PSALM 89
AND THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST
by
D. Wayne Knife
Submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Theology in
Grace
Theological Seminary
May 1973
Digitized by Ted Hildebrandt,
Accepted
by the Faculty of the Grace Theological Seminary
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree
Doctor of Theology
Grade A
Examining Committee
John J. Davis
S. Herbert Bess
James
L. Boyer
PREFACE
For many years the study of the
Psalms has been a
fascinating and profitable
discipline to the author of this
work. Psalm 89 is of
captivating interest to the writer, not
only because it is a portion of
the biblical corpus, but for
the reason that a large section
of it is devoted to the
Davidic
Covenant. It is a covenant which has tremendous
significance for the
consideration of the movements of God
in the providential control of
history. How the covenant and
the content of the Psalm blend
together is an enriching study
and leads to a greater
appreciation of all the Scripture.
Another discipline has come to the
attention of the
author in recent years, namely,
a study of a portion of the
vast amount of literature from
the ancient Near East. A pe-
rusal of this literature
reveals that all poetry of the Near
East,
including Psalm 89, had much in common. And much com-
parative study has been made.
However, some scholars have
seriously neglected the
distinct religious thought of the
Psalm
and accordingly have given unsatisfactory treatment
the application. With the
inconsistencies in some of these
comparative studies, the writer
felt that the relationship of
the ancient Near East to Psalm
89 should be clarified.
To achieve this goal the author
gratefully acknowl-
edges the help of many, not all
of whom are listed in the
i
ii
Bibliography,
in the writing of this dissertation. An ex-
pression of gratitude goes to
the writer's graduate committee,
Dr. John J. Davis, chairman,
Dr. S. Herbert Bess, and Dr.
James
L. Boyer, for their study of the manuscript and their
valuable suggestions for its
final form. Also, thankfulness
is extended to friends and
fellow students, Donald L. Fowler
and David R. Plaster, for
various forms of stimulation that
are too manifold to recount
here. And a great deal of in-
debtedness is owed to the
author's three daughters, Connie,
Vicki,
and Ginger, for encouragement and help in countless
ways.
Special gratitude must be expressed
to the writer's
wife, Janet, for her patience,
love, and understandingud.uring
the many months spent in the
preparation of this manuscript.
Her
devotion was amplified in a most practical way--the typ-
ing of this dissertation. To
her is this work affectionately
dedicated.
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS v
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1
The Problem
The Raison d'Etre
The Purpose of This Study
The Contribution of Archaeology
The Presuppositions of This Study
The Method of This Study
II. ANTECEDENTS TO THE EXEGESIS
19
Form Criticism
Author
Date and Unity
Sitz im Leben
Type of Psalm
The Question of Structure and Meter
III. EXEGESIS OF PSALM 89 73
89:1
Meditation with Insight
89:2-5 :Introduction: Possession of
Reality
89:6-19
God's Characteristics: Basis for
Praise
89:20-38
God's Covenant: Basis for Confidence
89:39-46 God's Chastisement: Basis
for
Petition
89:47-52 Conclusion: Prayer for
Restoration
89:53 Benediction of Book III
IV. SOME COMPARISONS FROM THE
ANCIENT NEAR EAST 157
Philological Similarities
Modes of Expression
Concepts and Institutions
Evaluation
iii
iv
V. SOME PARALLELS FROM THE
ANCIENT NEAR EAST 179
The Application of Parallels in the
Hermeneutical
Method
In Terms of Vocabulary
Allusions to Ideas
Direct Application to Concepts and
Institutions
The Question of Borrowing
Evaluation
Summary
VI. NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES 217
VII.
CONCLUSION 221
BIBLIOGRAPHY
225
ABBREVIATIONS
AB Analecta Biblica
AJSL The
American Journal of Semitic Languages
ANET Ancient
Near Eastern Texts, third edition, ed.
Pritchard.
BDB A
Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament,
ed. Brown, Driver, and Briggs.
BJRL Bulletin
of John Rylands Library
BS Bibliotheca
Sacra
CBQ Catholic
Biblical Quarterly
CJT Canadian
Journal of Theology
EJ Encyclopaedia
Judaica
ET Expository
Times
ETL Ephemerides
Theological Lovanienses
GJ Grace
Journal
GKC Gesenius'
Hebrew Grammar, Gesenius,
Kautzsch and
Cowley.
HTR Harvard
Theological Review
HUCA
JAOS Journal
of Ancient Oriental Studies
JASTROW
A Dictionary of the Targumim, the
Talmud Babli and
Yerushalmi,
and the Midrashic Literature, Jastrow.
JBC The
Jerome Bible Commentary
JBL Journal
of Biblical Literature
vi
JBR
Journal of Bible and
Religion
JETS
Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society
JFB A
Commentary: Critical Experimental and
Practical on the old and New
Testaments,
Jamieson,
Fausset and Brown.
JNES Journal
of Near Eastern Studies
JNSL Journal
of Northwest Semitic Languages
JPOS The
Journal of the
JQR Jewish
Quarterly Review
JSS Journal
of Semitic Studies
KB Lexicon
in Veteris Testimenti Libros, ed. Koehler
and Baumgartner.
LXX The
Septuagint
MT The
Massoretic Text.
NASB New
American Standard Bible
NBCR The
New Bible Commentary Revised
RB Revue Biblique
RHR Revue de L'Histoire des Religions
TARGUM tvlvdg tvxrqm, “ylwm Mylht," “Fp”
TS Theological
Studies
TZ Theologische
Zeitschrift
UT Ugaritic
Textbook, Gordon.
VT Vetus
Testamentum
WLQ
WTJ
ZAW Zeitschrift
fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Problem
At the present time, the battle
still rages over the
relationship of Psalm 89 to the
finds of the ancient Near
East.
While many facets of the problem may be seen, four
areas will be considered here:
treatment, textual criticism,
parallelism, theology.
In
terms of treatment
By treatment, it is meant how Psalm 89 as a portion
of the biblical corpus has been
viewed. American scholars,
either through fear or
oversight, have written very little
that offers anything exegetical
in nature on Psalm 89. This
neglect may be due partly to
the fact that some phrases and
doctrine in the psalm occur in
Psalms one through eighty-
eight and, thus, are not
treated fully. Other American
scholars just make a passing
reference to Psalm 89 in their
treatment of different
subjects. Few will even attempt to
show the significance of any
ancient Near East connections.
But this is not so with European
scholars. The fol-
lowing statement can be made by
DuMortier only from his side
of
the Atlantic Ocean. "Les nombreuses études dont a fait
l'objet
le Ps. lxxxix témoigent amplement de la complexité
1
2
de ce psaume."1
These numerous studies are from the pens of
European
writers. Besides exegetical treatment, their arti-
cles and books are replete with
ancient Near Eastern compar-
isons. Although this writer
could not obtain all of the
European
sources, this study will bear out the European con-
tribution, one which is not by
any means conservative.
In terms of textual criticism
Ap-Thomas has said:
Study
of the Old Testament in general and of its Hebrew
in particular has come into greater
prominence in recent
years. There are a number of reasons
for this--a gener-
ation of able teachers, some
exciting archeological dis-
coveries, the growth of interest in
Near Eastern studies
and in biblical theology. . . .2
Dahood goes at length to defend his
position that
Ugaritic has its bearing on the
Bible on this subject.3 Con-
cerning Ugaritic and textual
criticism, Dahood states else-
where:
.
. . Ugaritic literature remains one of the most effi-
cient instruments at the disposal of
the biblical re-
searcher.
1Jean-Bernard
DuMortier, "Un Ritual d' Intronisation:
Le Ps. LXXXIX 2-38," VT, XXII:2 (April, 1972), 176.
2D. R. Ap-Thomas, A Primer of Old Testament Text
Criticism, Facet Books--Biblical
Series 14, edited by John
Reumann
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), p. iii.
3Mitchell
Dahood, The Anchor Bible--Psalms II,
51-100
(Garden
City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1968),
pp.
XVII-XXVII. For the criticism Dahood is answering, see
John L. McKenzie, a review of Psalms 1:1-50 by Mitchell
Dahood,
CBQ, XXIX:l (January, 1967), 138-40 and David A.
Robertson, a review of Anchor Bible: Psalms 1, 1-50 by
Mitchell
Dahood, JBL, LXXXV:IV (December,
1966), 484-86.
3
In
some instances Ugaritic brings a peremptory
solution to a biblical verse; in
others the evidence
is less direct, but does inject new
elements and con-
siderations which an exegete may not overlook.1
While the statement may be true, the
method by which
it is put into practice is not
always valid, especially if
the text is emended in an
excessive manner. This aspect of
the problem will manifest
itself throughout the study.
The Targums, Old Latin Version,
Septuagint, and
Peshito are employed by Kennedy
for the "removal of blemishes"
in the Massoretic text.2
Many of these "corrections" in
Psalm
89 are not only unacceptable, but unnecessary. Other
works3 could be
cited, but the above point out the problem
lMitchell Dahood,
"The Value of Ugaritic for Textual
Criticism," AB, 10 (Roma, 1959), 26-27. The same article may
be
found in Biblica, 40 (1959), 160-70.
A favorable evalua-
tion
of Dahood's method is given by Stanislaw Segert, "The
Ugaritic Texts and the Textual Criticism of the
Hebrew Bible,"
Near Eastern Studies in
Honor of William Foxwell Albright,
edited
by Hans Goedicke (
1971),
pp. 413-20. But a critical evaluation is noted by K.
L.
Barker, a review of New Perspectives on
the Old Testament,
edited
by J. Barton Payne, BS, 129:514
(April-June, 1972),
154. For further study see H. L. Ginsberg,
"The Ugaritic
Texts
and Textual Criticism," JBL,
LXII (1943), 109-15.
2James
Kennedy, An Aid to the Textual Amendment
of the
Old Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1928), pp. 1-255.
3Christian
D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Mas-
soretico-Critical
Edition of the Hebrew Bible (
Publishing House,
altogether
favorable report, see Bruce K. Waltke, a review of
Introduction
to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew
Bible by Christian D.
Ginsburg, BS, 123:492
(October-December,
1966), 364-65. For further study see Nahum M.
Sarna, et al,
"Psalms,
Book of," Encyclopaedia Judaica,
16 Volumes (Jeru-
and
Ernst Wurthwein, The Text of the Old
Testament, translated
by
Peter R. Ackroyd (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957), pp. 1-173.
4
that affects this study.
Textual criticism will not be treated
as a separate topic because it is
an inherent part of practi-
cally all that follows.
In terms of parallelism
Parallels from the ancient Near East are seen every-
where in Psalm 89. Verbal
parallels would be expected, but
not to the extent that McKenzie
saw them. "The verbal paral-
lels between the Ugaritic
tablets and several Old Testament
passages make it impossible to
suppose anything but direct
dependence."1
As some have advocated, there are
parallels in thought
patterns.2 Scholars
see parallels in the ancient Near East
to Psalm 89 in the realms of
kingship, throne, covenant,
Rahab,
and even God. Concepts of ruling, praise, and enthrone-
ment are also included.
It is recognized that there have to
be some relation-
ships because various forms of
ancient Near Eastern poetry
are stereotyped. But does this
constitute a direct paral-
lelism? Since a whole chapter
will be devoted to this portion
of the problem, there is no
need of further discussion here.
1John
L. McKenzie, Myths and Realities: Studies
in
Biblical Theology (
1963),
p. 97.
2John
Hasting Patton, Canaanite Parallels in
the Book
of Psalms (Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins Press, 1944), pp. 15-
28. Theodor Gaster, "Canaanite Parallels to
the Psalms," JQR,
35:3 (January, 1945), 355-56.
5
In terms of theologv
Actually, the three facets of the problem above are
involved in the theological,
phase of the problem. Several
scholars are named by
Baumgartel as viewing the Psalms "sep-
arated from the individual and
. . . understood as cultic in
character."l
This concept seems definitely to imply that the
individual psalmist had no
relationship to God.
Adherents of Religionsgeschichte provide another area
of the theological problem.
Quite
apart from the formal parallels, it has come to
appear likely that the Canaanite
religion at least ex-
erted some influence upon the content
of the Old Testa-
ment psalms, although Yahwism and
of God and existence carried the day.2
Similarly, the eminent scholar W. F.
Albright holds
that Psalm 89 swarms "with
Canaanitisms."3 And Kapeirud
avers:
It
is instructive to examine individual psalms from
the standpoint of their relationship
to Ugaritic motifs,
expressions, and details of cultic
practice. The psalms
are firmly rooted in the Yahwistic faith and the Jeru-
lFriedrich Bäumgartel,
"The Hermeneutical Problem of
the
Old Testament," translated by Murray Newman, Essays on
Old Testament
Hermeneutics,
edited by Claus Westermann,
English
translation edited by James Luther Mays (
2Ernst
Sellin and Georg Fohrer, Introduction to
the
Old Testament, translated by David E.
Green (
Abingdon
Press, 1968), p. 259.
3William
Foxwell Albright, Archaeology and the
Religion of Israel, Anchor Books edition
(Garden City, New
6
tain many elements derived from
Canaanite religion.1
What the above scholars have not considered
is that
God and all His works are
supernatural. This includes His
authorship of Scripture. The
problem here is one of presup-
position which will be covered
later.
While there are many other problems
that confront
Psalm 89, these areas deal with
the main corpus of this study.
On the
whole the problem is much more serious than stated
above, but another problem
involved in a work of this size
is the avoidance of tautology.
The Raison
d'Etre
The reason for writing may be observed first of all
by cause and effect.
Archaeology has brought much to light
in the area of Old Testamentt
background and studies. The
findings of the ancient Near
East have enriched our knowledge
of the cultural background and
linguistics within the biblical
corpus. As already indicated,
due to theological bias or lack
of concern for the Author of
Holy Writ, some scholars have
misapplied the material from
the ancient Near East to Psalm
89. As
a result, passages of the psalm are misconstrued,
parallels are seen everywhere,
and knowingly or unknowingly,
1Arvid
the Old Testament, translated by G. W.
Anderson (
7
theology itself is greatly
affected.
Also, the present writer has found
but few works that
offer anything exegetical in
nature on Psalm 89. Since all
details in the biblical record
are worthy of diligent atten-
tion, there is a need to
examine this portion closely.
Special
study is also warranted because of God's covenant
with David, an all important
aspect in the light of God's
revelation.
The Purpose of This
Study
The purpose may be seen as many goals, all of which
are inherently involved and
intermeshed. Psalm 89 is a rich
portion of eternal truth,
therefore the first goal will be to
highlight this from the
original language. Of necessity,
textual criticism will be
important.
Some writers have seen parallels to
Psalm 89. There-
fore it is significant that an
investigation be made in the
light of biblical exegesis. The second goal is to demon-
strate whether there are valid
parallels from the ancient Near
East.
If there are bona fide parallels, these should be dem-
onstrated, examined, and
evaluated as to their contribution
to the interpretation of the
psalm. Likewise, if there are
no valid parallels, then the
goal is to demonstrate such. In
essence, since archaeologists
have uncovered material that
relates to biblical studies,
the present author believes it
is a worthy goal to see if
there is any exact relevance, as
8
some say there is, to Psalm 89.
The Contribution of Archaeology
The relationship of the Holy Scriptures and archae-
ology has reached paramount
interest. Archer says:
For
students of the Bible the last fifty years of
archaeological discovery have been
more momentous than
in any previous period of comparable
length in the
history of the Christian church.1
Significant discoveries too numerous
to mention have
greatly aided both scholar and
student in understanding the
background of many biblical
passages. Briefly, the contribu-
tion will be considered in
terms of sources and biblical
studies.
In terms of sources
In order to avoid needless repetition, individual
sources will not be named
specifically here. Let it suffice
to say that ample material
comes from the following: Akka-
dian, Babylonian, Egyptian,
Hittite, Ugaritic,
Scrolls
and other inscriptions. It will be apparent that
archaeology has contributed a
very large portion of this
study.
In terms of biblical studies
On the one hand there is the contribution to the
study of biblical languages.
Freedman writes:
1Gleason
L. Archer, Jr., "Old Testament History and
Recent Archaeology From Abraham to Moses," BS, 127:505 (Jan-
uary-March, 1970), 3.
9
The
non-biblical materials help to give a clearer
picture of the dimensions and
character of the languages
which are only partially represented
in the Bible.
Since
the inscriptions also come from a variety of
places and periods, they provide a
basis for analyzing
the biblical languages according to
a historical per-
spective, and thereby yield clues as
to date and author-
ship.1
On the other hand there is the
contribution for the
theologian in his task of
exegesis.
.
. . archaeology should not be used either to prove or
to confirm the "truth" of
divine revelation. The true
function of archaeology is to enable
us to understand
the Bible better, insofar as it was
produced by men in
given times and places. Because it
pleased God to give
us the sacred record in many
different forms of liter-
ature, with a great diversity of
backgrounds in the
ancient Near East, it is part of the
theologian's task
to use all the possible light that
can be thrown on the
biblical documents from outside sources.2
Thus it is that archaeology
contributes by helping to
supplement one's biblical
knowledge. But it should be ac-
knowledged that this
contribution is not without its problems.
While
the following comment is directed mainly toward archae-
ology, it applies here quite
well. According to Weddle:
Even
the most objectively-minded interpreter cannot fully
escape from his cultural, religious, and philosophical
1David
Noel Freedman, "Archaeology and the Future of
Biblical Studies," The Bible in Modern Scholarship, edited by
J.
Philip Hyatt (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1965), pp. 310-
11.
2Alfred
von Rohr Saur, "The Meaning of Archaeology
for
the Exegetical Task," A Symposium on
Archaeology and
Theology (Saint Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1970),
p. 7.
10
biases. The annals of archaeology
are replete with ex-
amples where bias affected interpretation.1
To which Smith would reply, ".
. . it is not surpris-
ing that a long series of
archaeological 'confirmations of
the Bible' have turned out to
be howlers."2 Some will not
agree with Sanders. He raises
the question on the canon of
the Old Testament, particularly
the Psalms, because of the
influence of archaeological
finds.3
Wiseman refers to the issue in this
study in a two-
fold manner. He concludes that
archaeological discoveries
.
. . do not affect our understanding of any major doc-
trine or detract from an obvious and
vital interpreta-
tion of the narrative. . . . At the
same time these
studies highlight the problems caused
by divergent
interpretation of the text. . . .4
The contribution of archaeology is very significant,
but the application to God's
Word is the basic issue. The
matter of interpretation will
be highlighted in the following
1Forest Weddle, "The
Limitations of Archaeology Im-
posed
by Interpretation and Lack of Data," GJ,
11:3 (Fall,
1970), 6. For further study see Merrill F.
Unger, "The Use
and
Abuse of Biblical Archaeology," BS,
105:419 (July-Septem-
ber,
1948), 297-306 and John C. Jeske, "The Role of Archae-
ology
in Bible Study," WLQ, LXVIII:4
(October, 1971), 228-36.
2Morton
Smith, "The
Studies,"
JBL, LXXXVIII:l (March, 1969), 31.
3James
A. Sanders, "Cave 11. Surprises and the Ques-
tion
of Canon," New Directions in
Biblical Archaeology,
edited
by David Noel Freedman and Jonas C. Greenfield,
Anchor Books edition (
and
Company, Inc., 1971), pp. 122-27.
4Donald J. Wiseman,
"Archaeology and Scripture," WTJ,
XXXIII:2 (May, 1971), 152.
11
section.
The Presuppositions of This
Study
In biblical studies today great freedom is exercised
with such terms as
"cult" and "myth." It is only fair to the
reader that he know the
position of the present author, es-
pecially in a study of this
type. All that has been said
before and all that follows
will be clarified at this point.
The
purpose of this study does not include all the schools of
thought and their differences.
For example, Widengren refers
to the Pan-Babylonian school,
the so-called Scandinavian
school, and the British
"Myth and
on the differing viewpoints.l
In
terms of cult
The term itself seems to have various meanings, but
the chief concern is that which
speaks of ritualistic acts
or ceremonies. For example,
Johnson holds that there is
ritual drama in Psalm 89.2
Mowinckel holds a very similar
1George Widengren,
"Early Hebrew Myths and Their In-
terpretation,"
Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, edited by
S. H.
Hooke
(Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1958) pp. 149-203. Cf.
also
S. H. Hooke, "Myth and Ritual: Past and Present,"
Myth, Ritual, and
Kingship,
edited by S. H. Hooke (
The
Clarendon Press, 1958), pp. 1-21 and Amos N. Wilder,
"Scholars, Theologians, and Ancient
Rhetoric," JBL, LXXXI:I
(March,
1956), 1-11.
2A.
R. Johnson, "The Psalms," The
Old Testament and
Modern Study, edited by H. H. Rowley
(
University Press, 1961), p.
196.
12
view.1 Woudstra
mentions several definitions and then he
concludes:
One
of the major deficiencies in the current defini-
tions lies in the fact that cultus
is defined in almost
exclusively phenomenological terms.
The element of
revelation does not significantly
enter into the defi-
nition.2
Looking at Mowinckel's view in
particular, Woudstra
goes on to say:
.
. . it should not be overlooked that
Mowinckel's
assertion that revelation precedes
cultus is itself a
purely comparative statement. For
Mowinckel makes it
clear that not only
Himself
as to where He may be found, but that this idea
is "a fundamental idea in all
religion." In other words,
we are not face to face with
revelation. All that we do
confront is the claim to having
received revelation, and
this claim is fundamental to all
religions. Hence we
are not yet beyond the
phenomenological and the compar-
ative. In this respect the term
"cultus" has undergone
a radical transformation when it is
compared with ear-
lier usages in medieval and early Reformation theology.3
Even if the concept is based upon direct revelation,
it does not guarantee that the
term is interpreted correctly.
Therefore, in this study the
present writer will refrain from
1Sigmund Mowinckel., The Psalms in
translated
by D. R. Ap-Thomas (
1962), p. 176. For further reference see Sellin
and Fohrer,
Introduction to the Old
Testament,
pp. 260-62. Although
Sarna does not employ the term as a ritual act,
see his dis-
cussion
in Sarna, et al. "Psalms, Book
of," pp. 1316-17.
2Marten H. Woudstra,
"The Tabernacle in Biblical-
Theological Perspective," New Perspectives on the Old Testa-
ment, edited by J. Barton Payne
(
Publisher,
1970), p. 93.
3Ibid.
13
any use of the word lest he be
misunderstood.
In
terms of myth
A perusal of the abundance of literature reveals
there is no consensus of
opinion as to the meaning of myth.
Kirk postulates:
There is no one definition of myth,
no Platonic form of
a myth against which all actual
instances can be mea-
sured. Myths, as we shall see,
differ enormously in
their morphology and their social function.1
And Knox says, "The term has a
variety of uses in a
variety of connections and, as
we have several times had oc-
casion to observe, is
notoriously difficult to define.2
Still,
these and others attempt definitions.3
But, with or without definition, some see mythology
in Holy Writ. Kapelrud avers:
We
have already noted the tendency in
mythological material. It is primarily in the Psalms,
1G.
S. Kirk, Myth: Its Meaning and Functions
in A
cient and Other Cultures (
1970),
p. 7.
2John
Knox, Myth and Truth: An Essay on the
Language
of Faith (
1964),
p. 34.
3James
Barr, "The Meaning of 'Mythology' in Relation
to
the Old Testament," VT, IX:l
(January, 1959), 1-10. John
L.
McKenzie, "Myth and the Old Testament," CBQ, XXI:3 (July,
1959),
265-74. Sigmund Mowinckel, The Old
Testament as Word
of God, translated by Reidar B.
Bjornard (
don
Press, 1959), pp. 99-106. As one studies Mowinckel's
views
on myth, he should also note his views on revelation
and
inspiration, pp. 23-24, 46, 75.
14
which could not easily be altered,
that such material is
preserved.1
Goldziher definitely sees mythology
in Psalm 89.2
Full discussion is not given
here in order to avoid repetition
later. Dulles states:
.
. . it is not surprising that the Israelites produced
no mythology of their own. They did,
however, borrow
from the mythologies of the
surrounding peoples, and in
some cases subjected these to a
process of demythologiz-
ing which is at best relatively
complete. For example,
in various references to the creation,
we find allusions
to mighty struggles between Yahweh
and mysterious mon-
sters such, as Leviathan and Rahab
(e.g., Ps 73/74, Ps
88/89, Is 27, Job 9, Job 20).3
However, the position of the present author is quite
clear. He dogmatically holds that
the Israelites did not
borrow any mythology nor is
there any hint of belief in any
mythology in the biblical
corpus. Anything to the contrary
immediately affects biblical
revelation and inspiration, and
thus, the very character of
God. The employment of the word
bhr in
89:11 (Heb.) will be discussed later.
But immediately, the liberal critic accuses the
1Kapelrud,
The Ras Shamra Discoveries and the Old
Testament, p. 72.
2Ignaz
Goldziher, Mythology Among the Hebrews
and Its
Historical Development (
Inc.,
1967), p. 424.
3Avery
Dulles, "Symbol, Myth, and the Biblical Reve-
lation,"
TS, 27:1 (March, 1966), 16. Also see
B. K. Waltke,
a
review of
Themes by Harvey H. Guthrie,
Jr., BS, 123:492 (October-Decem-
ber,
1966), 363.
History," The Bible in Modern Scholarship, edited by J. Philip
Hyatt
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1965), pp. 100-05.
15
present writer of coming to his
study with basic presupposi-
tions. The thoughts and
conclusions of McCown are pertinent
here:
The problem of
objectivity, of avoiding unjustifiable
assumptions and presuppositions, is
a difficult one.
. . .
The
line between the interpretation of ancient thought
and its evaluation and application
for modern use is no
barb-wired iron curtain. It may be
as easily and in-
sensibly crossed as the equator; but
the navigator must
keep his bearings and know where he
is. . . .
But if biblical scholarship is to
retain a place of re-
spectability among modern fields of
research, it must
maintain full freedom of
investigation, thought, and
expression, with no claim to a
preferred status or
special immunities, and with no
theological presupposi-
tions.1
Without going into a detailed
discussion, it can be
said that McCown's conclusion
is not realistic. The liberal
critic ought to be honest
enough to admit that everyone comes
to a study with some
presuppositions. Erlandsson has devoted
an article to this very matter.
To quote him in part:
Can
a scholar who believes in the Bible's reliability
do research without presuppositions?
. . . We have seen
that the historical-critical
scholars who claimed that
they worked without presuppositions
at the same time
take as their starting point
absolutely fixed presup-
positions.2
Continuing on the same subject, Brown comments:
1C. C.. McCown, "The
Current Plight of Biblical Schol-
arship,"
JBL, LXXXV:I (March, 1956), 17-18.
2Seth
Erlandsson,, "Is There Ever Biblical Research
Without Presuppositions?" Themelios, 7:2-3 (1970), 28.
16
It may well be wondered
what a scholar has to do to
get a hearing for
"conservative" results. Under such
circumstances, one is tempted to
conclude that much of
the current consensus against the
authenticity and re-
liability of most biblical material
is a presupposition
of "scientific Bible scholarship," not a result.l
And this is the crucial issue in this entire study.
Because
of one's assumptions, his interpretation is greatly
affected. As a result, the
viewpoints on Psalm 89 are like
the demons of
Legion,
for we are many." The words of Mendenhall are all
too true:
Today,
little can be said concerning Biblical history
and religion (beyond specific
historical "facts") which
will receive general assent among
the specialists in the
field. If the ability to command
general assent among
those who are competent be the
criterion of the scien-
tific, it must now be admitted that
a science of Bibli-
cal studies does not exist.
Certainly, each scholar
feels that the views he now holds
represent a steady
progress beyond those of a past
generation, but that
is not the point. A survey of the
entire field shows
rather such divergence of opinion
and such disagreement
on nearly every important issue that
a consensus of
opinion cannot be said to exist.2
It should not be surprising, then,
that controversy
will be evident in this work.
If anything, this highlights
the importance of such a study.
lHarold 0. J. Brown,
"Editor's Page," Themelios,
7:2-3
(1970), 30.
2George
tion,"
The Bible and the Ancient Near East,
essays in honor
of
William Foxwell Albright, edited by G. Ernest Wright
(Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company,
Inc., 1961),
p. 32.
17
The Method of This
Study
In
terms of scope
The aim is to exegete the entire
psalm and to treat
its related problems. But it
will be virtually impossible
to deal with every word in the
psalm and every theological
implication. Only those matters
relevant and pertinent to
the purpose of this study will
be considered. Therefore,
this dissertation will accordingly
be limited to the study
of hermeneutics in this area.
As for the ancient Near East, the
scope includes only
what scholars deem as
parallels, extending from the life and
literature of
This
does not encompass an interpretation of all ancient
Near Eastern literature cited.
The concepts and beliefs of
the ancient Near East that
apply to the psalm will be dis-
cussed and examined very
briefly. Again, the purpose is not
to compare Psalm 89 to the
ancient Near East, but to compare
aspects of the ancient Near
East to Psalm 89. In other words
the principal study concerns
Psalm 89; the ancient Near East
is confined entirely to its
contribution or so-called par-
allelism.
In
terms of procedure
The first task will be to treat the antecedents of
exegesis: author, date, etc.
Also, no study of this type
would be complete without an
investigation of form-criticism.
In the following chapter of exegesis, the procedure
18
will be to follow the
guidelines of normal or literal inter-
pretation. It does not exclude
figurative language. The
method will be to determine the
ordinary meaning and intention
of what the author sought to communicate.
Only fantasy and
speculation are excluded.
Valid comparisons from the ancient
viewed in the fourth chapter.
This does not necessarily
imply nor comprise parallelism
because of the stereotyped
patterns of poetry.
The next chapter involves what some
scholars call
parallelisms to Psalm 89. If
there are valid parallels,
they will be examined as to
their contribution. Of necessity,
this chapter will be somewhat
extended due to the explanation
of some ancient concepts.
A brief chapter preceding the
conclusion will contain
New Testament references. It is
hoped that this procedure
will aid the reader's
comprehension.
CHAPTER II
ANTECEDENTS TO THE EXEGESIS
Form Criticism
It seems evident that form criticism should precede
any study on the Psalms. In one
way or another it affects
most of the remaining topics in
this chapter: author, date
Sitz im Leben, and
types. The significance of form criticism
is stated by Alexander:
Though
some have misused the results of this study, the
results themselves have opened new
vistas in the under-
standing of the Old Testament. An
outstanding example
of a portion of the Old Testament
unlocked by this study
of literary genre is the book of
Psalms and hymnic liter-
ature.1
Since this subject is another large
enough to be a
dissertation in itself,
especially with voluminous sources
at hand, the present work will
only touch it in summary
fashion.2 Briefly,
consideration will be given to approach
and method, weaknesses, and
contribution.
1Ralph
ment
Apocalyptic Literature," (unpublished Doctor's disserta-
tion,
Dallas Theological Seminary, 1968), p. 4.
2The
reader is referred to a rather exhaustive treat-
ment
by Klaus Koch, The Growth of the Biblical
Tradition:
The
Form-Critical Method,
translated from the 2nd German
edition
by S. M. Cupitt (
1969). Especially note pp.
68-91.
20
In terms of approach and method
Johnson observes:
In
so far as the study of the Psalter has made any
progress during the generation which
has passed .
it is largely due to the influence
of one man--Hermann
Gunkel.1
Gunkel is generally regarded as the scholar who first
applied the principles of form
criticism to the Psalms. His-
torically speaking, he seems to
be the pivotal point.
The
author of it was first and foremost H. Gunkel, who
applied form-critical methods to the
study of the Psalms,
classifying them into various types
and studying the
Sitz im Leben from which these sprang.
Gunkel's work
marked such a turning point that one
may divide all
study of the Psalms into pre- and post-Gunkel phases.2
The basic approach and method of
Gunkel began with
the conviction that all poetry
in
posed first to be sung as an
accompaniment of a ritual act.
He
viewed the Psalms as having their origin in various occa-
sions of
specific situation in life for
each Psalm. The next step was
to take the Psalms having a
common Sitz im Leben and classify
them according to types or
literary forms (Gattung). Besides
having a common occasion, the
Psalms must have the following
Modern
Study,
edited by H. H. Rowley (
sity
Press, 1961), p. 162.
2John
Bright, "Modern Study of Old Testament Litera-
ture,"
The Bible and the Ancient Near East,
essays in honor
of
William Foxwell Albright, edited by G. Ernest Wright (Gar-
den
City,
26.
21
characteristics to distinguish
the types: common motifs,
forms of expression, and ideas.1
Another eminent scholar in this
field,
winckel, declares:
Form criticism,
"die Form-und Gattungsforshung", is
the absolutely indispensable basis
of any understanding
of the Psalms. It has taught us to
distinguish between
a certain number of types
("Gattungen"), easily defin-
able with regard to form and
content, in which each
individual example has been composed
according to the
very fixed, established rules of
form and content, and
has shown that each of these types
has sprung up out of
a definite "Sitz im
Leben", out of its traditionally
fixed function in religious life, a
situation and a
function, which have created the
very elements of form
and content, which are peculiar to the type in question.2
Mowinckel does build upon the form-critical approach,
but he differs with Gunkel's
view. The difference is ex-
pressed by Hohenstein in a very
concise manner:
The
majority of Biblical psalms are to be associated
with the Hebrew cult. They were
composed for, and used
in, actual temple services. In this
emphasis Mowinckel
is at odds with Gunkel. While the
latter admitted that
many of the psalms were originally
old cultic songs, he
hastened to point out that in the
form in which we have
them they were no longer connected
to the cult but were
more personal and spiritual in
outlook. Mowinckel, on
the contrary, insists that there is
no private poetry in
1This
summary of Gunkel's basic approach and method
was
extracted from Hermann Gunkel, The
Psalms: A Form-
Critical
Introduction,
translated by Thomas M. Horner, Facet
Book--Biblical
Series XIX, edited by John Reumann (Phila-
delphia:
Fortress Press, 1967). For another viewpoint see
James
Muilenburg, "Form Criticism and Beyond, JBL, LXXXVIII:I
(March,
1969), 1-18.
2Sigmund Mowinckel,
"Psalm Criticism Between 1900 and
1935," VT, V:1 (January, 1955), 15.
22
the Psalter, but that all of it has
group-cultic associa-
tions.1
Details cannot be given here, the
reader is asked to
read the works cited in the
footnotes. It may be simply said
that Mowinckel viewed ancient
a great New Year festival in
many of the Psalms.2 Hahn says,
"But
Mowinckel seems to have overshot the mark by assigning
each category of psalm to one
ritual occasion exclusively."3
Although the Norwegian employs
the form-critical approach,
his premise might be better
entitled "the cultic approach."
There is another variation of the
form-critical ap-
proach. A leading advocate is
the Swedish scholar, Ivan
Engnell. "Engnell calls
his approach traditio-historical."4
lHerbert E. Hohenstein,
"Psalms 2 and 110: A Compar-
ison
of Exegetical Methods," (unpublished Doctor's disserta-
tion,
Concordia Seminary,
direct
study of Mowinckel's method see Sigmund Mowinckel, The
Psalms in
Israel's Worship,
2 Vols., translated by D. R. Ap-
Thomas
(New York: Abingdon Press, 1962). Especially note
Vol. I, pp.. 23-41. The disagreement between
Gunkel and
winckel
is also expressed by A. R. Johnson, "Divine Kingship
and
the Old Testament," ET, LXII:2
(November, 1950), 36-42.
2Mowinckel, The Psalms in
pp.
106-92. A brief treatment of his position is given in
Harvey H. Guthrie, Jr.,
Dominant Themes (New York: The Seaburg
Press, 1966), pp.
14-17.
3Herbert
F. Hahn, The Old Testament in Modern Re-
search (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1966), p. 139.
4Ivan
Engnell, A Rigid Scrutiny: Critical
Essays on
the Old Testament, translated and edited
by John T. Willis
(Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1969),
p. 3. See
also
J. T. Willis, "Engnell's Contributions to Old Testament
Scholarship," TZ, 26:6 (November-Dezember, 1970),
385-94.
23
The
apparent aim of this approach is to seek to reconstruct
the occasion at which the psalm
was first used. In reality,
it seems to differ very little
from what the present writer
calls "the cultic
approach."
In
terms of weaknesses
To this present author, the first and foremost major
weakness is not of the system
itself, but the hermeneutic of
those who employ the
form-critical method. Coppes has writ-
ten an excellent article on the
"Hermeneutic of Hermann
Gunkel."l
The author shows how in Gunkel's method of re-
search "Fact and fantasy
flow freely together."2 In his
biased presuppositions Gunkel's
conception of God's guidance
"was
thoroughly humanistic."3 "Gunkel is trapped between his
presupposed anti-supernatural
humanism and his osbervation of
historical phenomena leading
him to supernaturalism."4 As to
his methodology, Coppes plainly
states, "It is evident that
Gunkel's hermeneutical methods
are colored by his theological
Engnell's views are also elucidated in G. W.
Anderson, "Some
Aspects
of the
XLII:4
(October, 1950), 239-56.
1Leonard
J. Coppes, "'An Introduction to the Hermen-
eutic
of Hermann Gunkel," WTJ, XXXII:2
(May, 1970), 148-78.
2Ibid., 159.
3Ibid., 167.
4Ibid.,
170.
24
presuppositions."1
A major weakness in the system
itself is found in the
approaches just reviewed. The
Spirit of God through Scripture
has not given the slightest
hint that one should reconstruct
historical incidents based upon
imagination. The Bible makes
no statement of
as Mowinckel, Engnell, et al advocate. If such a festival is
a key to understanding the
psalms, God would have had it re-
corded.2
A third weakness is seen when one
aspect of Gunkel's
Gattung is
applied to the origin and composition of Scripture.
Mihelic outlines Gunkel's view:
.
. . the study of these types will reveal that all of
these various categories were
originally spoken and not
written. This accounts for the
brevity of the ancient
compositions. Thus, wisdom
literature existed originally
as single proverbs and sayings, and
the same was true for
most ancient legal judgments,
prophetic utterances and
thorah statues.3
Then he relates the weakness:
lIbid., 172. A contrast
may be observed in R. Lansing
Hicks, "Form and Content: A Hermeneutical
Application,"
Translating and
Understanding the Old Testament: Essays in
Honor of Herbert Gordon
May,
edited by Harry Thomas Frank and
William L. Reed (Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1970), pp. 304-
24.
2An
answer to Mowinckel and his followers is given by
K.
A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old
Testament (
Inter-Varsity
Press, 1966), pp. 102-06.
3Joseph
L. Mihelic, "The Influence of Form Criticism
on
the Study of the Old Testament, JBR,
XIX:3 (July, 1951),
122.
25
Now,
even though Gunkel s sketch of literary forms has
been of great value for the smallest
units, it has not
taught us anything new about the
composition and origin
of our biblical books. This is
especially true in re-
spect to books and collections of
books which are more
than loose compilations of small
units. This is due to
the fact that form criticism is
inclined to look at the
typical and ignores or pushes into
the background that
which is personal and individual.1
Even though there may be more, a
fourth and final
weakness is set forth here.
Just because it has been placed
fourth by the present writer,
its importance is not diminished.
In
consideration of any biblical truth, the understanding and
usage of terminology are
exceedingly significant. Hals avers,
"The
field of OT form-critical terminology is one in which
there exists great diversity
and greater confusion."2 And
later he remarks:
It
seems to me that the confusion in usage of form-
critical labels has progressed to
such an extent that
it must be asked whether in some
cases any standardly
acceptable technical terminology is salvable.3
Actually, all of this is just the
result of divorcing
interpretation from the
grammatical, historical method of
interpretation. A perfect
example of this is a work on Psalm
lIbid., 127. For a refutation of Gunkel's smaller
units
in the Pentateuch see Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey
of Old Testament
Introduction
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1964),
Pp.
87-88.
2Ronald
M. Hals, "Legend: A Case Study in OT Form-
Critical
Terminology," CBQ, XXXIV:2
(April, 1972), 166.
3Ibid.,
172.
26
89 by
G. W. Ahlström.1 He followed Engnell in his approach
that was explained earlier in
this study.2 Also, his pre-
suppositions are similar to
those of his Swedish colleague
and the
Rather than go to Ahlstrom's
work and a lengthy discussion,
a quote from Moran will be
sufficient for an explanation. In
a review of Ahlström's effort
on Psalm 89, Moran notes:
Following the commentary
there are some brief studies:
1.
Dwd--David (pp. 163-173, Dwd is a vegetation deity,
and Yahweh's son); 2. Anschliessende Bemerkungen (pp.
174-185,
meter, relation of TM and the versions, cult-
prophets, Ps 89 and 2 Sam 7); 3. Spezialanmerkungen (pp.
186-192, Tabor as cult-center of
Tammuz, Hermon = "holy
place", date of Canaanite
influence on Israelite liter-
ature, tenses in Hebrew).3
Obviously, Ahlström's work offers
little or no help
in this dissertation.
Weaknesses in the form-critical ap-
proach are evident everywhere.
One of the latest attempts on
the subject is by Gene M.
Tucker.4 In his review, Waltke
reveals the basic problem:
1G.
W. Ahlström, Psalm 89: Eine Liturgie aus
dem
Ritual des
Leidenden Königs,
translated by Hans-Karl Hacker
and
Rudolf Zeitler (Lund: Hakan Ohlssons Boktryckeri, 1959).
2Joseph
J. DeVault, a review of Psalm 89: Eine
Litur
ie aus dem Ritual des
Leidenden Königs
by G. TW. Ahlstrbm, TS,
21
1960), 280.
3W.
L. Moran, a review of Psalm 89, Eine
Liturgie aus
dem Ritual des Leidenden
Königs
by G. W. Ahlström, Biblica,
42:2 (1961), 237. Moran concludes by saying,
"One can only
wish
that more respect had been shown for basic tenets of
Israelite
faith." 239.
4Gene
M. Tucker, Form Criticism of the Old
Testament
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1971).
27
In
his attempt to popularize the form critical ap-
proach as developed by H. Gunkel in
the narrative
literature, by C. Westermann in the
prophetic liter-
ature, by S. Mowinckel in the hymnic
literature and by
Alt
in the legal literature, the author has produced a
work that combines the strength and
weakness of popular
literature; viz. clarity and
dogmatism. But by combin-
ing this virtue with this vice he
unwittingly makes it
painfully clear, to the reader that
most of the practi-
tioners of this approach are
humanists who regard the
Bible
as only a human document and presume that the
direct intervention of God in the
affairs of man exists
only in man's creative imagination
and not in historical
fact.1
In terms of contribution
One contribution is in the area of hermeneutics, es-
pecially literary genres.
Alexander says:
It
is recognized, however, that liberal scholars have
often misused this profitable
hermeneutical tool in
biblical studies. But, on the contrary,
conservative
scholars have often failed to take
advantage of this im-
portant means of studying
Scriptures, simply because
liberal scholars employ it.
Recently, however, conser-
vative scholars have begun to
acknowledge the usefulness
of studying the forms of literature
in Scripture, and
the results have been richly rewarding.2
The Gattung of each psalm does help the scholar to see
where natural divisions fall
within the psalm. Ideas or con-
cepts expressed by the author
often help one to discern how
the song was organized. In
another way the approach enables
the student to see the emphasis
of the author within a
lBruce K. Waltke, a
review of Form Criticism of the
Old Testament by Gene M. Tucker, BS, 129:514 (April-June,
1972),
175.
2Alexander,
"Hermeneutics of Old Testament Apocalyptic
Literature," p. 108.
28
Gunkel-type.
Probably the greatest aid has come in word
studies. To observe how a word
is used in a similar literary
form in one psalm greatly
assists one in his study of another
psalm.
Then, too, Gunkel's approach has
validity that has
been employed rightly by many.
He states:
To
understand the literary types we must in each case
have the whole situation clearly
before us and ask our-
selves, Who is speaking? Who are the
listeners? What
is the mise en scene at the time? What effect is aimed
at?1
What might be seen as another
contribution is
Gunkel's use of archaeology and
form-criticism to prove
wrong Wellhausen's theory on
the evolution of
ligion. It is much too lengthy
to discuss here.2
Though it will not be stated as
such, the reader will
detect the employment of the
form-critical method in this
present study, but it will be
based on the grammatical, his-
torical method of
interpretation and the presuppositions
already mentioned. The above
discussion not only acquaints
one with what is to follow, but
it also will eliminate
verbosity.
lCoppes, "An Introduction
to the Hermeneutic of Her-
mann
Gunkel," p. 161. The citation was taken from Hermann
Gunkel, "Fundamental Problems of Hebrew
Literary History,"
What Remains of the Old
Testament?,
translated by A. K.
2Ibid.,
150-54.
29
Author
There is absolutely no consensus of opinion on the
authorship of Psalm 89. The
issue is confusing and quite in-
volved. Date and background
cannot be divorced from the dis-
cussion, although they will be
dealt with under separate
headings.
The superscription in English reads,
"A Maskil of
Ethan the Ezrahite."1
In the Hebrew and Greek, the super-
scription is incorporated as
verse one. The MT has lyKiW;ma
yHirAz;x,hA
NtAyxel;2 and the LXX has Sune<sewj Aiqan t&? Israhli<t^.3
The
authenticity of the superscription has raised many ques-
tions. Kirkpatrick writes:
It
is now generally acknowledged that the titles re-
lating to the authorship and occasion of the Psalms
cannot be regarded as prefixed by
the authors themselves,
or as representing trustworthy
traditions, and according-
ly giving reliable information.4
Partially, Perowne would disagree.
"That in some
cases the authors themselves
may have prefixed their names to
1All
English passages quoted in this work are from
the
NASB, unless otherwise rioted.
2Rudolf Kittel, ed., Biblia Hebraica (
Privileg. Württ. Bibelenstalt, 1937), p. 1053.
All refer-
ences
to MT in this study are taken from
this source.
3Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta, 2 Vols. (
Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935), Vol. II,
p. 95. Psalm
89
in the MT is Psalm 88 in the LXX. All references to LXX
in
this study are taken from this source.
4A.
F. Kirkpatrick, ed., The Book of Psalms
(
bridge: The University Press,
1910), p. xxxi. For a few
30
their poems may be
granted."l Inherent in the problem is the
date of the headings,
especially in relation to the LXX.
Rather than cite several different
views, a few
quotes from Archer will set
forth and clarify the problem.
The
critics generally regard the Hebrew psalm titles
as very late and unreliable, usually
being derived by
inference from the internal evidence
of the psalms them-
selves. This conclusion is often
based upon two lines
of evidence: the occasional
discrepancies between the
psalm titles in the MT and those in
the LXX, and the
lack of correspondence between
statements of historical
background and the situation
presupposed in the psalms
themselves. . . .
Mature
reflection, however, should lead the investi-
gator to quite an opposite conclusion. . . .
The LXX furnishes
conclusive evidence that the titles
were added to the Hebrew Psalter at
a date long before
Hellenistic
times. That is to say there are several
technical terms appearing in the
Hebrew titles the mean-
ings of which had been completely
forgotten by the time
the Alexandrian translation was made (c. 150-100 B.C.).2
That some of the headings of the Psalms are not
rash
statements that have yet to be proved see Artur Weiser,
The Psalms: A Commentary, translated by Herbert
Hartwell,
The Old Testament Library (
Press,
1962), pp. 95, 98-99.
1J. J. Stewart Perowne, The Book of Psalms, 2 Vols.,
revised
edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1966)
Vol. I, p. 95. See several arguments for and
against the
authority
of the superscriptions in John McClintock and James
Strong, "Psalms, Book of," Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theologi-
cal, and Ecclesiastical
Literature,
12 Vols., first published
in
1879, reprint (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969),
Vol.
VIII, pp. 748-49.
2Gleason
L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament
Introduction
(Chicago: Moody Press,. 1964), p. 428.
31
rendered in the LXX would indicate
that the songs, in-
struments, times of circumstances to
which they refer
had passed out of the memory and
tradition of the Jews.
If
the headings had been inserted after the Greek ver-
sion was made, it is hard to see how
the later Jews who
made the Targums and Talmud, should
not have understood
their sense.1
And later he claims:
As
to the text of the headings of the Psalms, the
evidence of the manuscripts and
versions goes to show
that they are not merely
substantially the same as they
were in the third century B.C., but
that most of them
must even then have been hoary with age.2
The age of the title is important
for this Psalm be-
cause the author is actively
involved in the context. The
following material and the
chapter on exegesis will seek to
demonstrate the relationship of
the title to the content of
the Psalm.
The next problem relating to the
above is the under-
standing of l in the MT. As Smith declares, "We have no
clear objective guide as to the
meaning of the preposition
in such contexts."3
It has been translated in the titles as
"by," “of,” “about,”
or "for." At least a few seem to follow
1Robert
Dick Wilson, A Scientific Investigation
of
the Old Testament, revisions by E. J.
Young (
Press,
1959), p. 414.
2Ibid., p. 154.
3J.
M. Powis Smith, The Psalms (
sity of Chicago Press, 1926),
p. 241.
32
the LXX rendering and translate the lamed
as "for."1 If so,
then this deprives Ethan of
authorship. However, Murphy
signifies that this and the
other translations above are
"The
most common designations of 'authorship'. . . ."2 But
then another source says,
"While it can imply authorship,
. . .
more literally it means 'belonging to.'"3 And Sarna
purports, "Usually the
preposition le must indicate either
authorship or a collection
identified with a guild."4
A most prominent Hebrew grammarian
views the lamed
as indicating authorship
without any question.5 Gesenius
concludes by noting,
"Moreover, the introduction of the
author, poet, etc., by this Lamed auctoris is the customary
idiom also in the other Semitic
dialects, especially in
1See
André Robert and André Feuillet,
Introduction
to the Old Testament, 2 Vol., translated by
Patrick W.
Skeham,
et al, Image Books edition (
Doubleday
and Company, Inc., 1970), Vol. II, p. 35 and A. R.
Fausset,
"Psalm LXXXIX," JFB, 6
Vols. (
Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1961), Vol. III, p. 292.
2Roland
E. Murphy, "Psalms," JBC,
edited by Raymond
E.
Brown, et al (Englewood Cliffs,
Hall,
Inc., 1968), p. 570.
3Leslie
S. M'Caw and J. A. Motyer, "The Psalms,"
NBCR,
edited by D. Guthrie, et al (
Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1970),, p. 446.
4Nahum
M. Sarna, et al, "Psalms, Book
of," EJ, 16
Vols.
(Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, Ltd., 1971), Vol.
13,
p. 1318.
5William
Gesenius, GKC, reprint (
Clarendon Press, 1910), p. 419.
33
Arabic."1 In
his discussion on the subject, Engnell writes,
".
. . lehêmān in Psalm
88 and le'êthān in
Psalm 89 are in-
tended to provide information
concerning authorship."2
One may think the last remarks sound
convincing, but
they are not to some. There are
a few theories that can be
dismissed rather quickly. The
Talmud says of Ethan,
the name is a pseudonym for the
patriarch Abraham."3 Briggs
claims
Three
pseudonyms are together in the midst of the
Psalter, doubtless of editorial
design: 88 ascribed
to Heman, 89 to Ethan, 90 to Moses;
all alike with
the same purpose, to compose Pss. in
the name and from
the point of view of these ancient worthies.4
Plainly, he declares of the Psalm,
"It came from one
of the companions of Jehoiachin
in his exile."5 Another
views Psalm 89 as ". . .
the work of the general-in-chief of
Zedekiah. . . ." with the
facts relating to 587 B.C.6 The
lIbid., p. 420.
2Engnell, A Rigid Scrutiny, p. 80.
3Cecil Roth, ed.,
"Ethan the Ezrahite," The
Standard
Jewish
Encyclopedia (
Company,
Inc., 1966), p. 642.
4Charles
A. Briggs, and Emilie G. Briggs, The Book
of Psalms, 2 Vols., International Critical Commentary,
edited
by Samuel R. Driver and Alfred Plummer, 47 Vols.,
reprint,
1969 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906), Vol. I, p.
lxvii.
5Ibid., p. lxviii. See also.Vol. II, p. 250.
6G.
Castellino, a review of Die Psalmen nach
dem
Hebräischen Grundtext by Bernard Bonkamp, VT, 111:2 (April,
1953), 205.
34
latter view will be handled in
the next section of this
chapter.
.
. . it is absurd to suppose that the writers of them
would have attributed so many of the
Psalms to precap-
tivity authors, when their
contemporaries must have
known that the whole body of Psalms
had arisen after
the fall of the first temple, had
such been actually
the case.1
Besides late authorship, Albright
postulates that
Ethan was a Canaanite.2
He does so on the basis of his in-
terpretation of Ezrahite.3
Harrison agrees with the interpre-
tation, but sees Ethan in the
time of the monarchy.4 Gray
also holds the same view and
adds Egyptian color to the
Canaanite
influence.5 Ahlström's stand has been cited by
Italian scholars as a position
of Ethan-a-Canaanite.6
1Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testa-
ment, p. 154.
2William
Foxwell Albright, Archaeology and the Re-
ligion of Israel, Anchor Books edition
(Garden City, New
3Ibid., p. 210, fn. 95. Also see p. 204, fn. 44.
4R.
K.
(Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969),
pp.
979, 1166. Another who seems to agree is Mitchell
Dahood,
The Anchor Bible--Psalms II (
Doubleday
and Company, Inc., 1968), pp. 308, 311.
5John
Gray, The Legacy of
Texts and their
Relevance to the Old Testament, revised
edition, Supplements to
Vetus Testamentus
(
Brill,
1965), p. 207.
6The
reviewer seems to agree completely with the
statement, "Etan 1'Ezrahita a cui it salmo è
attribuito è
un
sapiente ei un clan cananeo." P. Giovanni Rinaldi, ed.,
35
According to Rowley, the meaning of
Ezrahite is ob-
scure.l The LXX has
it meaning Israelite (Israhli<th) .
Granted
that the term may mean native-born,
the present
writer holds that Ethan was an
Israelite. The linguistic
study of Albright, Gray, and
Ahlström may be valid to a cer-
tain extent, but they have gone
too far. Just because 'ezrah
means aboriginal, it does not have to indicate Canaanite
origin. From the following
comments it will be seen that
Ethan
was either of the tribe of
these sons of Jacob were born
in the
Jacob
had received the land from God as a permanent estab-
lishment (Gen. 28:1-4, 13). A
reading of the passages re-
veals that Jacob's seed was
included. Therefore, that Ethan
was native-born means that he was a member of the original
settlers to whom the land had
been given for an everlasting
possession. The humanistic
approach has left out God again.
But the problem still remains as, to Ethan's identity.
Peters
concludes that he was a Galilaean of the temple of
Dan, which is not convincing at
all.2 Burney has brought the
"I1 Salmo 89," a review of Psalm 89 by G. W. Ahlström, Bibbia
e Oriente, Anno 4 (Milano, 1962),
197.
1H.
H. Rowley, Worship in Ancient
and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1967), p. 174.
2J.
P. Peters, "A
(October, 1920), 36. His
argument is based on. 89:13 (Heb.).
36
remaining issues to the
forefront:.
Ps.
88 is ascribed in the title to yHrzxh Nmyh, Ps. 89
to yHrzxh Ntyx, Pss. 39, 62, 77 to Nvtvdy. Hence the
chronicler distinguishes Ethan and
Heman, the sages of
the tribe of
who were Levites; and further, his
statement that they
were sons of Zerah need not conflict
with that of Kings,
'sons
of Mahol,' since Zerah, as is suggested by the
title yHrzxh may have been the
remoter ancestor, Mahol
the immediate father. On the other
hand, the author of
Psalm
titles, in naming his men Ezrahites, seems to be
introducing a confusion between
Levites and the Ju-
daeans.1
Considering Jeduthun (II Chron.
5:12) first, May de-
clares that “. . . Jeduthan has
been substituted for Ethan
because it appeared in the
Psalms."2 Driver says, “. . . it
is generally allowed that
Jeduthan . . . is another name of
Ethan."3 With
an added feature another agrees, “. . . it
is
not necessary to assume that
the Ethan here (I Kings v. 11;
1C.
F. Burney, "Notes on the Books of Kings, The
Book of
Judges and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of
Kings, revised, The Library
of Biblical Studies, edited by
H.
M. Orlinsky (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1970), p.
51. Arthur G. Clarke says, "Ezrahite =
Zerahite," Analytical
Studies in the Psalms (
lishers,
1949), p. 218.
2Herbert
Gordon May, "'
of
the Psalms, AJSL, LVIII:l (January,
1941), 83.
3S.
R. Driver, An Introduction to the
Literature of
the Old Testament (
1956), p. 370. For a full discussion of this and
related
problems
see Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary
on the
Psalms, 3 Vols., translated by
Francis Bolton, reprint (Grand
Rapids;
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [n.d.], Vol. I,
pp.
9-10; Vol. III, pp. 32-33 and John M'Clintock and James
Strong,
"Ethan," (and) “Ezrahite,” Cvclopaedia
of Biblical,
Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, 12
Vol., reprint
37
I
Chron. xi. 6) is the same as the Ethan or Jeduthan (I
Chron. xv. 17), who was of the
tribe of Levi and a Merarite."1
Assuming Burney is correct, the
problem now revolves
around Ethan of
2:6)
and Ethan of Levi (I Chron. 6:29 [
19). Perowne holds that Ethan
was of the tribe of
because of his musical skill he
enrolled in the tribe of
Levi.2
One argument could be that I Kings 5:11 has Ntyx
yHrzxh which
is the same as the title of Psalm 89:1.
But I Chronicles 6:29; 15:17-19 has
Ethan belonging
to the tribe of Levi. In the
latter passage Ethan is known
as a singer, but not called an
Ezrahite. Of course, the
silence does not mean that he
could not have been native-born
and still be the Ezrahite of
Psalm 89. There are still too
many problems to be dogmatic
one way or another.
The last part of total discussion
involves the period
of his existence. Was he
David's contemporary, Solomon's,
both or neither? Someone
writing with Sarna views Ethan of
(Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969), Vol. III, pp. 317-
18;
439-40 and "Psalms, Book of," Vol. VIII, pp. 749-50.
1Carl
Bernard Moll, "The Psalms," translated with
additions
by C. A. Briggs, et al, Lunge's
Commentary on the
Holy Scriptures, 12 Vol., revised
edition (
Zondervan
Publishing House, 1960), Vol. 5, p. 482.
2J. J. Stewart Perowne, The Book of Psalms, 2 Vols.,
revised
edition (
1966), Vol. I, p. 95.
38
Psalm
89 as a
self believes that the real
author lived after 735-34 B.C.2
Bewer
says that he was David's musician.3 This cannot be de-
nied in the light of the
biblical statements. Dickson claims
that Ethan survived Solomon's
kingdom.4 Spurgeon avers,
“. . .
Ethan . . . was a musician in David's reign; was noted
for his wisdom in Solomon's
days and probably survived till
the troubles of Rehoboam's
period.”5 Actually, this view
ties all the passages together
well, if the Ethan of I Kings
5:11 were of the tribe of Levi.
As for Barnes, he is not sure who the author was.6
lNahum M. Sarna, et al, "Psalms, Book of," EJ, 16
Vols.
(Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, Ltd., 1971), Vol.
13,
p. 1318.
2Nahum
M. Sarna, "Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Bibli-
cal
Exegesis," Biblical and Other Studies,
edited by
Alexander Altmann, Philip W. Lown Institute of
Advanced
Judaic
Studies,
Volume I (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1963), p. 45.
3Julius
A. Bewer, The Literature of the Old
Testa-
ment, revised edition (
1940),
p. 343.
4David
Dickson, The Psalms, 2 Vols., first
published
in
1653, reprint (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1959),
Vol.
II, p. 107.
5C.
H. Spurgeon, "Psalm LXXXIX," The
Treasury of
David, 6 Vols. (
1950),
Vol. IV, p. 23.
6Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament: Psalms,
3
Vols., reprint (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1964),
Vol. II, p. 369.
39
The
present author would conclude that Ethan the Ezrahite is
the author. It would be
helpful, but Smith's remarks cannot
be easily applied to Psalm 89:
The
general conclusion as to the value of the super-
scriptions that is forced upon us by
the foregoing facts
is that the testimony of a
superscription regarding the
origin of a biblical book or a psalm
may not be accepted
as authoritative in and of itself.
Only if the psalm or
writing by its spirit and content
supports the claim of
the superscription may it be
accepted as stating the
actual fact.1
As much as possible, this study will
seek to demon-
strate that the spirit and
content support the claim of the
superscription. Even though
Ethan is the author as concluded
above, he may not have placed
the superscription above the
psalm. If so, the present
writer totally agrees with
when he avers, "It is
hardly to be supposed that the writer
of these headings would make
his work absurd by making state-
ments that his contemporaries
would have known to be untrue."2
The authorship cannot be studied
thoroughly without
consideration of date and
historical background. The treat-
ment of these facts will not be
as extensive since much of it
has been covered here.
Date and Unity
For beneficial study of the background which is to
lSmith, The Psalms, p. 243.
2Wilson,
A Scientific Investigation of the Old
Testa-
ment, p.
154.
40
follow, an approximate date or
time period must be estab-
lished. From the above
considerations it is held that Ethan
is the author, but when did he
compose the song?
Usually, date and unity could be viewed separately,
but the complexity of
viewpoints does not allow a total sepa-
ration here. It is impossible
in this dissertation to spell
out all the reasons why
scholars hold the dates they do. The
reader is asked to complete the
study by perusing the sources
in the footnotes.
In the discussion, expressions of early date and
late
date
will be employed. An early date is the David-
Solomon
period or shortly thereafter. The time from Josiah
to the Exile or after is
considered a late date.
The date of Psalm 89 is tossed in
contrary directions
with the unity or disunity of
the composition not held con-
sistently with either.
Buttenweiser holds a late date and
no unity.1 Others
such as Crim,2 Kissane,3 McCullough,4
lMoses Buttenweiser, The Psalms: Chronologically
Treated
with a New Translation (
2Keith R. Crim, The Royal Psalms (
John
Knox Press, 1962), pp. 104-09.
3Edward J. Kissane, The Book of Psalms, 2 Vols.
(Dublin:
Browne and Nolan Limited, 1954), Vol. II, p. 90.
4W.
Stewart McCullough, Exegesis of Psalm "89," The
Interpreter's Bible, 12 Vols. (
1955), Vol. IV, pp. 478-79.
41
and Roddl view the
psalm as late but having unity. Both
Leslie2 and Sarna3
see it composed in the eighth century,
but the former says with
disunity and the latter claims
unity. DeQueker4
agrees with Gunkel5 on the disunity, and
both discern that one portion
of Psalm 89 is pre-exilic and
another is exilic.
On the disunity, Buttenweiser writes
dogmatically
that it is two Psalms and
"The two pieces differ so radically
in tone and content that they
cannot possibly be considered
an organic whole."6
As for Cheyne, he goes a step farther by
suggesting, . . . if we admit
the vv. 4 and 5 were inserted
later as a link between the two
psalms, it is surely most
natural to assume that
originally they had no connexion
lCyril S. Rodd, Psalms 73-150, Epworth Preacher's
Commentaries, edited by Greville P. Lewis (
Epworth
Press, 1964), p. 34.
2Elmer
A. Leslie, The Psalms (
Press,
1949), pp. 273-79.
3Sarna,
"Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exe-
gesis," p. 45.
4DeQueker, "Les Qedôsîm
du Ps. lxxxix à la Lumiére
des
Croyances Semitiques," ETL, 39
(1963), 474-75, 482.
5Gunkel, The Psalms: A Form-Critical Introduction,
pp.
24-25. A similar view is held by J. T. Milik in E. M.
Laperrousaz, "Chronique," RHR, 171 (Nouvelle Serie, 1966),
108.
6Buttenweiser,
The Psalms: Chronologically Treated
with a New Translation, p. 239. On the basis
of "Selah,"
Snaith sees three psalms but does not admit
unity nor dis-
unity:
Norman H. Snaith, "Selah," VT,
II:1 (January, 1952),
47-48.
42
whatever."1 In
reference to the same two verses, Crim
replies that they ". . .
form an excellent introduction to
the whole, and any
rearrangement of verse order would mar
the literary perfection of the
Psalm."2
Elsewhere, Crim affirms:
Psalm
89 contains material characteristic of several
different Psalm categories, but they
are united in a
harmonious whole in which each part
contributes to the
petition to God to fulfill his promises to King David.3
Ward says, "Turning to the
pattern of ideas in the
poem, we find, I believe, a
beautifully articulated unity.”4
Another source states:
The
unity of this psalm is seen by the recurrence of the
words faithfulness, mercy, and lovingkindness (vs. 1, 2,
5,
8, 14, 24, 28, 33, 49), and the word covenant
(vs. 3,