ טוּיָ ֑ה כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

34 Deut 4:34 א֣ וֹ׀ הֲ נִסָּ ֣ ה אֱ Nהִ֗ ים לָ֠ בוֹא לָקַחַ֙ ת ל֣ וֹ גוֹי֘ מִ קֶּ֣ ֶ רב גּוֹי֒ בְּמַ סֹּת֩ בְּ אֹתֹ֙ ת וּבְ מוֹפְתִ֜ ים וּבְמִלְחָמָ֗ ה וּבְיָ ֤ד חֲ זָקָה֙ וּבִ זְר֣ וֹZַ

נְ טוּיָ֔ ה וּבְ מוֹרָאִ ֖ ים גְּ דֹלִ ֑ים כְּ֠ כֹל אֲשֶׁ ר־8ָשָׂה֙ לָכֶ֜ ם יְ הוָ ֧ה אֱ Nהֵ יכֶ ֛ם בְּמִצְרַ ֖יִ ם ל8ְֵ ינֶ ֽיB׃

136:15 15 וְנ8ִֵ֨ ֤ר פַּרְ 8ֹ֣ ה וְחֵ יל֣ וֹ יַםבְ ־ס֑ וּף כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

27 Ex 14:27 וַיֵּט֩ מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶ ת־יָד֜ וֹ 8ַ ל־הַ יָּ֗ ם וַ יָּ֙שָׁ ב הַ יָּ֜ ם לִפְ נ֥ וֹת בֹּ֙קֶ ר֙ לְאֵ ֣ יתָ נ֔ וֹ וּמִצְרַ ֖יִ ם נָסִ ֣ ים לִקְרָ את֑ וֹ וַיְנ8ֵַ ֧ ר יְהוָ ֛ה אֶ ת־מִצְרַ ֖ יִם

בְּת֥ וֹF הַ יָּ ֽם׃

136:19 19 לְ֭סִ יחוֹן מֶ ֣לֶ F הָאֱ מֹרִ ֑ י כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

24 Deut 2:24 ק֣ וּמוּ סְּע֗ וּ ו8ְִבְ רוּ֘ אֶ ת־נַ ֣חַ ל אַרְ נֹן֒ רְאֵ ֣ ה נָתַ ֣תִּ י בְ֠ יָדְ B אֶ ת־ סִ יחֹ֙ ן מֶ ֽלֶ F ־חֶשְׁ בּ֧ וֹן הָ ֽאֱ מֹרִ ֛ י וְאֶ ת־אַרְ צ֖ וֹ הָחֵ ֣ ל רָ ֑ שׁ וְהִתְ גָּ ֥ר

בּ֖ וֹ מִלְחָמָ ֽ ה׃

136:20 20 וּ֭ לְ עוֹג מֶ ֣לֶ F הַבָּשָׁ ֑ ן כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

Deut 3:3 3 וַיִּתֵּ ן֩ יְהוָה֙ אֱ Nהֵ֜ ינוּ בְּ יָדֵ֗ נוּ גַּ ֛ם אֶ ת־ 8֥ וֹג מֶ ֽלֶ F־הַבָּשָׁ ֖ ן וְ ֶ את־כָּ ל־8ַמּ֑ וֹ וַנַּכֵּ֕ הוּ 8ַ ד־בִּלְתִּ֥ י הִשְׁאִֽ יר־ל֖ וֹ

שָׂרִֽ יד׃

136:21-22 21 וְנָתַ ֣ ן אַרְ צָ ֣ם לְנַ חֲלָ ֑ה כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃ 22 נַ֭חֲ לָ ה לְ יִשְׂרָאֵ ֣ ל 8ַבְדּ֑ וֹ כִּ ֖ י לְ עוֹלָ ֣ם חַסְדּֽ וֹ׃

38 Deut 4:38 לְ הוֹרִ ֗ ישׁ גּוֹיִ ֛ם ְ גּדֹלִ ֧ ים ו8ֲַצֻמִ ֛ ים מִמְּ B֖ מִפָּנֶ ֑יB לַהֲבִֽ יאBֲ֗ לָ ֽתֶ ת־לBְ֧ אֶ ת־ אַרְצָ ֛ ם נַחֲלָ ֖ה כַּ יּ֥ וֹם הַזֶּ ֽה׃

`

2 See the section on sources concerning this semantic marker.

Page <346>

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen (2002) ALLEN , LESLIE C. Psalms 101-150 . Edited by DAVID A. HUBBARD , GLEN W. BARKER and BRUCE M. METZGER . Vol. 21, WBC . Waco, Texas: Word Books, 2002.

Alter (1981) ALTER , ROBERT . The Art of Biblical Narrative . New York: Basic Books, 1981.

Alter (1985) ———. The Art of . New York: Basic Books, 1985.

אמית , יאירה . גלוי ונסתר במקרא : פולמוסים גלויים , עקיפים ובעיקר (Amit (2005 סמויים . תל אביב : ידיעות אחרונות וספרי חמד , 2005 . .

Anderson (1969) ANDERSON , GEORGE W. “Canonical and Non -Canonical.” In The Cambridge History of the Bible: From the Beginnings to Jerome , edited by PETER R. ACKROYD and C. F. EVANS , 113-59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.

Anderson (1981) ANDERSON , ARNOLD . The Book of Psalms: Volume 2 . Edited by RONALD E. CLEMENTS , NCB . London: Oliphants, 1981.

Anderson (1986) ANDERSON , FRANCIS I. Spelling in the Hebrew Bible . Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986.

Anderson (1988) ———. “Historic Psalms.” In It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF, edited by D. A. CARSON and H. G. M. WILLIAMSON , 56-67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Andrews (1991) ANDREWS , D. K. “Yahweh the God of the Heavens.” In The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T. J. Meek , edited by WILLIAM S. MCCULLOUGH , 5-58. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991.

אבישור , יצחק . עיונים בשירת המזמורים העברית והאוגריתית . ירושלים : (Avishur (1989 מאגנס , 1989

Barton (1998) BARTON , JOHN . “Intertextuality an d the Final Form of the Text.” In Congress Volume: VTS 80 , 33-37. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

Bauer (2001) BAUER , UWE F. W. “Eine Literarische Analyse von Psalm CXIV.” VT 51, no. 3 (2001): 289-311.

Bazak (1985) BAZAK , JACOB . “The Geometric-Figurative Structure of Psalm CXXXVI.” VT 35 (1985): 130-38.

BDB BROWN , FRANCIS , CHARLES BRIGGS , and SAMUEL DRIVER . A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament . 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907. Reprint, 1974.

Beentjes (1982) BEENTJES , PANCRATIUS . “Inv erted Quotations in the Bible: A Neglected Stylistic Pattern.” Biblica 63 (1982): 506-23.

Ben-Porat (1976) BEN -PORAT , ZIVA . “The Poetics of Literary Allusion.” PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1 (1976): 105-28.

Berlin (1985) BERLIN , ADELE . The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism . Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1985.

Berlin (1994) ———. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative . Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994.

Berlin (2004) ———. “Psalms.” In The Jewish Study Bible , edited by MARC ZVI BRETTLER . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Berlin (2005) ———. “Psalms and the Literature of the Exile; Psalms 137, 44, 69, and 78.” In The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception , edited by PETER FLINT and PATRICK D. MILLER . Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Block (1997) BLOCK , DANIEL I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1-24 . Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997.

Booij (1989) BOOIJ , THIJS . “The Role of Darkness in Psalm 105:28.” VT 39, no. 2 (1989): 209-14.

Braun (1986) BRAUN , RODDY . 1 Chronicles . Edited by DAVID A. HUBBARD and GLEN W. BARKER . Vol. 14, WBC . Waco: Word Books, 1986.

Briggs (1969) BRIGGS , CHARLES A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms . Edited by S. R. DRIVER , A. PLUMMER and C. A. BRIGGS . 2 vols. Vol. 2, ICC . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd, 1969.

Bright (1998) BRIGHT , JOHN . A History of Israel . 3rd ed. Chatham, Kent: SCM Press, 1998.

ברין , גרשון . ” פרק עח“, עולם התנ“ך : תהלים ב . תל אביב : דודזון- עתי , (Brin (1999 . 1999

Brooke (1989) BROOKE , GEORGE J. “Psalms 105 and 106 at Qumran.” Revue de Qumran 14, no. 2 (1989): 267-92.

Brueggemann (1995) BRUEGGEMANN , WALTER . The Psalms and the Life of Faith . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995.

בובר , מרדכי 'מ . דרכו של מקרא . ירושלים : מוסד ביאליק , Buber (1997) . 1997

Budd (1984) BUDD , PHILIP J. Numbers . Edited by DAVID A. HUBBARD and GLEN W. BARKER . Vol. 5, WBC . Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1984.

Butler (1978) BUTLER , TRENT C. “A Forgotten Passage from a Forgotten Era (1 Chr. 16:8-36).” VT 28, no. 2 (1978): 142-50.

Buttenwieser (1969) BUTTENWIESER , MOSES . The Psalms: Chronologically Treated with a New Translation , The Library of Biblical Studies . New York: Ktav Publishing, 1969.

Campbell (1 979) CAMPBELL , ANTONY F. “Psalm 78: A Contribution to the Theology of Tenth Century Israel.” CBQ 41 (1979): 51- 79.

Campbell and O’Brien (1993) CAMPBELL , ANTONY F., and MARK A. O’B RIEN . Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Carroll (1971) CARROLL , R. P. “Psalm LXXVIII: Vestiges of a Tribal Polemic.” VT 21 (1971): 133-50.

Carson and Williamson (1988) CARSON , D. A., and H. G. M. WILLIAMSON , eds. It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Cassuto (1967) CASSUTO , UMBERTO . A Commentary on the Book of Exodus . Translated by ISRAEL ABRAHAMS . Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967.

Cassuto (1973) ———. Biblical and Oriental Studies: Vol. 2 . Translated by ISRAEL ABRAHAMS . 2 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973.

Cassuto (1973a) ———. “The Arrangement of the Book of Ezekiel.” In Biblical and Oriental Studies: Vol.1 , 277-40. Translated by ISRAEL ABRAHAMS . Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973.

Cassuto (1973b) ———. “The Sequence and Arrangement of the Biblical Sections.” In Biblical and Oriental Studies , 1-6. Translated by ISRAEL ABRAHAMS . Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973.

Cassuto (1973c) ———. “The Episode of the Sons of God and the Daughters of Man (Gen vi 1-4).” In Biblical and Oriental Studies: Vol.1 , 17-29. Translated by ISRAEL ABRAHAMS . Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973.

Cassuto (1973d) ———. “The Israelite Epic.” In Biblical and Oriental Studies: Vol. 2 , 69-112. Translated by ISRAEL ABRAHAMS . Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973.

Ceresko (1994) CERESKO , ANTHONY . “A Poetic Analysis of Ps 105, with Attention to Its Use of Irony.” In Psalmists and Sages , Indian Theological Studies Supplements 2 . 75-102. Bangalore: St. Peter’s Pontifical Institute, 1994.

Childs (1967) CHILDS , BREVARD S. “Deuteronomic Formulae of the Exodus Tradition.” In Hebräische Wortforschung: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner , 30-39. Leiden: Brill, 1967.

Childs (1974) ———. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary . Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974.

Childs (1979) ———. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture . London: SCM Press, 1979.

Childs (1983) ———. “Anticipatory Titles in Hebrew Narrative.” In Isaac Leo Seeligmann Volume: Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World , edited by ALEXANDER ROFÉ and YAIR ZAKOVITCH , 57-65. Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein’s Publishing House, 1983.

Chisholm (1998) CHISHOLM , ROBERT B. From Exegesis to Exposition: A Practical Guide to Using Biblical Hebrew . Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.

Christensen (2001) CHRISTENSEN , DUANE L. Deuteronomy 1:1-21:9 . Edited by BRUCE M. METZGER , DAVID A. HUBBARD and GLEN W. BARKER . Vol. 6A, WBC . Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001.

Clarke (1995) CLARKE , ERNEST G. “Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Numbers.” In The Bible in Aramaic: vol. 4 , edited by KEVIN CATHCART , MICHAEL MAHER and MARTIN MCNAMARA , 185-294. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995.

Clements (1994) CLEMENTS , RONALD E. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In NIB , edited by LEANDER E. KECK , THOMAS G. LONG , BRUCE C. BIRCH , et al. Vol. 2, 269-538. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994.

Clifford (1979) CLIFFORD , RICHARD J. “Style and Purpose in Psalm 105.” Biblica 60, no. 3-4 (1979): 420-27.

Clifford (1981) ———. “In Zion and David a New Beginning: An Interpretation of Psalm 78.” In Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith , edited by BARUCH HALPERN and JON D. LEVENSON . Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1981.

Coats (1968a) COATS , GEORGE W. “Despoiling the Egyptians.” VT 18 (1968): 450-57.

Coats (1968b) ———. Rebellion in the Wilderness: The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditions of the Old Testament . Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968.

Cody (1964) CODY , AELRED . “When is the Chosen People Called a Goy?” VT 14 (1964): 1-6.

כהן , מנחם . ספר תהלים חלק ב‘ : מזמורים עג - קג , מקראות גדולות (Cohen (2003 הכתר : מהדורת יסוד חדשה ההדרה מדעית על פי- כתבי יד יד עתיקים . רמת גן : אוניברסיטת -בר אילן , 2003 . .

Craigie (1983) CRAIGIE , PETER C. Psalms 1-50 . Edited by DAVID A. HUBBARD and GLEN W. BARKER . Vol. 19, WBC . Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1983.

Crenshaw (2001) CRENSHAW , JAMES LEE . The Psalms: An Introduction . Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.

Croft (1987) CROFT , STEVEN J. L. The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms . Vol. 44, JSOTS . Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987.

Cross (1997) CROSS , FRANK M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic . Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1997. Reprint, 9.

Curtis (1910) CURTIS , EDWARD L. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Chronicles , ICC . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd, 1910.

Dahood (1955) DAHOOD , MITCHELL S. J. “Two Pauline Quotations from the Old Testament.” Catholic Bible Quarterly 17 (1955): 19-24.

Dahood (1964) ———. “Hebrew -Ugaritic Lexicography.” Biblica 45, no. 3 (1964): 393-412.

Dahood (1965) ———. Psalms I: Introduction, Translation, and Notes . Edited by WILLIAM F. ALBRIGHT and DAVID N. FREEDMAN , AB . Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1965.

Dahood (1970) ———. Psalms II: Introduction, Translation, and Notes . Edited by WILLIAM F. ALBRIGHT and DAVID N. FREEDMAN , AB . Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1970.

Dahood (1981) ———. Psalms III: Introduction, Translation, and No tes . Edited by WILLIAM F. ALBRIGHT and DAVID N. FREEDMAN , AB . Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1981.

Davies (1963) DAVIES , G. HENTON . “The Ark in the Psalms.” In Promise and Fulfillment: Essays Presented to Professor S. H. Hooke in Celebration of His Ninetieth Birthday, 21st January, 1964 , edited by F. F. BRUCE , 51-61. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd, 1963.

Davies (1992) DAVIES , G. I. “Sinai, Mount.” In ABD , edited by DAVID N. FREEDMAN , GARY A. HERION , DAVID F. GRAF and JOHN D. PLEINS , 47-49. London: Doubleday, 1992.

Day (1979) DAY , JOHN . “The Destruction of the Shiloh Sanctuary and Jeremiah VII 12, 14.” In Studies in the of the Old Testament , 87-94. Leiden: Brill, 1979.

Day (1986) ———. “Pre -Deuteronomic Allusions to the Covena nt in Hosea and Psalm 78.” VT 36, no. 1 (1986): 1-12.

Day (1997) ———. “A Case of Inner Scriptural Interpretation: The Dependence of Isaiah XXV 13 - XXVII 11 on Hosea XIII 4 - XIV 10 (Eng. 9) and its Relevance to Some Theories of the Redaction of the ‘Isaiah Apocalypse’.” In Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition , edited by CRAIG C. BROYLES and CRAIG A. EVANS , 399-491. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Day (2004) ———. “How Many Pre-exilic Psalms are there?” In In Search of Pre-exilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar , edited by JOHN DAY , 225-50. London: T. & T. Clark Ltd, 2004. del Olmo Lete (2002) DEL OLMO LETE , GREGORIO , and JOAQUIN SANMARTIN . A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition . Translated by WILFRED G. E. WATSON . 2 vols, Handbook of Oriental Studies 67 . Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Devries (1985) DEVRIES , SIMON J. 1Kings . Edited by DAVID A. HUBBARD and GLEN W. BARKER . Vol. 12, WBC . Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1985.

Dirksen (2005) DIRKSEN , PETER B. 1 Chronicles . Translated by ANTONY P. RUNIA , HCOT . Leuven: Peeters, 2005.

Driver (1972) ———. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament . 9th ed., ITL . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd, 1891. Reprint, 1961, 1972.

Driver (1998) DRIVER , SAMUEL R. A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some other Syntactical Questions . Oxford: Clarendon Press,1892 (Reprint, ASTRID B. BECK and DAVID N. FREEDMAN [eds.], The Biblical Resource Series . Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998).

Duhm (1922) DUHM , D. BERNHARD . Die Psalmen . Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1922.

Durham (1987) DURHAM , JOHN I. Exodus . Edited by DAVID A. HUBBARD and GLEN W. BARKER . Vol. 3, WBC . Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987.

Eaton (1997) EATON , JOHN H. “The Psalms in Israel’s Worship.” In The Psalms in Israel’s Worship , edited by G. W. ANDERSON, 238- 73. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.

Eaton (1999) ———. “Psalms.” In DBI: K-Z, edited by JOHN H. HAYES , 324- 29. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999.

Eichrodt (1970) EICHRODT , WALTHER . Ezekiel , OTL . London: SCM Press, 1970.

Eissfeldt (1966) EISSFELDT , OTTO . The Old Testament: An Introduction . Translated by PETER R. ACKROYD . Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965. Reprint, 1966.

Emerton (1996) EMERTON , JOHN A. “Are There Examples of Enclitic mem in the Hebrew Bible?” In Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran , edited by MICHAEL V. FOX , AVI HURVITZ , VICTOR A. HUROWITZ , et al, 321-38. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996.

Eslinger (1992) ESLINGER , LYLE . “Inner -Biblical Exegesis and Allusion: the Question of Category.” VT 42, no. 1 (1992): 47-58.

.In TDOT: Vol. 11 , edited by G ”. פלל“ . Fabry (1990) FABRY , HEINZ -JOSEPH JOHANNES BOTTERWECK and HELMER RINGGREN . Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.

Fensham (1981) FENSHAM , FRANK C. “Neh 9 and Pss 105, 106, 135 and 136: Post- Exilic Historical Traditions in Poetic Form.” JNSL 19 (1981): 35-51.

Fishbane (1979) FISHBANE , MICHAEL . Text and Texture: Close Reading of Selected Biblical Texts . New York: Schocken Books, 1979.

Fishbane (1985) ———. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.

Fishbane (1989) ———. The Garments of Torah: Essays in Biblical Hermeneutics , Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature . Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989.

Fishbane (1998) ———. “Types of Biblical Intertextuality.” In Congress Volume: VTS 80 , 39-44. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

Flint (1998) FLINT , PETER . “Three Psalms of Praise from Qumran: The Preliminary Editions of 4QPs-1 and 4QPs-n.” JNSL 24, no. 2 (1998): 35-44.

Fohrer (1974) FOHRER , GEORG . Introduction to the Old Testament . Translated by DAVID GREEN . London: SPCK, 1974.

Follis (1992) FOLLIS , ELAINE R. “Se a.” In ABD , edited by DAVID N. FREEDMAN , GARY A. HERION , DAVID F. GRAF , et al., 1058-59. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Foster (1997) FOSTER , BENJAMIN R. “Epic of Creation.” In Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World , edited by WILLIAM W. HALLO , Vol. 1, 390-402. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Freedman (1960) FREEDMAN , DAVID N. “Archaic Forms in Early Hebrew Poetry.” ZAW 72 (1960): 101-07.

Freedman (1973) ———. “God Almighty in Psalm 78,59.” Biblica 54, no. 1-2 (1973): 268.

Freedman (1980) ———. Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry . Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1980.

Fretheim (1991) ———. “The Plagues as Ecological Signs of Historical Disaster.” JBL 110, no. 3 (1991): 385-96.

Fretheim (1994) FRETHEIM , TERENCE E. The . Edited by LEANDER E. KECK , THOMAS G. LONG , BRUCE C. BIRCH , et al. Vol. 1, NIB . Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994.

Gamble (1992) GAMBLE , HARRY Y. “Canon.” In ABD , edited by DAVID N. FREEDMAN , GARY A. HERION , DAVID F. GRAF , et al., 837- 61. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

גרסיאל , משה . ” פרק קלה,“ עולם התנ“ך : תהלים ב , 240-43 . תל אביב : (Garsiel (1999a דודזון - עתי , 1999 .

——— . ” פרק ,קלו “ עולם התנ“ך : תהלים ב, 243-47 . תל אביב : דודזון - (Garsiel (1999b עתי , 1999 .

Gelb (1956) GELB , IGNACE J., A. LEO OPPENHEIM , and THORKILD JACOBSEN , eds. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago . Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1956.

Gibson (1977) GIBSON , JOHN C. L. Canaanite Myths and Legends . Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark Ltd, 1977.

Gibson (1994) ———. Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar - Syntax . 4 ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd, 1994.

Ginzberg (1968) GINZBERG , LOUIS . The Legends of the Jews . Translated by PAUL RADIN . 6 vols. Vol. 3. Moses in the Wilderness . Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1968.

Goulder (1982) GOULDER , MICHAEL D. The Psalms of the Sons of Korah . Vol. 20, JSOTS . Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982.

Goulder (1998) ———. The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107-150) . Edited by DAVID J. A. CLINES and PHILIP R. DAVIES . Vol. 258, JSOTS: Studies in the Psalter 4 . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

Gray (1970) GRAY , JOHN . 1 & 2 Kings: A Commentary , OTL . London: SCM Press, 1970.

Gray (1979) ———. The Biblical Doctrine of the Reign of God . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979.

Greenberg (1983) GREENBERG , MOSHE . Ezekiel 1 -20 . Edited by WILLIAM F. ALBRIGHT and DAVID N. FREEDMAN , AB . Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983.

Greenberg (1995) ———. “Hebrew segult ā: Akkadian sikiltu .” In Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought , 172-74. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995.

Greenstein (1990) GREENSTEIN , EDWARD L. “Mixing Memory and Design: Reading Psalm 78.” Prooftexts 10 (1990): 197-218.

Gunkel (1926) GUNKEL , HERMANN . Die Psalmen: Übersetzt und Erklärt , GHAT . Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen, 1926.

Gunkel (1967) ———. The Psalms . Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967.

Gunkel and Begrich (1998) GUNKEL , HERMANN , and JOACHIM BEGRICH . Introduction to Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel . Translated by JAMES D. NOGALSKI , Mercer Library of Biblical Studies . Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1998.

חכם , עמוס . ספר תהלים : ספרים ה-ג : תורה נביאים כ תובים עם פירוש (Hacham (1981 דעת מקרא, ,ד"י ירושלים : מוסד הרב קוק , 1981.

Hammer (1995) HAMMER , REUVEN . The Classic Midrash , The Classics of Western Spirituality . New York: Paulist Press, 1995.

Hatch and Redpath (1988) HATCH , EDWIN , and HENRY REDPATH . A Concorda nce to the Septuagint and Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament . 2 ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1988.

Hays (1989) HAYS , RICHARD B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.

Held (1985) HELD , MOSHE . “Marginal Notes to the Biblical Lexicon.” In Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry , edited by ANN KORT and SCOTT MORSCHAUSER , 93-104. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1985

.

Herrmann (1992) HERRMANN , SIEGFRIED . “Ephraim.” In ABD , edited by DAVID N. FREEDMAN , GARY A. HERION , DAVID F. GRAF , et al., 552. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Hill (1983) HILL , ANDREW E. “Patchwork Poetry or Reasoned Verse: Connective Structure in 1Chronicles xvi.” VT 33 (1983): 97-101.

יאיר הופמ ן . יציאת מצרים באמונת המקרא . תל אביב : אוניברסיטה תל (Hoffman (1983 אביב - בית הספר למדעי היהדות ע“ש חיים רוזנברג מפעלים אוניברסיטאיים להוצאה לאור בע“מ , 1983 . .

Hoffman (1989) ———. “A North Israelite Typological Myth and a Judaean Historical Tradition: The Exodus in Hosea and Amos.” VT 39, no. 2 (1989): 169-82.

——— . ” פרק ,קה “ עולם התנ“ך : תהלים ב , 129-32 . תל אביב : דודזון - (Hoffman (1999a עתי , 1999 .

——— . ” פרק ,קו “ עולם התנ“ך : תהלים ב , 132-35 . תל אביב : דודזון- (Hoffman (1999b עתי , 1999 .

Hoffmeier (1992) HOFFMEIER , JAMES K. “Egypt, the Plagues in.” In ABD , edited by DAVID N. FREEDMAN , GARY A. HERION , DAVID F. GRAF , et al., 374-76. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Hossfeld and Zenger (2005) HOSSFELD , FRANK -LOTHAR , and ERICH ZENGER . A Commentary on Psalms 51-100 . Translated by LINDA M. MALONEY . Edited by KLAUS BALTZER , Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.

Howard (1993a) HOWARD , DAVID M. “A Contextual Reading of Psalms 90-94.” In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter , edited by J. CLINTON MCCANN , 108-23. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.

Howard (1993b) ———. “Editorial Activity in the Psalter: A State -of -the -Field Survey.” In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter , edited by J. CLINTON MCCANN , 52-70. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.

Howard (1997) ———. The Structure of Psalms 93-100 , Biblical and Judaic Studies 5 . Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997.

Humphries (1988) HUMPHRIES , WALTER LEE . Joseph and his Family: A Literary Study . South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1988.

Hurvitz (1968) HURVITZ , AVI . “The Chronological Significance of Aramaisms.” IEJ 18 (1968): 234-40.

——— . בין לשון ללשון : לתולדות לשון המקרא בימי בית שני . ירושלים : (Hurvitz (1972 מוסד ביאליק , 1972 . .

Hurvitz (1982) ———. “The History of a Legal Formula.” VT 32, no. 3 (1982): 255-67.

Hurvitz (1982) ———. A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem . Paris: J. Gabalda, 1982.

Hurvitz (1985) ———. “Originals and Imitations in Biblical Poetry: A Comparative Examination of 1Sam 2:1-10 and Psalm 113:5-9.” In Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry , edited by ANN KORT and SCOTT MORSCHAUSER , 115-21. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1985.

Hurvitz (1988) ———. “Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew.” ZAW 100 (1988): 88-100.

Hurvitz (1998) ———. “Can Biblical Texts be Dated Linguistically? Chronological Perspectives in the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew.” In Congress Volume: VTS 80 , 143-60. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

יעקבס , יהונתן . מידה כנגד מידה בסיפור המקראי. אלון שבות : תבונות , (Jacobs (2006 . . 2006

Janowski (1983) JANOWSKI , BERND . “Psalm CVI:28 -31 und die Interzession des Pinchas.” VT 33, no. 2 (1983): 237-44.

Japhet (1993) JAPHET , SARA . I&II Chronicles: A Commentary . London: SCM Press, 1993.

Jastrow (1984) JASTROW , MARCUS . A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature . Jerusalem: Horeb, 1984.

In TLOT: Vol. 2 , edited by ERNST JENNI and ”. עת“ . Jenni (1997) JENNI , ERNST CLAUS WESTERMANN , 951-61. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.

Jenni and Westermann (1997) JENNI , ERNST , and KLAUS WESTERMANN , eds. TLOT . 3 vols. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.

Jirku (1917) JIRKU , ANTON . Die älteste Geschichte Israels im Rahmen lehrhafter Darstellungen . Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1917.

Johnson (1951) JOHNSON , A. R. “The Psalms.” In The Old Testament and Mod ern Study: A Generation of Discovery and Research , edited by HAROLD H. ROWLEY , 162-209. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951.

Johnstone (1997) JOHNSTONE , WILLIAM . 1 and 2 Chronicles: Volume 1 . Edited by DAVID J. A. CLINES and PHILIP R. DAVIES . Vol. 253, JSOTS . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

Joosten (1996) JOOSTEN , J. People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideological Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17-26 . Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Joüon and Muraoka (1996) JOÜON , PAUL , and TAKAMITSU MURAOKA . A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew . Translated by TAKAMITSU MURAOKA . Second Reprint of First Edition. 2 vols, Subsidia Biblica . Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1996.

Kang (1996) KANG , SA-MOON . “The Authentic Sermon of Jer emiah in Jeremiah 7:1-20.” In Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran , edited by MICHAEL V. FOX , AVI HURVITZ , VICTOR A. HUROWITZ , et al., 147-62. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996.

קצנלנבוגן , מרדכי , ספר שמות : שמות- יתרו , תורת חיים . ירושלים : מוסד (Katzenelenbogen (1993 רב - קוק , 1993 . .

Kaufmann (2003) KAUFMANN , YEHEZKEL . The Religion of Israel: From its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile . Translated by MOSHE GREENBERG . Jerusalem: Sefer Ve Sefel Publishing, 2003.

Kautzsch (1957) KAUTZSCH , EMIL . Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar . Translated by COWLEY ARTHUR E. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910. Reprint, Oxford: Clarendon,1957.

Keil (1988) KEIL , KARL FRIEDRICH . Introduction to the Old Testament . Translated by GEORGE C. M. DOUGLAS . 2 vols. Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1988.

Keil and Delitzsch (1981) KEIL , KARL F., and FRANZ DELITZSCH . The Pentateuch . Translated by JAMES MARTIN . Vol. 1 (III), Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes . Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981.

Keil and Delitzsch (1982) ———. Psalms . Translated by JAMES MARTIN . Vol. 5, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes . Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.

Kissane (1964) KISSANE , EDWARD J. The Book of Psalms: Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text. With a Commentary . Dublin: Browne and Nolan Ltd, 1964.

Kittel (1990) KITTEL , RUDOLF , ed. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia . Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1990.

Klein (2006) KLEIN , RALPH W. 1 Chronicles . Edited by THOMAS KRÜGER , Hermeneia - A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006.

Klingbeil (1999) KLINGBEIL , MARTIN . Yahweh Fighting from Heaven: God as Warrior and as God of Heaven in the Hebrew Psalter and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography , Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 169 . Switzerland: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen, 1999.

Klopfer (1898) KLOPFER , RICHARD . “Zur Quellenscheidung in Exod. 19.” ZAW 18 (1898): 197-235.

Koehler and Baumgartner (1995) KOEHLER , LUDWIG , and WALTER BAUMGARTNER . The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament . Translated by M. E. RICHARDSON . Revised by WALTER BAUMGARTNER and JOHANN J. STAMM . 5 vols. Vol. II. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Kohlenberger (1997) KOHLENBERGER , JOHN R. , ed. The Parallel . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Kraus (1988a) KRAUS , HANS -JOACHIM . Psalms 1 -59: A Commentary . Translated by HILTON C. OSWOLD . Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988.

Kraus (1988b) ———. Psalms 60-150: A Commentary . Translated by HILTON C. OSWOLD . Minneapolis: Ausburg Publishing House, 1988.

Kroll (1987) KROLL , WOODROW M. Psalms: The Poetry of . Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1987.

Kugel (1981) KUGEL , JAMES L. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981.

Kugel (1990) ———. In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts . New York: Harper Collins, 1990.

Kugel (1998) ———. Traditions of the Bible: A Gu ide to the Bible as it was at the Start of the Common Era . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998.

Kugel (2000) ———. The Bible as it Was . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2000.

קוטשר , יחזקאל . מיל ים ותולדותיהן . ירושלים : קרית- הספר בע“מ , Kutscher (1974) . 1974

Kutscher (1982) ———. A History of the . Edited by RAPHAEL KUTSCHER . Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1982.

Lauha (1945) LAUHA , AARRE . Die Geschichtsmotive in den alttestamentlichen Psalmen , Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia . Helsinki, 1945.

Layton (1988) LAYTON , SCOTT C. “Joseph in Ps 81,6.” Biblica 69, no. 3 (1988): 406-11.

Lee (1980) LEE , ARCHIE C. C. “Genesis 1 and the Plagues Tradition.” VT 40, no. 1980 (1980): 257-63.

Lee (1990) ———. “The Context and Function of the Plagues Tradition in Psalm 78.” JSOT 48 (1990): 83-89.

Lehrman (1961) LEHRMAN , S. M., ed. Midrash Rabbah . Vol. III: Exodus. London: The Soncino Press, 1961. Reprint, 3rd.

Leslie (1949) LESLIE , ELMER A. The Psalms: Translated and Interpreted in the Light of Hebrew Life and Worship . New York: Abingdon- Cokesbury Press, 1949.

Levine (1993) LEVINE , BARUCH A. Numbers 1 -20 . Edited by WILLIAM F. ALBRIGHT and DAVID N. FREEDMAN . Vol. 4a, AB . London: Doubleday, 1993.

ליכט , יעקב . הניסיון במקרא וביהדות של הבית השני . ירושלים : מאגנס , (Licht (1973 . . 1973

Liddell and Scott (1977) LIDDELL , HENRY G., and ROBERT SCOTT . A Greek-English Lexicon . Revised by HENRY S. JONES . 9 ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

Limburg (1992) LIMBURG , JAMES . “Psalms, Book of.” In ABD , edited by DAVID N. FREEDMAN , GARY A. HERION , DAVID F. GRAF and JOHN D. PLEINS , 522-36. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Liver (1961) LIVER , JACOB . “Korah, Dothan and Abiram.” In Scripta Hierosolymitana VIII , edited by CHAIM RABIN , 189-217. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961.

Loewenstamm (1971) LOEWENSTAMM , SAMUEL E. “The Number of Plagues in Psalm 105.” Biblica 52, no. 4 (1971): 34-38.

——— . ” רשף“ , אנציקלופדיה מקראית ז, , 437-41 . ירושלים : מוסד (Loewenstamm (1976 ביאליק , 1976 . .

Loewenstamm (1992a) ———. The Evolution of the Exodus Tradition . Translated by BARUCH J. SCHWARTZ . Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992.

Loewenstamm (1992b) ———. “The Introductory Formula Ba `et Hahi ´ in the Introductory Speeches in Deuteronomy.” In From Babylon to Canaan: Studies in the Bible and Its Oriental Background , 42-50. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992.

Ludwig (1973) LUDWIG , THEODORE M. “The Traditions of the Establishing of the Earth in Deutero-Isaiah.” Journal for Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 345-57.

Lust, Eynikel and Hauspie (1992) LUST , JOHAN , ERIK EYNIKEL , and KATRIN HAUSPIE . A Greek - English Lexicon of the Septuagint . 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992.

Mare (1992) MARE , W. HAROLD . “Zion.” In ABD , edited by DAVID N. FREEDMAN , GARY A. HERION , DAVID F. GRAF and JOHN D. PLEINS , 1096. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Margulis (19 69 ) MARGULIS , BARUCH . “The Plagues Tradition in Ps 105.” Biblica 50, no. 4 (1969): 491-96.

Martínez (1997) MARTÍNEZ , FLORENTINO GARCIA , and EIBERT J. C. TIGCHELAAR , eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition . 2 vols. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Martínez (1998) ———, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition . 2 vols. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

Mays (1969) MAYS , JAMES L. Hosea , OTL . Ph iladelphia: The Westminster Press, 1969.

McCann (1993) MCCANN , J. CLINTON , ed. The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter . Vol. 159, JSOTS . Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.

McCann (1994) ———. “Psalms.” In NIB , edited by LEANDER E. KECK , THOMAS G. LONG , BRUCE C. BIRCH , et al., Vol. 5, 639-1280. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994.

McKenzie (1999) MCKENZIE , C. S., “Inner -biblical Interpretation, Hebrew Bible.” In DBI: A-J, edited by JOHN H. HAYS , 538-40. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999.

McNamara (1992) MCNAMARA , MARTIN . 1: Genesis . Edited by KEVIN CATHCART , MICHAEL MAHER and MARTIN MCNAMARA . Vol. 1A, The Aramaic Bible . Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1992.

McNamara (1995) ———. Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers and Pseudo -Jonathan: Numbers . Edited by KEVIN CATHCART , MICHAEL MAHER and MARTIN MCNAMARA . Vol. 4, The Bible in Aramaic . Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995.

Meier (1992) MEIER , SAMUEL A. Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible . Vol. 46, VTS . Leiden: Brill, 1992.

Meyers (1992) MEYERS , CAROL . “Temple, Jerusalem.” In ABD: Volume 6 , edited by DAVID N. FREEDMAN , GARY A. HERION , DAVID F. GRAF and JOHN D. PLEINS , 350-69. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Middleburg (1978) MIDDLEBURG , C. H. “The Mention of Vine and Fig Tree in Psalm 105.” VT 28 (1978): 480.

Milgrom (1992) MILGROM , JACOB . “Priestly (‘P’) Source.” In ABD , edited by DAVID N. FREEDMAN , GARY A. HERION , DAVID F. GRAF and JOHN D. PLEINS , 454-61. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Milgrom (2001a) ———. Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation . Edited by WILLIAM F. ALBRIGHT and DAVID N. FREEDMAN , AB . London: Doubleday, 2001.

Milgrom (2001b) ———. Leviticus 23-27: A New Translation . Edited by WILLIAM F. ALBRIGHT and DAVID N. FREEDMAN , AB . London: Doubleday, 2001.

Milgrom (2004) ———. “The Alleged ‘Hidden Light’.” In The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel , edited by HINDY NAJMAN and JUDITH H. NEWMAN , 41-44. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Mitchell (1997) MITCHELL , DAVID . The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of the Psalms . Vol. 252, JSOTS . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

Mitchell (2006) ———. “Lord Remember David: G. H. Wilson and the Message of the Psalter.” VT 56 (2006): 526-48.

Mowinckel (1962) MOWINCKEL , SIGMUND . The Psalms in Israel’s Worship . Translated by D. R. AP-THOMAS . 2 vols. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962.

Mrozek (1999) MROZEK , ANDRZEJ . “The Motif of the Sleeping Divinity.” Biblica 80 (1999): 415-19.

Muilenberg (1961) MUILENBERG , JAMES . “The Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages of :(in the Old Testament.” HUCA 32 (1961 כי the Particle 135-60.

Muilenberg (1969) ———. “Form Criticism and Beyond.” JBL 89 (1969): 1-18.

Mulder (1998) MULDER , MARTIN J. 1Kings , HCOT . Leuven: Peeters, 1998.

Myers (1965) MYERS , JACOB . 1Chronicles . Edited by WILLIAM F. ALBRIGHT and DAVID N. FREEDMAN , AB . New York: Doubleday, 1965.

Nasuti (1988) NASUTI , HARRY P. Tradition History and the Psalms of Asaph . Vol. 88, SBL Dissertation Series . Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.

Nasuti (1999) ———. Defining the Sacred Songs: Genre, Tradition and the Post-Critical Interpretation of the Psalms . Vol. 218, JSOTS . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Nasuti (2005) ———. “The Interpretive Significance of Sequence and Selection in the Book of Psalms.” In The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception , edited by PETER FLINT and PATRICK D. MILLER , 311-39. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Nielsen (1998) NIELSEN , KIRSTEN . “Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible.” In Congress Volume: VTS 80 , 17-31. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

Noble (2002) NOBLE , PAUL R. “Esau, Tamar, and Jacob: Criteria for identifying Inner-biblical Allusion.” VT 52, no. 2 (2002): 219-52.

Noordtzij (1983) NOORDTZIJ , ARIE. Numbers . Translated by ED VAN DER MAAS . Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983.

Norin (1977) NORIN , STIG I. L. Er Spaltete das Meer: Die Auszugsüberlieferung in Psalmen und Kult des Alten Israel , Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament Series 9 . Lund: Gleerup, 1977.

Noth (1962) NOTH , MARTIN . Exodus: A Commentary . Translated by J. S. BOWDEN , OTL . Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962.

Noth (1965) ———. Leviticus: A Commentary . Translated by J. E. ANDERSON , OTL . London: SCM Press, 1965.

Noth (1968) ———. Numbers: A Commentary . Translated by JAMES D. MARTIN . London: SCM Press, 1968.

Noth (1991) ———. The Deuteronomistic History . Edited by DAVID J. A. CLINES and PHILIP R. DAVIES . 2nd ed., JSOTS . Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.

Oesterle y (1962) OESTERLEY , WILLIAM O. E. The Psalms: Translated with Text - Critical and Exegetical Notes . London: SPCK, 1962.

פלמוני , יעקב . ” ארבה,“ אנציקלופדיה מקראית, ,א 520-26 . ירושלים : (Palmoni (1976 מוסד ביאליק , 1976.

Parker (1997) PARKER , SIMON B., ed . Ugaritic Narrative Poetry , Society of Biblical Literature. Writings from the Ancient World 9 . Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1997.

Paul (1995) PAUL , SHALOM . “Hosea 7:16: Gibberish Jabber.” In and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom , edited by DAVID P. WRIGHT , DAVID N. FREEDMAN and AVI HURVITZ , 707-12. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995.

Phillips (1973) PHILLIPS , ANTHONY . Deuteronomy . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.

Pietersma (2005) PIETERSMA , ALBERT , ed. Septuagintal Exegesis and Superscriptions of the Greek Psalter . Vol. 99, VTS . Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Polzin (1976) POLZIN , ROBERT . Late Biblical Hebrew: Towards an Historical of Biblical Hebrew Prose , Harvard Semitic Monographs 12 . Missoula, Mont: Scholars Press, 1976.

Pritchard (1973) PRITCHARD , JAMES B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament . Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1973. Reprint, 6th.

Propp (1992) PROPP , WILLIAM H. “Massah and Meribah.” In ABD , edited by DAVID N. FREEDMAN , GARY A. HERION , DAVID F. GRAF , et al., 600-01. London: Doubleday, 1992.

Propp (1999) ———. Exodus 1-18 . Edited by WILLIAM F. ALBRIGHT and DAVID N. FREEDMAN . Vol. 2, AB . New York: Doubleday, 1999.

Raabe (1991) RAABE , PAUL R. “Deliberate Ambiguity in the Psalter.” JBL 110, no. 2 (1991): 213-27.

Reddish (1992) REDDISH , MITCHELL G. “Heaven.” In ABD , edited by DAVID N. FREEDMAN , GARY A. HERION , DAVID F. GRAF and JOHN D. PLEINS , 90-91. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

In TDOT: Vol. 12 , edited by G. JOHANNES ”. פרק “ .Reiterer (2003) REITERER , F BOTTERWECK , HELMER RINGGREN and HEINZ -JOSEPH FABRY , 111-14. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003.

Rendsburg (1990) RENDSBURG , GARY ALAN . Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origins of Selected Psalms , The Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series . Georgia: Scholars Press, 1990.

Rendsburg (2003a) ———. “Hurvitz Redux: On the Continued Scholarly Inattention to a Simple Principle of Hebrew Philology.” In Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology , edited by IAN YOUNG , 104-28. London: T. & T. Clark Ltd, 2003.

Rendsburg (2003b) ———. “A Comprehensive Guide to Israelian Hebrew: A Grammar and Lexicon.” Orient 38 (2003): 5-35.

Rendtorff (1985) RENDTORFF , ROLF . The Old Testament: An Introduction . Translated by JOHN BOWDEN . London: SCM Press, 1985.

Richardson (1987) RICHARDSON , NIEL H. “Psalm 106: Yahweh’s Succoring Love Saves from the Death of a Broken Covenant.” In Love and Death in the Ancient Near East , edited by JOHN H. MARKS and ROBERT M. GOOD , 191-203. Guilford, Conn.: Four Quarters Publishing Co., 1987.

. In TDOT: Vol. 6 , edited by G ”. ים “ . Ringgren (1990) RINGGREN , HELMER JOHANNES BOTTERWECK and HELMER RINGGREN , 87-98. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.

Robbins (1996) ROBBINS , K. Exploring the Texture of Texts . Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1996.

Robertson (1972) ROBERTSON , DAVID A. Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry , SBL Dissertation Series 3 . Missoula, Montana: Printing Department, University of Montana, 1972.

Rofé (1988) ROFÉ , ALEXANDER . “The Arrangement of the Laws in Deuteronomy.” ETL 64, no. 4 (1988): 265-87.

Rofé (1999) ———, Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch , Vol. 58, The Biblical Seminar . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

——— . מבוא לשירה המזמורית ולספרות החכמה שבמקרא . ירושלים : (Rofé (2004 כרמל , 2004 . .

רום - שילוני , דלית . ” אלהים בעידן של חורבן וגלויות : אמונות ודעות (Rom -Shiloni (2000 בספרות הנבואה ובשירה מן המחצית הראשונה של המאה השישית לפה” .ס “ עבודת דוקטור , האוניברסיטה העברית , 2000 . .

Rooker (1990) ROOKER , MARK F. Biblical Hebrew in Transition . Vol. 30, JSOTS. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990.

Sáenz -badillos (1993) SÁENZ -BADILLOS , ANGEL . A History of the Hebrew Language . Translated by JOHN ELWOLDE . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

זיידל , משה . ” מקבילות בין ספר ישעיה ל ספר תהלים.“ סיני Saidel (1956) :( 1956 ) 19 . . 353-333 ; 280-273 ; 240-229 ; 172-149

Sanders (1965) SANDERS , JAMES A., ed. The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 . Vol. IV, DJD . Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1965.

Sarason (1999) SARASON , RICHARD S. “Midrash.” In DBI: K-Z, edited by JOHN H. HAYS , 155-57. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999.

Sarna (1996) SARNA , NAHUM M. “Notes on the Use of the Definite Article in the Poetry of Job.” In Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran , edited by MICHAEL V. FOX , AVI HURVITZ , VICTOR A. HUROWITZ , et al., 279-84. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996.

Sarna (2000) ———. “Psalm 89: A Study in Inner-Biblical Exegesis.” In Studies in Biblical Interpretation , 377-94. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2000.

Schaefer (2001) SCHAEFER , KONRAD . Psalms , Berit Olam . Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 2001.

Schmidt (1984) SCHMIDT , WERNER . Introduction to the Old Testament . London: SCM, 1984.

Schniedewind (1995) SCHNIEDEWIND , WILLIAM M. “Are We His People or Not? Biblical Interpretation in Crisis.” Biblica 76, no. 4 (1995): 540-50.

Schökel (1988) SCHÖKEL , LUIS ALONSO . A Manual of Hebrew Poetics , Subsidia Biblica 11 . Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1988.

Schoors (1998) SCHOORS , ANTOON . “(M is)use of Intertextuality in Qoheleth Exegesis.” In Congress Volume: VTS 80 , 45-59. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

Schwartz (1988) SCHWARTZ , BARUCH J. “Getting it Right the Second Time Around: An Aspect of Intergenerational Responsibility in Biblical Thought.” In Freedom and Responsibility: Exploring the Challenges of Jewish Continuity , edited by RELA M. GEFFEN and MARSHA B. EDELMAN , 31-49. Hoboken, New Jersey: Ktav Publishing, 1988.

זליגמן , יצחק א . מחקרים בספרות המקרא . ירושלים : מאגנס , Seeligman (1996) . 1996

Segert (1984) SEGERT , STANISLAV . A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language . Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984.

Seow (1992) SEOW , CHOON L. “Hosea, Book of.” In ABD , edited by DAVID N. FREEDMAN , GARY A. HERION , DAVID F. GRAF and JOHN D. PLEINS , 291-97. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Seybold (1990) SEYBOLD , KLAUS . Introducing the Psalms . Translated by R. GRAEME DUNPHY . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd, 1990.

Seybold (1996) ———. Die Psalmen , HAT . Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1996.

Sheppard (1992) SHEPPARD , GERALD T. “Canonical Criticism.” In ABD , edited by DAVID N. FREEDMAN , GARY A. HERION , DAVID F. GRAF and JOHN D. PLEINS , 861-66. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

שנאן , אביגדור , ויאיר זקוביץ . לא כך כת וב בתנ“ך . תל אביב : ידיעות (Shinan and Zakovitch (200 4 אחרונות וספרי חמד , 2004 . .

Simkins (1994) SIMKINS , RONALD A. Creator & Creation: Nature in the Worldview of Ancient Israel . Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Ska (1990) SKA , JEAN LOUIS . Our Fathers Have Told Us - Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives . Vol. 13, Subsidia Biblica . Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1990.

Sommer (1996) SOMMER , BENJAMIN . “Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger.” VT 46, no. 4 (1996): 497-89.

Sommer (1998) ———. A Prophet Reads Scripture . Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998.

Sparks (1989) SPARKS , HEDLEY F. D., ed. The Apocryphal Old Testament . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

Speiser (1963) SPEISER , EPHRAIM A. “The Stem PLL in Hebrew.” JBL 82 (1963): 301-06.

Speiser (1964) ———. Genesis: Introduction, Translation and Notes . Edited by WILLIAM F. ALBRIGHT and DAVID N. FREEDMAN , AB . Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1964.

Speiser (1969) ———. “The Creation Epic.” In Ancient Near East Tests Relating to the Old Testament , edited by JAMES B. PRITCHARD , 60-72. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1969.

,as Self Reliance.” JBL 100 שרירות “ . Spencer (1981) SPENCER , AÍDA BESANÇON no. 2 (1981): 247-48.

Sperber (1959) SPERBER , ALEXANDER , ed. The Bible in Aramaic: Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts . 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1959.

Stec (2004) STEC , DAVID M. The Targum of Psalms: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus and Notes . Vol. 16, The Aramaic Bible . London: T. & T. Clark Ltd, 2004.

Steck (1998) STECK , ODIL HANNES . Old Testament Exegesis: A Guide to the Methodology . Translated by JAMES D. NOGALSKI . Vol. 39, Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study . Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1998.

Stern (1995) STERN , PHILIP . “The Eighth Century Dating of Psalm 78 Re- argued.” HUCA 66 (1995): 41-65.

Sternberg (1985) STERNBERG , MEIR . The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading . Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985.

Swanson (1992) SWANSON , STEVEN R. “.” In ABD: Vol. 3 , edited by DAVID N. FREEDMAN , GARY A. HERION , DAVID F. GRAF and JOHN D. PLEINS , 30. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Sweeney (2000) SWEENEY , MARVIN A. The Twelve Prophets . Edited by DAVID W. COTTER . 2 vols. Vol. 1, Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry . Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 2000.

Talmon (1960) TALMON , SHEMARYAHU . “Double Readings in the Masore tic Text.” Textus 1 (1960): 144-85.

Tanner (2001) TANNER , BETH L. The Book of Psalms through the Lens of Intertextuality . Vol. 26, Studies in Biblical Literature . New York: Peter Lang, 2001.

Tate (1990) TATE , MARVIN E. Psalms 51-100 . Edited by DAVID A. HUBBARD and GLEN W. BARKER . Vol. 20, WBC . Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1990.

Terrien (2003) TERRIEN , SAMUEL . The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary . Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003.

Thompson (1986) THOMPSON , YAAKOV . “A Missing Hexateuchal Narrative Concerning Child Sacrifice.” Dor Le Dor 15, no. 1 (1986): 35-51.

Tigay (1993) TIGAY , JEFFREY . “On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing.” In The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallow , edited by M. E. COHEN , D. C. SNELL and D. B. WEISBERG . Maryland: CDL Press, 1993.

Tourney (1991) TOURNEY , RAYMOND J. Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms: The Prophetic Liturgy of the Second Temple in Jerusalem . Translated by J. EDWARD CROWLEY . Vol. 118, JSOTS . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.

Tov (1992) TOV , EMANUEL . Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

Tov (1997) ———. The Text-Critical use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research . 2nd ed., Jerusalem Biblical Studies 8 . Jerusalem: Simor Ltd, 1997.

Treves (1988) TREVES , MARCO . The Dates of the Psalms: History and Poetry in Ancient Israel . Pisa: Giardini Editori 1988.

Trible (1994) TRIBLE , PHYLLIS . Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the , Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Old Testament Series . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.

Tucker (2005) TUCKER , W. “Revisiting the Plagues in Psalm CV.” VT 55, no. 3 (2005): 401-11.

Unterman (1995) UNTERMAN , JEREMIAH . “The Social -Legal Origin for the Image of of Israel.” In Pomegranates and גואל God as Redeemer Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom , edited by DAVID P. WRIGHT , DAVID N. FREEDMAN and AVI HURVITZ , 399-405. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995.

In TLOT: Vol. 2 , edited by ERNST JENNI ”. עד “ .van Leeuwen (1997) VAN LEEUWEN , C and CLAUS WESTERMANN , 838-46. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.

Vermes (19 75) VERMES, GEZA . Post-Biblical Jewish Studies . Edited by JACOB NEUSNER . Vol. 8, Studies in in Late Antiquity . Leiden: Brill, 1975.

.in the Psalter.” VT 10 (1960): 435-41 רנה “ .Wagner (1960) WAGNER , NORMAN E

In TDOT: Vol. 2 , edited by G. JOHANNES ”. בקש“ .Wagner (1975) WAGNER , S BOTTERWECK , HELMER RINGGREN and HEINZ -JOSEPH FABRY , 229-41. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975.

Waltke (1990) WALTKE , BRUCE K., and M . O’C ONNOR . An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax . Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Warning (1998) WARNING , WILFRIED . Literary Artistry in Leviticus . Vol. 35, Biblical Interpretation Series . Brill: Leiden, 1998.

Watson (1981) WATSON , WILFRED G. E. “Chiastic Patterns in Biblical Poetry.” In Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis , edited by JOHN W. WELCH , 118-68. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981.

Watson (1985) ———. “Internal Parallelism in Classical Hebrew Verse.” Biblica 66, no. 3 (1985): 363-83.

Watson (1994) ———. Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse . Vol. 170, JSOTS . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.

Watson (2001) ———. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques . Vol. 26, JSOTS . Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2001.

Weinfeld (1972) WEINFELD , MOSHE . Deuter onomy and the Deuteronomic School . Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1972.

Weinfeld (1991) ———. Deuteronomy 1-11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary . Edited by WILLIAM F. ALBRIGHT and DAVID N. FREEDMAN . Vol. 5, AB . New York: Doubleday, 1991.

Weiser (1965) WEISER , ARTUR . The Psalms . Translated by HERBERT HARTWELL , OTL . London: SCM Press, 1965.

Weiss (1984) WEISS , MEIR . The Bible from Within: The Method of Total Interpretation . Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1984.

——— . המקרא כדמ ותו : שיטת האינטרפרטאציה הכוליית . ירושלים : (Weiss (1987 מוסד ביאליק , 31987 . .

——— . אמונות ודעות במזמורי תהילים . ירושלים : מוסד ביאליק , Weiss (2001) . 2001

Wente (1992) WENTE , EDWARD F. “Egyptian Religion.” In ABD , edited by DAVID N. FREEDMAN , GARY A. HERION , DAVID F. GRAF , et al., 552. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Westermann (1985) WESTERMANN , CLAUS . Genesis 12-36: A Commentary . Translated by JOHN J. SCULLION . Minneapolis: Ausburg Publishing House, 1985.

Westermann (1989) ———. The Living Psalms . Translated by JOSHUA R. PORTER . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd, 1989.

Whiston (1995) WHISTON , WILLIAM , ed. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged . Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995.

Whitelam (1992) WHITELAM , KEITH W. “King and Kingship.” In ABD , edited by DAVID N. FREEDMAN , GARY A. HERION , DAVID F. GRAF and JOHN D. PLEINS , 350-69. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Williams (1996) WILLIAMS , RONALD J. Hebrew Syntax: An Outline . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996.

Wilson (1977) WILSON, GERALD H. “The Use of Royal Psalms at the ‘Seams’ of the Hebrew Psalter.” In The Poetical Books , edited by DAVID J. A. CLINES , 73-83. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1977.

Wilson (1984) ———. “Evidence of Editorial Divisions in the Hebrew Psalte r.” VT 34, no. 3 (1984): 337-52.

Wilson (1985a) ———. The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter . Vol. 76, SBL Dissertation Series . Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985.

Wilson (1985b) ———. “The Use of ‘Untitled’ Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter.” ZAW 97 (1985): 401-13.

Wilson (1993a) ———. “Shaping the Psalter: A Consideration of Editorial Linkage in the Book of Psalms.” In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter , edited by J. CLINTON MCCANN , 72-82. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.

Wilson (1993b) ———. “Understanding the Purposeful Arrangement of Psalms in the Psalter: Pitfalls and Promise.” In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter , edited by J. CLINTON MCCANN , 42-51. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.

ירון , שלומית . ” הנסים במקרא ובספרויות המזרח הקדום. “ עבודת דוקטור , (Yaron (1997 אוניברסיטת חיפה , 1997 . .

Young (1993) YOUNG , IAN . Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew . Vol. 5, Forschungen zum Alten Testament . Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993.

זקוביץ , יאיר . ” הדגם הספרותי שלושה- ארבעה במקרא.“ עבודת דו קטור , (Zakovitch (1977 האוניברסיטה העברית , 1977 . .

———. על תפיסת הנס במקרא , תל אביב : משרד הביטחון , Zakovitch (1987) . 1987

Zakovitch (1991) ———. And You Shall Tell Your Son: The Concept of the Exodus in the Bible . Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991.

——— . מבוא לפרשנות פנים- מקראית . רכס הוצאה לאור פרויקטים (Zakovitch (1992 חינוכיים בע“מ , 1992 . .

Zakovitch (1995a) ———. “Juxtaposition in the Abraham Cycle.” In Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom , edited by DAVID P. WRIGHT , DAVID NOEL FREEDMAN , et al., 509-24. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1995.

——— . מקראות בארץ המראות. תל - אביב: הקיבוץ המאוחד , Zakovitch (1995b) . 1995

——— . ” ויבחר את שבט יהודה ... ויבחר בד וד עבדו : תהלים עח - (Zakovitch (1997 מקורות , מבנה , משמעות ומגמה“ . דוד מלך ישראל חי וקיים? , -117 201 . ירושלים : סימור , 1997 . .

——— . ”’ אחת דבר אלהים שתיים זו שמעתי‘ : על מבעים -דו משמעים (Zakovitch (1999 בסיפורת המקראית“ . לזכרו של פרופ‘ מאיר וייס , 21- 68 . ירושלים : המכון למדעי היהדות , 1999 . .

——— . ”’ על נהרות בבל‘ : תהילים קל“ ז - זכרון בצל הטראומה .“ (Zakovitch (2001 תשורה לשמואל: מחקרים בעולם המקרא , 184 - 204 . ירושלים : מוסד ביאליק , 2001 . .

Zakovitch (2004) ———. “Psalm 82 and Biblical Exegesis.” In Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume , edited by CHAIM COHEN , AVI HURVITZ and SHALOM PAUL , 213-28. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004.

.In TDOT Vol. 6 , edited by G ”. יעקב “ . Zobel (1990) ZOBEL , HANS -JÜRGEN JOHANNES BOTTERWECK and HELMER RINGGREN , 185- 208. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.

יציאת מצרי במזמורי תהילי

חיבור לש קבלת תואר דוקטור לפילוסופיה

מאת

דוד עמנואל

הוגש לסינט האוניברסיטה העברית טבת תשס" (ח דצמבר 2007 ) )

עבודה זו נעשתה בהדרכתו

של פרופ ' יאיר זקובי

תוכ הענייני

מבוא ...... 1 1 סקיר ת ה מחקר הקיי ...... 3 המחקר הספרותי ...... 3 3 פרשנות פני # מקראית ...... 6 6 המחקר הקאנוני ...... 8 מתודולוגיה ...... 10 ה יה ק ומבנה העבודה ...... 17 ה יה ק& ...... 17 17 מבנה העבודה ...... 18 18 פרק 1 : מזמור עח ...... 21 מבנה המזמור ...... 21 קריאה צמודה ...... 24 מסר המזמור ...... 94 תיארו" המזמור ...... 96 מקורות המזמור ...... 98 תהלי) הבחירה ...... 100 רמיזות ...... 101 הה ספקה במדבר ...... 101 שירת הי ...... 105 המכות ...... 107 סמיכות פ רשיות ...... 110 מזמור עז— עח ...... 110 מזמור עח— עט ...... 112 מזמור עז— עט ...... 113 פרק 2 : מזמור קה ...... 115 מבנה המזמור ...... 115 קריאה צמודה ...... 118 מסר המזמ ור ...... 156 תיארו" המזמור ...... 157 מקורות המזמ ור ...... 159 תהלי) הבח רי ה ...... 161 רמיזות ...... 162 ישראל במצרי ...... 162 המכות ...... 163 הנדידה במדבר ...... 167 סמי כות פרשיות ...... 170 מזמור קד— קה ...... 170 פרק 3 : מזמו ר קו ...... 173 מבנה המזמור ...... 173 קריאה צמודה ...... 177 מסר המזמור ...... 220 תיארו" המזמור ...... 221

מקורות המזמור ...... 223 תהלי) הבחירה ...... 225 רמיזות ...... 226 השחרור ממצרי ...... 226 תאוות במדבר ...... 227 המרי של דת* ...... 229 דחיית ה אר המובטחת ...... 230 עגל הזהב ...... 232 בעל פעור ...... 234 מי מריבה ...... 236 סדר המקורות ...... 237 סמיכות פרשיות ...... 240 מזמור קה— קו ...... 240 מזמור קו— קז ...... 244 מזמור קה— קז ...... 246 נספח ב ' : ספר משה ...... 248 פרק 4 : מזמור קלה ...... 250 מבנה המזמור ...... 250 קריאה צמודה ...... 252 מסר המזמור ...... 273 תיארו" המזמור ...... 274 מקורות המזמור ...... 276 תהלי) הבחירה ...... 277 רמיזות ...... 278 בחירת ישראל ...... 278 המכות ...... 279 ה מלחמות בעוג וסיחו* ...... 280 סמיכות פרשיות ...... 281 מזמור קלד— קלה ...... 281 פרק 5 : מזמור קלו ...... 283 מבנה המזמור ...... 283 קריאה צמודה ...... 285 מסר המזמור ...... 301 תיארו" המ זמור ...... 302 מקורות המזמור ...... 304 תהלי) הבחירה...... 306 רמיזות ...... 307 ה מלחמות בעוג וסיחו* ...... 307 בקיעת י סו& ...... 308 יציאת מצרי ...... 309 סמיכות פרשיות ...... 310 מזמור קלה— קלו ...... 310 מזמור קלו— קלז ...... 311 מסקנות ...... 313

מקורות המשוררי ...... 314 מקורות מקראי י ...... 314 הנחת המקורות ...... 315 עריכת המקורות ...... 316 היבטי פרשנות ...... 317 השמטת מידע שלילי ...... 318 פיאור פעולות האל ...... 320 התייחסות לבעיות ספרותיות ...... 321 הוכחה לפעולות עורכי ספר תהילי ...... 322 המניעי לעריכת המזמורי ...... 323 המשוררי ומסורת יציאת מצרי ...... 326 הבנות משותפות של מסורת יציאת מצרי ...... 326 היחס בי* המשוררי לבי* אירועי יציאת מצרי ...... 326 שימושי שוני למסורת יציאת מצרי ...... 327 יציאת מצרי כמוטיב דידקטי ...... 328 הקשרי שבה  מסורת יציאת מצרי אינה מופיעה ...... 330 בי* יציאת מצרי לבריאת העול ...... 330 מסורות דחויות ...... 332 תרומות החיבור ל חקר ספר תהילי ...... 335 נספח A— מזמור עח ...... 338 נספח B— מזמור קה ...... 341 נספח C— מזמור קו ...... 345 נספח D— מזמור קלה ...... 345 נספח E— מזמור קלו ...... 346 ביבליוגרפיה ...... 347

תקציר

מבוא מבט חטו& בספר תהילי מגלה שיש בו מזמורי רבי המספרי ומעצבי מחדש אירועי רבי חשיבות שמקור בהיסטוריוגרפיה המקראית כגו* : בריאת העול , הבטח ה ל מלכו ת עול לדוד ולזרעו וגלות בבל . המסורת הנפוצה ביותר היא זו של יציאת מצרי "י( מ ) המספרת על עבדות ישראל במצרי , הושעת על ידי האל ותקופת הנדודי במדבר עד הגיע לאר המובטחת . בספר תהילי מופיעה מסורת זו לפחות בעשרי מזמורי . מסורת יציאת מצרי הינה מוטיב מרכזי רק בתורה , אול ביטויי רבי לה נמצאי ג בספרי מקרא אחרי . רבי כבר הבחינו בזיקות ש בי* ספר תהילי לבי* אירועי המופיעי במקרא , , א) רק מעטי בדקו באופ* מפורט א ת היחס שבי* ה מסורות המופיעות ב ספר תהילי לבי* ה מסורות המצויות בספרי מקרא אחרי . שאלות רבות בנוגע למזמורי י" מ נותרו ללא מענה . כ) למשל נותר ו בעינ * * השאל :ות באילו מקורות השתמשו המשוררי , הא ניתנה לה יד חופשית לעבד את מקורותיה ומה ה הגורמי לעיבודי הללו ? כ מו כ* , מה היו הגורמי שהשפיעו על העורכי להציב את המזמורי זה לצד זה ? כדי לענות על השאלות האלה יתמודד המחקר הנוכחי ע השאלה ה בסיס ית ביותר והיא : לאיזה צור) חוברו מזמורי י" מ ואיזה שימוש נעשה בה ? בנוס& יבדוק המחקר ג את מקומ של מזמורי י" מ בספר תהילי . כדי ל ענות על שאלות אלה תעסוק עבודה זו במספר מזמורי שבה בולט המוטיב של "י (מ עח , קה , קו , קלה , קלו ). ).

המחקר הנוכחי ניצב בי* שלושה תחומי של מחקר המקרא : המחקר הספרותי , המחקר הקאנוני ( Canonical Criticism ) ופרשנות פני# מקראית . המחקר הנוכחי סוטה מהדרכי הקלאסיות של חקר ספר תהילי . עד היו רובו של המחקר עסק בהקשר ההיסטורי של המזמורי כגו* תפקוד של המזמורי בפולח* הישראלי הקדו וכ* התייחסות של המזמורי לספרות מ* המזרח הקדו . הגישה המפורסמת ביותר במחקר ספר תהי לי היא של הרמ* גונקל ( Form Criticism .) גונקל שינה בתחילת ה מאה העשרי את כיוו* המחקר בספר תהילי . לאחר שייסד גונקל את גישתו וח, קרי רבי אימצו ופיתחו אותה . החוקר המפורס ביותר שפיתח את עבודתו של גונקל הוא זיגמונד מובינקל . הוא ייחס את רוב המזמורי לחגיגה שנתית ישראלית . .

המחקר הנוכחי מאמ גישה ספרותית שהינה קרובה יו תר לשיטת של מאיר ויי (ס האינטרפרטציה הכוליית # Total Interpretation 'גו) יימס מאילנבורג ( Rhetorical Criticism) . הגישות הללו מעניקות כבוד למשמעותו ומטרתו של המזמור כולו . בנוס& לכ) ה* מנסות ל קבוע את מסר המזמור כולו תו) התייחסות למגוו* הפרטי הבוני אותו . במחקר זה יעשה שימוש בשיטת הקריאה הצמודה לצור) ניתוח מזמורי נבחרי . עד היו ניסו מעט חוקרי לייש שיטות אלו בניתוח מזמורי י" .מ .מ

שתי גישות מקובלות כיו ביחס למחקר הקאנוני בספר תהילי . הגישה הראשונה מאמצת מבט רחב על עיצוב ספר תהילי . מבט זה משתק& בגילוי המס ר של ספר תהילי כולו , ובשאלת ה עריכ ה של קבצי ה מזמורי לש עיצוב מסר תיאולוגי לספר . גישה זו מצויה אצל ג' ראלד ווילסו* , אשר הגיע למסקנה שספר תהילי נער) כתגובה לגלות כדי להתמודד ע קִ צה של מלכות דוד . הגישה השנייה מתרכזת בסמיכות של מזמורי בספר תהילי , וזאת כדי לנסות לעמוד על הסיבות שהביאו להצבת של מזמורי מסוימי זה לצד זה . המחקר הנוכחי קרוב בתפיסתו לגישה השניי ה ומנסה באמצעות ניתוח חמי שה מזמורי נבחרי

א תקציר

לעמוד על הסיבות והגורמי שהובילו להצבת של המזמורי דווקא במיקומ הנוכחי . בשאלה זו י יבח* בייחוד העיקרו* האסוציאטיבי בסידור של מזמורי תהי לי # יע קרו* המצוי במחקר של פרנ דליטש ו משה דוד קאסוטו . לפי עיקרו* זה , עורכי ספר תהילי הציבו מזמורי בעלי מילי משותפות ונדירות ובעלי נושאי קרובי זה לצד זה . בנוס& לכ) ינסה המחקר הנוכחי לגלות קשרי פרשניי בי* המזמורי ה נבחרי . .

עד היו הרבו החוקרי אשר עסקו בפרשנות הפני# מקראית ( כגו* מיכאל פישביי* ובנימי* זומר ) לדו* בעיקר בספרות החוק ובספרות הנבואה ולא במזמורי תהילי כמשקפי דיאלוג ע טקסטי אחרי במקרא . ניתוח המזמורי בעבודה זו ינסה לעמוד על מקרי שבה המשוררי שינו בכ וונה את משמעות מקורותיה כדי להתאי את מסורת העבר למשמעות של המזמורי . המחקר הנוכחי יצביע אפוא על כ) שבמזמורי הנידוני ישנה פרשנות פני# מקראית וש משוררי המזמורי ועורכי ספר תהילי ה מ* הפרשני הישראלי הקדומי ביותר . .

המחקר הנוכחי בנוי מכמה שלבי . השלב ה ראשו* הוא קריאה צמודה של כל אחד מ* המזמורי שנבחרו . בתחיל ה ייקבע מבנה המזמור ל. אחר מכ* יוצע ניתוח ספרותי למזמור שדרכו יגלה המחקר את האופ* שבו השתמש המשורר בטכניקות פיוטיות כדי לבטא מגמתו של המזמור . בסופה של הקריאה הצמודה תינת* פרשנות למסר המזמור . כאמור , מטרתה של הקריאה הצמודה היא להערי) את המזמור כחיבור של אחד . .

בעקבות הקריאה הצמודה יוצע תיארו) יחסי למזמור . בשל הבעייתיות הקיימת בנוגע לתיארו) המזמורי , , ינסה המחקר לקבוע א מקור המזמור הו א לפני גלות בבל , במש) הגלות או לאחר הגלות . האמצעי העיקריי שבא מצעות  יצביע המחקר על התיארו) ה שיטות לשוניות ועדויות פנימיות בתו) המזמור כגו* : הופעת של אירועי , אנשי , או מקומות שנית* לשיי) אות לתקופה מסוימת בהיסטוריה המקראית . ביחס לתיארו) מאמ המחקר ג את גישתו של אבי הורבי המתארכת מזמורי בהתא למילי ולביטויי  שבה . .

לאחר תיארו) המזמור יפנה המחקר לקביעת המקורות שבה השתמש המשורר כדי לחבר את יצירתו , , וזאת באמצעות בחינת הזיקות המילוליות הקיימות בי* המזמור לבי* טקסטי אחרי במקרא . חלק זה של המחקר יימנע ממקרי ש בה מופיעי ביטויי נפוצי הידועי למשוררי מקראיי אחרי . במקרי כאלה יכולות הרמיזות להיות ' מדומות ' ולכ* אינ* יכולות להצביע על מקור וזמ* . לש קביעת המקורות המקראיי מהתורה שעמדו בבסיס המזמורי הנבחרי ישתמש המחקר בהגדרת מקורות התורה השוני ( J, E, P, D ) , וזאת על פי ה הנח ה של תורת התעודות ( Documentary Hypothesis ). בשלב זה יתייחס המחקר אל עניי* ה סלקציה , כלומר המחקר ינסה לענות את השאלה : למה בחר המשורר דווקא במקורות שנמצאו במזמורו ? ?

בסיו השלבי האלה יוחל בחיפוש אחר הסימני הפרשניי שבמזמורי . כדי למצוא סימני אלה ייבח* היחס שבי* המזמורי לבי* מקורותיה באמצעות מספר שאלות . הא שינה המשורר מילי מהמקור , וא כ* , מה גר לו לשנות * ? כמו כ* נשאל א יש שינוי בסדר האירועי ביצירתו של המשורר , וא כ* , מה השפיע עליו לסדר מקורותיו מחדש ? עוד נשאל הא שילב המשורר מקורות שוני כדי לשחזר אירוע אחד . .

ב תקציר

בשלב זה , בשונה מ* הקריאה הצמודה , ההדגשה העיקרית תהיה על הקשר בי* המזמור לבי* מקורותיו של המשורר . מטרתה של הקריאה הצמודה היא הבנת המזמור כולו כיצירה שלמה בעלת משמעות אחת . מטרת ניתוח הרמיזות והפרשנות היא ל גלות את הדרכי השונו ת שבה* התאימו מ שוררי המזמורי את ה משמעויות שנמצאות במקור להקשרי החדשי של המזמורי.

המטרה העיקרית שעומדת בבסיס ניתוח מיקומ של מזמורי י" מ בספר תהילי היא זיהוי המקרי שבה עורכי ספר תהילי ניסו לשנות את משמעות של המזמורי באמצעות ' סמיכות פרשיות ' . לפיכ) המשימה הראשונה היא לבודד מילי וביטויי נדירי ה משותפי למזמורי הניצבי זה לצד זה בהנחה שמילי וביטויי אלה כיוונו את עור) המזמורי בקביעת הסדר . בנוס& לזיהוי מילי וביטויי משותפי המופיעי במזמורי סמוכי , ייבדקו ג היבטי פרשנות שקיימי בי* מזמורי סמוכי . .

פרקי העבודה

פרק ראשו : מזמור עח באופ* יחסי נחשב מזמור עח למוקד – הוא נכתב ככל הנראה לקראת סו& תקופת המלוכה . המזמור מתפקד ככתב פולמוס נגד ממלכת הצפו* ומשתמש במוטיב י" מ כדי לנמק מדוע דוחה האל את מלכות ישראל ובוחר את מלכות יהודה במקומה . על פי המזמור בחר האל ביהודה כדי לבנות בה את מקדשו ובשבט יהודה כדי שממנו יקי רועה לגיטימי לעמו – דוד . רובו של המזמור עוסק בחטאי ישראל בתקופת "י מ . המשורר קושר את מרי ישראל במיוחד ל שבט אפרי המסמל את מלכות הצפו* מ. בי* שבעי ושניי פסוקי המזמור , ארבעי ושניי (58% ) הוקדשו למסורת י" .מ מזמור עח מתרכז בעיקר בתקופת הנדידה במדבר ( פס ' 42#9 , 54#52 ,) אבל מזכיר ג אירועי הקשורי בישועה ממצרי ( פס ' 51#43 ) ובקיעת י סו& ( פס ' 53,15 ). מזמור עח מתמקד בעיקר במרי ישראל , וזאת כדי להדגיש את ה תגובות השליליות וכפיות הטובה של ע ישראל כלפי האל . .

המשורר השתדל לנתק את עצמו ואת דורו מהדורות שחוו את י"מ . הוא הציג את דורו כדור נאמ* המספר לבניו את נפלאות האל ( פס )4' ; בניגוד לכ) מציג המשורר את דור המדבר כ" דור סורר ומורה " ( פס ).8' ).8' המשורר השתמש במקורות שוני כדי לעצב את המזמור . בי* המקורות ה אל ה נית* למצוא טקסטי פרוזאי י , פיוטיי ומסורות אבודות ( מסורות ייחודיות שאי* בידינו עדי כתובי שלה* ). בנוגע להנחת התעודות , הבסיס העיקרי לעבודתו של המשורר הוא מסורת JE . בנוס& יש סימני להשפעה של P ו אפילו השפעה חזקה מידו של הדו יטרונומיסט . .

תיאור המכות שבמזמור עח ( פס ' 51#44 ) מגלה לקורא את היד הקשה בה נקט האל כאשר העניש את אויביו ( מצרי ) ומצביע על רחמנותו כלפי עמו . המשורר השמיט מ* המזמור את חלק של אהרו* ומשה , וזאת כדי להעצי את גדולתו של האל . במבנה הכללי של המזמור מכות מצרי מתפקדות כסמל לח סד ו סד של האל כלפי הע – חסד שאמור להעצ י את אמונת ו באל ( 'פס 47 ). המשורר השתמש בסיפור מכות מצרי המדגיש את החסד האלוהי כלפי עמו ואת שכחת הע את חסדיו # שכחה שהובילה למריו של הע . .

ג תקציר

המשורר השתמש פעמיי במוטיב בקיעת י סו& במזמור ב. פע ראשונה ( פס ' 13 ) הוא הדגי את חסד ו של האל כלפי עמו . המשורר מתמקד במראה הנפלא של הי הניצב כנד . התגובה הנכונה של הע לנוכח המראה הייתה לזכור את המראה ולסמו) על האל שידאג לצרכיה בעתיד . ההופעה השנייה של בקיעת י סו& ( פס ' )53 מתפקדת בצורה שונה : פגיעה באויבי האנושיי של האל ו( של ע ישראל ) . במקרה זה נית* לראות כיצד המשורר השתמש ב היב טי שוני של אותו ה מוטיב , בקיעת י סו& , כדי להדגיש נקודות שונות . .

בבניית מוטיב המדבר מתרכז המשורר בעיקר בסיפורי הה ספק ה של המזו* והשתייה . א& שהוא חפ בהדגשת חטא ו של הע , נמנע המשורר מאזכור ה חטאי דוגמת עגל הזהב ועבודת האלילי בבעל פעור . בעיסוקו בסיפורי ה ספקת המזו* , משווה המשורר בי* ה פעולות המציגות את חסדו של האל לבי* התגובה כפוי ת הטובה של הע , שכ* בגרסתו של המשורר יש לישראל ספקות רבי לגבי יכולת האל לספק אוכל במדבר ( פס ' 20#17 ) . בראשונה הגיב האל ליחס זה בגילוי רחמי ( פס ' 29#21 ) , ובסו& בעונש ( פס ' 34#30 .) .)

מזמור עח נמצא בי* שני מזמורי היסטוריוגראפיי  # עז ועט # ויש קשר אסוציאטיבי חזק בי* המזמורי ה אלה . כ) למשל מזמור עז מזכיר את יציאת מצרי ו כמוהו ג מזמור עח המרחיב עוד יותר בנושא זה . מזמור עז רומז א) ורק לבקיעת י סו& , ואילו מזמור עח מזכיר אירועי נוספי מ* התקופה . בי* המילי המשותפות במזמורי עז ועח ראוי לציי* את אלה ": תהו " ( עז 17 , עח 15 "ו) עשה פלא " ( עז 15 , עח )12 . א& כי מזמור עט לא עוסק בי"מ , הוא משק& אירועי  היסטוריי מתקופת המקר א כמו גלות בבל . התיאור הזה מפתח את התמונה ה היסטורית שהתחילה במזמור עח . כשאנו קוראי את שני המזמורי האלה ברצ& , נית* לראות סקירה היסטורית שראשיתה באירועי י"מ וסופה בגלות בבל . בי* המילי וה ביטוי י המשותפי למזמורי אלו ראוי לציי* את " נחלה " ( עט 1 , עח )62 ", חר פה " ( עט 4 , עח )66 וד"ו, ר לספר ... תהלות " ( עט 13 , עח ).4 ).4

הביטוי " דור ... לספר ... תהלות " מתפקד ג באופ* פרשני . מזמור עח מספר בעיקר על חטאי אפרי , סמל למלכות הצפונית ש, כתוצאה מ חטא יו דחה אות ו האל ובחר ב שבט יהודה תחת יו . בעקבות בחירה זו מזמור עט מתאר את חורב* ירושלי וגלות יהודה . לגבי גלות יהודה נותרה בעינה שאלה חשובה : מה גר ל מלכות יהודה לי פול לאחר ש בחר ב ה האל ? חזרת * של ה מילי " דור ," " לספר " ו, " תה לות " מדגישה את הכישלו* של יהודה לספר לדורות הבאי את תהילות האל . במזמור עח 4 הודיע המשורר " לא נכחד מבניה לדור אחרו* מספרי תהלות יהוה ..." . בניגוד לכ) מופיע במזמור עט : " והשב לשכנינו שבעתי ... ואנחנו עמ) נודה ל) לעול לדר ודר נספר תהלת) ". לפי הנאמר כא* ברור שבשלב מסוי בי* הדורות האלה הפס יקה יהודה לספר את תהילות האל . כ) נית* לראות יחס פרשנ י בי* ה מזמורי האלה.

פרק שני : מזמור קה מזמור קה הוא המנו* שנכתב לאחר גלות בבל . המזמור מספר על הבטחת האל לתת לאברה ול צאצאיו את אר כנע* כנחלה ומזכיר מקרי רבי בהיסטוריה של ע ישראל שסיכנו את מילוי ההבטחה , כמו ג מקרי שבה קוימה הבטחתו של האל . בחלקו האמצעי של המזמור ( פס ' 41#12 ) מתאר המשורר כמה מקרי שבה התערב האל כדי ל קיי את הבטחתו . היוזמה לתת ל בני ישראל את אר כנע* כנחלה , יחד ע כל פעולות האל למילוי הבטחתו , נתממשו א) ורק בשל גילוי חסדו הרב של אלוהי . הפסוק האחרו*

ד תקציר

של המזמור ( פס ' 45 ) מבטא את המסר העיקרי : מכיוו* שהאל גילה לע את חסדו האינ סופי , עליה לציית לחוקיו ולתורתו . .

ממסורת י" מ בחר המשורר קטעי הע וסקי בקורות ע ישראל במצרי , שחרור ממצרי באמצעות המכות והסיפור של ה ספקת לח , בשר ומי במדבר . מארבעי ושניי הפסוקי שבמזמור , עשרי הוקדשו למסורת י" (מ 44% ). המטרה העיקרית של המשורר הי יתה לבחור אירועי המשקפי את הסכנות שעמדו בדרכה של הגשמת ההבטחה והתערבו ת האל ב אמצעות גילויי חסד כדי לשמו ר את דברו . מסורת "י מ מהווה פרק חשוב בהיסטוריה הארוכה המספרת את גילויי חסדו של האל והגנ תו על עמו , והיא מכילה א& את קורות חייה של האבות ויוס& . בניגוד למזמור עח , המשורר לא השתדל להתנתק מדור י"מ , אלא הבי* כי לרחמנות האל בעבר השלכות ישירות לדורו , כלומר חובת הציות למצוות האל . התורה היא המקור העיקרי שעמד בפני המחבר , במיוחד ספרי בראשית ושמות , אבל נית* לראות סימני של טקסטי אחרי כגו* מזמורי עח #ו קו . ימכ וו* שמזמור קה נכתב ל אחר הגלות , סביר להניח ש מחברו השתמש ג ב מזמור קו וג ב מזמור עח כמקור ,ות מפני שהמזמור הראשו* נכתב במש) הגלות והשני עוד לפניה . בדומה למזמור ,עח ג מזמור קה עושה שימוש במסורות התורה של JE , א) יש נ ג מקרי ברורי שבה השתמש במסורות של P . בנוס& לכ) , כמו במזמור עח , יש ג במזמור קה השפעה חזקה של הלכי מחשבה ומושגי דויטרונומיסטיי . ד וגמ אות ל השפעה ה דויטרונומיסטית נית* ל ראות בשימוש בב יטוי " לשמור חֹק " במזמור קה 45 ( ראה ג ב דברי ד 40 ה, 1 ו, .)17 .)17

מכל המזמורי הנבחרי רק מזמור קה מזכיר פרטי על שהיית של ישראל במצרי בטר התערב האל כדי להציל . בחלק זה של המזמור מוזכרי אירועי כ :*וג הגעתו של יעקב למצרי , התרבותה של משפחתו והפיכתה ממשפחה לע , השינוי בלב פרעה שגר לו לתעב את הע ובחירת משה ואהרו* על ידי האל כדי להציל את הע . המשורר השתמש במסורות אלו כדי להדגיש את מצבו הפגיע של ע ישראל במצרי . בנוס& השתמש המשורר בתקופה זו כדי להציג את יכולתו של האל . האל הוצג כמי שגר לעמו להתרבות וכמי ששינה את לב ה מצרי לשנוא את עמו . .

מכיוו* שאחת המטרות העיקריות של המשורר היא הדגשת התערבותו הישירה של האל כדי לקיי את הבטחתו ( פס ' 22#20 ) , הוא אימ תיאור מפורט של מכות מצרי . למרות שהמזמור מזכיר את משה ואהרו* בסיפור המכות , ביכר המשורר להדגיש את חלקו של האל , ולכ* מוצגי משה ואהרו* ככלי בידיו של האל . הכללת סיפור המכות מתפקד ת כדג של שלטו* האל על הבריאה כולה # האל יכול ומוכ* לשנות את סדר י י הבריאה כדי להציל את עמו ולהגשי את הבטחתו . הדגשה זו גרמ ה למשורר לחבר גרסה שונה של סיפור המכות ש בה נגר פחות נזק לבני ה אד . בניגוד למזמור עח , מוקד המזמור אינו בתיאור הנזק במצרי , אלא ברצונו של האל לממש את הבטחתו . הכללת סיפור המכות היא ה שיא של ישועת האל במצרי , , ולפיכ) לא צרי) המשורר לספר על גילוי ישועה נוס& של האל בי סו& . נית* להבי* שהמסר העיקרי של המזמור # עידוד לציי ת לחוקי ולמצוו ת האל # גר למשורר לכלול את פס ' 37 המתאר את ישראל יוצא ממצרי עשיר בכס& וזהב . באמצעות אזכור מסורת זו המשורר מגדיל את הכרת הטובה ש בני ישראל אמורי להרגיש כלפי מושיע וזו אמורה לעודד א ות לציית למצוותיו של האל . .

ה תקציר

לאחר ש עסק המשורר בשחרור של ישראל ממצרי , הוא ממשי) לפרט באופ* חיובי את קורות ע ישראל בתקופת המדבר . הוא משתמש בסיפור המדבר כדי לתאר את רחמנותו של האל כלפי עמו . האירועי העיקריי שבחר המשורר היו ה: ספקת מי , לח ובשר והגנה בסביבה המאיימת של המדבר . רצונו של המשורר להציג את הגנת האל בא ל ידי ביטוי בתיאורו של הענ* המלווה את ע ישראל במדבר . במקורותיו של המזמור העמוד מסמ* בדר) כלל את הדרכת אלו הי במדבר א, ול המשורר השתמש בו כדי לבטא את הגנת אלוהי ( כנראה מחו השמש ). בעצבו את תקופת המדבר , המשורר אינו מזכיר א& חוויה שלילית אחת שאותה עבר דור המדבר . .

בדומה למזמור עח , הועמד ג מזמור קה בי* שני מזמורי היסטוריוגרפיי . הראשו* , קד , מזכיר את נפלאות האל בבריאת העול . הבריאה מציגה פרק מוקד  יותר מתקופ ת האבות ש בה פותח מזמור קה . כתוצאה מכ) אפשר לראות במזמורי אלה רצ& היסטורי שהתחיל בבריאת העול ונסתיי בכניסת ו של ע ישראל לכנע* . בי* המילי החשובות המשותפות לשני ה מזמורי ה אלה נית* לציי* את " אי* מספר " ( קד 25 , קה 34 "ו) שבע " ( קד 13 , 16 , 28 ; קה ).40 פעולות האל במזמור קד מ וצ גות כ ניגוד ל פעולותיו במזמור .קה ב מזמור קד קבע האל את סדר בריאתו , אבל במזמור קה הוא שבר את הסדר הזה כדי להג* על עמו ו לקיי את הבטחתו.

פרק שלישי: מזמור קו מזמור קו ה נו קינה מתקופת גלות בבל שבה מתחנ* הע לרחמ י האל כדי שיציל מיד אויביה וישיב לארצ . בניגוד למזמור עח המשורר לא מנסה לנתק את עצמו ואת דורו מהדור שיצא ממצרי , אלא מציג את דורו ואת דור המדבר יחד יו כ מי ש חטאו ו מרדו באל ( 'פס 6 ). למרות שרובו של המזמור הוקדש לתקופת המדבר , הוא כולל ג את בקיעת י סו& ( פס ' 12#9 ). מכל המזמורי הנבחרי , רק מזמור קו השתמש באירוע הזה כדי להדגיש את חטא הע . שלושי ושניי פסוקי מתו) ארבעי ושמונה הוקדשו למסורת "י מ , האחוז הגדול ביותר (67%) שנית* למצוא במזמורי הנבחרי . מזמור קו נסמ) בעיקר על מסורות התורה , במיוחד אלו המצויות בספר במדבר , א) סדר האירועי המשתק& במזמור לא משק& את הסדר הקיי בתורה . בדומה למזמורי ה קודמי , מזמור קו משק& את המקורות : P , JE #ו D . .

שימושו של המשורר בסיפור בקיעת י סו& כולל אירועי חיוביי ואירועי שליליי . המזמור מזכיר את האל הגוער בי , העברת הע בחרבה , הרס צבא המצרי והכרת הטובה של ע ישראל לנוכח מעשיו של האל . בנוס& למקרי אלה , נזכר ג מרד ישראל באל בי סו& ( פס )7' למרות שמסורת זו לא מופיעה בתורה . המשורר השתמש בסיפור בקיעת י סו& כיסוד לכלל הקטעי האחרי שמופיעי במזמורו . מבנה המזמור מדגי את המטרות השונות של השימוש באירועי בי סו& מ: ח ד מצביעי האירועי בי סו& על חסד האל למרות מרי עמו ( פס ,)7' ומאיד) ה מצביעי על התגובה הנכונה לחסד האל # אמונה בדברו ושירת תהילתו ( 'פס )12 . בשל ההדגשה על חסד האל כלפי ישראל אי* בשלב זה רמז למשה . המשורר הציג את האל לבדו כמי שהוביל את הע בחרבה . .

על מנת להתאי את מקורותיו למסר המזמור , בחר המשורר ל יהצ ג את תקופת המדבר רק ב מקרי שעוסקי במרי ישראל . בעיוננו במזמור קה ראינו כיצד הציג המשורר את ה ספקת הלח והבשר כביטוי לחסד האל . בניגוד לכ) מופיעה ה ספקת הבשר במזמור קו כדוגמה לכפיות הטובה של ע ישראל . המשורר

ו תקציר

הציג את המקרה בדר) זו כדי להתוודות על חטאו של דור המדבר . תהלי) זה של הצגה שלילית מופיע ג במסורת מי מריבה ( פס ' 33#32 ). בבחירתו להציג את תקופת המדבר באור שלילי , המשורר היה נאמ* יותר למקורותיו מאשר מ חברו של מזמור קה ה. ספקת המזו* והשתייה מופיעה בתורה תמיד כדוגמ ה לחטא ומרי . שימושו של המשורר בהיסטוריה הוא לא כדי לפאר את פעולות האל למע* עמו אלא לה צביע בפני שומעיו על נטיית ישראל לחטא . בניגוד למזמורי אחרי המשורר התרכז בפעולות בני אד , וכחלק מתכנית זו נזכרי במזמור אנשי רבי ובה משה , דת* , אביר , פנחס ואהרו* . .

במזמור קו נית* לזהות סימני המשקפי את מצבו של המשורר . הוא מוצג כאיש בודד הסובל בעטיו של העונש הלאומי , והוא ג מתפלל בעד עמו למע* ישועת . רמז למצב זה מופיע בשלושה קטעי ב מזמור . בפס ' 23 משה , כמו המשורר , מופיע כב* אד בודד המתפלל בעד עדתו . ג פנחס מופיע במזמור כמתפלל יחיד העומד בפר כנגד כעסו של האל לאחר עבודת האלילי בבעל פעור ( פס ' 31#28 ). משה מופיע פע נוספת במזמור כשהוא סובל בשל חטא הע ( שגר לו לחטוא .) מצב זה משק& אפוא את מצבו של המשורר בל. סו& , סירוב ישראל לכבוש את האר המובטחת גר על פי משוררנו לאל לפזר אות בארצות ( ראה פס ' )27 ה. מצב הזה הול את מצב ו של המש ורר , שבדומה לדור המדבר נודד ג הוא בגלות . .

מזמור קו ממשי) את הסקירה ההיסטורית המוצגת במזמורי קד# קה עד גלות בבל . בנוס& לכ) הקשר בי* מזמור קה ל# קו צמוד יותר מפני שהראשו* מצטט ג ממסורת י"מ . לכ* מכיוו* שמזמור קה שאב ממזמור קו ( לעיל ) , נית* לראות מילי משותפות רבות לשני המזמורי , ביניה* יש לציי* את " אר ח " ( קה 23 , 27 ; קו )22 ", פתח " ( קו 19 , קה 20 "ו) מרה " ( קו 23 , קה 25 ). ג מזמור קו #ו קז חולקי מילי וביטויי משותפי כמו " ישימו* " ( קו 14 , קז 4 "ו) מרה ... עצה " ( קו 43 , קז 11 ). בנוס& לכ) , נית* לראות קשר י י פרשניי בי* מזמור קו ל# (קז ראה ל מטה ). ).

מיקו ה מזמורי קה ו ק# ו בסו& ה ספר ה רביעי של ספר תהילי מתאי לתחילת ו של ה ספר ה רביעי כי שניה מזכירי את הש " משה ". בתחילת ה ספר ה רביעי במזמור צ ' מופיעה הכותרת " תפלה למשה איש האלהי " , ובמזמור קו 16 , 23 , 32 תיאר המשורר את תפקידו של משה בי"מ . בנוס& לכ) כדאי לציי* שהש " משה " מופיע שמונה פעמי בספר תהילי כאשר שבע מה* *ה בי* מזמור צ ' לבי* מזמור קו . בנוס& לכ ) , ) אפשר לראות בספר ה רביעי מספר משמעותי של מזמורי שמזכירי  את אירועי י" מ # התקופה שבה הדרי) משה את הע ( מזמור צה 11#8 , צט 7 , קה #ו, קו ). בגלל הריכוז ה גדול של הש " משה " וה רמיזות ע ל התקופה שבה הוא הדרי) את ע ישראל נית* לכנות את ה ספר ה רביעי " ספר משה ". ".

פרק רביעי : מזמור קלה מזמור קלה מהלל את האל כעליו* על עצבי הגויי . מטרתו של המזמור היא להמחיש לישראל א ת גדולתו של האל כדי שהע יבחר בו כאלוהיו . המזמור נכתב בשלב מאוחר מאד בתקופת בית שני . כדי ל ממש את מטרתו מתמקד המשורר בשני יסודות ממסורת י"מ : ישועת מידי המצרי וכיבוש הארצות בעבר הירד* המזרחי . בניגוד למזמורי שדנו בה עד כה , מסורת י" מ מהווה במזמור קלה רק חלק קט* מה מזמור # # שבעה מתו) עשרי ואחד פסוקי (33% ). במבנה הכללי של המזמור , משתמש המשורר בי" מ כדי להדגי את יכולת האל לעשות את חפצו בכל מקו ( 'פס 6 ). המשורר בחר רק באות יסודות ממסורת י" מ המציגי את האל כגיבור , כמי שנלח עבור ישראל באויביה . למשורר חשוב ה מסורת י" מ יותר ממסורת

ז תקציר

בריאת העול , הנזכרת רק בפסוק אחד במזמור , כנראה מפני שהיא דוגמה טובה יותר להוכחת עליונותו של האל על אנשי ואלי אחרי . משורר מזמור קלה השתמש בחיבורו בטקסטי מקראיי רבי , א& כי אי* ב ו ציטוטי רבי מהתורה . מיעוט השימוש ב מקורות ספרות התורה מאפשר לזהות רק את P ו- D . .

בנוגע לישועת של ישראל ממצרי , המזמור מתרכז בסיפור המכות , וזה , בניגוד למזמורי עח וקה , מוגבל לשני פסוקי (9#8 ). כדי להעצי את השפעת המכות שינה המשורר את סדר . קוד הוא מזכיר את מכת הבכורות ואחר כ) רומז למכות אח רות . בדומה למזמורי עח וקה , מזמור קלה ג משמיט את חלק של משה ואהרו* בסיפור המכות ; הכול נעשה בידי האל . .

בחירת האל בישראל כע סגולה מופיעה בפס ' 4 של המזמור מחו להקשר ה ההיסטורי . בניגוד לכל המזמורי הנבחרי , מזמור קלה לבדו מספר על בחירת ישראל . עצ הופעתו של הקטע המספר על בחירת ישראל לפני הקטע המספר על "י מ מראה עד כמה חשובה הבחירה למסר המזמור : מכיוו* שתפקידו של המזמור לעודד את ישראל לבחור באל מ, מחיש המשורר כי האל בחר בע לפני שה בחרו בו . באשר ל מלחמות בארצות עבר הירד* המזרחי ( 'פס 12#10 ) מלמד נו המ שורר כי אלוהי לבד ו יה כה את עוג וסיחו* ונת* את ארצ כנחלה לע ישראל . יכולתו של האל מודגמת אפוא באמצעות השמטת חלק  של בני האד . האל לבדו נלח מול מלכי כנע* . כמו בקטע המספר על המכות , משתמש המשורר במלחמות עבר הירד* המזרחי כדי להדגי את יכולת האל לעשות חפצו בכ ל מקו ושעה . שיא ה של יכולת וז ניכר בהצגת האל המחלק את האר לעמו לפי רצונו . כדאי לציי* שכאשר תיאר המשורר את נתינת האר ו את ה מלחמות נגד המלכי , הוא השתמש ב אות * ה מילי שמופיעות במזמור קלו ( קלו 22#17 מופיע כקלה 12#10 .) מפני שמזמור קלה ג מ פרש את התיאור הזה ו ג מרח יב אותו כדי שי כלול את כיבוש הארצות במזרח הירד* , , סביר להניח שהמשורר של מזמור קלה שאב פסוקי ממזמור קלו ( ולא ההפ) .) .) א& ש מזמור קלד אינו מתייחס לי"מ , הקשר הלשוני בי נו ל בי* מזמור קלה ברור מאד . פרט ל חלק הראשו* של פסוק 2 במזמור קלד ( והמילה " הנה " בפס ' )1 , כל המילי ממזמור קלד מופיעות ג במזמור קלה . ניכרת ג התפתחות בי* המזמורי האלה . הראשו* מבקש משומעיו לבר) את האל אבל לא מ ציג סיבות לעשות כ) . מזמור קלה מספק כמה סיבות טובות לבר) אותו כגו* : בחירת ישראל כע סגולה ( פס )4' , )4' פעולות האל בבריאה ( פס 7' ) ומת* הא ר כנחלה לישראל ( פס ' ).12 ).12

פרק חמי שי : מזמור קלו מטרתו של מזמור קלו היא להלל את האל בזכות החסד הנצחי שלו . המשורר השתמש במוטיב י" מ כדי להצביע על הדרכי השונות שבה גילה האל את חסדו לישראל . במזמור עצמו מופיעה י" מ לצידו של מוטיב הבריאה ( 'פס 9#4 ). ממסורת י" מ בחר המשורר להתמקד בישועת של ישראל ממצרי ב, בקיעת י סו& ב, העברת ע ישראל בחרבה בו כיבוש ארצות עבר הירד* המזרחי . מעשרי ושי שה פסוקיו של המזמור , אחד עשר מתייחסי לי" (מ 46% ). החומר העיקרי ממסורת י" מ מתרכז בתמונות האל המכה אנשי ועמי אחרי . נית* לטעו* שזוהי ה דגשה של החסד האלוהי א ) ורק כלפי ע ישראל . מזמור קלו מבוסס באופ* מוצק על מסורות התורה א) ני כרי הדי ג ל מסורות אבודות . רוב הרמיזות לי" מ ה * מספר דברי . השימוש העקבי במקור אחד אופייני למזמור זה לבדו מכלל המזמורי הנבחרי . .

ח תקציר

מ* המכות מזכיר המזמור רק את מכת הבכורות , וכ* נזכרות ג פעולות האל בהוצאת עמו ממצרי ביד חזקה ובזרוע נטויה . פרט זה , לצד השמטת תפקיד של משה ואהרו* מ, עצי את חלקו ועליונותו של האל בישועת ישראל . לאחר תיאור יציאת ישראל ממצרי , ממשי) המשורר ומציג שלושה היבטי של בקיעת י סו& כדי להדגי את חסד ו של האל כלפי עמו : האל בקע את הי ( פס ' )13 , העביר את עמו בחרבה ( פס ' 14 ) וניער את פרעה וצבאו בי ( פס ' )15 . ג כא* אי* שו רמז לפעולות בני האד . מבחינת המשורר , האל ביצע הכול לבדו . מבקיעת הי פונה המשורר לתקופת המדבר , א) עושה זאת בקיצור # בפסוק אחד . א& ש תקופת המדבר מספקת הזדמנויות רבות לספר על חסד האל כלפי ישראל ( כגו* ה ספקת מי ולח והולכת ישראל באמצעות עמוד הענ* ועמוד האש ) , החליט המשורר לעסוק באירוע מאוחר יותר # המלחמות בי* ישראל ובי* עוג וסיחו* ( 22#17 ) . סביר להניח שהחלטתו של המשורר להשמיט את הקטעי הללו מבוססת על מטרתו העיקרית – הצגת עליונותו של האל על אדוני ארציי . גור אחר שהשפיע על המשורר בהשמטת תקופת המדבר הוא הרצו* להדגיש את הטיפול החיובי של האל בעמו . בשל הדגשה זו השמיט המשורר כל רמז למקרי שבה  העניש האל את הע . חשוב לציי* שבתיאור ה מלחמות שאירעו בס ו& תקופת הנדידה , מספר המשורר רק על ארצות עבר הירד* המזרחי . עובדה זו נובעת מכ) שהמשורר עושה שימוש במקורות התורה בלבד . סביר להניח שבזמנו של המשורר רק התורה נחשבה כ" ספר קדוש ". ". התורה לא סיפרה על מלחמות ב עבר הירד* המערבי , ולפ יכ) נמנע ג משורר מזמור קלו מלספר עליה* . .

הקשר בי* מזמור קלה למזמור קלו הוא הדוק דומא , ושני גורמי תורמי לכ) ה. ראשו* , שני המזמורי ה יצירות היסטוריוגרפיות ה מתייחסות למסורת י"מ . השני , משורר ו של מזמור קלה השתמש ו א& ציטט כמה כתובי ממזמור קלו ( קלו 22#17 מופיע כקלה 12#10 ). כתוצאה מכ) נוצר קשר לשוני חזק בי* המזמורי הללו . בניגוד למזמורי קלה# קלו , אי* קשר לשוני בי* קלו לבי* ק לז , והשני א& לא מזכיר את מסורת י"מ . למרות זאת נית* לראות את הקשר ביניה , כי שניה משקפי עוריא י ב היסטורי ה המקראית : מזמור קלו מזכיר אירועי מבריאת העול , יציאת מצרי ו כיבוש ארצות מזרח הירד* , , ומזמור קלז מזכיר אירועי מתקופת גלות בבל . .

מסקנות

מקורות המחקר מראה שמשוררי המזמורי הנבחרי השתמשו במקורות רבי ומגווני . ע זאת , בניגוד לדעות הרווחות , לא כל מקורותיה ה מ* התורה . במקרי מסוימי ה שאבו קטעי מספרי הנבואה ( למשל מזמור קה ששאב מישעיה השני ). בנוס& לחומר שנלקח ישירות מספרות המקרא , השתמשו המשוררי במסורות אבודות . בכל המקרי האלה נקטו המשוררי יד חופשית בסידור המקורות ובהתאמת לצרכיה . למרות שאיננו יכולי לקבוע בוודאות מוחלטת מה היה סדר המקורות המקורי שעמד בפני המשורר י , ניכר כי במקרי כמו כתיבת סיפור המכות במזמור עח לאחר הספקת המי והלח במדבר , , ביקשו המשוררי לבטא מסר ש היה חשוב יותר מהסדר הכרונולוגי של מקורותיה . למרות שמחקר זה נזקק רק בעקיפי* למ חקר ה תורה , ראוי לציי* שמזמור עח ומזמור קו מציגי סימני האופייניי למקור ות P , JE #ו, D – עדות לכ) ש מקור P היה קיי וידוע עוד לפני גלות בבל ו, ג לכ) שהתעודות כבר היו ו טקסט של אחד בתקופה הז ו ( ג א  זו עדיי* אינה התורה ב צורתה הסופית .) .)

ט תקציר

המשוררי והעורכי כפרשני משוררי המזמורי הנבחרי חשו עצמ חופשיי לעצב את מקורותיה כ) שיתאימו למסרי ש אות יב קשו ל הנחיל . המחקר חוש& מספר סיבות וגורמי שהניעו את הסופרי לעצב מחדש את מקורותיה . נראה שהסיבה הברורה ביותר היא העמדת פעולותיו של האל במרכז וגימוד פעולות בני האד . במקרי רבי בה הציג המקור את חלק של בני האד לצדו של האל , בחר ה משורר להציג את הפעולה כמעשה אלוהי בלבד . דוגמה לכ) היא ההדרכה במדבר . במזמורי עח וקלו רק האל לבדו הדרי) את הע בעוד שבמקורות מודר) ע ישראל על ידי משה , אהרו* ואלוהי . קיימי מניעי נוספי שהשפיעו על המשוררי להתאי את ה משמעות של מקורותיה ל מזמ וריה . במקרי מסוימי ה הוסיפו מילי למקורותיה כדי להשלי את התמונה שמופיעה במקור . דוגמה לכ) נמצאת במזמור קלה בקשר לארצות ה כבושות . המקור של מזמור קלה ( מזמור קלו ) סיפר רק על כיבוש ארצות מזרח הירד* בעוד שמזמור קלה 11 הוסי& לתיאור הזה ג את " כל ממלכות כנע* ". התוספת הזאת מתפקדת כהרחבה לתפיסתו של משורר מזמור קלו . משורר מזמור קלה לא הגביל את עצמו להתייחס רק לתורה , לכ* הי ית ה לו יד חופשית להוסי& מידע על כיבוש כנע* . .

פעמי רבות המחקר חוש& מקרי שבה  מילי נדירות מופיעות במזמורי צמודי . עובדה זו מראה שעורכי ספר תהילי סידרו את המזמורי ג על פי קשרי אסוציאטיביי  ו ג על פי קשרי פרשניי . דוגמה ל קשר אסוציאטיבי ני ת* לראות במזמורי קה ו# קו . רק במזמורי אלה , מופיע הביטוי " אר ח " " שאי* לו רֵ ע במקרא כולו )כ. מופיע הביטוי " מרה ... עצה " במזמורי קו #ו קז וכ* ב מזמורי קלד# קלה . כבר ראינו לעיל שרוב המילי ממזמור קל ד מופיעות ג בקלה , וג ש רק מזמורי קלה ו# קלו בספר תהילי מזכירי את המלחמות בעוג וסיחו* . מ* הראוי ל ציי* כא* שעורכי ספר תהילי סידרו את המזמורי הנבחרי בקרבת מזמור י אחרי ה רוקש י למסורת י" מ ( מזמורי עז# עח , מזמורי קה # קו ומזמורי קלה# קלו .) .)

בנוגע לקשרי פרשניי ב, כמה מקרי קבעו עורכי הספר את מקו המזמורי כדי לתק* את ה היסטוריה . כ) לדוגמה הציבו העורכי את מזמורי קה ו# קו יחדיו כדי להשלי את תמונת תקופת המדבר . קריאתו של מזמור קה לבדו מציגה תמונה אידיאלית של תקופת המדבר בעוד שקריאתו ביחד ע מזמור קו מתקנת מבט זה באמצעות ה גילוי שלא כל מה שהתרחש ב תקופה ז ו היה חיובי . דוגמה נוספת לתופעה וז מופיעה במזמורי עח ועט . הראשו* מראה לנו את המלכות הצפונית כחוטאת ללא תקנה ואת מלכות יהודה כשבט ה נבחר . קריאה של שני המזמורי ברצ& מתקנת את התמונה ומלמדת שסופה של מלכות יהודה היה דומה לסופה של המלכות הצפונית . סמיכות המזמורי האל ה ג מסבירה מדוע נדחתה ממלכת יהודה על ידי האל למרות שבחר בה במזמור עח . כפי שראינו לעיל , הוא דחה את יהודה מפני שהע הפסיק לספר את את תהילות האל . .

גור אחר שהשפיע על עורכי המזמורי ה יה הצור) לענות על שאלות בולטות וסמויות שעלו מהמזמורי . מזמור קו הוא תחינה שאלוהי ירח על ישראל וישיב לארצ . בסו& המזמור נותרה השאלה הסמויה : : הא האל הקשיב והגיב לבקשתו של המשורר לקב את הע מ * ה ארצות השונו ת ( פס ' ?)47 מזמור קו נמנע ממת* תשובה א) מזמור קז מ למד כי האל א כ* נענה לבקשתו של המשורר : " ומארצות קבצ ממזרח וממערב מצפו* ומי " ( פס ).3' ).3'

י תקציר

למרות ש אי* מילי משותפות חשובות בי* מזמור קלו לבי* מזמור קלז ני, כר ת מגמתיות ב עריכת . ה נערכו על פי תבנית נפוצה שמופיע ה במקרא . בתבנית זו מיקמו סופרי שוני דוגמאות של נפלאות האל מיד לפני בקשה של ה אד  או של הע  לעזרת אלוהי ( ראה לדוגמה מזמורי מד ו# פט ). מזמור קלו מפר ט ט קוד את פעולות האל בבריאת העול ובי"מ ו, לאחר מכ* מזמור קלז פונה לאלוהי לעזרה # שיציל את הע מה גלות . .

כיצד השתמשו המשוררי במסורת "י מ? מלבד ענייני הפרשנות שנדונו לעיל מגיע המחקר למספר מסקנות כלליות יותר בנוגע לשימוש שנעשה במסורת י" מ על ידי המשוררי . .

• א& שכל אחד מ* המשוררי עשה שימוש באותו המוטיב "י( )מ , המסגרת והתפקיד שאותו הוא ממלא שונה ממזמור למזמור.

• כאשר המשוררי כתבו את המזמורי , בחר כל אחד מה רק באות רכיבי הרלוונטיי למסר או ללקח שה וא חפ ללמד , ולכ* לא כל פרט ממסורת י" מ מופיע ביצירותיה . בי* המוטיבי שלא נכללו במזמוריה אפשר לציי* למשל את המתקת מי מרה , המלחמה בי* ישראל ובי* עמלק , מת* ה תורה , המרי של אה ור * ומרי וסיפור בלע . לא סביר להניח שהמשוררי לא הכירו מסורות אלה . יותר סביר להניח שאירועי אלה לא שי רתו את המסר ש אותו בי קשו המזמורי לבטא.

• א& שמת* ה תורה לא מופיע במפורט במזמורי הנבחרי , ברור שכל המשוררי הכירו מסורת משמעותית זו . מחמשת המזמורי הנבחרי , ארבעה לוכ(  פרט ל מזמור קלו ) התייחסו במידה זו או אחרת לעובדה שהאל כרת ברית ע ע ישראל , כלומ ר בחר בה מכל העמי להיות לו לע סגולה ולציית למצוותיו וחוקיו . השמטת מ ת* ה תורה נובעת בעיקר מרצונ ו של כל משורר להתרכז בפעולות ה גבור ה של האל וה חסד שגילה כלפי ה .ע

• למרות השימושי השוני שנעשו על ידי כל משורר , כול שותפי לשלוש ה היבטי של המסורת כולה וה : פעולות האל ה* בגדר נס ; פעולות האל בי" מ בוצעו א) ורק למע* ע ישראל ; הנפלאות שהאל עשה היו גילוי חסדו ולא גמול על צדקתו של הע.

• נית* לטעו* ( באופ* כללי ) שכל המזמורי הנ בחרי השתמשו "בי מ כמוטיב דידקטי . הדוגמה הבולטת ב יותר היא מזמור עח שעושה שימוש במונחי המאפייני את ספרות החכמה במקרא . א& כי מזמורי קה , קו , קלה ו # וקל לא אימצו מונחי דידקטיי , גילה המחקר הנוכחי קשרי ברורי בי* המסר שלה לעקרונות המ אפייני את ספרות החכמה המקראית . לדוגמה , מזמור קלה משווה את גורל של עו בדי האל ל גורל של עבדי העצבי . אלה שעובדי את האל י יהנו מ הגנתו בעוד ש גורל עובדי העצבי ( פסלי ללא חיי ) יהיו כגורל העצבי עצמ . בתיאור הזה נית* לראות הדי של שתי הדרכי המופיעות בספרות ה דידקטית : דר) הצדיקי ו דר) הרעשי ( ראה מזמור א 6#5 ).

יא תקציר

• המחקר גילה שהמוטיב הנפו ביותר המשולב ע י" מ הוא בריאת העול ה. שילוב של מסורת בריאת העול ע מסורת י" מ נעשה בצורות שונות . בכל מקרה שבו הופיעו המוטיבי האלה יחדיו ניכר כי המשוררי השתמשו באלמנטי שוני של מסורת הבריאה כדי להדגיש נקודות מסוימות של מסורת י" .מ מזמור קה מדגי תופעה זו : המזמור רומז לששת ימי הבריאה בקטע המספר על מכות מצרי . המשורר שילב את הרמז לבריאה על מנת להדגיש את נכונות האל לשנות את סדר י י הבריאה כדי להציל את עמו ובכ) לקי י את הבטחתו.

• היחס בי* המשוררי ודור לבי* הדור של י" מ משתנה במזמורי הנבחרי . במזמור עח למשל , במיוחד בחלקו הראשו* , ניסה המשורר להפריד בי* דורו לבי* הדורות של י"מ . בניגוד לכ) במזמור קו איחד המשורר את דורות המדבר ( ואת חטאיה ) ע דורו החוטא הנמצא בגלות . .

המחקר הנוכחי מ ציג לנו מקרי ברורי של פרשנות פני# מקראית ב יצירת  של המשוררי ו בעבודת של עורכי ספר תהילי . פרשנות ז ו מופיע ה כאשר ה משור רי זורי אור חדש על מקורותיה בזמ* שה יוצרי את חיבוריה החדשי , כלומר כל אחד קרא ו הבי* את מקורו ב דר) שונה ו נת* לו משמעות חדשה ב מזמורו . בנוגע לעורכי ספר תהילי , המחקר מגלה תהלי) דומה : במקו להשתמש ב פסוקי יחידי ממקורות המשורר , השתמשו עורכי הספר ב מזמורי שלמי כמקורותיה ולאחר מכ* ה קבעו את מיקו ה מזמור כדי ליי צר משמעויות חדשות . בסופו של דבר נית* אפוא להגיע למסקנה שג המשוררי וג עורכי ספר תהילי ה בי* הפרשני הקדומי ב יותר של ה מקרא.

יב