The Psalmists’ Use of the Exodus Motif
A Close Reading and Intertextual Analysis of Selected
Exodus Psalms
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 Song of the Sea ......................................................................................................................................... 105
The Plagues .................................................................................................................................................... 107
JUXTAPOSITION .................................................................................................................................................... 110
Psalm 77—78 .................................................................................................................................................. 110
Psalm 78—79 .................................................................................................................................................. 112
Psalm 77—79 .................................................................................................................................................. 113
CHAPTER 2: PSALM 105 .................................................................................................................................... 115
STRUCTURE .......................................................................................................................................................... 115
CLOSE READING ................................................................................................................................................... 118
MEANING ............................................................................................................................................................. 156
DATE .................................................................................................................................................................... 157
SOURCES .............................................................................................................................................................. 159
Process of Selection ........................................................................................................................................ 161
ALLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 162
Israel in Egypt................................................................................................................................................. 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
Golden Calf ..................................................................................................................................................... 232
Baal Peor ........................................................................................................................................................ 234
Waters of Meribah .......................................................................................................................................... 236
Reordering ...................................................................................................................................................... 237
JUXTAPOSITION .................................................................................................................................................... 240
Psalms 105—106 ............................................................................................................................................ 240
Psalms 106—107 ............................................................................................................................................ 244
Psalms 105—107 ............................................................................................................................................ 246
EXCURSUS 1 - THE BOOK OF MOSES .................................................................................................................... 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
The Exodus...................................................................................................................................................... 309
JUXTAPOSITION .................................................................................................................................................... 310
Psalm 135—136 .............................................................................................................................................. 310
Psalm 136—137 .............................................................................................................................................. 311
CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................................................... 313
THE PSALMISTS’ SOURCES ................................................................................................................................... 314
Biblical Sources .............................................................................................................................................. 314
The Documentary Hypothesis ......................................................................................................................... 315
The Arrangement of the Source Material ....................................................................................................... 316
ASPECTS OF INTERPRETATION .............................................................................................................................. 317
Removal of Derogatory Information ............................................................................................................... 318
Exalting the Role of God ................................................................................................................................. 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
HEBREW SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................‫א‬
Abbreviations
ABBREVIATIONS
1. JOURNALS AND LEXICAL TOOLS
AB
The Anchor Bible
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 Old Testament
BHS
R. Kittel (ed.), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.
CAD
The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago
CBQ
Catholic Bible 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 Biblical Hebrew
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 <VIII>
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
Masoretic Text
SBH
Standard Biblical Hebrew
Tg(s)
Targum(s)
Page <IX>
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
Throughout the Psalter, 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 Babylon 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 David 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 Promised Land. 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 prevalent4 and influential tradition recorded in
the Bible. 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.
All biblical references in the present study are in accordance with the Hebrew Bible.
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 Torah, 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 New Testament (s. Acts 7, 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
Dead Sea Scrolls 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 Midrash. The function of these later exegetes was
2
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: Jacob entering Egypt, multiplication of Jacob’s descendants, oppression from
Egypt, deliverance via the plagues, deliverance at the sea, bitter waters at Marah, the provision of manna, water
from the rock, the battle against Amalek, the provision of meat, the giving of Torah, the golden-calf idolatry,
Aaron and Miryam’s rebellion, the initial rejection of the Promised Land, Korah’s revolt, the bronze serpent, the
early conquest battles (with Og and Sihon etc.), and the account of Bilaam and Balak.
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 20th 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 13613 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 Mowinckel16 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 psalms17 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 Prophets.
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 stanzas22 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 biblical studies. Instead of studying the development of oral
and written folk traditions into a recognizable and broadly accepted canon, 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,
Zakovitch31 and Sommer32 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 innerbiblical interpretation and allusion from the perspective of the psalms has, until now, been a
neglected topic.
33
See Ben-Porat (1976).
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 (Ecclesiastes);
and Sarna (2000), who addressed intertextual relationships involving Psalm 89.
34
Page <7>
Introduction
JUXTAPOSITIONAL INTERPRETATION
Research concerning the juxtaposition of psalms36 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 biblical canon. 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
in Lev 17 and uncovering a father’s nakedness in Lev 18:6 are in fact related by the common phrase “‫”איש איש‬
appearing in 17:13 and 18:6. He similarly explains the positioning of the minor prophetic books Joel and Amos.
In Joel 4:16 we see the phrase “…‫קוֹלוֹ‬
֔ ‫ירוּשׁ ַ ֖ליִ ם יִ ֵ ֣תּן‬
ָ ‫וּמ‬
ִ ‫יהוה ִמ ִצּיּ֣ וֹן יִ ְשׁ ָ֗אג‬
ָ֞ ַ‫”ו‬, and in Amos 1:2 we see “ ‫אמר׀ יְ הוָ ֙ה ִמ ִצּיּ֣ וֹן‬
ַ֓ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬
...‫קוֹלוֹ‬
֑ ‫ירוּשׁ ַ ֖ליִ ם יִ ֵ ֣תּן‬
ָ ‫וּמ‬
ִ ‫”יִ ְשׁ ָ֔אג‬. Cassuto (1973a) also applies the principle of association to Ezekiel among other
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 Psalm 1, 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 incipit and not Gunkel’s formal definition.42 McCann’s
work43 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 sacrifices. The third strategy, Community of Species,
operates on a larger scale whereby the arranger assembles psalms according to their genre—not that defined by
Hermann Gunkel’s form-critical approach, but the type according to subscripts such as ‫ מזמור‬and ‫מכתם‬. As an
example, we see psalms entitled ‫ מזמור‬grouped together in Psalms 62-68, and ‫ משכיל‬in Psalms 52-55. Much of
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 book of Amos. 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, Zakovitch47 has
treated the matter in his work on the psalms, as have Hossfeld and Zenger.48
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Methodologically, when analyzing various forms of intertextuality, 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 Zakovitch51 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 predominantly53 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
Abraham 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 innerbiblical 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 core58 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
word or phrase. As an example, if the word ‫ צור‬appears in the psalm and a proposed source
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.
This corresponds with Hays (1989) second criterion.
69
An example of this is apparent in Psalm 106:31, which contains the phrase “‫”ותחשב לו לצדקה‬. With the
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.
68
Page <14>
Introduction
constitutes an example of this phenomenon. The words ‫ידה‬, ‫יהוה‬, ‫כי‬, and ‫טוב‬, which appear in
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 Textual Criticism 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 Philo, 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 Septuagint’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 sources74 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 scholars75 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 Martin Noth’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 date79 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 Joseph’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 myths 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 119, 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 separated2 by a short interlude. We can outline the sections
as follows:
1
Similar 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 Canaan, where he then establishes them.
As a response to this, they forget his deeds performed on their behalf and provoke him to
anger 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 Zion. 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
‫י־פי׃‬
ֽ ִ ‫תּוֹר ִ ֑תי ַה ֥טּוּ ָ֜אזְ נְ ֶ֗כם ְל ִא ְמ ֵר‬
ָ ‫ ַמ ְשׂ ִ֗כּיל ְל ָ֫א ָ ֥סף ַה ֲא ִז֣ינָ ה ַ ֭ע ִמּי‬1
3
A maskil of Asaph: Listen my people to my instruction; incline your ear
to the utterance of my mouth
The opening words of Psalm 78, “‫”משכיל לאסף‬, identify it as part of a collection, including
Psalms 73-83, associated with the biblical figure Asaph.4 Though these words do not
constitute an integral5 part of the psalm, the root ‫שכל‬, meaning “to be wise” or “skillful”,
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
forthcoming message in the body of the psalm. The poetic word ‫ האזינה‬often appears as an
introduction to songs (s. Gen 4:23 and Jud 5:3) and prophetic oracles, as in Bilaam’s words to
Balak, “‫( ”…קוּם ָבּ ָל ֙ק וּֽ ֲשׁ ָ֔מע ַה ֲא ִ ֥זינָ ה ָע ַ ֖די ְבּנ֥ וֹ ִצ ֹֽפּר׃‬Num 23:18; s. also Is 1:2, 32:9, Jer 13:15, and
Hos 5:1). The object of the injunction to listen is ‫תורתי‬, “my Torah”, with the first-person
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
psalm’s contents. An example of this usage appears in Pr 1:8, “ ‫ל־תּ ֗טֹּשׁ‬
ִ֜ ‫מוּסר ָא ִ ֑ביָך וְ ַא‬
֣ ַ ‫ְשׁ ַ ֣מע ְ ֭בּ ִני‬
where no discernible allusion to the Sinai laws exists (s. also Pr 4:2 and 6:20).6
‫”תּוֹרת ִא ֶ ֽמָּך׃‬,
ַ֥
Like ‫האזינה‬, the parallel phrase “‫ ”נטה אזנים‬frequently appears in wisdom texts (s. Pr 5:13 and
3
All of the translations in the present work are mine, except where explicitly indicated.
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 lie 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).
4
Page <24>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
22:17), as does the expression “‫”אמרי פי‬, “the words of my mouth” (Pr 4:5, 5:7, and 6:2).
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
Moses’ Song in Deut 32:1, “‫י־פי׃‬
ֽ ִ ‫”הא ִ ֥זינוּ ַה ָשּׁ ַ ֖מיִ ם וַ ֲא ַד ֵ ֑בּ ָרה וְ ִת ְשׁ ַ ֥מע ָה ָ ֖א ֶרץ ִא ְמ ֵר‬.
ֲ
Both underlined
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
‫י־ק ֶדם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ִ‫יעה ִ֜ח ֗ידוֹת ִמנּ‬
ָ ‫ ֶא ְפ ְתּ ָ ֣חה ְב ָמ ָ ֣שׁל ִ ֑פּי ַא ִ ֥בּ‬2
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
listen: the psalmist is about to open his mouth with a parable “‫”אפתחה במשל פי‬.8 “Parable” or
“proverb”, ‫—משל‬a word that further connects the psalm to Israel’s wisdom tradition9—
usually relates to a saying or altruism deployed in imparting wisdom; an example of such an
utterance appears in 1Sam 24:14, “‫ה־בְּך׃‬
ֽ ָ ֶ‫אמר ְמ ַשׁל֙ ַה ַקּ ְדמ ִֹ֔ני ֵמ ְר ָשׁ ִ ֖עים ֵי ֵ֣צא ֶ ֑ר ַשׁע וְ יָ ִ ֖די ֥ל ֹא ִ ֽת ְהי‬
ַ֗ ֹ ‫שׁר י‬
֣ ֶ ‫”כּא‬.
ֲ
The word ‫ משל‬aptly characterizes the contents of the psalm because it contains words from
which the reader can become wise. Another nuance of ‫משל‬, bearing some relevance to the
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
“προσέχετε” (=‫)האזינו‬.
8
For the use of a cohortative as a purpose clause see JM§116b.
9
Though the concentration of wisdom vocabulary ends here, scattered throughout the psalm are various words
and phrases possessing positive affinities with this literary style (such as: ‫[ כחד‬v.4], ‫[ עדות‬v.5], ‫[ נצר‬v.7], ‫כסל‬
[v.7], ‫[ התעבר‬v.21], ‫[ הבל‬v.33], and ‫[ כזב‬v.36]).
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.
Parallel to opening his mouth with a parable, the psalmist utters an “utterance” (‫)חידה‬.
The word ‫ חידה‬usually denotes a saying with a hidden meaning,10 only revealed to those with
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
‫רוּ־לנוּ׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫בוֹתינוּ ִס ְפּ‬
ֵ֗ ‫שׁר ָ ֭שׁ ַמ ְענוּ וַ נֵּ ָד ֵ ֑עם ַ֜ו ֲא‬
֣ ֶ ‫ ֲא‬3
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
words of v.2, ‫מני קדם‬, relate to the historiographic content of the psalm: the hidden sayings the psalmist is about
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 Israelites; 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 lies 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
number of difficulties by translating ‫“( חדון‬joy”; assuming the translators were not looking at another vorlage).
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
for ‫משל‬, as witnessed in Pr 1:6, “‫יצה ִדּ ְב ֵ ֥רי ֲ֜ח ָכ ִ֗מים וְ ִחיד ָ ֹֽתם׃‬
֑ ָ ‫וּמ ִל‬
ְ ‫( ” ְל ָה ִ ֣בין ָ֭מ ָשׁל‬s. also Ezek 17:2).
12
Held (1985:93-96) directs our attention to the probability that the Hebrew word ‫ חידה‬more probably derives
from the Akkadian hittu (s. CAD vol. 6: 28, 208) as opposed to the Aramaic ‫אחידה‬. This simpler understanding
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
generation: ‫שמענו‬, ‫ונדעם‬, ‫ואבותינו‬, and ‫לנו‬. Such an emphasis reiterates that the reciting
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
to generation, a theme echoed throughout biblical literature. In Jud 6:13, “ ‫וְ ַא ֵיּ ֣ה ָ ֽכל־נִ ְפ ְלא ָֹ֡תיו‬...
...‫הוה‬
ָ֔ ְ‫מר ֲה ֤ל ֹא ִמ ִמּ ְצ ַ ֙ריִ ֙ם ֶה ֱע ָל֣נוּ י‬
ֹ ֗ ‫בוֹתינוּ ֵלא‬
ֵ֜ ‫רוּ־לנוּ ֲא‬
֙ ָ ‫” ֲא ֶשׁר֩ ִס ְפּ‬, Gideon speaks of his generation’s
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,
ֵ ‫יהם ִ ֣בּ‬
ֶ֗ ‫רוּ־ל֑נוּ ֹ֥פּ ַעל ָפּ ַ ֥ע ְל ָתּ ִ֜ב ֵימ‬
ָ ‫בוֹתינוּ ִס ְפּ‬
֥ ֵ ‫ֹלהים׀ ְבּ ָאזְ ֵ֬נינוּ ָשׁ ַ֗מ ְענוּ ֲא‬
֤ ִ ‫”א‬.
ֱ Both psalms recall God’s
“‫ימי ֶ ֽק ֶדם׃‬
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.
‫שׁר ָע ָ ֽשׂה׃‬
֣ ֶ ‫אוֹתיו ֲא‬
ָ֗ ‫הו֑ה וֶ ֱעזוּז֥ וֹ ְ֜ונִ ְפ ְל‬
ָ ְ‫יהם ְל ֥דוֹר ַא ֲח ֗רוֹן ְ ֭מ ַס ְפּ ִרים ְתּ ִה ֣לּוֹת י‬
ֶ֗ ‫ ֤ל ֹא נְ ַכ ֵ֙חד׀ ִמ ְבּ ֵנ‬4
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
parables and sayings told to them by their fathers. The word ‫ נכחד‬acts as a semantic reminder
of ‫ חידות‬in v.2.13 The people claim that they will not hide14 anything from their sons, and the
word ‫ חידות‬could potentially signify a hidden saying, one needing further revelation. In the
present context, ‫ בנים‬refers to “children”, and corresponds with the phrase “‫”דור אחרון‬, “the
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
next generation” (s. Deut 29:21, Ps 48:14, and 102:19). Repetition of the root ‫לדור “( ספר‬
‫ )”אחרון מספרים‬in this verse reiterates the idea of retelling from one generation to the next.
The second half of the verse reveals that which the reciting generation promises to
recount to their children: the mighty works that YHWH has done. Each of the words ‫נפלאות‬,
‫ועזוזו‬, and ‫ תהלות‬typically portray magnificent deeds YHWH wrought on behalf of his people.
The latter, ‫תהלות‬, describes awe inspiring works worthy of praise, and more importantly
appears elsewhere in the context of the Exodus, in Ex 15:11, “ ‫מ ָכה‬
ֹ ֖ ‫הוה ִ ֥מי ָכּ‬
֔ ָ ְ‫מ ָכה ָ ֽבּ ֵא ִל ֙ם י‬
ֹ ֤ ‫י־כ‬
ָ ‫ִמ‬
‫נוֹרא ְת ִה ֹּ֖לת ֥עֹ ֵשׂה ֶ ֽפ ֶלא׃‬
֥ ָ ‫”נֶ ְא ָ ֣דּר ַבּ ֑קֹּ ֶדשׁ‬, together with the root ‫פלא‬. Throughout biblical literature,
‫ נפלאות‬regularly specifies God’s work in delivering Israel from Egypt, as Ps 106:7 testifies
“...‫אוֹתיָך‬
ֶ֗ ‫א־ה ְשׂ ִ֬כּילוּ נִ ְפ ְל‬
ִ ֹ ‫וֹתינוּ ְב ִמ ְצ ַ ֙ריִ ם׀ ל‬
֤ ֵ ‫אב‬
֨ ”15 (s. also Ex 3:20, in reference to the plagues; Ps
105:2, 5 and Neh 9:17; in addition to Ex 15:11, quoted above). More importantly, the last
three words of v.4 recall Psalm 105:5, “‫י־פיו׃‬
ֽ ִ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ְפּ ֵט‬
ִ ‫מ ְפ ָ֗תיו‬
ֹ ֜ ‫ר־ע ָ ֑שׂה‬
ָ ‫אוֹתיו ֲא ֶשׁ‬
֥ ָ ‫”זִ ְכ ֗רוּ נִ ְפ ְל‬, which also
contains the notion of remembering and reciting YHWH’s magnificent deeds.16 The meaning
of ‫ עזוזו‬in the context of this verse reaches beyond a simplistic portrayal of God’s power. It is
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,
“‫הוה גִּ ֥בּוֹר ִמ ְל ָח ָ ֽמה׃‬
ָ֗ ‫”מי זֶ ֘ה ֶ ֤מ ֶלְך ַה ָ֫כּ ֥בוֹד ְי֭הוָ ה ִעזּ֣ וּז וְ גִ ֑בּוֹר ְ֜י‬,
֥ ִ relating YHWH’s might with him fighting
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
divine intervention, the most common occurrences of ‫ נפלאות‬describe the miracles God wrought against the
Egyptians when he delivered Israel. Consequently when ‫ נפלאות‬are mentioned in biblical literature, an allusion
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 Job 5:9ff. and Ps 71:17).
Jeremiah 21:2 epitomizes the connection between ‫ נפלאות‬and intervention, when Israel is threatened by
Nebuchadnezzar there is a hope God will work wonders to deliver them, “ ‫אוֹת ֙נוּ ְכּ ָכל־נִ ְפ ְלא ָֹ֔תיו‬
ָ֙ ‫הוה‬
֤ ָ ְ‫אוּלי֩ יַ ֲע ֶ ֙שׂה י‬
ַ ...
‫”וְ יַ ֲע ֶ ֖לה ֵמ ָע ֵ ֽלינוּ׃‬, the hope is that God would intervene to save them. The other prominent aspect of ‫ נפלאות‬is in
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.
‫יהם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫יעם ִל ְב ֵנ‬
ָ ֗ ‫הוֹד‬
ִ ‫בוֹתינוּ ֜ ְל‬
֑ ֵ ‫ת־א‬
ֲ ‫שׁר ִ ֭צוָּ ה ֶא‬
֣ ֶ ‫תוֹר ֘ה ָ ֤שׂם ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָ ֫ר ֵ ֥אל ֲא‬
ָ ְ‫יַע ֗קֹב ו‬
ֲ ‫ וַ ָ ֤יּ ֶ קם ֵע ֙דוּת׀ ְ ֽבּ‬5
For he established an ordinance for17 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
ordinance. The word ‫ עדות‬often appears in connection to the laws given at Sinai18 (Ex 31:18,
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.
Repetition of ‫ תורה‬here recalls the psalmist’s words in v.1, “...‫תּוֹר ִ ֑תי‬
ָ ‫”ה ֲא ִז֣ינָ ה ַ ֭ע ִמּי‬.
ַ Unlike v.1,
however, the ‫ תורה‬in this verse does not simply constitute the words of a man, but ordinances
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
relationship exists between this, the second colon, and v.3: ‫ להודיעם‬: ‫ אבותינו‬:: ‫ ואבותינו‬: ‫ונדעם‬.
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.
‫יהם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫יס ְפּ ֥רוּ ִל ְב ֵנ‬
ַ ‫ ְל ַ ֤מ ַען ְיֵד ֙עוּ׀ ֣דּוֹר ַ ֭א ֲחרוֹן ָבּ ִנ֣ים יִ וָּ ֵל֑דוּ ָ֜י ֻ֗קמוּ ִ ֽו‬6
In order that the next generation of sons will know, those that will be born will rise
and tell their sons
17
18
For this understanding of ‫ב‬, see JM§133c.
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
words in this verse have been repeated from v.4, “ ‫יהם ְל ֥דוֹר ַא ֲח ֗רוֹן ְ ֭מ ַס ְפּ ִרים ְתּ ִה ֣לּוֹת‬
ֶ֗ ‫֤ל ֹא נְ ַכ ֵ֙חד׀ ִמ ְבּ ֵנ‬
...‫הוה‬
֑ ָ ְ‫”י‬, forging an important link between the two verses. Additionally, repetition of ‫ ספר‬and
‫ ידע‬strengthen links with v.3, “‫רוּ־לנוּ׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫בוֹתינוּ ִס ְפּ‬
ֵ֗ ‫שׁר ָ ֭שׁ ַמ ְענוּ וַ נֵּ ָד ֵ ֑עם ַ ֜ו ֲא‬
֣ ֶ ‫”א‬.
ֲ The blatant repetition
within these verses, vv.3-6, unify them and emphasize the importance of remembering God’s
acts of might and his laws, passing (‫ )מספרים‬them down from generation to generation ( ‫דור‬
‫ )אחרון‬so that the children (‫ )בנים‬of future generations will know (‫ )ידע‬the deeds and mighty
acts of YHWH. He established an ordinance in v.5, “...‫”וַ ָיּ֤ ֶ קם ֵע ֙דוּת׀ ְ ֽבּיַ ֲע ֗קֹב‬, a practice to be
performed by all future generations, and here a vague reference appears regarding its
fulfillment, “‫יהם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫יס ְפּ ֥רוּ ִל ְב ֵנ‬
ַ ‫י ֻ ֗קמוּ ִ ֽו‬...”.
ָ֜
‫וֹתיו יִ נְ ֽצֹרוּ׃‬
֥ ָ ‫וּמ ְצ‬
ִ ‫י־אל‬
֑ ֵ ‫אֹלהים ִ֫כּ ְס ָ ֥לם וְ ֣ל ֹא ִי ְ֭שׁ ְכּחוּ ַ ֽמ ַע ְל ֵל‬
ִ֗ ‫ וְ יָ ִ ֥שׂימוּ ֵ ֽב‬7
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
to generation the future generations will put their trust in God. The phrase “‫ ”לשים כסל‬also
appears in Job 31:24, “‫ם־שׂ ְמ ִתּי זָ ָ ֣הב ִכּ ְס ִ ֑לי ְ ֜ו ַל ֶ֗כּ ֶתם ָא ַ ֥מ ְר ִתּי ִמ ְב ַט ִ ֽחי׃‬
֣ ַ ‫”א‬,
ִ where Job denies putting his
hope in gold or precious stones. Repetition of the verb ‫ שים‬recalls v.5. Just as YHWH
established his Torah in Israel, “...‫תוֹר ֘ה ָ ֤שׂם ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָ ֫ר ֵ ֥אל‬
ָ ְ‫ו‬...” (v.5), so the future generations would
put their confidence in him, “...‫אֹלהים ִ֫כּ ְס ָ ֥לם‬
ִ֗ ‫”וְ יָ ִ ֥שׂימוּ ֵ ֽב‬, as a result of hearing about his past
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
disobeying, is lucidly characterized in Deut 8:11, “ ‫ֹלהיָך ְל ִב ְל ִ֙תּי‬
֑ ֶ ‫הו֣ה ֱא‬
ָ ְ‫ן־תּ ְשׁ ַ ֖כּח ֶאת־י‬
ִ ‫ִה ָ ֣שּׁ ֶמר ְל ָ֔ך ֶפּ‬
Page <30>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
...‫מר ִמ ְצ ָוֹתיו‬
ֹ ֤ ‫” ְשׁ‬, in forgetting YHWH, the people would fail to keep his commands (s. also
Deut 4:23, Jud 3:7).
YHWH’s deeds, “‫”מעללי אל‬, here refer to his majestic works first mentioned in v.4,
“‫שׁר ָע ָ ֽשׂה׃‬
֣ ֶ ‫אוֹתיו ֲא‬
ָ֗ ְ‫הו֑ה וֶ ֱעזוּז֥ וֹ ְ ֜ונִ ְפל‬
ָ ְ‫ ְתּ ִהלּ֣ וֹת י‬...”. Similarly, ‫ מצותיו‬alludes to the ‫ עדות‬and the ‫תורה‬
that God commanded in v.5, and can likewise refer to the law code given at Sinai, “ ‫וְ ָשׁ ַמ ְר ָ֞תּ‬
...‫וֹתיו ֲא ֶ֙שׁר ָאנ ִ ֹ֤כי ְמ ַצוְּ ָ֙ך ַהיּ֔ וֹם‬
ָ֗ ‫ת־מ ְצ‬
ִ ‫ת־ח ָ ֣קּיו וְ ֶא‬
ֻ ‫( ” ֶא‬Deut 4:40; s. also 26:17). Within vv.3-7, a clear
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.
‫רוּחוֹ׃‬
ֽ ‫ת־אל‬
֣ ֵ ‫א־ה ִ ֣כין ִל ֑בּוֹ וְ לֹא־נֶ ֶא ְמ ָנ֖ה ֶא‬
ֵ ֹ ‫מ ֶ ֥רה דּ֭ וֹר ל‬
ֹ ֫ ‫סוֹרר וּ‬
֪ ֵ ‫דּוֹר‬
֘ ‫בוֹתם‬
ָ֗ ‫יִהיוּ׀ ַכּ ֲא‬
֙ ְ ‫ וְ ֤ל ֹא‬8
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
unfaithfulness in this matter, Israel’s forefathers, ‫אבות‬, the desert generation, made up from
stubborn and rebellious individuals, “‫”דור סורר ומורה דור‬. The alliteration and chiastic
arrangement of this phrase accentuates the rebellious nature of this generation. Moreover, the
repetition of ‫ דור‬contrasts the two previous instances in which the word was used (vv.4, 6).
Previously it depicted an attitude of obedience to God, but here the psalmist credits an earlier
generation with disobedience. The root ‫ מרה‬often appears in descriptions of the desert
generation, as witnessed by Num 20:10, “ ‫נוֹציא ָל ֶכ֖ם‬
֥ ִ ‫ן־ה ֶ ֣סּ ַלע ַה ֶ֔זּה‬
ַ ‫אמר ָל ֶ֗הם ִשׁ ְמעוּ־נָ ֙א ַהמּ ִ ֹ֔רים ֲה ִמ‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֣יּ‬...
‫”מיִ ם׃‬
ֽ ָ (s. also Deut 1:26). Additionally, Psalm 106 employs it to portray Israel’s rebellion at
the Reed Sea (106:7), as well as their behavior after they entered the Promised Land (106:43).
Together, ‫ מרה‬and ‫ סרר‬appear in Deut 21:18 as the description of a rebellious son who refuses
to comply with his parents requests, “...‫וּמוֹרה ֵא ֶינ֣נּוּ שׁ ֵֹ֔מ ַע ְבּ ֥קוֹל ָא ִ ֖בי‬
ֶ֔
‫סוֹרר‬
֣ ֵ ‫” ִ ֽכּי־יִ ְה ֶי ֣ה ְל ִ֗אישׁ ֵ ֚בּן‬, a
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
forefathers. The expression “‫”הכין לב‬20 expresses an inward preparation to trust and obey
God.21 Psalm 112:7 illustrates this idea well, “‫יהוֽה׃‬
ָ ‫ירא נָ ֥כוֹן ֜ ִל ֗בּוֹ ָבּ ֻ ֥ט ַח ַבּ‬
֑ ָ ִ‫מוּע֣ה ָ ֭ר ָעה ֣ל ֹא י‬
ָ ‫”מ ְשּׁ‬,
ִ
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.
“with”22) him, i.e. they did not respond appropriately to his acts. Repetition of ‫ אל‬draws our
attention to both YHWH and his deeds, as recalled from v.7, “‫”מעללי אל‬. The notion of
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.
‫י־ק ֶשׁת ָ֜ה ְפ ֗כוּ ְבּי֣ וֹם ְק ָ ֽרב׃‬
֑ ָ ‫רוֹמ‬
ֵ ‫נוֹשׁ ֵ ֥ קי‬
ְ ‫י־א ְפ ַ ֗ריִ ם‬
ֶ ֵ‫ ְ ֽבּנ‬9
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
phrase “‫ ”בני אפרים‬the psalmist continues the frequent repetition of the term “sons” from the
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 dominant24 of the northern
19
Another instance occurs in Jer 5:24-25, portraying people who neither fear God nor do what he says.
Certain Mss read “‫( ”הבין לב‬s. BHS), implying the Israelites somehow failed to understand God in some way.
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.
21
The phrase here raises the possibility of the verses dependence on 1Sam 7, where v.3 reads “ ‫וְ ָה ֙ ִכינוּ ְל ַב ְב ֶ ֤כם‬...
20
...‫” ֶאל־יְ הוָ ֙ה וְ ִע ְב ֻ ֣דהוּ ְל ַב ֔דּוֹ‬. Associations with 1Sam also appear later in the psalm.
22
The use of ‫ את‬meaning “with” is extremely rare in late books of the Bible, thus its usage here could indicate a
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
tribes. Numerous locations in biblical literature support such a view, e.g., Is 7:2, “ ‫וַ יֻּ ַ֗גּד ְל ֵ ֤בית ָדּוִ ֙ד‬
...‫ל־א ְפ ָ ֑ריִ ם‬
ֶ ‫מר ָנ ָ ֽ֥חה ֲא ָ ֖רם ַע‬
ֹ ֔ ‫( ” ֵלא‬s. also Jer 31:9 and Ezek 37:16). Notwithstanding the dominant
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.
Spawning an array of difficulties in its interpretation is the phrase “‫”נושקי רומי קשת‬
because the first two words in this construct state fundamentally have the same meaning,
“bearing” or “carrying”.26 Consequently, ‫ נושקי‬is often viewed as a later explication to the
verse because it constitutes a later equivalent of ‫רום‬, “bearing (arms)”. An example of this
meaning occurs with regard to the sons of Benjamin in Chronicles, “ ‫ן־בּנְ יָ ִ֔מן גִּ ֥בּוֹר ַ ֖חיִ ל ֶא ְליָ ָ ֑דע‬
ִ ‫וּמ‬
ִ֙
‫אתיִ ם ָ ֽא ֶלף׃‬
֥ ַ ‫וּמ ֵג֖ ן ָמ‬
ָ ‫י־ק ֶשׁת‬
֥ ֶ ‫( ”וְ ִע ֛מּוֹ ֹֽנ ְשׁ ֵק‬2Chr 17:17).27 Notwithstanding this interpretation, the
phrase’s grammatical structure is in fact acceptable, if a little tautological, and a comparable
construction appears in Jer 46:9, “‫לוּדים תּ ְֹפ ֵ ֖שׂי ֥דּ ֹ ְר ֵכי ָ ֽק ֶשׁת׃‬
֕ ִ ְ‫מגן ו‬...”,
ֵ֔
which has a similar context,
depicting the warriors of Kush and Put as bearing and drawing the bow (Deut 33:19 also
contains the same construction, “‫פוּנ֖י ְט ֥מ ֵוּני ֽחוֹל׃‬
ֵ ‫וּשׂ‬
ְ ...”). Consequently, it is possibly to accept
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
a day of battle (“‫ הפכו—)”ביום קרב‬here describes a retreat in battle, it corresponds with the
longer expression “‫ ”הפך ערף‬in Jos 7:8, when Joshua laments the Israelites’ defeat at Ai,
“‫ ָמה א ַֹ֔מר ֠ ַא ֲח ֵרי ֲא ֶ֙שׁר ָה ַ ֧פְך יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֛אל ֖עֹ ֶרף ִל ְפ ֵנ֥י אֹיְ ָ ֽביו׃‬...”. With this understanding, an important
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 firstborn.
26
The very presence of the word ‫ רומי‬suggests the idea of deception, leading one astray, saying one thing and
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).
28
Stern (1995:49) sees an allusion in the phrase “‫ ”רומי קשת‬to Hos 1:5, “ ‫ת־ק ֶשׁת יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֔אל‬
֣ ֶ ‫תּי ֶא‬
֙ ִ ‫וְ ָהָ ֖יה ַבּיּ֣ וֹם ַה ֑הוּא וְ ָ ֽשׁ ַב ְר‬
‫” ְבּ ֵ ֖ע ֶמק יִ זְ ְר ֶ ֽעאל׃‬, and 2:20. If this allusion indeed exists, then there would be strong justification to interpret
“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
Ephramites comes from Ibn Ezra. He suggests reading the phrase “‫ ”נושקי רומי קשת‬as a simile
in which the particle “‫ ”כ‬has been omitted.32 Thus the day of battle is simply part of a
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.
‫תוֹר ֗תוֹ ֵמ ֲאנ֥ וּ ָל ֶ ֽל ֶכת׃‬
ָ ‫ֹלהים וּ֜ ְב‬
֑ ִ ‫ ֣ל ֹא ָ ֭שׁ ְמרוּ ְבּ ִ ֣רית ֱא‬10
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
rationale for their behavior. The phrase “‫ ”שמר ברית‬often occurs with respect to obeying the
laws God instituted at Sinai, as Deut 29:8 illustrates, “ ‫יתם‬
֖ ֶ ‫ת־דּ ְב ֵר֙י ַה ְבּ ִ ֣רית ַה ֔זּ ֹאת וַ ֲע ִשׂ‬
ִ ‫וּשׁ ַמ ְר ֶ֗תּם ֶא‬
ְ
...‫”א ָ ֹ֑תם‬. A negative example of this phrase, similar to our context, appears concerning
29
See Clifford (1981:132) for more on this view.
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, Rashi, 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
defeated in battle (s. Cohen [2003:22f.]). This tradition is loosely based on 1Chr 7:20f., “ ‫וּב ֶרד‬
֤ ֶ ‫שׁוּת ַלח‬
֑ ָ ‫וּב ֵ ֥ני ֶא ְפ ַ ֖ריִ ם‬
ְ
30
‫נּוֹל ִ ֣דים ָבּ ָ֔א ֶרץ ִ ֣כּי יָ ְר ֔דוּ ָל ַ ֖ ק ַחת‬
ָ ‫שׁוּת ַלח ְבּנ֖ וֹ וְ ֵ ֣עזֶ ר וְ ֶא ְל ָ ֑עד וַ ֲה ָר ֗גוּם ַאנְ ֵשׁי־גַ ֙ת ַה‬
֥ ֶ ְ‫ְבּ ֙נוֹ וְ ַ ֣ת ַחת ְבּנ֔ וֹ וְ ֶא ְל ָע ָ ֥דה ְבנ֖ וֹ וְ ַ ֥ת ַחת ְבּנֽ וֹ׃ וְ זָ ָ ֥בד ְבּנ֛ וֹ ו‬
‫יהם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ֵ‫ת־מ ְקנ‬
ִ ‫”א‬.
ֶ Hoffman posits that the verse relates to an event closer to the psalmist’s era involving one of the
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
Solomon’s disobedience, “...‫יתי וְ ֻחקּ ַֹ֔תי‬
֣ ִ ‫ה־זּ ֹאת ִע ָ֔מְּך וְ ֤ל ֹא ָשׁ ַ֙מ ְר ָ֙תּ ְבּ ִר‬
֣ ‫שׁר ָ ֽהיְ ָת‬
֣ ֶ ‫מה ַי ַ֚ען ֲא‬
ֹ ֗ ‫הוה ִל ְשֹׁל‬
֜ ָ ְ‫אמר י‬
ֶ ֹ ‫”וַ ֙יּ‬
(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
stipulations is emphasized by the verses’ semantic chiastic structure ( :: ‫ ברית‬: ‫לא שמרו‬
‫ מאנו ללכת‬: ‫)בתורתו‬. The identification of the Torah in this verse can be ascertained from its
appearance in v.5, which relates it to the Torah33 that God himself gave to Israel, “ ‫תורה שם‬
‫”בישראל‬. Corresponding to the opening words “‫ ”לא שמרו‬is the phrase “‫”מאנו ללכת‬, which
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
nuance of consciously disobeying is apparent from Exodus 10:4, “ ‫ם־מ ֵ ֥אן ַא ָ ֖תּה ְל ַשׁ ֵלּ ַ֣ח‬
ָ ‫ִ ֛כּי ִא‬
...‫ת־ע ִ ֑מּי‬
ַ ‫” ֶא‬, describing Pharaoh’s stubborn refusal to release the Israelites. Genesis 37:35,
“…‫אן ְל ִה ְתנַ ֵ֔חם‬
֙ ֵ ‫ל־בּנ ָֹ֜תיו ְלנַ ֲח ֗מוֹ וַ יְ ָמ‬
ְ ‫ל־בּניו וְ ָכ‬
ָ֙ ָ ‫”וַ יָּ ֻקמוּ֩ ָכ‬, similarly depicts an instance in which Jacob
consciously refuses comfort for the loss of his son.
‫שׁר ֶה ְר ָ ֽאם׃‬
֣ ֶ ‫אוֹתיו ֲא‬
ָ֗ ‫ילוֹתיו ְ֜ונִ ְפ ְל‬
֑ ָ ‫ וַ יִּ ְשׁ ְכּ ֥חוּ ֲע ִל‬11
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
God, and do not forget his work, , “...‫י־אל‬
֑ ֵ ‫וְ ֣ל ֹא ִי ְ֭שׁ ְכּחוּ ַ ֽמ ַע ְל ֵל‬...”, which leads to faithfulness.
Contrasting this situation, Ephraim forget his acts, “‫ילוֹתיו‬
֑ ָ ‫”וַ יִּ ְשׁ ְכּ ֥חוּ ֲע ִל‬, which leads to
33
According to Kraus (1988b:126) the appearance of ‫ תורה‬here in a historiographic context represents a sure
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
notes that the phrase “‫ ”ללכת בתורת יהוה‬is a recognized Deuteronomic formula.
Page <35>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
unfaithfulness. Though no explicit reference appears, the plagues in Egypt are probably being
alluded to here since ‫ נפלאות‬in the context of Exodus psalms frequently refers to them.34
‫בוֹתם ָע ָ֣שׂה ֶ ֑פ ֶלא ְבּ ֶ ֖א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַ ֣ריִ ם ְשׂ ֵדה־ ֽצֹ ַען׃‬
ָ ‫ ֶנ ֶ֣ גד ֲ֭א‬12
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
Ephraimites had forgotten. The preposition ‫נגד‬, that which is conspicuous or “in the sight of”
(s. Ps 88:2), corresponds with the hifil of ‫ ראה‬in v.11, both emphasize that the rebellious
forefathers35 witnessed YHWH’s works firsthand. The singular noun ‫ פלא‬possesses a plural
meaning, as attested in passages such as Is 25:1, “ ‫ית‬
ָ ‫אוֹד֣ה ִשׁ ְמ ָ֔ך ִ ֥כּי ָע ִ ֖שׂ‬
ֶ ‫וֹמ ְמ ָ֙ך‬
ִ ‫ֹלהי ַא ָ֔תּה ֲא ֽר‬
֙ ַ ‫הו֤ה ֱא‬
ָ ְ‫י‬
...‫” ֶ ֑פּ ֶלא‬, and Psalm 77:12, “‫י־אזְ ְכּ ָ ֖רה ִמ ֶ ֣קּ ֶדם ִפּ ְל ֶ ֽאָך׃‬
ֶ ‫י־י֑הּ ִ ֽכּ‬
ָ ‫” ) ַאזְ ִכּיר( ] ֶאזְ ֥כּוֹר[ ַ ֽמ ַע ְל ֵל‬.36 Like its
counterpart in the previous verse, ‫נפלאות‬, it too alludes to YHWH’s acts of judgment in
redeeming Israel from the Egyptians (s. Ps 88:13), and creates a degree of continuity. Its
appearance additionally contributes towards a chiastic relationship with v.4. ( :: ‫ עשה‬: ‫נפלאותיו‬
‫ פלא‬: ‫)עשה‬. Verse 12 provides additional detail to God’s acts of deliverance by specifying the
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.
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 §135a-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.
35
Page <36>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
‫מוֹ־נֽד׃‬
ֵ ‫ב־מיִ ם ְכּ‬
֥ ַ ‫ירם ַ ֽו יַּ ֶצּ‬
֑ ֵ ‫ ָ ֣בּ ַקע ָי֭ם וַ ַיּ ֲֽע ִב‬13
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
it appears immediately after v.12, the miracle depicted in v.13—God splitting, ‫בקע‬, the sea in
order to bring his people through—is associated with one of the wonders YHWH performed
before the eyes of the forefathers. Primarily, ‫ בקע‬here alludes to the splitting of the Reed Sea
as recorded in Ex 14:16, “...‫וּב ָק ֵע֑הוּ‬
ְ ‫ל־ה ָיּ֖ם‬
ַ ‫ת־מ ְטּ ָ֗ך וּנְ ֵ ֧טה ֶאת־יָ ְדָך֛ ַע‬
ַ ‫”וְ ַא ָ֞תּה ָה ֵ ֣רם ֶ ֽא‬, but additionally
evokes images of God expressing his dominance over the waters of Creation, “ ‫הוֹמוֹת‬
֣ ‫ְ ֭בּ ַד ְעתּוֹ ְתּ‬
‫פוּ־טל׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫( ”נִ ְב ָ ֑ קעוּ וּ֜ ְשׁ ָח ִ֗קים יִ ְר ֲע‬Pr 3:20). Unlike the aforementioned quote from Exodus, the psalm
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
the causative hifil of ‫עבר‬, lucidly indicating that he brought them through the waters.
The second colon reminds us of events recorded in Ex 15:8, “ ‫וּב ֤ר ַוּח ַא ֙ ֶפּ ֙יָך ֶנ ֶ֣ע ְרמוּ ַ֔מיִ ם נִ ְצּ ֥בוּ‬
ְ
...‫מוֹ־נ֖ד נֹזְ ִ ֑לים‬
ֵ ‫”כ‬.
ְ Like the root ‫עבר‬, however, the psalm casts ‫ נצב‬in hifil, as opposed to qal in
Exodus, further highlighting the psalmist’s creativity and YHWH’s domination over the
waters: he caused them to stand up in a heap.39 Josh 3:13, “ ‫ ֵ ֤מי ַהיַּ ְר ֵ ֙דּן יִ ָכּ ֵ֣ר ֔תוּן ַה ַ ֥מּיִ ם ַהיּ ְֹר ִ ֖דים‬...
‫”מ ְל ָ ֑מ ְע ָלה וְ יַ ַע ְמ ֖דוּ ֵנ֥ד ֶא ָ ֽחד׃‬,
ִ also describes the splitting of the Jordan in similar terms. In addition
to recording the sea splitting, the second colon echoes God’s dominance over Creation. Psalm
33:7, “‫הוֹמוֹת׃‬
ֽ ‫”כּ ֵֹנ֣ס ַ ֭כּנֵּ ד ֵ ֣מי ַה ָיּ֑ם נ ֵ ֹ֖תן ְבּא ָֹצ ֣רוֹת ְתּ‬, uses similar language in portraying his power over
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 staff of Moses their teacher”, though explanatory, ruins the
psalmist’s emphasis on YHWH’s unique works.
39
See Isaiah 17:11 for this meaning, where it describes a heap of rubbish in this way. The Septuagint and Tgs.
translate ασκον and ‫ זיק‬respectively, both of which suggest a Hebrew equivalent of ‫נאד‬, “skin for storing wine”,
or “bottle”. In this instance, however, the reading of MT is more than adequate.
Page <37>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
‫ל־ה ֗ ַלּיְ ָלה ְבּ ֣אוֹר ֵ ֽאשׁ׃‬
ַ֜ ‫יוֹמם וְ ָכ‬
֑ ָ ‫ וַ יַּ נְ ֵ ֣חם ֶבּ ָע ָנ֣ ן‬14
And he led them with a cloud daily and all night with the light of a fire
Chronological continuity is approximately40 maintained with the events recorded in v.14, after
bringing them through the sea, YHWH led Israel in the desert. Within the Torah, the verb ‫נחה‬
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
ָ֜ ‫יהם‬
ֶ֙ ‫ֽיהוה ה ֵֹלְך֩ ִל ְפ ֵנ‬
ָ֡ ‫”ו‬.
ַ In the
Ex 13:21,41 “...‫יוֹמם ְבּ ַע ֤מּוּד ָענָ ֙ ן ַלנְ ח ָ ֹ֣תם ַה ֶ ֔דּ ֶרְך וְ ַל֛יְ ָלה ְבּ ַע ֥מּוּד ֵ ֖אשׁ ְל ָה ִ ֣איר ָל ֶ ֑הם‬
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).
‫ יְ ַב ַ ֣קּע ֻ֭צ ִרים ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֑בּר ַ ֜ו ַ֗יּ ְשׁ ְק ִכּ ְתה ֹ֥מוֹת ַר ָ ֽבּה׃‬15
He split the rocks in the desert and watered them42 abundantly43 with springs
Following the Torah account, with respect to order, the psalm now records an instance in
which God provided water in the desert for the Israelites to drink. The verb ‫ בקע‬never appears
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
same word in v.13 for portraying the splitting of the sea, “...‫ירם‬
֑ ֵ ‫”בּ ַקע ָי֭ם וַ ַיּ ֲֽע ִב‬.
֣ ָ The repetition
reveals YHWH’s ability both to dry up the sea and conversely to saturate the desert with
water. The durative yiqtol here,44 together with the piel stem and multiple objects, ‫צרים‬,45
40
Strictly speaking, the cloud first appears before the sea is split in Ex 13:22.
Nehemiah 9:12, “‫כוּ־בהּ׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ת־ה ֶ ֖דּ ֶרְך ֲא ֶ ֥שׁר ֵי ְֽל‬
ַ ‫וּב ַע ֥מּוּד ֵא ֙שׁ ֔ ַליְ ָלה ְל ָה ִ ֣איר ָל ֶ֔הם ֶא‬
ְ ‫יוֹמם‬
֑ ָ ‫יתם‬
֖ ָ ‫וּב ַע ֣מּוּד ָע ָ֔נן ִהנְ ִח‬
ְ ”, echoes the same
event.
42
Because the Hebrew use of ‫ להשקות‬always has a direct object (e.g., Jer 9:14, Ps 36:9, and Pr 25:21), the
rendering of the Septuagint is preferred here, ἐποτισεν αὐτοὺς.
43
Here Keil and Delitzsch (1982:366) are probably correct when they assert that ‫ רבה‬should be interpreted
41
adverbially, since ‫ תהמות‬needs no further qualification.
44
See JM §113d-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.
Reverting to a hifil stem, ‫וישק‬, the second colon again highlights YHWH’s provision
for his people. The term ‫ וישק‬can delineate a shepherd’s care for his flocks in providing them
water, as in Gen 29:10, “‫ת־ה ֶ֙א ֶ ֙בן ֵמ ַעל֙ ִ ֣פּי ַה ְבּ ֵ֔אר וַ ַ֕יּ ְשׁ ְק ֶאת־ ֥צ ֹאן ָל ָ ֖בן ֲא ִ ֥חי ִא ֽמּוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫ויִּ ַגּ֣שׁ יַ ֲע ֗קֹב וַ יָּ ֤ ֶ גל ֶא‬...”,
where Jacob waters the flock of Laban; additionally, Ex 2:16 speaks of Jethro’s daughters
watering their flocks, “ ‫ת־ה ְר ָה ִ֔טים ְל ַה ְשׁ ֖קוֹת ֥צ ֹאן‬
֣ ָ ‫שׁ ַבע ָבּנ֑ וֹת וַ ָתּ ֣ב ֹאנָ ה וַ ִתּ ְד ֗ ֶלנָ ה וַ ְתּ ַמ ֶ ֙לּאנָ ֙ה ֶא‬
֣ ֶ ‫ְוּלכ ֵ ֹ֥הן ִמ ְד ָי֖ ן‬
‫יהן׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫”א ִב‬.
ֲ Its appearance here furthers the psalmist’s cause of picturing YHWH as Israel’s
shepherd, especially throughout the desert period. The verb also alludes to Num 20:8,
“‫ירם׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ת־בּ ִע‬
ְ ‫ת־ה ֵע ָ ֖דה וְ ֶא‬
ָ ‫ית ֶא‬
֥ ָ ‫ן־ה ֶ֔סּ ַלע וְ ִה ְשׁ ִק‬
ַ ‫את ָל ֶ ֥הם ַ֙מיִ ֙ם ִמ‬
ָ֙ ‫הוֹצ‬
ֵ ְ‫ו‬...”, which is the only place in the
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.
The phrase “‫”בתהמות רבה‬46 possesses a number of acceptable nuances in the context
of this psalm. It could simply imply springs of water from the ground, or a rock, “ ‫הו֣ה‬
ָ ְ‫ִכּי י‬
‫וּב ָ ֽהר׃‬
ָ ‫מת י ְֹצ ִ ֥אים ַבּ ִבּ ְק ָ ֖עה‬
ֹ ֔ ֹ‫וּתה‬
ְ ‫טוֹבה ֶ ֚א ֶרץ ַנ ֲ֣ח ֵלי ָ֔מיִ ם ֲעיָ נ ֹ֙ת‬
֑ ָ ‫ל־א ֶרץ‬
֣ ֶ ‫יאָך֖ ֶא‬
ֲ ‫ֹלהיָך ְמ ִ ֽב‬
ֶ֔ ‫”א‬
ֱ (Deut 8:7; s. also Ezek
31:4). Literally, this would suggest springs of water from the desert ground that provided the
Israelites water to drink. ‫ תהמות‬can additionally represent vast bodies of water such as the
sea, “‫ל־תּה ֹֽמוֹת׃‬
ְ ‫ן־ה ָ ֑א ֶרץ ַ֜תּ ִנּ ִ֗ינים וְ ָכ‬
ָ ‫ת־י֭הוָ ה ִמ‬
ְ ‫”ה ְלל֣ וּ ֶא‬
ֽ ַ (Ps 148:7), or the primeval waters of Creation,
“...‫ל־פּ ֵנ֣י ְת ֑הוֹם‬
ְ ‫ח ֶשְׁך ַע‬
ֹ ֖ ְ‫הוּ וָ ֔בֹהוּ ו‬
֙ ֹ ‫( ”וְ ָה ָ֗א ֶרץ ָהיְ ָ ֥תה ֙ת‬Gen 1:2).47 A reference to such an expanse of
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.
This would explain the durative yiqtol and piel stem. Dahood (1970:240) argues that ‫ צרים‬represents a singular
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,
‫ תהום‬could hint towards the Reed Sea that was split by God after Israel escaped from Egypt,
“‫יכם ַ֜בּ ְתּה ֹ֗מוֹת ַכּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֽבּר׃‬
֥ ֵ ‫יּוֹל‬
ִ ַ‫ם־סוּף ַוֽ יֶּ ֱח ָ ֑רב ו‬
֭ ַ‫( ”וַ יִּ ְג ַ ֣ער ְבּי‬Ps 106:9, s. also Is 63:13). With this
understanding, the psalmist creates a further link to the sea crossing in v.13, previously the
psalm had repeated the stem ‫בקע‬.
‫יּוֹצא נוֹזְ ִ ֣לים ִמ ָ ֑סּ ַלע וַ יּ֖ ֶוֹרד ַכּנְּ ָה ֣רוֹת ָ ֽמיִ ם׃‬
֣ ִ ַ‫ ו‬16
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
‫יצא‬48 to express Israel’s divine deliverance from Egypt (s. 105:43 and 136:11; in addition to
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
root ‫ נזל‬frequently characterizes abundantly flowing waters, “ ‫וּחוֹ‬
֗ ‫יִ ְשׁ ַל֣ח ְדּ ָב ֣רוֹ וְ יַ ְמ ֵ ֑סם יַ ֵ ֥שּׁב ֜ר‬
‫לוּ־מיִ ם׃‬
ֽ ָ ְ‫( ”יִ זּ‬Ps 147:18; s. also Song 4:15). The image of water gushing from a rock produced by
the psalmist here recalls the same image in Is 48:21, “ ‫וֹל ָ֔יכם ַ ֥מיִ ם ִמ ֖צּוּר ִה ִזּ֣יל‬
ִ ‫בוֹת ֽה‬
֙ ‫וְ ֣ל ֹא ָצ ְמ ֗אוּ ָבּ ֳח ָר‬
‫־צוּר וַ יָּ ֻז֖בוּ ָ ֽמיִ ם׃‬
֔ ‫”ל֑מוֹ וַ יִּ֙ ְב ַקע‬.
ָ
The second colon repeats the idea of the first, depicting streams of water flowing
down from the rock. Yet again, the psalmist employs the hifil, ‫ויורד‬, to position YHWH as the
instigator of the flowing rivers. The notion of abundant water, and God’s control over it,
overtly distinguishes the four verses of this section. In addition to the fact that ‫ מים‬demarks an
inclusion for the section, a variety of other words indicates the presence of water: ‫ים‬, ‫תהום‬,
‫נוזלים‬, and even ‫ענן‬, “cloud”, which consists of water.
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
‫יּוֹסיפוּ ֖עוֹד ַל ֲחטֹא־ל֑ וֹ ַ ֽל ְמ ֥רוֹת ֜ ֶע ְלי֗ וֹן ַבּ ִצּ ָיּֽה׃‬
֣ ִ ַ‫ ו‬17
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.
Even though the phrase “‫ ”ויוסיפו עוד‬can simply denote repetition, as in Ps 10:18,
“‫ן־ה ָ ֽא ֶרץ׃‬
ָ ‫ל־יוֹסיף ֑עוֹד ַל ֲע ֥ר ֹץ ֱ֜אנ֗ וֹשׁ ִמ‬
֥ ִ ‫”ל ְשׁ ֹ֥פּט יָ ֗תוֹם ָ ֫ו ָ ֥דְך ַבּ‬
ִ (s. also Is 51:22), it is better understood here
as a phrase signifying intensification. In Genesis 37:5, “ ‫יּוֹספוּ ֖עוֹד‬
֥ ִ ַ‫יוֹס ֙ף ֲח ֔לוֹם וַ יַּ ֵגּ֖ד ְל ֶא ָ ֑חיו ו‬
ֵ ‫וַ יַּ ֲח ֹ֤לם‬
‫”שׂ ֥נ ֹא א ֹֽתוֹ׃‬,
ְ Joseph’s brothers hated him more intensely after he reported his dream to them.
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
intensification of sin. The verb ‫ למרות‬recalls the subject of this verse, the rebellious and
disobedient generation first mentioned in v.8, “...‫דוד סורר ומרה דור‬...”.
In the second colon, the appearance of ‫ עליון‬provides some clarification for the
pronoun on the preposition ‫לו‬, and creates an instance of delayed identification. The presence
of this particular name for God possibly heightens the severity of Israel’s rebellion. ‫עליון‬
implies the “most high God”, which suggests the most high authority. Defying him thus
constitutes the highest expression of rebellion. The poetic word ‫ציה‬,49 “desert”, recalls the
semantic equivalent ‫ מדבר‬in v.15,50 which records YHWH’s kindness in splitting the rock and
49
This word only appears in poetic texts such as Jer 2:6, “…‫שׁוּח ֙ה ְבּ ֶ֙א ֶר ֙ץ ִצ ָיּ֣ה‬
ָ ְ‫מּוֹליְך א ָֹ֜תנוּ ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ֗בּר ְבּ ֶ֙א ֶרץ ֲע ָר ָ ֤בה ו‬
֙ ִ ‫( ”… ַה‬s.
also Is 35:1, Zeph 2:13, and Job 30:3).
50
As a parallel pair, these words appear together in numerous places such as Ps 107:35, “ ‫ם־מיִ ם‬
֑ ַ ַ‫ישׂם ִ ֭מ ְד ָבּר ַ ֽל ֲאג‬
ֵ֣
‫( ”וְ ֶ ֥א ֶרץ ִ֜צ ָ֗יּה ְלמ ָ ֹ֥צ ֵאי ָ ֽמיִ ם׃‬also Is 41:18, and Hos 2:5).
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.
‫א ֶכל ְלנַ ְפ ָ ֽשׁם׃‬
ֹ ֥ ‫סּוּ־אל ִבּ ְל ָב ָ ֑בם ִ ֽל ְשׁ ָאל־‬
֥ ֵ ַ‫ וַ יְ נ‬18
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
request food. In the Torah, the root ‫ נסה‬recalls numerous instances in which the Israelites test
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
biblical literature one tests another to find out that which is unseen. In Deut 8:2, “ ‫וְ זָ ַכ ְר ָ ֣תּ‬
֛‫ת־א ֶ ֧שׁר ִ ֽבּ ְל ָב ְבָך‬
ֲ ‫ֹלהיָך ֶז֛ה ַא ְר ָבּ ִ ֥עים ָשׁ ָנ֖ה ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֑בּר ְל ֙ ַמ ַען ַע ֹֽנּ ְת ָ֜ך ְלנַ ֽסֹּ ְת ָ֗ך ָל ַ ֜ד ַעת ֶא‬
֛ ֶ ‫הו֧ה ֱא‬
ָ ְ‫ל־ה ֶ ֗דּ ֶרְך ֲא ֶ֙שׁר ה ִ ֹֽל ֲיכ ָ֜ך י‬
ַ ‫ת־כּ‬
ָ ‫ֶא‬
‫ם־ל ֹא׃‬
ֽ ‫מר ) ִמ ְצוֹתוֹ( ] ִמ ְצ ָוֹתיו[ ִא‬
ֹ ֥ ‫” ֲה ִת ְשׁ‬, God tests Israel to find out what is on their heart. Similarly,
he tests Hezekiah in 2Chr 32:31, “‫ל־בּ ְל ָב ֽבוֹ׃‬
ִ ‫סּוֹתוֹ ָל ַ ֖ד ַעת ָכּ‬
֔ ‫ֹלהים ְ נַ֙ל‬
֑ ִ ‫”…עזָ ֖בוֹ ָ ֽה ֱא‬, to know what
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
between v.18 and v.8 creates an important association between the two verses ( : ‫ אל‬:: ‫ אל‬: ‫לבו‬
‫)בלבבם‬. Verse 18 presents a practical example of individuals not preparing their hearts (s. v.8)
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
12:20, “‫אכל׃‬
ֽ ַ ֹ ‫ל־בּ ֔יתוֹ וַ ִיּ ְשׁ ַ֕אל וַ ָיּ ִ ֥שׂימוּ ֛לוֹ ֶל ֶ֖חם וַ יּ‬
ֵ ‫וַ יָּ ב ֹ ֙א ֶא‬...” (also Ex 11:2), or as an impatient demand.53
Either way, the request stems from ill-conceived motives. In employing the phrase “ ‫א ֶכל‬
ֹ ֥ ‫ִ ֽל ְשׁ ָאל־‬
‫”לנַ ְפ ָ ֽשׁם‬,
ְ the psalm apparently combines two traditions: the request for manna together with
51
For more on the concept of “testing” in the Bible see Licht (1973).
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).
52
Page <42>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
the request for meat. Within the present context of sustenance, ‫ נפש‬refers to an “appetite” or
“hunger”,54 a meaning well reflected in Ps 107:9, “‫א־טוֹב׃‬
ֽ ‫י־ה ְשׂ ִבּ ַיע ֶנ ֶ֣פשׁ שׁ ֵֹק ָ ֑ קה וְ ֶנ ֶ֥פשׁ ְ ֜ר ֵע ָבה ִמ ֵלּ‬
֭ ִ ‫”כּ‬.
ִ
Though ‫ נפש‬and ‫ שאל‬do not appear together in the Torah traditions concerning a provision of
food in the desert, Psalm 106:15 utilizes them in its depiction of the same event, “ ‫וַ יִּ ֵ ֣תּן ָ ֭ל ֶהם‬
‫”שׁ ֱא ָל ָ ֑תם וַ יְ ַשׁ ַ ֖לּח ָרז֣ וֹן ְבּנַ ְפ ָ ֽשׁם׃‬.
ֶ
‫וּכל ֵ ֑אל ַל ֲע ֥ר ְֹך ֻ֜שׁ ְל ָ֗חן ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֽבּר׃‬
ַ ֣‫אֹל ִ ֥הים ָ ֭א ְמרוּ ֲהי‬
֫ ‫ ַ ֽו יְ ַד ְבּ ֗רוּ ֵ ֽבּ‬19
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
19:18). The phrase “‫ ”וידברו באלהים‬recalls Israel’s complaining for food in Num 21:5, “ ‫וַ יְ ַד ֵבּ֣ר‬
‫שׁנוּ ָ ֔ק ָצה ַבּ ֶלּ ֶ֖חם‬
֣ ֵ ‫ית ֙נוּ ִמ ִמּ ְצ ַ ֔ריִ ם ָל ֙מוּת ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֑בּר ִ ֣כּי ֵ ֥אין ֶ ֙ל ֶח ֙ם וְ ֵ ֣אין ַ֔מיִם וְ נַ ְפ‬
ֻ֙ ‫ה ָל ָ ֤מה ֶ ֽה ֱע ִל‬
֒ ‫וּבמ ֶֹשׁ‬
ְ ֘‫אֹלהים‬
ִ ‫ָה ֗ ָעם ֵ ֽבּ‬
‫”ה ְקֹּל ֵ ֽ קל׃‬.
ַ The appearance of ‫נפש‬, which appeared in the previous verse, reinforces the allusion
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.
The words of wisdom from the psalmist’s mouth in v.1, “‫י־פי׃‬
ֽ ִ ‫ה ֥טּוּ ָ֜אזְ נְ ֶ֗כם ְל ִא ְמ ֵר‬...”,
ַ
are
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
YHWH. The phrase “‫ ”לערך שלחן‬suggests a table prepared with a range of foods, a veritable
feast. In Psalm 23:5, “‫כּוֹסי ְרוָ ָיֽה׃‬
֥ ִ ‫אשׁי‬
ִ֗ ֹ ‫פני׀ ֻשׁ ְל ָ֗חן ֶנ ֶ֥ גד צ ְֹר ָ ֑רי ִדּ ַ ֖שּׁנְ ָתּ ַב ֶ ֥שּׁ ֶמן ֜ר‬
ַ֙ ָ ‫”תּ ֲע ֬ר ְֹך ְל‬,
ַ it helps delineate
54
Dahood (1970:240) prefers rendering it “gullet”, as a parallel to “heart” (‫)לב‬, in the first colon.
Page <43>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
a picture of abundance. This idea of a feast is similarly apparent in Pr 9:2, “ ‫ָט ְב ָ ֣חה ִ ֭ט ְב ָחהּ ָמ ְס ָכ֣ה‬
‫”יֵ ָינ֑הּ ַ֜ ֗אף ָ ֽע ְר ָ ֥כה ֻשׁ ְל ָח ָנֽהּ׃‬, a description of a banquet prepared by wisdom (s. also Ezekiel 23:41).
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
to provide Israel with water, “‫( ”יבקע צרים במדבר‬v.15), is now the site in which the people test
him to see if he can prepare a feast for them, “‫וּכל ֵ ֑אל ַל ֲע ֥ר ְֹך ֻ֜שׁ ְל ָ֗חן ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֽבּר׃‬
ַ ֣‫”הי‬. The placement of
‫ מדבר‬at the end of the verse creates an inclusion via a play on words with ‫ידברו‬.
‫ם־יָכין ְשׁ ֵ ֣אר ְל ַע ֽמּוֹ׃‬
֖ ִ ‫וּכל ֵ ֑תּת ִא‬
ַ ֣‫ם־ל ֶחם י‬
ֶ֭ ַ‫ה־צוּר׀ וַ יָּ ז֣ וּבוּ ַמיִ ם֘ וּנְ ָח ִ ֪לים ִ֫י ְשׁ ֥טֹפוּ ֲהג‬
֙ ‫ ֵ ֤הן ִה ָכּ‬20
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?
Verse 20 continues the direct quotation that began in v.19. In a similar way to ‫הנה‬, ‫ הן‬is a
particle that calls specific attention to that which follows: an irreverent request.55 Though
another root appears here for strike, ‫נכה‬, the words “‫ ”הכה צור‬refer back to v.15 when God
struck the rock causing water to flow from it.56 An abundant flow of water is represented by
“‫ ”נחלים ישטפו‬and “‫ ;”יזובו מים‬both repeating the same idea, and the repetition of this idea
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
request for food in v.19 with the present demand is the verb ‫יוכל‬. Verse 20, however, expands
the original request, clarifying that the desire is not just for food, but specifically for bread,
‫לחם‬, and meat, ‫שאר‬. The repetition of ‫ הכין‬relates this testing of YHWH’s ability to the
stubborn and rebellious generation that did not prepare their hearts, “ ‫מ ֶ ֥רה דּ֭ וֹר‬
ֹ ֫ ‫סוֹרר וּ‬
֪ ֵ ‫דּוֹר‬
֘ ...
55
See BDB 243.
Just like v.15, the psalmist replaces Moses here with God in his rendition of events. Exodus 17:6 evidently
portrays Moses as the one who strikes the rock, “...‫ית ַב ֗צּוּר וְ יָ ְצ ֥אוּ ִמ ֶ ֛מּנּוּ ַ ֖מיִ ם וְ ָשׁ ָ ֣תה ָה ָ ֑עם‬
ָ ‫וְ ִה ִ ֣כּ‬...”.
56
Page <44>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
...‫א־ה ִ ֣כין ִל ֑בּוֹ‬
ֵ ֹ ‫( ”ל‬v.8). As a parallel to ‫לחם‬, the psalmist has adopted the relatively rare word
‫שאר‬, which carries the similar meaning of “food” in Ex 21:10, “ ‫סוּתהּ‬
֥ ָ ‫ח־לוֹ ְשׁ ֵא ָ ֛רהּ ְכּ‬
֑ ‫אם־א ֶ ֖ח ֶרת ִי ַ ֽֽ קּ‬
ַ
‫”וְ עֹנָ ָ ֖תהּ ֥ל ֹא יִ גְ ָ ֽרע׃‬, and “meat” in Mic 3:3, “ ‫יהם ִה ְפ ִ֔שׁיטוּ‬
֣ ֶ ‫עוֹר ֙ם ֵמ ֲע ֵל‬
ָ ְ‫שׁר ָא ְכלוּ֘ ְשׁ ֵ ֣אר ַע ִמּי֒ ו‬
֣ ֶ ‫וַ ֲא‬
...‫יהם‬
֖ ֶ ‫מ ֵת‬
ֹ ֽ ‫ת־ע ְצ‬
ַ ‫”וְ ֶא‬.
‫יְהוה ַ ֽו יִּ ְת ַע ָ ֥בּר ְו ֵ֭אשׁ נִ ְשּׂ ָ ֣ קה ְביַ ֲע ֑קֹב וְ גַ ם־ ַ֗ ֜אף ָע ָ ֥לה ְב ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֽאל׃‬
֗ ָ ‫ ָל ֵ ֤כן׀ ָשׁ ַ ֥מע‬21
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
to their children, “‫שׁר ָ ֭שׁ ַמ ְענוּ וַ נֵּ ָד ֵע֑ם‬
֣ ֶ ‫”א‬
ֲ (v.3), God hears Israel’s complaints and becomes
infuriated. With respect to the Exodus motif, the verb ‫ התעבר‬only occurs in Deut 3:26,
“...‫בּי ְל ַ ֣מ ַענְ ֶ֔כם וְ ֥ל ֹא ָשׁ ַ ֖מע ֵא ָ ֑לי‬
֙ ִ ‫הו֥ה‬
ָ ְ‫”וַ יִּ ְת ַע ֵ֙בּר י‬. In this context however, unlike the psalm, YHWH
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.
In the context of v.21, ‫ אש‬may be understood figuratively or literally. It figuratively
represents God’s wrath in Ps 89:47, “‫מוֹ־אשׁ ֲח ָמ ֶ ֽתָך׃‬
֣ ֵ ‫ד־מה ְי֭הוָ ה ִתּ ָסּ ֵ ֣תר ָל ֶנ ַ֑צח ִתּ ְב ַ ֖ער ְכּ‬
֣ ָ ‫”ע‬,
ַ as it does
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.
Alternatively, it is possible to read ‫ אש‬as a physical punishment leveled against the people for
their words. Even though the psalmist obscures the initiator of this fire via the passive verb,
‫נשקה‬, the juxtaposition of the sentences strongly suggests that YHWH sent the fire as a
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
punishment against Israel. That which first served as an aid to them in v.14, “ ‫יוֹמם‬
֑ ָ ‫וַ יַּ נְ ֵ ֣חם ֶבּ ָע ָנ֣ ן‬
‫ל־ה ֗ ַלּיְ ָלה ְבּ ֣אוֹר ֵ ֽאשׁ׃‬
ַ֜ ‫”וְ ָכ‬, now transforms into a punishment. The literal understanding of ‫ אש‬as
“fire” creates an allusion to Numbers 11:1, recalling how God responds to the people’s
ָ ‫הו֑ה וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַ ֤מע יְ הוָ ֙ה וַ יִּ ַ֣חר ַא ֔פּוֹ וַ ִתּ ְב ַע‬
ָ ְ‫אנְ ִ֔נים ַ ֖רע ְבּ ָאזְ ֵנ֣י י‬
ֹ ֣ ‫וַ יְ ִ ֤הי ָה ָע ֙ם ְכּ ִמ ְת‬
complaints, “ ‫אכל‬
ַ ֹ ‫הוה וַ ֖תּ‬
֔ ָ ְ‫ר־בּ ֙ם ֵ ֣אשׁ י‬
‫”בּ ְק ֵ ֥צה ַ ֽה ַמּ ֲח ֶנֽה׃‬,
ִ a situation similar to the context in v.21. Unlike Numbers 11:1-3, Psalm 78
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
word pair ‫ יעקב‬and ‫ ישראל‬additionally recall v.5, “‫תוֹר ֘ה ָ ֤שׂם ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָ ֫ר ֵ ֥אל‬
ָ ְ‫”וַ ָ ֤יּ ֶ קם ֵע ֙דוּת׀ ְ ֽבּיַ ֲע ֗קֹב ו‬, where
YHWH establishes his ordinances with them.
‫ישׁוּע ֽתוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫אֹלהים וְ ֥ל ֹא ָ֜ב ְט ֗חוּ ִ ֽבּ‬
֑ ִ ‫ ִ ֤כּי ֣ל ֹא ֶ֭ה ֱא ִמינוּ ֵבּ‬22
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
described in v.8, “‫רוּחוֹ׃‬
ֽ ‫ת־אל‬
֣ ֵ ‫וְ לֹא־נֶ ֶא ְמ ָנ֖ה ֶא‬...”. With the repetition of ‫ אלהים‬a direct link with
another verse enumerating the people’s sin is forged, “...‫אֹל ִ ֥הים ָ ֭א ְמרוּ‬
֫ ‫( ”ַוֽ יְ ַד ְבּ ֗רוּ ֵ ֽבּ‬v.19). The
parallel pair ‫ האמין‬and ‫ בטח‬additionally appears in Micah 7:5, “ ‫ל־תּ ְב ְט ֖חוּ‬
ִ ‫ל־תּ ֲא ִ ֣מינוּ ְב ֵ ֔ר ַע ַ ֽא‬
ַ ‫ַא‬
...‫” ְבּ ַא ֑לּוּף‬, and further highlights the close correspondence between believing and trusting.
This indictment against Israel for failing to trust God after he had performed many acts of
deliverance for them is often reflected in the Torah, such as Deut 1:32, “ ‫ ַוּב ָדּ ָ ֖בר ַה ֶזּ֑ה ֵ ֽאינְ ֶכ ֙ם‬...
‫יכם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬
ֵ ‫יהו֖ה ֱא‬
ָ ‫”מ ֲא ִמ ִ֔ינם ַבּ‬
ַ (s. also Deut 9:23).58 The only locations in which ‫( ישועה‬God’s power
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
short while trusts in their deliverer, “‫וּבמ ֶ ֹ֖שׁה ַע ְב ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ְ ‫יהוה‬
ָ֔ ‫ינוּ ַ ֽבּ‬
֙ ‫הוה וַ ַיּ ֲֽא ֙ ִמ‬
֑ ָ ְ‫וַ ִ ֽיּ ְיר ֥אוּ ָה ָ ֖עם ֶאת־י‬...”, Ex 14:31. Psalm 106:12,
“‫”וַ יַּ ֲא ִ ֥מינוּ ִב ְד ָב ָ ֑ריו ָ֜י ִ֗שׁירוּ ְתּ ִה ָלּ ֽתוֹ׃‬, echoes this statement of belief.
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.
‫ וַ יְ ַצ֣ו ְשׁ ָח ִ ֣ קים ִמ ָ ֑מּ ַעל וְ ַד ְל ֵ ֖תי ָשׁ ַ ֣מיִ ם ָפּ ָ ֽתח׃‬23
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
YHWH commands ordinances to be transmitted from generation to generation, “ ‫וַ ָיּ֤ ֶ קם ֵע ֙דוּת׀‬
‫יהם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫יעם ִל ְב ֵנ‬
ָ ֗ ‫הוֹד‬
ִ ‫בוֹתינוּ ֜ ְל‬
֑ ֵ ‫ת־א‬
ֲ ‫שׁר ִ ֭צוָּ ה ֶא‬
֣ ֶ ‫תוֹר ֘ה ָ ֤שׂם ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָ ֫ר ֵ ֥אל ֲא‬
ָ ְ‫”בּיַ ֲע ֗קֹב ו‬,
ֽ ְ but here he commands elements
in Creation: the heavens. ‫ שחקים‬is a less common word for heavens than its counterpart in this
verse, ‫שמים‬, but the word pair is recognized elsewhere in biblical literature, “ ‫הר ִ ֤עיפוּ ָשׁ ֙ ַמיִ ֙ם‬
ְ
...‫לוּ־צ ֶ֑דק‬
ֶ ְ‫וּשׁ ָח ִ ֖ קים יִ זּ‬
ְ ‫( ” ִמ ַ֔מּ ַעל‬Is 45:8). Similarly, the Bible is familiar with the notion of God
commanding elements in Creation to serve his purposes. In Job 36:32 he commands the
lightning to strike, “‫֣יה ְב ַמ ְפ ִ ֽגּ ַיע׃‬
ָ ‫ה־אוֹר וַ יְ ַ ֖צו ָע ֶל‬
֑ ‫ל־כּ ַ ֥פּיִ ם ִכּ ָסּ‬
ַ ‫”ע‬,
ַ and in Is 5:6 he orders the clouds to
withhold their rain (s. also Is 45:12 and Job 36:32). The psalm accentuates YHWH’s change
from judgment to mercy via the repetition of the root ‫ עלה‬from v.21. The latter verse records
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
heaven”, “‫”דלתי השמים‬,60 a term absent from the Pentateuch that represents a poetic rendering
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.
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).
60
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
phrase “‫ ”ארבות שמים‬portrays the unlimited flows of water that barraged the earth during the
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
gave to his people in vv.15f. In positioning the verb ‫ פתח‬at the end of the verse the psalmist
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
‫ן־שׁ ַ֗מיִ ם ָנ ַ֣תן ָ ֽלמוֹ׃‬
ָ֜ ַ‫יהם ָ ֣מן ֶל ֱא ֑כֹל ְוּדג‬
֣ ֶ ‫ וַ יַּ ְמ ֵ֬טר ֲע ֵל‬24
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 manna63 for the Israelites to eat,
answering part of Israel’s irreverent request in v.19. Verse 24 lucidly recalls the same event in
the Torah, “...‫ן־ה ָשּׁ ָ ֑מיִ ם‬
ַ ‫אמר יְ הוָ ֙ה ֶאל־מ ֶֹ֔שׁה ִהנְ ִ֙ני ַמ ְמ ִ ֥טיר ָל ֶ ֛כם ֶל ֶ֖חם ִמ‬
ֶ ֹ ‫( ”וַ ֤יּ‬Ex 16:4). In choosing the
root ‫מטר‬, “to rain”, the psalmist may also have had Num 11:9 in mind since this verse relates
to the manna as coming down with the dew. Like the phrase “‫”דלתי שמים‬, the verb ‫המטיר‬
additionally suggests an abundant outpouring. Genesis describes Sodom and Gomorrah’s
judgment as fire and brimstone raining down from heaven.64 Repetition of the stem ‫אכל‬
recalls v.18 when the Israelites originally requested food, “‫”לשאל אכל לנפשם‬.
The second colon continues to dwell on the idea of the food provided by God, and
further describes it as “‫”דגן שמים‬, the “corn”, or “grain” of heaven. This term, unique in
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”
61
With respect to food, the same phrase also appears in 2Ki 7:2, “ ‫בּוֹת ַבּ ָשּׁ ַ֔מיִ ם ֲהיִ ְהֶ ֖יה‬
֙ ‫הוה ע ֶ ֹ֤שׂה ֲא ֻר‬
ָ֗ ְ‫ֹאמ ֒ר ִה ֵ ֣נּה י‬
ַ ‫וַ יּ‬...
...‫” ַה ָדּ ָ ֣בר‬, which envisages a hypothetical situation whereby even an unlimited supply of food from heaven would
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.
64
Deuteronomy 32:2 also adopts this verb to depict something other than water raining down from heaven, “ ‫יַ ֲע ֤רֹף‬
...‫” ַכּ ָמּ ָט ֙ר ִל ְק ִ֔חי ִתַּ ֥זּל ַכּ ַ ֖טּל ִא ְמ ָר ִ ֑תי‬.
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
explicating that God had given, ‫נתן‬, the people heavenly sustenance at this point, the psalmist
again echoes the fulfillment of the request in v.20, “‫וּכל ֵ ֑תּת ִאם־יָ ִ ֖כין ְשׁ ֵ ֣אר ְל ַע ֽמּוֹ׃‬
ַ ֣‫ם־ל ֶחם י‬
ֶ֭ ַ‫”הג‬,
ֲ in
spite of their testing him.67
‫ ֶל ֶ֣חם ַ ֭א ִבּ ִירים ָ ֣א ַכל ִ ֑אישׁ ֵצ ָ ֬ידה ָשׁ ַל֖ח ָל ֶ ֣הם ָל ֽשׂ ֹ ַבע׃‬25
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
in v.20, “...‫וּכל ֵ ֑תּת‬
ַ ֣‫הגַ ם־ ֶ֭ל ֶחם י‬...”,
ֲ
is explicitly fulfilled here, a situation emphasized by the
repetition of ‫לחם‬. Verse 25 further explicates the nature of the food: not just ordinary bread,
but “the bread of the mighty”, or perhaps more accurately, “the bread of angels”.69 Though
‫ אבירים‬usually refers to men of strength, “‫א־יַא ִ ֥מין ַ ֽבּ ַח ִ ֽיּין׃‬
ֲ ֹ ‫ירים ְבּכ ֹ֑חוֹ ָ֜י ֗קוּם ְ ֽול‬
֣ ִ ‫”וּמ ַ ֣שְׁך ַא ִבּ‬
ָ (Job 24:22),
or the strength of bulls (s. Is 34:7 and Ps 22:13); here it is better understood as “angels” (s. Ps
103:20) since their dwelling is in heaven and that is where the bread originated, “ ‫ן־שׁ ַ֗מיִ ם‬
ָ֜ ַ‫ ְוּדג‬...
‫”נ ַ֣תן ָ ֽלמוֹ׃‬
ָ (v.24). Repetition of ‫ אכל‬links this verse both with the previous one, which also
65
See Reddish (1992).
See also Zakovitch (1997:139).
67
Here, it is possible to suggest that the form “‫ ”למו‬constitutes a reminder of “‫ ”לעמו‬in v.20.
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).
66
Page <49>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
describes supernatural sustenance, and the original request in v.18. The word ‫ איש‬is best
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
meet the Israelites’ needs. Though ‫ שבע‬often simply means to satisfy (s. Pr 13:25 and Ruth
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
this nuance, “‫ע־ל ֶחם׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ת־ע ֶבד ִ ֣כּי יִ ְמל֑ וְֹך ְ ֜ונָ ָ֗בל ִ ֣כּי יִ ֽ ְשׂ ַ ֽבּ‬
ֶ֭ ‫”תּ ַח‬.
ֽ ַ With respect to God’s provision in the
wilderness, Israel’s satisfaction is only noted once in the Torah, Ex 16:8, “ ‫אמר מ ֶֹ֗שׁה ְבּ ֵ ֣תת‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֣יּ‬
...‫”יְ הוָ ֩ה ָל ֙ ֶכם ָבּ ֜ ֶע ֶרב ָבּ ָ ֣שׂר ֶל ֱא ֗כֹל וְ ֶל ֶ֤חם ַבּ ֙בּ ֹ ֶק ֙ר ִל ְשׂ ֔בֹּ ַע‬, and this in relation to bread and meat.
‫ימן׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫יַסּע ָ ֭ק ִדים ַבּ ָשּׁ ָ ֑מיִ ם וַ יְ נַ ֵ ֖הג ְבּ ֻעזּ֣ וֹ ֵת‬
֣ ַ 26
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
wind from71 heaven. The root ‫ נסע‬reflects the same incident in Numbers 11:31, “ ‫וְ ֜ר ַוּח נָ ַ ֣סע׀‬
...‫ם‬
֒ ָ‫ן־היּ‬
ַ ‫הוה וַ ָיּ֣ ָ גז ַשׂ ְלוִ ים֘ ִמ‬
֗ ָ ְ‫” ֵמ ֵ ֣את י‬. Unlike the Numbers quote, however, Psalm 78 recasts the verb
‫ נסע‬in hifil, an alteration directly attributing the event to God. Additionally, the psalm adds
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
may also depict an agent of YHWH executing his commands. Exodus 14:21, “ ‫הו֣ה׀‬
ָ ְ‫וֹלְך י‬
ֶ ֣‫וַ יּ‬...
...‫ת־היָּ ם ְבּ ֙ר ַוּח ָק ִ ֤דים ַעזָּ ֙ה‬
ַ ֠ ‫” ֶא‬, suggests it plays a role in the Israelites’ deliverance at the Reed Sea;
70
An example of this use of ‫ איש‬appears in Amos 4:3 and Gen 47:20; s. also JM 147d.
71
Here I have sided with the Septuagint’s interpretation, εξ ουρανου (=from heaven), for an improved
contextual match. The graphical interchange between ‫ ב‬and ‫ מ‬represents a known phenomenon (s. Tov
(1992:284]). Dahood (1970:242) preserves the ‫ ב‬but still reads it as “from” since this translational possibility
exists in Ugaritic.
Page <50>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
similarly, it is called upon to bring the plague of locust in Ex 10:13, “ ‫יהוה נִ ַ ֤הג ֥ר ַוּח ָק ִד ֙ים‬
֗ ָ ‫ַ ֽו‬...
...‫” ָבּ ָ֔א ֶרץ‬. The heavenly associations continue in this verse with its depiction of the wind’s
origin from heaven, ‫משמים‬. Previously, the doors of heaven were opened, “ ‫וְ ַד ְל ֵ ֖תי ָשׁ ַ ֣מיִ ם‬...
‫”פּ ָ ֽתח׃‬
ָ (v.23), in order to provide the Israelites with the grain of heaven, “‫ן־שׁ ַ֗מיִ ם ָנ ַ֣תן ָ ֽלמוֹ׃‬
ָ֜ ‫ ְוּד ַג‬...”
(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
God’s activity in mustering the winds; by his strength, ‫בעזו‬, he leads out, ‫ינהג‬,72 a south wind
(s. Song 4:16). In mentioning his strength, ‫בעזו‬, the psalmist recalls v.4, “ ‫יהם ְל ֥דוֹר‬
ֶ֗ ֵ‫֤ל ֹא נְ ַכ ֵ֙חד׀ ִמ ְבּנ‬
‫הו֑ה וֶ ֱעזוּז֥וֹ‬
ָ ְ‫”א ֲח ֗רוֹן ְ ֭מ ַס ְפּ ִרים ְתּ ִה ֣לּוֹת י‬,
ַ creating a connection between the two verses that casts this
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.
‫יהם ֶכּ ָע ָ ֣פר ְשׁ ֵ ֑אר וּֽ ְכ ֥חוֹל ַ֜י ִ֗מּים ֣עוֹף ָכּ ָ ֽנ ף׃‬
֣ ֶ ‫ וַ יַּ ְמ ֵ֬טר ֲע ֵל‬27
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.
The verb ‫ המטיר‬recalls the miracle of the manna in v.24, “...‫יהם ָ ֣מן ֶל ֱא ֑כֹל‬
֣ ֶ ‫”וַ יַּ ְמ ֵ֬טר ֲע ֵל‬. Just as God
poured down manna from heaven, so now he also provides his people with meat. The simile
‫ כעפר‬intensifies the image of abundant meat, signifying an uncountable multitude. God’s
promise to multiply Abraham’s seed is portrayed in similar terms emphasizing an
innumerable quantity, “ ‫ת־ע ַ ֣פר ָה ָ֔א ֶרץ‬
ֲ ‫נוֹת ֶא‬
֙ ‫ם־יוּכל ִ֗אישׁ ִל ְמ‬
ַ֣
‫שׁר׀ ִא‬
֣ ֶ ‫וְ ַשׂ ְמ ִ ֥תּי ֶ ֽאת־זַ ְר ֲעָך֖ ַכּ ֲע ַ ֣פר ָה ָ ֑א ֶרץ ֲא‬
‫( ” ַ ֽגּם־זַ ְר ֲעָך֖ יִ ָמּ ֶנֽה׃‬Gen 13:16; s. also 2Chr 1:9). By inference, just as the quantity of meat is
immeasurable, so too is God’s abundant mercy towards his people. He meets their expectation
that was first enumerated in v.20, “‫וּכל ֵ ֑תּת ִאם־יָ ִ ֖כין ְשׁ ֵ ֣אר ְל ַע ֽמּוֹ׃‬
ַ ֣‫ם־ל ֶחם י‬
ֶ֭ ַ‫הג‬...”.
ֲ
In spite of the
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
The second colon re-emphasizes the abundance with the phrase “‫”כחול ימים‬. With
respect to food, Gen 41:49 invokes a similar picture of amplitude, “ ‫יוֹסף ָ ֛בּר ְכּ ֥חוֹל ַה ָיּ֖ם‬
֥ ֵ ‫וַ יִּ ְצ ֙בּ ֹר‬
‫י־אין ִמ ְס ָ ֽפּר׃‬
֥ ֵ ‫י־ח ַ ֥דל ִל ְס ֹ֖פּר ִכּ‬
ָ ‫אד ַ ֛עד ִכּ‬
ֹ ֑ ‫”ה ְר ֵבּ֣ה ְמ‬,
ַ in which Joseph amasses grain like the sand of the
seashore. Even though the specific word ‫ שלו‬is absent from our text, “‫“( ”עוף כנף‬winged
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
psalmist’s poetic freedom in creating a degree of alliteration, “‫”כעפר…עוף כנף‬.
‫ ַ ֭ויַּ ֵפּל ְבּ ֶ ֣ ק ֶרב ַמ ֲח ֵנ֑הוּ ָ֜ס ִ֗ביב ְל ִמ ְשׁ ְכּנ ָ ֹֽתיו׃‬28
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
verse. YHWH causes the birds to fall in the midst, ‫בקרב‬, of the camp, suggesting an aspect of
kindness since the Israelites hardly had to exert themselves to gather it. The falling of the
birds in the midst (‫ )בקרב‬of the camp reflects the same tradition as Numbers 11:31, “ ‫וְ ֜ר ַוּח נָ ַ ֣סע׀‬
...‫ל־ה ַמּ ֲח ֶ֜נה‬
ֽ ַ ‫ם וַ יִּ ֙טּ ֹשׁ ַע‬
֒ ָ‫ן־היּ‬
ַ ‫הוה וַ ָיּ֣ ָ גז ַשׂ ְלוִ ים֘ ִמ‬
֗ ָ ְ‫” ֵמ ֵ ֣את י‬. God’s benevolence towards Israel is further
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.
Together ‫ סביב‬and ‫ בקרב‬create a merismus, indicating the totality of the provision of
meat; it fell both inside and outside the encampment. The winged birds falling around the
camp’s outskirts also reflects the aforementioned record in Num 11:31, “ ‫ם‬
֒ ָ‫ן־היּ‬
ַ ‫ ָיּ֣ ָ גז ַשׂלְ וִ ים֘ ִמ‬...
...‫יוֹם ֔כֹּה ְס ִב ֖יבוֹת ַ ֽה ַמּ ֲח ֶנ֑ה‬
֙ ‫וּכ ֶ ֤ד ֶרְך‬
ְ ‫ל־ה ַמּ ֲח ֶ֜נה ְכּ ֶ ֧ד ֶרְך י֣ וֹם ֗כֹּה‬
ֽ ַ ‫”וַ יִּ ֙טּ ֹשׁ ַע‬.74 As a word pair for ‫מחנה‬, the
psalmist employs ‫משכנות‬, “dwelling place”,75 (s. Num 24:5, Jer 51:30) to depict the Israelite
73
For RaDaK, this is one of the ‫ פלא‬mentioned in v.12: even though the birds had wings, they did not fly from
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.
‫אד ְ ֜ו ַ ֽת ֲאוָ ָ֗תם יָ ִ ֥בא ָל ֶ ֽהם׃‬
ֹ ֑ ‫אכ ֣לוּ וַ יִּ ְשׂ ְבּ ֣עוּ ְמ‬
ְ ֹ ‫ וַ יּ‬29
They ate, and were very satisfied, because76 he brought77 them their desires
The same results are achieved with the meat here as with the manna in v.25, “ ‫ֶל ֶ֣חם ַ ֭א ִבּ ִירים ָ ֣א ַכל‬
‫ידה ָשׁ ַ ֖לח ָל ֶ ֣הם ָל ֽשׂ ֹ ַבע׃‬
֬ ָ ‫”אישׁ ֵצ‬:
֑ ִ the Israelites ate and were satisfied. Unlike v.25, however, v.29
includes the intensifier ‫מאד‬, the Israelites were very satisfied with their provision. The
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
evil intentions. ‫ תאוה‬can bear a positive nuance of a “wish”, or “desire”, as in Pr 13:12,
“‫או֥ה ָב ָ ֽאה׃‬
ָ ֲ ‫תּוֹח ֶלת ְ ֭מ ֻמ ָשּׁ ָכה ַמ ֲח ָלה־ ֵל֑ב וְ ֵ ֥עץ ַ֜ח ִ֗יּים ַתּ‬
֣ ֶ ”, but it can also reflect a negative context, “ ‫וַ יִּ ְת ַאוּ֣ וּ‬
‫ימוֹן׃‬
ֽ ‫ישׁ‬
ִ ‫סּוּ־אל ִ ֽבּ‬
֜ ֵ֗
ַ‫”ת ֲאוָ ה ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֑בּר וַ יְ נ‬
֭ ַ (Ps 106:14; s. also Num 11:4). Contextually the former is better
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.
‫יהם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫ לֹא־זָ ֥רוּ ִמ ַתּ ֲאוָ ָ ֑תם ֜ ֗עוֹד ָא ְכ ָ ֥לם ְבּ ִפ‬30
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
meat they craved, their craving continued. The selection of the word ‫זרו‬78 in all likelihood
76
77
For this understanding of the waw, see GKC §158a.
The defective form of the hifil, ‫יָ ִבא‬, also occurs in Ecc 12:14, Song 8:11, and Dan 11:8.
78
Hacham (1981:50) argues that the two words share the same root, and that the verb ‫ זרו‬derives from ‫זרא‬. The
Septuagint reads στερεω, “to deprive something from somebody”, as God holding back honor in Num 24:11.
Page <53>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
constitutes a deliberate reminder of the quail incident as reported in Num 11:20, “ ‫ַע֣ד׀ ֣חֹ ֶדשׁ‬
...‫”יָ ִ֗מים ַ ֤עד ֲא ֶשׁר־יֵ ֵצ ֙א ֵ ֽמ ַא ְפּ ֶ֔כם וְ ָהיָ ֥ה ָל ֶכ֖ם ְלזָ ָ ֑רא‬. This association provides some insight into the
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
them on the way and distrusting his ability to save. Unlike the previous verse in which ‫תאוה‬
could have been construed positively, here it is decidedly negative. The roots ‫ אכל‬and ‫תאוה‬
create a chiastic arrangement between vv.29 and 30 (‫ אכלם‬: ‫ מתאותם‬:: ‫ תאותם‬: ‫)ויאכלו‬. This
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.
The second colon alludes to Num 11:33, “...‫יהם ֶ ֖ט ֶרם יִ ָכּ ֵ ֑רת‬
ֶ֔ ‫עוֹד ֙נּוּ ֵ ֣בּין ִשׁ ֵנּ‬
֙ ֶ ‫הבּ ָ֗שׂר‬
ָ ”,79 and
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
to hear the utterances of his mouth, “‫י־פי׃‬
ֽ ִ ‫ ַה ֥טּוּ ָ֜אזְ נְ ֶ֗כם ְל ִא ְמ ֵר‬...”, similarly in v.2 he speaks of the
parable of his mouth, “...‫” ֶא ְפ ְתּ ָ ֣חה ְב ָמ ָ ֣שׁל ִ ֑פּי‬. With respect to the forefathers in v.30, however,
the context is negative; rather than providing a source of wisdom, the mouth constitutes a
wellspring of sin.
‫חוּרי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֣אל ִה ְכ ִ ֽר ַיע׃‬
֖ ֵ ‫וּב‬
ַ ‫יהם‬
֑ ֶ ‫ֹלהים׀ ֨ ָע ָל֤ה ָב ֶ֗הם ַ ֭ויַּ ֲהר ֹג ְבּ ִמ ְשׁ ַמ ֵנּ‬
ִ֙ ‫ וְ ַ ֤אף ֱא‬31
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
equivalent of ‫( מנע‬cf. the Septuagint’s rendering in Gen 30:2, Ps 21:3 [20:3]). Though this type of marker,
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.
79
In line with Numbers, Briggs (1969:194) suggests amending the text to “‫”לזרה תאותם‬, “their lust became
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
Israelites. After hearing their wicked thoughts, God’s anger is raised in v.21, “ ‫ם־אף ָע ָ ֥לה‬
ַ֗ ַ‫וְ ג‬...
‫”ביִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֽאל׃‬.
ְ Here, it is again raised, “‫ֹלהים׀ ֨ ָע ָל֤ה ָב ֶ֗הם‬
ִ֙ ‫”וְ ַ ֤אף ֱא‬, after he provides their needs.80 These
two instances of God’s anger create a frame for the account of his generous provision to them.
The people’s sin arousing God’s fury is also reflected in Numbers’ rendition of events, “ ‫הבּ ָ֗שׂר‬
ָ
...‫”עוֹד ֙נּוּ ֵ ֣בּין ִשׁנֵּ ֶ֔יהם ֶ ֖ט ֶרם יִ ָכּ ֵ ֑רת וְ ַ ֤אף יְ הוָ ֙ה ָח ָ ֣רה ָב ֔ ָעם‬
ֶ֙
(11:33). Unlike the Numbers account, however,
the psalm’s continued enumeration of the punishment differs considerably.
As a result of God’s anger being raised, he kills the mighty ones of Israel, ‫משמניהם‬.81
Supporting this understanding is the corresponding phrase “‫”בחורי ישראל‬, which implies
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
mighty”, “‫”לחם אבירים‬. Alternatively, ‫ משמן‬can bear the nuance of “fat”82 or “healthy ones”,
as witnessed by Is 17:4, “‫וּמ ְשׁ ַ ֥מן ְבּ ָשׂ ֖רוֹ יֵ ָר ֶזֽה׃‬
ִ ‫”וְ ָהיָ ֙ה ַבּיּ֣ וֹם ַה ֔הוּא יִ ַ ֖דּל ְכּ ֣בוֹד יַ ֲע ֑קֹב‬, where it contrasts
with ‫דלל‬, “thin”. In this light, YHWH vents his wrath against the greediest among the
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
context of war, the verb ‫הכריע‬, “subdue”, describes the fate of the survivors of an enemy’s
onslaught: they are subsequently humbled and subjected to a foreign authority (s. 2Sam
22:40). Because of Israel’s disobedience to God, some of them83 are killed, as in battle, and he
subdues the remainder.
80
The repetition of ‫ ישראל‬later in this verse creates a further association with v.21.
81
The Tgs. support this understanding by translating ‫גיבריהון‬, from ‫גיבר‬/‫גיברא‬, “strong man”; s. Jastrow
(1984:234).
82
The Septuagint lends to this idea in its rendering of πιων, “fat” or “plump”.
83
For the use of ‫ ב‬with the meaning of “some of” or “among”, see BDB 246.
Page <55>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
‫אוֹתיו׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫א־ה ֱא ִ֗מינוּ ְבּנִ ְפ ְל‬
ֶ֜ ֹ ‫אוּ־עוֹד וְ ֽל‬
֑ ‫ ְבּ ָכל־ז ֹ֭את ָ ֽח ְט‬32
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’
attitude. The concluding formula, “‫”בכל זאת‬,84 (“in spite of this”) relates to all that has
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
repetition of ‫ עוד‬and ‫ לחטא( חטא‬: ‫ עוד‬:: ‫ עוד‬: ‫)חטאו‬. After YHWH provided his people with
water from the rock, they continued to sin against him, “...‫א־לוֹ‬
֑ ֹ ‫יּוֹסיפוּ ֖עוֹד ַל ֲחט‬
֣ ִ ַ‫( ”ו‬v.17). Here,
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
in v.8 as the principal indictment against the rebellious generation, “‫”לא נאמנה את אל רוחו‬,
and is further mentioned in v.22, “...‫אֹלהים‬
֑ ִ ‫”כּי ֣ל ֹא ֶ֭ה ֱא ִמינוּ ֵבּ‬. Just as the forefathers had
forgotten God’s magnificent deeds, ‫נפלאות‬, in v.11, “‫שׁר ֶה ְר ָ ֽאם׃‬
֣ ֶ ‫אוֹתיו ֲא‬
ָ֗ ‫ילוֹתיו ְ ֜ונִ ְפ ְל‬
֑ ָ ‫”וַ ִיּ ְשׁ ְכּ ֥חוּ ֲע ִל‬,
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
‫נוֹתם ַבּ ֶבּ ָה ָ ֽלה׃‬
ָ֗ ‫יהם וּ֜ ְשׁ‬
֑ ֶ ‫יְמ‬
ֵ ‫ל־בּ ֶ ֥ה ֶבל‬
ַ ‫ וַ יְ ַכ‬33
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:
he ends their days in vain, where ‫ כלה‬bears the meaning of “to end”, or “to destroy”, as in Ex
33:3, “‫ן־א ֶכ ְלָך֖ ַבּ ָ ֽדּ ֶרְך׃‬
ֲ ‫ה־ע ֶֹר ֙ף ַ֔א ָתּה ֶפּ‬
֙ ‫ם־ק ֵשׁ‬
ְ ‫ ִכּי֩ ֙ל ֹא ֶ ֽא ֱע ֜ ֶלה ְבּ ִק ְר ְבּ ָ֗ך ִ ֤כּי ַע‬...”. The specific mention of days,
84
It has a similar usage in Is 9:11, Jer 3:10, and Job 1:22; s. also Clifford (1981:128).
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 gods and worthless idols, as in Psalm 106, but in their lack of trust in God,
and his ability to save.
85
Page <56>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
‫ימיהם‬, draws our attention to v.9 and Ephraim’s unfaithfulness that is portrayed as retreating
on a battlefield, “‫”הפכו ביום קרב‬. More than just ending the days of the forefathers, the
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
had seen it, and additionally explains the phrase ‫בהבל‬. The forty years of wilderness
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
in ‫בהלה‬, “anguish” or “sudden terror”.87 Usually, when ‫ בהלה‬occurs in the Bible, it is
instigated by God as a punishment, “‫וּב ָה ֽלוֹת׃‬
ֶ ‫אם ִ ֖עיר‬
ֹ ֔ ‫יה ִפּ ְת‬
ָ֙ ‫ ִה ַ ֤פּ ְל ִתּי ָע ֶ ֙ל‬...” (Jer 15:8; s. also Lev
26:16). Thus, it can be assumed that the addition of ‫בהלה‬, though absent from the Torah’s
rendition, forms an interpretive element that further intensifies Israel’s punishment, and
additionally creates a wordplay with ‫ בהבל‬in the first colon.88
‫רוּ־אל׃‬
ֽ ֵ ‫ם־ה ָר ָג֥ם ְוּד ָר ֑שׁוּהוּ ְ֜ו ָ֗שׁבוּ וְ ִ ֽשׁ ֲח‬
ֲ ‫ ִא‬34
When89 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
here in the repetition of ‫הרג‬, as punishment for a lack of trust. Verse 31 reported how YHWH
87
See BDB 246.
For a similar instance of paronomasia involving words at the beginning and end of a line see v.19.
89
Though unusual, biblical literature attests to the use of ‫ אם‬as “when”. Numbers 21:9 prescribes the process for
88
healing when a snake had bitten one of the Israelites, “‫ת־אישׁ וְ ִה ִ ֛בּיט ֶאל־נְ ַ ֥חשׁ ַהנְּ ֖חֹ ֶשׁת וָ ָ ֽחי׃‬
ִ֔ ‫וְ ָה ָ֗יה ִאם־נָ ַ ֤שְׁך ַהנָּ ָח ֙שׁ ֶא‬...” (s.
also Gen 38:9 and Jud 6:3). The Tgs. similarly reflect this meaning by translating ‫בזמן‬.
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
will, and act appropriately to his miraculous acts. Deuteronomy 4:29f., “ ‫הו֥ה‬
ָ ְ‫וּב ַקּ ְשׁ ֶ ֥תּם ִמ ָ ֛שּׁם ֶאת־י‬
ִ
...‫וּב ָכל־נַ ְפ ֶ ֽשָׁך׃‬
ְ ֖‫ל־ל ָב ְבָך‬
ְ ‫את ִ ֣כּי ִת ְד ְר ֶ֔שׁנּוּ ְבּ ָכ‬
ָ ‫וּמ ָ ֑צ‬
ָ ‫ֹלהיָך‬
֖ ֶ ‫” ֱא‬, records the same attitude of repentance after
a hypothetical situation occurs and Israel is exiled by God. The fact that the psalm mentions
three words here (‫דרש‬, ‫שוב‬, and ‫ )שחר‬that reflect an attitude of repentance suggests, at least
for a short period, the Israelites were sincere in their turning to God. The last of these words,
‫שחר‬, “to seek diligently”, is certainly the most forceful, implying a search of desperation in
which life and death are at stake, as the context of Ps 63:2 suggests, “ ָ‫אֹלהים׀ ֵא ִ ֥לי ַא ָ֗תּה ֲא ַשׁ ֲ֫ח ֶ ֥רךּ‬
ִ֤
‫י־מיִ ם׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ץ־ציָּ ֖ה וְ ָעיֵ ֣ ף ְבּ ִל‬
ִ ‫”צ ְמ ָ֬אה ְל ָ֙ך׀ נַ ְפ ִ֗שׁי ָכּ ַ ֣מהּ ְלָך֣ ְב ָשׂ ִ ֑רי ְבּ ֶ ֽא ֶר‬.
ָ It was with this desperation that those
who survived YHWH’s judgment would apparently seek him.
‫צוּרם וְ ֵ ֥אל ֜ ֶעלְ יוֹן גּ ֲֹא ָ ֽלם׃‬
֑ ָ ‫ֹלהים‬
֣ ִ ‫י־א‬
ֱ ‫ ַ ֭ויִּ זְ ְכּרוּ ִ ֽכּ‬35
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
is their rock. Similar to the phrase “‫ ”לא ישכחו‬in v.7, ‫ויזכרו‬, “they would remember”,
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
example of this appears in Hannah’s Song, 1Sam 2:2, “ ‫יהו֖ה ִ ֣כּי ֵ ֣אין ִבּ ְל ֶ ֑תָּך וְ ֵ ֥אין ֖צוּר‬
ָ ‫אין־ק ֥דוֹשׁ ַכּ‬
ָ
‫אֹלהינוּ׃‬
ֽ ֵ ‫”כּ‬,
ֵ which celebrates YHWH’s ability to save and refers to him as a rock.90
90
See also Ps 18:3 where it appears in the context of other words with a similar meaning, ‫מצודה‬, ‫מפלט‬, and “‫קרן‬
‫”ישע‬.
Page <58>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
As a parallel expansion to the term ‫אלהים‬, the second colon employs the name “ ‫אל‬
‫”עליון‬, which, outside of the present context, only occurs in Genesis.91 Its appearance here
reminds the reader of the rebellion against him recorded in v.17, “ ‫א־לוֹ ַ ֽל ְמ ֥רוֹת‬
֑ ֹ ‫יּוֹסיפוּ ֖עוֹד ַל ֲחט‬
֣ ִ ַ‫ו‬
‫”ע ְלי֗ וֹן ַבּ ִצּיָּ ֽה׃‬.
ֶ ֜ The image of a rock as a symbol of deliverance is further strengthened by its
parallel, ‫גאל‬, a pair also attested in Ps 19:15, “‫יהוה צורי וגאלי‬...”. In addition to other contexts
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
from the hand of the Egyptians, “ ‫וּב ְשׁ ָפ ִ ֖טים‬
ִ ‫טוּיה‬
ָ֔ ְ‫וְ ִה ַצּ ְל ִ ֥תּי ֶא ְת ֶכ֖ם ֵמ ֲעב ָֹד ָ ֑תם וְ גָ ַא ְל ִ ֤תּי ֶא ְת ֶכ ֙ם ִבּזְ ֣ר ַוֹע נ‬...
‫”גּד ִ ֹֽלים׃‬.
ְ Moreover, the psalmist in Ps 77:16 recognizes God’s work as redeemer for the same
act of deliverance, “‫יוֹסף ֶ ֽס ָלה׃‬
֣ ֵ ְ‫”גָּ ַ ֣א ְל ָתּ ִבּזְ ֣ר ַוֹע ַע ֶ ֑מָּך ְבּ ֵני־יַ ֲע ֖קֹב ו‬.
‫בוּ־לוֹ׃‬
ֽ
ְ‫שׁוֹנם יְ ַכזּ‬
ָ֗ ‫יהם וּ֜ ִב ְל‬
֑ ֶ ‫ וַ יְ ַפ ֥תּוּהוּ ְבּ ִפ‬36
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
deceiving him, “ ‫וֹב ֶ֔אָך[ וְ ָל ַ ֕ד ַעת‬
ָ ‫בוֹאָך( ] ֣מ‬
ֶ ‫ת־מוֹצ ֲא ָ֙ך וְ ֶאת־) ְמ‬
ָֽ
‫ן־נר ִ ֥כּי ְל ַפתּ ְֹתָך֖ ָ ֑בּא וְ ָל ַ ֜ד ַעת ֶא‬
ֵ֔ ‫ת־א ְב ֵנ֣ר ֶבּ‬
ַ ‫יָ ַ ֙ד ְע ָ֙תּ ֶא‬
‫ל־א ֶ ֥שׁר ַא ָ ֖תּה ע ֶ ֹֽשׂה׃‬
ֲ ‫”את ָכּ‬
֛ ֵ (2Sam 3:25). Recalling v.30, where the Israelites again sinned with
their mouths, is the phrase ‫פיהם‬. In v.30, they sin through their eating, and here they sin via
their words. Parallel to ‫ פה‬in the second colon is ‫לשון‬, an organ from which a great deal of evil
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.
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.
92
Page <59>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
Exodus tradition.94 The semantic chiasmus in this verse (‫ יכזבו‬: ‫ ובלשונם‬:: ‫ בפיהם‬: ‫)ויפתוהו‬
reflects the Israelites’ reversal in attitude, from repentance to lying.
‫יתוֹ׃‬
ֽ ‫ ְו ִ֭ל ָבּם לֹא־נָ ֣כוֹן ִע ֑מּוֹ וְ ֥ל ֹא ֶ֜נ ֶא ְמנ֗ וּ ִבּ ְב ִר‬37
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
generation (later identified as Ephraim in v.9) first mentioned in v.8, “ ‫מ ֶ ֥רה דּ֭ וֹר‬
ֹ ֫ ‫סוֹרר וּ‬
֪ ֵ ‫דּוֹר‬
֘ ...
‫רוּחוֹ׃‬
ֽ ‫ת־אל‬
֣ ֵ ‫א־ה ִ ֣כין ִל ֑בּוֹ וְ לֹא־נֶ ֶא ְמ ָנ֖ה ֶא‬
ֵ ֹ ‫”ל‬. The general attitude of unfaithfulness mentioned here
recalls a practical example mentioned earlier. Previously the psalm recounted Israel’s
unfaithfulness to God, “...‫( ”כי לא האמינו באלהים‬v.22; s. also v.8 above), and his mighty
works of deliverance, “‫( ”ולא האמינו בנפלאותיו‬v.32). Understanding the term ‫ ברית‬in light of
v.10, “‫תוֹר ֗תוֹ ֵמ ֲאנ֥ וּ ָל ֶ ֽל ֶכת׃‬
ָ ‫ֹלהים וּ֜ ְב‬
֑ ִ ‫” ֣ל ֹא ָ ֭שׁ ְמרוּ ְבּ ִ ֣רית ֱא‬, further relates the Israelites’ continual
unfaithfulness to the laws given at Sinai.
‫ל־ח ָמ ֽתוֹ׃‬
ֲ ‫א־י ִעיר ָכּ‬
ָ֜ ֹ ‫א־י ְשׁ ִ ֥חית ְו ִ֭ה ְר ָבּה ְל ָה ִ ֣שׁיב ַא ֑פּוֹ וְ ֽל‬
ַ֫ ֹ ‫ וְ ֤הוּא ַר ֙חוּם׀ יְ ַכ ֵ ֥פּר ָעוֹן֘ ְ ֽול‬38
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
psalmist’s portrayal of YHWH as “compassionate” or “merciful”, ‫רחום‬, recalls Ex 34:6,
“‫ב־ח ֶסד וֶ ֱא ֶ ֽמת׃‬
֥ ֶ ‫הוה ֵ ֥אל ַר ֖חוּם וְ ַחנּ֑ וּן ֶ ֥א ֶרְך ַא ַ ֖פּיִ ם וְ ַר‬
֔ ָ ְ‫הו֣ה׀ י‬
ָ ְ‫א י‬
֒ ‫וַ יִּ ְק ָר‬...”, when he reveals himself to Moses.
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
with being merciful, Psalm 78:38 depicts God as one who removes iniquity. Though ‫ עון‬often
appears as a parallel pair with ‫חטא‬, “‫חוֹל ְ֑ל ִתּי וּ֜ ְב ֵ֗ח ְטא ֶי ֱֽח ַ ֥מ ְתנִ י ִא ִ ֽמּי׃‬
ָ ‫ן־בּ ָעו֥ וֹן‬
ְ ‫”ה‬
ֵ (Ps 51:7; s. also Deut
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
expression of his mercy, v.38 recalls how he repeatedly returned his anger, “ ‫והרבה להשיב‬...
...‫”אפו‬,95 a statement that partially conflicts with vv.21 and 31, which previously recall two
occasions in which he punished them for their sin. In v.21 he sends fire against Israel, “ ‫ָל ֵכ֤ן׀‬
...‫הוה ַוֽ יִּ ְת ַע ָ ֥בּר ְו ֵ֭אשׁ ִנ ְשּׂ ָ ֣ קה ְביַ ֲע ֑קֹב‬
֗ ָ ְ‫” ָשׁ ַ ֥מע י‬, and in v.31 he kills a number of their choice ones “ ‫וְ ַ ֤אף‬
...‫יהם‬
֑ ֶ ֵ‫ֹלהים׀ ֨ ָע ָל֤ה ָב ֶ֗הם וַ ֽ֭ יַּ ֲהר ֹג ְבּ ִמ ְשׁ ַמנּ‬
ִ֙ ‫” ֱא‬. The continuation of v.38, “‫”ולא יעיר כל חמתו‬, however,
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
‫וֹלְך וְ ֣ל ֹא יָ ֽשׁוּב׃‬
ֵ ֗ ‫י־ב ָ ֣שׂר ֵ ֑ה ָמּה ֥ר ַוּח ֜ה‬
ָ ‫ ַ ֭ויִּ זְ כֹּר ִכּ‬39
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
practical demonstration of his previously mentioned mercy. The verb ‫ זכר‬further encourages a
comparison between God and his people. When they remembered that he was their rock,
“...‫( ”ויזכרו כי אלהים צורם‬v.35), it was only for a brief moment, and constituted part of a
deceptive act. God, on the other hand, remembers their weakness and spares them as a result.
Flesh, ‫בשר‬, in this verse represents a sign of limited capability and weakness. Genesis 6:3
95
The adverbial use of ‫ להרבות‬to indicate continuity is reflected by Hannah’s repetitive prayers in 1Sam 1:12,
“‫יה׃‬
ָ ‫ת־פּ‬
ֽ ִ ‫הוה וְ ֵע ִ ֖לי שׁ ֵ ֹ֥מר ֶא‬
֑ ָ ְ‫”וְ ָהיָ ֙ה ִ ֣כּי ִה ְר ְבּ ָ֔תה ְל ִה ְת ַפּ ֵ ֖לּל ִל ְפ ֵ ֣ני י‬.
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).
96
Page <61>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
uses ‫ בשר‬as an expression of man’s mortality, “‫”… ֣הוּא ָב ָ ֑שׂר וְ ָהי֣ וּ יָ ָ֔מיו ֵמ ָ ֥אה וְ ֶע ְשׂ ִ ֖רים ָשׁ ָנֽה׃‬, which
God limits to one hundred and twenty years (as an image of weakness, see also Is 31:3).
Semantically, ‫ בשר‬additionally recalls the request and provision of meat, ‫שאר‬, in vv.20, 27,
an expression of his mercy and compassion. The imagery of a “spirit that goes and does not
return”, like that of ‫בשר‬, signifies mortality: when he dies, a man’s spirit leaves him and goes
to the underworld never to return again. A similar phrase appears in Job 7:7, “ ‫י־ר ַוּח ַח ָיּ֑י‬
֣ ‫ְ ֭זכֹר ִכּ‬
‫א־ת ֥שׁוּב ֜ ֵע ִ֗יני ִל ְר ֥אוֹת ֽטוֹב׃‬
ָ ֹ ‫”ל‬, here, Job pleads with God to remember his mortality. The second
colon exhibits various lexical reminders of Israel’s unfaithfulness: their unfaithful spirit,
“‫ולא נאמנה את אל רוחו‬...” (v.8), refusal to walk according to his laws, “‫”ובתורתו מאנו ללכת‬
(v.10); and their feigned repentance, “‫ושבו ושחרו אל‬...” (v.34).
‫ימוֹן׃‬
ֽ ‫ישׁ‬
ִ ‫יבוּהוּ ִ ֽבּ‬
֗ ‫ ַ ֭כּ ָמּה יַ ְמ ֣רוּהוּ ַב ִמּ ְד ָ ֑בּר ַ֜י ֲע ִצ‬40
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
emphatic ‫ כמה‬accentuates97 the repetition of Israel’s defiant behavior during the desert period,
a theme recalled in v.17, “‫א־לוֹ ַ ֽל ְמ ֥רוֹת ֜ ֶע ְלי֗ וֹן ַבּ ִצּ ָיּֽה׃‬
֑ ֹ ‫יּוֹסיפוּ ֖עוֹד ַל ֲחט‬
֣ ִ ַ‫”ו‬. The result of their perpetual
disobedience is that YHWH both is saddened and disappointed, ‫יעציבוהו‬. Though the root ‫עצב‬
in hifil is rare98 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,
‫ישימון‬, which corresponds with ‫ מדבר‬in other Exodus contexts. Deut 32:10, “… ‫הוּ ְבּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ‬
֙ ‫יִ ְמ ָצ ֵ֙א‬
‫הוּ יְ ֣בוֹנְ ֵ֔נהוּ‬
֙ ְ‫ס ְב ֙ ֶבנ‬
ֹ ֽ ְ‫מן י‬
ֹ ֑ ‫תהוּ יְ ֵל֣ל יְ ִשׁ‬
ֹ ֖ ‫וּב‬
ְ ‫”…מ ְד ָ֔בּר‬,
ִ
employs it in a context of benevolence, alluding to the
97
The emphasis stems from the use of ‫ כמה‬as a rhetorical question, “how many times…”, to which the implicit
answer is “innumerable times”. A similar usage appears in Job 21:17, “...‫ידם‬
֑ ָ ‫ר־ר ָ֨שׁ ִ ֤עים יִ ְד ֗ ָעְך וְ יָ ֣ב ֹא ָע ֵ ֣לימוֹ ֵא‬
ְ ֵ‫” ַכּ ָ ֤מּה׀ נ‬.
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
to this psalm, Psalm 106:14, “‫ימוֹן׃‬
ֽ ‫ישׁ‬
ִ ‫סּוּ־אל ִ ֽבּ‬
֜ ֵ֗
ַ‫”וַ יִּ ְת ַאוּ֣ וּ ַ ֭ת ֲאוָ ה ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֑בּר וַ יְ נ‬, utilizes it to depict the
location in which the Israelites sinned against God.
‫וּק ֖דוֹשׁ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֣אל ִה ְתווּ׃‬
ְ ‫ וַ יָּ ֣שׁוּבוּ וַ יְ נַ ֣סּוּ ֵ ֑אל‬41
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.
Verse 17 recalls how they continued to sin, “...‫ ;”ויוסיפו עוד לחטא לו‬v.32 recounts how they
sinned again, “...‫ ;”בכל זאת חטאו עוד‬and v.40 enumerates how many times they defied him in
the desert, “...‫ ;”כמה ימרוהו במדבר‬here they repeatedly test99 El. Verse 18 recounts one
instance of testing El, “‫”וינסו אל בלבבם‬, but v.41 implies that such behavior was repetitive and
commonplace. The phrase “‫”קדוש ישראל‬, corresponding to ‫ אל‬in the first colon, specifically
relates YHWH to his people, Israel. In spite of this close relationship, however, they provoke
him. The root ‫תוה‬,100 here in hifil, usually means “to mark”. Ezekiel is instructed to mark the
foreheads of those who hate the abominations performed in the city, “ ‫ל־מ ְצ ֣חוֹת‬
ִ ‫ית ָ֜תּו ַע‬
ָ ‫וְ ִה ְת֙ ִו‬...
‫תוֹכהּ׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫וֹע ֔בוֹת ַ ֽהנַּ ֲע ֖שׂוֹת ְבּ‬
ֵ ‫ל־ה ֣תּ‬
ַ ‫( ” ָה ֲא ָנ ִ֗שׁים ַה ֶנּ ֱֽאנָ ִח ֙ים וְ ַה ֶנּ ֱ֣א ָנ ִ֔קים ַ ֚על ָכּ‬9:4; s. also 1Sam 21:14101).
Contextually, however, it is better to interpret it as meaning “to set a bound/boundary”.102
With this meaning, it is therefore possible to understand ‫ התוו‬as a phrase depicting how the
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 §177b). The root
‫ שוב‬only occurs four times in the psalm, and each occurrence appears in a centralized location, between vv.34
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
the words ‫ שוב‬and ‫ אל‬create a frame.
100
Here, the Septuagint reads παροξυνω (=to provoke, irritate), an equivalent that is neither reflected in 1Sam
21:14 nor Ezek 9:4. The lexical equivalent of παροξυνω would either be ‫( נאץ‬as attested by Num 16:30, Deut
31:20, and 2Sam 12:14), or ‫( קצף‬s. Deut 1:34, 9:7f., and 19). Both of these alternatives correspond well with the
root ‫ נסה‬in the first colon, and may have constituted the original wording. As mentioned above, the likelihood is
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
selection of this rare word recalls both vv.29 (‫ )תאותם‬and v.30 (‫)מתאותם‬, which recount
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.
‫י־צר׃‬
ֽ ָ ִ‫ר־פּ ָ ֥דם ִמנּ‬
ָ ‫ לֹא־זָ ְכ ֥רוּ ֶאת־יָ ֑דוֹ י֜ וֹם ֲא ֶשׁ‬42
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
is more prominent. The present verse reminds the reader of v.11, “ ‫אוֹתיו‬
ָ֗ ‫ילוֹתיו ְ ֜ונִ ְפ ְל‬
֑ ָ ‫וַ ִיּ ְשׁ ְכּ ֥חוּ ֲע ִל‬
‫שׁר ֶה ְר ָ ֽאם׃‬
֣ ֶ ‫”א‬,
ֲ where forgetting his mighty acts, v.11, equates to not remembering his hand of
deliverance in v.42. The link between these verses further indicts Ephraim for failing to
remember YHWH’s works since v.11 refers to them. God’s hand, ‫ידו‬, here symbolizes his
strength (to deliver). In a context similar to ours, Ex 14:31 records how Israel had seen the
great works of God after he delivered them from the Egyptians at the Reed Sea, “ ‫וַ יַּ֙ ְרא יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֜אל‬
...‫ת־ה ָיּ֣ד ַה ְגּד ֗ ָֹלה ֲא ֶ֙שׁר ָע ָ ֤שׂה יְ הוָ ֙ה ְבּ ִמ ְצ ַ ֔ר יִ ם‬
ַ ‫;”א‬
ֶ likewise, the men of Ai had no power to flee from the
Israelites in Jos 8:20, “...‫א־ה ה ָב ֶ ֥הם יָ ַ ֛דיִ ם ָלנ֖ וּס ֵ ֣הנָּ ה‬
ָ֙‫וְ ל ֹ ָ י‬...”. The forgetfulness in this verse
specifically points forward in the psalm, relating to the forthcoming acts of might.104 God’s
deliverance of Israel from Egypt, characterized by the term ‫פדה‬, has numerous attestations in
biblical literature, such as Deut 7:8 “ ‫הו֛ה ֶא ְת ֶכ֖ם ְבּיָ ֣ד ֲחזָ ָ ֑ קה ַ ֽו יִּ ְפ ְדּ ָ֙ך ִמ ֵבּ֣ית ֲע ָב ִ ֔דים ִמ ַיּ֖ד ַפּ ְר ֥עֹה‬
ָ ְ‫הוֹציא י‬
ִ֧
‫ְך־מ ְצ ָ ֽריִ ם׃‬
ִ ‫”…מ ֶל‬
ֶֽ
(s. also 9:26, 15:15, and Mic 6:4). Even though the psalmist fails to mention a
specific enemy here, one can assume that the context in question concerns the deliverance
from Egypt. One indication of this stems from the wordplay between ‫ מצרים‬and “‫”מני צר‬.
103
KB (vol. 4, 1696) claims it is a demonstrative from ‫ תו‬with an uncertain etymology. Since the hifil only
appears here, they derive the meaning from the Septuagint and Vulgate, 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
‫מוֹפ ָ֗תיו ִבּ ְשׂ ֵדה־ ֽצֹ ַען׃‬
ְ ֜‫תוֹתיו וּ‬
ָ֑ ‫א‬
ֹ ֽ ‫ר־שׂם ְ ֭בּ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬
֣ ָ ‫ ֲא ֶשׁ‬43
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
Torah105 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
The relative pronoun ‫ אשר‬provides continuity from v.42 and relates to the time when
YHWH redeemed Israel from the enemy. Much of v.43’s wording echoes throughout the
Bible in reference to the plagues God sent107 against the Egyptians to redeem Israel. Exodus
10:2 states, “...‫ר־שׂ ְמ ִתּי ָ ֑בם‬
֣ ַ ‫את ַ ֹ֖תי ֲא ֶשׁ‬
ֹ ‫תּי ְבּ ִמ ְצ ַ ֔ריִ ם וְ ֶאת־‬
֙ ִ ‫ן־בּנְ ָ֗ך ֵ ֣את ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר ִה ְת ַע ַ ֙לּ ְל‬
ִ ‫וּב‬
ֶ ‫”וּל ַ֡מ ַען ְתּ ַס ֵפּר֩ ְבּ ָאזְ ֵ֙ני ִבנְ ָ֜ך‬,
ְ
and the psalms recall, “‫ֹתוֹתיו וּ֜ מ ְֹפ ִ֗תים ְבּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ָ ֽחם׃‬
֑ ָ ‫מוּ־בם ִדּ ְב ֵ ֣רי א‬
ָ֭ ‫”שׂ‬
ֽ ָ (105:27).108 Chronologically,
the psalm now moves backwards at this point, and details events preceding those first
mentioned in v.13, the splitting of the sea. Repetition of ‫ מצרים‬and “‫ ”שדה צען‬recalls v.12, “ ‫ֶנגד‬
‫בוֹתם ָ ֣ע ָשׂה ֶ ֑פ ֶלא ְבּ ֶ ֖א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַ ֣ריִ ם ְשׂ ֵדה־ ֽצֹ ַען׃‬
ָ ‫”א‬.
ֲ֭ Through this association, v.43 develops and details
the nature of the aforementioned wonders. Usually ‫ אות‬denotes a visible sign of an unseen
phenomenon (s. Gen 4:15, for example, where Cain’s sign constitutes a visible representation
of God’s promise to protect him). Together with ‫מופת‬, however, in the Exodus context, it
often specifically refers to the plagues YHWH employed to deliver Israel. Exodus 7:3, “ ‫וַ ֲא ִ ֥ני‬
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).
107
This is the third time ‫ שים‬appears in the psalm, and on each occasion, its meaning differs. Verse 5 refers to the
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
‫ת־מוֹפ ַ ֖תי ְבּ ֶ ֥א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָ ֽריִ ם׃‬
ְ
‫את ַ ֹ֛תי וְ ֶא‬
ֹ ‫יתי ֶאת־‬
֧ ִ ‫ת־ל֣ב ַפּ ְר ֑עֹה וְ ִה ְר ֵבּ‬
ֵ ‫”א ְק ֶ ֖שׁה ֶא‬,
ַ exemplifies such a usage (s. also
Deut 29:2, 34:11, and of the Exodus psalms, Ps 105:27 and 135:9).109
‫יהם ַבּל־יִ ְשׁ ָתּיֽ וּן׃‬
ֶ֗ ‫יהם ְ֜ונֹזְ ֵל‬
֑ ֶ ‫ וַ יַּ ֲה ֣ ֹפְך ְ ֭ל ָדם יְ א ֵֹר‬44
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
primarily alludes to Moses striking the River Nile in Ex 7:17 and turning it into blood, “ ‫ ִהנֵּ֙ ה‬...
‫אר וְ נֶ ֶה ְפ ֥כוּ ְל ָ ֽדם׃‬
ֹ ֖ ְ‫ל־ה ַ ֛מּיִ ם ֲא ֶ ֥שׁר ַבּי‬
ַ ‫ר־בּיָ ִ ֗די ַע‬
ְ ‫”אנ ִֹ֜כי ַמ ֶכּ֣ה׀ ַבּ ַמּ ֶ ֣טּה ֲא ֶשׁ‬
ָ (this event is similarly echoed in Ps
105:29). Though ‫ יאריהם‬most likely refers to the Nile here (s. Gen 41:1-3 for a similar
reference), it also carries the nuance of “rivers” in a more general sense (s. Dan 12:5-7).
Another word depicting water, ‫נזל‬, in this verse reminds the reader of a former instance of
deliverance YHWH wrought through this medium, the river that flowed from the rock in v.16,
“‫יּוֹצא נוֹזְ ִ ֣לים ִמ ָ ֑סּ ַלע וַ יּ֖ ֶוֹרד ַכּנְּ ָה ֣רוֹת ָ ֽמיִ ם׃‬
֣ ִ ַ‫”ו‬. The outcome in v.44, however, even though it aids in the
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.
‫יתם׃‬
ֽ ֵ ‫אכ ֵל֑ם וּ֜ ְצ ַפ ְר ֵ ֗דּ ַע וַ ַתּ ְשׁ ִח‬
ְ ֹ ‫ יְ ַשׁ ֬ ַלּח ָבּ ֶ ֣הם ָ ֭ערֹב וַ יּ‬45
He sent against them swarms that110 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 §155n.
Page <66>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
As a continuation of the plagues’ account, v.45 ostensibly combines two plagues into a single
verse: “swarms”, ‫ערב‬, and “frogs”, ‫צפרדע‬. The first colon refers to events recorded in Ex
8:17, “...‫ת־ה ָע ֔רֹב‬
֣ ֶ ‫וּמ ְל ֜אוּ ָבּ ֵ ֤תּי ִמ ְצ ַ ֙ריִ ֙ם ֶא‬
ָ ֙ ‫ת־ה ָע ֑רֹב‬
ֶ ‫וּב ָב ֶ ֖תּיָך ֶא‬
ְ ֛‫וּב ֲע ָב ֶ ֧דיָך ֽוּ ְב ַע ְמָּך‬
ַ ‫ ִהנְ ִני֩ ַמ ְשׁ ִ ֙ל ַיח ְבּ ָ֜ך‬...”. In spite of
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
an earlier account of Israel’s rescue that is recorded in the psalm. The two roots ‫ אכל‬and ‫שלח‬
recall events in v.25 via distant chiasmus (‫ ויאכלם‬: ‫ ישלח‬:: ‫ שלח‬: ‫)אכל‬. YHWH provided the
Israelites with food in the wilderness to save them from death; the Egyptians become food for
the ‫ערב‬, “swarms”, sent by him.111 Though the exact nature of the swarms, ‫ערב‬, is a somewhat
disputed issue,112 unlike the account in Exodus, here the individual elements of the swarm are
aggressive and posses the ability to consume (‫ )אכל‬people. Exodus presents the swarms more
as a nuisance to the Egyptians rather than an entity causing physical damage. With respect to
the order of the plagues, Psalm 78:45 has apparently moved the fourth plague, ‫ערב‬, into the
second position.113
The plague of frogs,114 ‫צפרדע‬, appears as a single plague in Ex 7:27, “ ‫הנּ֣ה ָאנ ִֹ֗כי נ ֵֹג֛ ף‬
ֵ ...
‫בוּלָך֖ ַ ֽבּ ְצ ַפ ְר ְדּ ִ ֽעים׃‬
ְ ְ‫ת־כּל־גּ‬
ָ ‫”א‬,
ֶ but is here joined with swarms, ‫ערב‬. Similar to the swarms, the frogs
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
inconvenience. The psalm, on the other hand, casts them as “spoiling” or “ruining” (‫)השחית‬
111
Notably, the notion of “food” and “eating” (‫ )אכל‬repeat throughout this psalm. In v.18 Israel tests God in their
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.
112
The word ‫ ערב‬simply means “swarms”, BDB 786, referring to an admixture of some description involving
incessant involved movement, without any specific notion of the content therein. The Septuagint interprets ‫ערב‬
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
the ability to consume. The Tgs. translate “‫”עירבובי חיות‬, a mixed group of wild animals (this is derived from
identical usage of ‫ ערובא‬in Exodus 8:18, s. Sperber [1959:101]; for the interpretation of ‫ערובא‬, s. Jastrow
[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 §135c).
Page <67>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
property, presumably that belonging to Egypt. The word ‫משחית‬, which does not appear in
Exodus with respect to frogs, can simply mean “to spoil”, as in Ruth 4:6, “ ‫אוּכל‬
ַ ‫אמר ַהגּ ֵֹ֗אל ֤ל ֹא‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֣יּ‬
‫ן־א ְשׁ ִ ֖חית ֶאת־נַ ֲח ָל ִ ֑תי‬
ַ ‫”) ִלגְ אוֹל־( ] ִלגְ ָאל־[ ֔ ִלי ֶפּ‬. Alternatively, however, it may additionally imply the
destruction of human life; it appears in the Exodus narrative depicting the angel of death’s
function, “‫יכם ִלנְ ֹֽגּף׃‬
֖ ֶ ‫ל־בּ ֵתּ‬
ָ ‫תּן ַה ַמּ ְשׁ ִ֔חית ָל ֥ב ֹא ֶא‬
֙ ֵ ִ‫וְ ֤ל ֹא י‬...” (Ex 12:23). Repetition of ‫ השחית‬draws a
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
his anger, “‫ל־ח ָמ ֽתוֹ׃‬
ֲ ‫א־י ִעיר ָכּ‬
ָ֜ ֹ ‫א־י ְשׁ ִ ֥חית ְו ִ֭ה ְר ָבּה ְל ָה ִ ֣שׁיב ַא ֑פּוֹ וְ ֽל‬
ַ֫ ֹ ‫”יכ ֵ ֥פּר ָעוֹן֘ ְ ֽול‬.
ַ
Contrasting this scenario,
no such restraint appears here.
‫יעם ָל ַא ְר ֶ ֽבּה׃‬
ָ ֗ ‫בוּלם ִ ֜ו ִיג‬
֑ ָ ְ‫ וַ יִּ ֵ ֣תּן ֶל ָח ִ ֣סיל י‬46
And he gave to the young locust their produce, the work of their hands to the locust
In another apparent sequential alteration, the psalm promotes locust, ‫ארבה‬, from the eighth
position in Exodus to the third position in the psalm; the presumed reference in Exodus being
10:4, “‫ת־ע ִ ֑מּי ִהנְ ִ֙ני ֵמ ִ ֥ביא ָמ ָ ֛חר ַא ְר ֶ ֖בּה ִבּגְ ֻב ֶ ֽלָך׃‬
ַ ‫” ִ ֛כּי ִאם־ ָמ ֵ ֥אן ַא ָ ֖תּה ְל ַשׁ ֵלּ ַ֣ח ֶא‬. Similar to the two
aforementioned plagues, the psalmist again relates the sending of the locust to the provision
of food in the wilderness. The verb ‫ נתן‬appears in Israel’s questioning YHWH’s ability to
provide them with food in the wilderness, “‫וּכל ֵ ֑תּת ִאם־יָ ִ ֖כין ְשׁ ֵ ֣אר ְל ַע ֽמּוֹ׃‬
ַ ֣‫ם־ל ֶחם י‬
ֶ֭ ַ‫הג‬...”
ֲ
(v.20), and
in God’s response to that challenge, “‫( ”דגן שמים נתן למו‬v.24). Here in v.46, instead of giving
the Egyptians food, YHWH gives their food over to the locust: Israel’s blessing becomes
Egypt’s curse. Even though ‫חסיל‬115 is not mentioned in Exodus, it is well attested as a poetic
parallel to ‫ארבה‬, and does not necessarily imply an alternate source (s. Joel 1:4 and 2:25).
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
from the root ‫חסל‬, “to destroy”, and adds emphasis to the destruction they caused; additionally, it creates a
literary link with ‫ השחית‬in the previous verse.
Page <68>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
the land, ‫יבול‬, and the Egyptians’ labor, ‫יגיע‬, over to the locust. Unlike the previous verse, the
psalmist reverts here to using two cola per plague.116
‫מוֹתם ַ ֽבּ ֲחנָ ַ ֽמל׃‬
ָ֗ ‫ יַ ֲה ֣ר ֹג ַבּ ָבּ ָ ֣רד גַּ ְפ ָנ֑ם ְ ֜ו ִשׁ ְק‬47
And he killed with hail their vines, and their sycamore with frost
The verb ‫ הרג‬recalls God’s anger against the Israelites when he punished them in v.31, “ ‫וְ ַ ֤אף‬
...‫יהם‬
֑ ֶ ‫ֹלהים׀ ֨ ָע ָל֤ה ָב ֶ֗הם ַ ֭ויַּ ֲהר ֹג ְבּ ִמ ְשׁ ַמ ֵנּ‬
ִ֙ ‫” ֱא‬. Unlike the Israelites’ punishment, however, at this stage
in the recitation of the plagues, it is not human life being destroyed. This constitutes an
extremely rare instance in which the verb ‫ הרג‬describes the destruction of plant life. It is
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
hail, ‫ברד‬, appears in the Torah’s plague tradition, “...‫ויהי ברד בכל ארץ מצרים‬...” (Ex 9:22), its
specific effect of destroying the vines is only recorded in Ps 105:32f., “ ‫וַ ַיּ֣ ְך‬...‫יהם ָבּ ָ ֑רד‬
֣ ֶ ‫נָ ַ ֣תן ִגּ ְשׁ ֵמ‬
...‫וּת ֵאנָ ָ ֑תם‬
ְ ‫” ַ ֭גּ ְפנָ ם‬. The primary danger of the hail in the Pentateuch’s rendition is posed to men,
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
֥ ֵ ‫ת־כּ‬
ָ ‫ל־ע ֶשׂב ַה ָשּׂ ֶד ֙ה ִה ָכּ֣ה ַה ָבּ ָ ֔רד וְ ֶא‬
֤ ֵ ‫וְ ֵ֙את ָכּ‬...”. The chiastic arrangement of the
9:25, “‫ל־עץ ַה ָשּׂ ֶ ֖דה ִשׁ ֵ ֽבּר׃‬
verse implies ‫ חנמל‬possesses a meaning similar to ‫ברד‬. Thus, it is reasonable to translate this
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.
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])—
alternatively translate ‫כרזובא‬, which describes a type of locust, Jastrow (1984:665), linking this verse with the
previous one. Ibn Ezra, under the influence of Jos 10:11, interprets it as “large stones”, since this same word
parallels ‫ ברד‬in Joshua. Contextually, this proposition presents a viable and acceptable alternative to “frost”.
117
Page <69>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
‫יהם ָל ְר ָשׁ ִ ֽפים׃‬
ֶ֗ ֵ‫ירם וּ֜ ִמ ְקנ‬
֑ ָ ‫ וַ יַּ ְס ֵגּ֣ר ַל ָבּ ָ ֣רד ְבּ ִע‬48
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,
livestock also succumbs to the destructive forces of the hail. The verb ‫ הסגיר‬usually takes
people as its object (s. Deut 23:16 and 1Sam 23:12), but here portrays the fate of beasts,
‫—בעיר‬a word absent from the Exodus tradition, but appearing here as a poetic variation.
Technically, it is possible to understand ‫ ברד‬as hail, continuing from v.47. Interpreting it this
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
recalls fire mingled with the hail, “...‫וּב ָ ֔רד וַ ִ ֥תּ ֲה ַלְך ֵ ֖אשׁ ָ ֑א ְר ָצה‬
ָ ‫ֹֹלת‬
֙ ‫ֽיהוה נָ ַ ֤תן ק‬
֗ ָ ‫ַו‬...” (Ex 9:23); a picture
reflected in the second colon with ‫רשפים‬, “flame” or “fire”.118 Alternatively, ‫ ברד‬could be
rendered here as a corruption of ‫דבר‬, whereby the daleth has been transposed to the final
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
‫ רשף‬and ‫ דבר‬are known to occur in the same contexts. As a picture of God marching forth in
judgment, Hab records, “‫”ל ָפ ָנ֖יו ֵי ֶ֣לְך ָ ֑דּ ֶבר וְ יֵ ֵ ֥צא ֶ ֖ר ֶשׁף ְל ַר ְג ָ ֽליו׃‬,
ְ (3:5), which is similar to the psalm
since here too God judges the Egyptians for oppressing his people. Exodus also recalls the
plague of pestilence (‫ )דבר‬in its rendition of events, “ ‫סּוּסים‬
֤ ִ ‫שׁר ַבּ ָשּׂ ֶ ֔דה ַבּ‬
֣ ֶ ‫הוֹיה ְבּ ִמ ְקנְ ָ֙ך ֲא‬
ָ֗ ‫הוה‬
֜ ָ ְ‫ִהנֵּ֙ ה יַ ד־י‬
‫אד׃‬
ֹ ֽ ‫( ” ַ ֽבּ ֲחמ ִֹר ֙ים ַבּגְּ ַמ ֔ ִלּים ַבּ ָבּ ָ ֖ קר וּ ַב ֑צּ ֹאן ֶ ֖דּ ֶבר ָכּ ֵ ֥בד ְמ‬Ex 9:3). Throughout the plagues’ narrative in this
psalm, a noticeable repetition of the third-person plural suffix is apparent, here manifested in
‫ מקניהם‬and ‫בעירם‬. This emphasis singles out the Egyptians, thus accentuating YHWH’s
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
‫ח־בּם׀ ֲח ֬רוֹן ַא ֗פּוֹ ֶע ְב ָ ֣רה וָ ַז ַ֣עם וְ ָצ ָ ֑רה ִ֜מ ְשׁ ֗ ַל ַחת ַמ ְל ֲא ֵ ֥כי ָר ִ ֽעים׃‬
ָ֙ ‫ יְ ַשׁ ַלּ‬49
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
interpretive insert. The verse opens with a reminder of the swarms and frogs in v.45, “ ‫ישלח‬
...‫ ;”בהם ערב ויאכלם‬in this instance, however, it is not a specific plague being released, but
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
use of ‫( אפו‬also in v.38), ‫עברה‬, and ‫ זעם‬here suggests an absence of any restraint he may have
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
this situation. Together with the expressions denoting fury is the word ‫צרה‬, “distress” (s. Gen
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
rare noun ‫ משלחת‬only occurs in Ecc 8:8, “...‫ואין משלחת במלחמה‬...”, where it refers to a
“band” or “detachment”. The band of evil angels124 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
to strike Assyria; both texts contain the markers ‫שלח‬, ‫אף‬, ‫חרון‬, and ‫ ;עברה‬and they relate to an angel being
commissioned by God to punish.
122
See close reading for v.38.
123
These expressions for anger often appear in close proximity to each other: ‫ חרון אף‬and ‫( עברה‬Is 13:9, Ps
85:4); ‫ זעם‬and ‫( אף‬Is 10:5, 30:27); ‫ זעם‬and ‫( עברה‬Ezek 21:36, 22:31); ‫ זעם‬and ‫( חרון אף‬Ps 69:25).
124
This is a rare instance of a genitive noun in construct with an adjective, it also occurs in 1Ki 6:4, “ ‫לּוֹני‬
֖ ֵ ‫ ַח‬...
...‫( ” ְשׁ ֻק ִ ֥פים‬s. JM §121f.). The word ‫ מלאך‬is itself vaguely reminiscent of v.25, recounting how the Israelites ate
the food of angels, “‫”לחם אבירים‬.
Page <71>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
the hand of an angel, the destroyer, “‫יכם ִלנְ ֹֽגּף׃‬
֖ ֶ ‫ל־בּ ֵתּ‬
ָ ‫תּן ַה ַמּ ְשׁ ִ֔חית ָל ֥ב ֹא ֶא‬
֙ ֵ ִ‫וְ ֤ל ֹא י‬...” (Ex 12:23). This
notion of a destroying angel has apparently been expanded here applying to all of the plagues.
‫א־ח ַ ֣שְׂך ִמ ָ ֣מּוֶ ת נַ ְפ ָ ֑שׁם ְ ֜ו ַחיָּ ָ֗תם ַל ֶ ֥דּ ֶבר ִה ְס ִ ֽגּיר׃‬
ָ ֹ ‫יְפ ֵ ֥לּס נָ ִ֗תיב ְל ַ֫א ֥פּוֹ ל‬
ַ 50
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
obstructions being cleared from a path, “‫”יפלס נתיב‬, so that nothing stands in the way of
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,
Hab 3:5 portrays a similar picture of pestilence and plague going before God, “ ‫לפ ָנ֖יו ֵי ֶ֣לְך ָ ֑דּ ֶבר‬
ָ
‫”וְ יֵ ֵ ֥צא ֶ ֖ר ֶשׁף ְל ַר ְג ָ ֽליו׃‬.125 The result of this unhindered destructive anger is that Egyptian lives are
not spared. Even though the plague of darkness, ‫ח ֶֹשך‬, is absent from Psalm 78, a reminder of
it appears in the expression “‫”לא חשך‬, which contains a degree of graphical similarity. The
word ‫ נפש‬here should be interpreted as “life”, as attested in 1Ki 19:4 with regards to Elijah’s
desire to die, “...‫אמר׀ ַ ֗רב ַע ָ ֤תּה יְ הוָ ֙ה ַ ֣קח נַ ְפ ִ֔שׁי‬
ֶ ֹ ‫שׁוֹ ָל ֔מוּת וַ ֣יּ‬
֙ ‫וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַ ֤אל ֶאת־נַ ְפ‬...”; the meaning is also
ascertained from the poetic correspondence with ‫ חי‬in this verse. Up until this point in the
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
continuing the chain of thought from the last mention of the plagues in v.47, “‫”ויהרג בברד‬.
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
125
Improvement of this imagery is possible by changing ‫ לאפו‬to ‫לפניו‬. An alteration similar to this is possible in
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).
‫י־חם׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫אשׁית ֜א ִ֗וֹנים ְבּ ָא ֳה ֵל‬
֥ ִ ‫ל־בּ ֣כוֹר ְבּ ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם ֵר‬
ְ ‫ וַ יַּ ֣ ְך ָכּ‬51
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
against the Egyptians. Just as the striking of the rock was a means of saving Israel in v.20, “ ‫ֵ ֤הן‬
...֘‫ה־צוּר׀ וַ יָּ ז֣ וּבוּ ַמיִ ם‬
֙ ‫” ִה ָכּ‬, the striking of the Egyptians delivers them. Verse 51 apparently refers
to events in Ex 12:29, “ ‫ם‬
֒ ִ‫כוֹר ְבּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַרי‬
֘ ‫ל־בּ‬
ְ ‫”וַ יְ ִ ֣הי׀ ַבּ ֲח ִ ֣צי ַה ֗ ַלּיְ ָלה ַ ֽויהוָ ֘ה ִה ָכּ֣ה ָכ‬, which records the
same event. With respect to the selection of words, however, Ps 105:36, “ ‫ל־בּ ֣כוֹר ְבּ ַא ְר ָצ֑ם‬
ְ ‫וַ ַיּ֣ ְך ָכּ‬
‫ל־אוֹנֽם׃‬
ָ
‫אשׁית ְל ָכ‬
ִ֗ ‫”ר‬,
֜ ֵ contains more similarities to Psalm 78.127 Repetition of ‫ מצרים‬here recalls
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.
Additionally, ‫ מצרים‬here creates an inclusion with v.43 demarcating the plagues’ account.
Parallel to ‫ בכור‬is the phrase “‫”ראשית אונים‬, which represents a man’s firstborn son as
a symbol of his generative power,128 as seen from Ps 105:36 above (s. also Gen 49:3, Deut
21:17).129 The final designation of Egypt in the verse, “‫”אהלי חם‬, is unique in the Bible. A
similar term, however, appears in Ps 105:23, “‫ץ־חם׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫( ”וַ יָּ ֣ב ֹא יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֣אל ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם ְ ֜ויַ ֲע ֗קֹב ָגּ֣ר ְבּ ֶ ֽא ֶר‬s. also
v.27).130 Of all the terms referring to Egypt in this psalm, this one appears to be the most
derogatory since it recalls the name ‫חם‬, a son of Noah remembered for ignoble deeds (s. Gen
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 §136f).
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
‫ וַ יַּ ַ ֣סּע ַכּ ֣צּ ֹאן ַע ֑מּוֹ ַ ֽו יְ נַ ֲה ֵג֥ם ַ֜כּ ֗ ֵע ֶדר ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֽבּר׃‬52
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
Moses as leader, “...‫ם־סוּף‬
֔ ַ‫ֹשׁה ֶאת־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל֙ ִמיּ‬
֤ ֶ ‫”וַ יַּ ַ֙סּע מ‬, here YHWH alone bears this responsibility.
The fact that YHWH brought his people out, ‫ויסע‬, and led them, ‫וינהגם‬, creates an association
with v.26, “‫ימן׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫”יַ ַ ֣סּע ָ ֭ק ִדים ַבּ ָשּׁ ָ ֑מיִ ם וַ יְ נַ ֵ ֖הג ְבּ ֻעזּ֣ וֹ ֵת‬. In v.26, however, it is not Israel he leads out, but
an east wind that is responsible for bringing meat to his people. The appearance of ‫צאן‬,
“flock”, reinforces the imagery of God as a shepherd to his people, a picture that typically
emphasizes his compassion towards them, “...‫יוֹסף‬
֑ ֵ ‫( ” ֨ר ֹ ֵע֤ה ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵ֙אל׀ ַה ֲא ִ֗זינָ ה נ ֵ ֹ֣הג ַכּ ֣צּ ֹאן‬Ps 80:2). The
parallel phrase “‫ ”וינהגם כעדר‬in the second colon reinforces this imagery. The importance of
establishing the image of YHWH as Israel’s shepherd sheds an interpretive light on the final
verses. By mentioning the desert, ‫מדבר‬, in v.52, the psalm recalls the location in which God
131
The table of nations in Gen 10 details the ancestry from Ham to the Egyptians, “‫וּכ ָ ֽנ ַען׃‬
ְ ‫וּפוּט‬
֥ ‫וּמ ְצ ַ ֖ריִ ם‬
ִ ‫וּב ֵ ֖ני ָ ֑חם ֥כּוּשׁ‬
ְ ”
(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
performed a miracle for Israel when he split a rock to provide them with water, “ ‫יְ ַב ַ ֣קּע ֻ֭צ ִרים‬
‫( ” ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֑בּר ַ ֜ו ַ֗יּ ְשׁ ְק ִכּ ְתה ֹ֥מוֹת ַר ָ ֽבּה׃‬v.15); however, it also recalls the place in which they defied him,
“‫ימוֹן׃‬
ֽ ‫ישׁ‬
ִ ‫”כּ ָמּה יַ ְמ ֣רוּהוּ ַב ִמּ ְד ָ ֑בּר ַ֜י ֲע ִצ ֗יבוּהוּ ִ ֽבּ‬
֭ ַ (v.40).
‫יהם ִכּ ָ ֥סּה ַה ָיּֽם׃‬
ֶ֗ ‫ת־אוֹיְ ֵב‬
֜ ‫ וַ יַּ נְ ֵ ֣חם ָ ֭ל ֶב ַטח וְ ֣ל ֹא ָפ ָ ֑חדוּ וְ ֶא‬53
And he led them safely, and they were not afraid for the sea covered their enemy
The phrase ‫וינחם‬, which is the third expression indicating “leading” in two verses, reinforces
the picture of YHWH guiding his people. Repetition of the root ‫ נחה‬reminds the reader that
the leading took place by means of a pillar of cloud by day, and a pillar of fire at night, “ ‫וַ יַּ נְ ֵ ֣חם‬
‫ל־ה ֗ ַלּיְ ָלה ְבּ ֣אוֹר ֵ ֽאשׁ׃‬
ַ֜ ‫יוֹמם וְ ָכ‬
֑ ָ ‫”בּ ָע ָנ֣ ן‬
ֶ (v.14). YHWH’s loving protection finds further expression
through the term ‫לבטח‬, which functions adverbially133 in v.53, accentuating that whilst in his
care the Israelites were led safely out of Egypt. Reinforcing the image of security is the phrase
“‫”ולא פחדו‬, implying the Israelites had no fears when they left Egypt. Such a picture suggests
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,
“...‫אד‬
ֹ ֔ ‫אוּ ְמ‬
֙ ‫יהם וַ ִ ֽיּ ְיר‬
ֶ֗ ‫יהם וְ ִה ֵנּ֥ה ִמ ְצ ַ ֣ריִ ם׀ נ ֵ ֹ֣ס ַע ַא ֲח ֵר‬
ֶ֜ ֵ‫ת־עינ‬
ֵ ‫וּפ ְר ֖עֹה ִה ְק ִ ֑ריב וַ יִּ ְשׂאוּ֩ ְב ֵנֽי־ ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵ֙אל ֶא‬
ַ ” (Ex 14:10).
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
that the psalmist refrains from using the word ‫מצרים‬, or any other synonyms. In doing so, he
hints towards God’s ability to deliver from the hands of all enemies. Some overlap exists
between this verse and v.13, which records the same event, “‫מוֹ־נֽד׃‬
ֵ ‫ב־מיִ ם ְכּ‬
֥ ַ ‫ירם ַ ֽו יַּ ֶצּ‬
֑ ֵ ‫”בּ ַקע ָי֭ם וַ ַיּ ֲֽע ִב‬.
ָ֣
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’
133
The adverbial use of this phrase occurs in Ps 4:9, “‫יבנִ י׃‬
ֽ ֵ ‫תּוֹשׁ‬
ִ
‫הוה ְל ָב ָ ֑דד ֜ ָל ֶ֗ב ַטח‬
֣ ָ ְ‫י־א ָ ֣תּה י‬
ַ ‫ישׁן ִ ֽכּ‬
֥ ָ ‫” ְבּ ָשׁ ֣לוֹם יַ ְח ָדּו֘ ֶא ְשׁ ְכּ ָ ֪בה וְ ִ֫א‬,
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.
‫יְמינֽ וֹ׃‬
ִ ‫ר־זה ָקנְ ָ ֥תה‬
ֶ֗ ‫יאם ֶאל־גְּ ֣בוּל ָק ְד ֑שׁוֹ ַה‬
ֵ ‫ ַ ֭ויְ ִב‬54
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
specified destination, his holy region, or land, “‫”גבול קדשו‬. The latter could refer either to the
“land”135 of Canaan, in a similar way the land of Egypt is referenced in Ps 105:31, “ ‫ָ֭א ַמר וַ יָּ ֣ב ֹא‬
‫בוּלם׃‬
ֽ ָ ְ‫”ע ֑רֹב ִ֜כּ ִ֗נּים ְבּ ָכל־גּ‬
ָ (s. also 105:33). Theoretically, it could also refer to a “hill” or
“mountain”, as inferred from its correspondence with ‫ הר‬in this verse, and its relation to gbl in
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
the composite phrase “‫ ”הר קדשו‬into consideration. In verses such as Ps 3:5, “ ‫הו֣ה‬
ָ ְ‫וֹלי ֶאל־י‬
ִ ֭‫ק‬
‫”א ְק ָ ֑רא וַ ַיּ ֲֽענֵ֙ ִני ֵמ ַ ֖הר ָק ְד ֣שׁוֹ ֶ ֽס ָלה׃‬
ֶ (s. Pss 48:2 and 99:9), this composite phrase readily refers to the
mountain on which the Temple stood.138 A clear connection appears here with the Song of the
Sea, where YHWH similarly brings Israel to his holy site, “ ‫ְתּ ִב ֵ֗אמוֹ וְ ִת ָטּ ֵע ֙מ֙וֹ ְבּ ַ ֣הר נַ ֲח ָ ֽל ְת ָ֔ך ָמ ֧כוֹן‬
‫הו֑ה ִמ ְקּ ָ ֕דשׁ ֲאד ָֹנ֖י כּוֹנְ נ֥ וּ יָ ֶ ֽדיָך׃‬
ָ ְ‫”ל ִשׁ ְב ְתָּך֛ ָפּ ַ ֖ע ְל ָתּ י‬
ְ (Ex 15:17).139 The second colon expands the word
‫ קדשו‬in the first, with ‫ זה‬serving as a relative particle.140 The mountain standing in the
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.
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).
137
For the understanding of ‫ קדש‬as “sanctuary”, see the Septuagint’s rendering of αγιασμα.
135
138
Briggs (1969:189) disagrees with this analysis, arguing that ‫ הר‬refers to the mountainous land characteristic
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.
140
For further evidence of ‫ זה‬as a relative pronoun, see Ps 104:8, “‫ל־מ ֗קוֹם ֶ ֤זה׀ יָ ַ֬ס ְד ָתּ ָל ֶ ֽהם׃‬
ְ֜ ‫יע ֣לוּ ָ ֭ה ִרים יֵ ְר ֣דוּ ְב ָק ֑עוֹת ֶא‬
ֲ ”
(additionally Job 19:19 and JM §145c).
Page <76>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
right hand. In the context of Exodus, the only other acquisition made by God is that of his
people, “‫ית׃‬
ָ ‫הוה ַ ֽעד־יַ ֲע ֖בֹר ַעם־ז֥ וּ ָק ִ ֽנ‬
ָ֔ ְ‫ ַעד־יַ ֲע ֤בֹר ַע ְמּ ָ֙ך י‬...” (Ex 15:16). Here, however, the focus falls
squarely on the land.141 The acquisition of this territory was accomplished by God’s right
hand, ‫ימינו‬, a well known symbol of strength and source of deliverance as Ps 20:7 lucidly
demonstrates, “‫יחוֹ ַי ֲ֭ענֵ הוּ ִמ ְשּׁ ֵ ֣מי ָק ְד ֑שׁוֹ ִ֜בּגְ ֻב ֗רוֹת יֵ ַ֣שׁע יְ ִמינֽ וֹ׃‬
֥ ‫הוה ְמ ִ֫שׁ‬
֗ ָ ְ‫הוֹשׁ ַיע׀ י‬
֥ ִ ‫”ע ָ ֤תּה יָ ַ ֗ד ְע ִתּי ִ ֤כּי‬
ַ (s. also Ex
15:6, 12, Lam 2:3). An example of this strength at work appears in the following verse.
‫יהם ִשׁ ְב ֵ ֥טי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֽאל׃‬
ֶ֗ ‫גּוֹים ַ ֭ויַּ ִפּ ֵילם ְבּ ֶ ֣ח ֶבל נַ ֲח ָל֑ה וַ יַּ ְשׁ ֵ ֥כּן ְ֜בּ ָא ֳה ֵל‬
ִ֗ ‫יהם׀‬
ֶ֙ ‫ וַ יְ ָג ֶ֤ רשׁ ִמ ְפּ ֵנ‬55
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,
an act recorded in Jos 24:18, “...‫ת־ה ֱאמ ִ ֹ֛רי י ֵ ֹ֥שׁב ָה ָ ֖א ֶרץ ִמ ָפּ ֵנ֑ינוּ‬
ָ ‫ל־ה ַע ִ֗מּים וְ ֶא‬
ָ ‫ת־כּ‬
ָ ‫הוה ֶא‬
֜ ָ ְ‫”וַ יְ גָ֙ ֶרשׁ י‬.142 The
expression “‫ ”להפיל חבל‬means “to divide” or “assign by lot” (s. Jos 17:5 and Ps 16:6). After
driving the Canaanites out of the land, YHWH divided it by lot for his people. Joshua 13:6
similarly recalls these two activities, “ ‫ישׁם ִמ ְפּ ֵנ֖י ְבּ ֵנ֣י ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֑אל ַ ֠רק ַה ִפּ ֶל ָ֤ה ְליִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל֙ ְ ֽבּנַ ֲח ֔ ָלה ַכּ ֲא ֶ ֖שׁר‬
ֵ֔ ‫אוֹר‬
ִ ...
‫”צוִּ ִ ֽיתיָך׃‬
ִ (s. also 23:4). Unlike these verses, however, the psalm does not recall Joshua as
dividing the land, but God. After dividing the land, his final act in this verse is to cause his
people, the tribes of Israel, to dwell in their tents. The term ‫ באהליהם‬refers to the abandoned
dwellings of the former Canaanite inhabitants. Psalm 105:44, “ ‫גּוֹי֑ם וַ ֲע ַ ֖מל ְל ֻא ִ ֣מּים‬
ִ ‫וַ יִּ ֵ ֣תּן ָ ֭ל ֶהם ַא ְר ֣צוֹת‬
‫ירשׁוּ׃‬
ֽ ָ ִ‫”י‬, reflects the picture presented in the final colon, whereby God bestows upon his people
the hard work of the previous inhabitants of Canaan.143
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
is the case, then the alteration from ‫ עם‬to ‫ גוי‬in the psalm could reflect the psalmist’s desire to reserve the term ‫עם‬
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
‫דוֹתיו ֣ל ֹא ָשׁ ָ ֽמרוּ׃‬
ָ֗ ‫ֹלהים ֶע ְלי֑ וֹן ְ ֜ו ֵע‬
֣ ִ ‫ת־א‬
ֱ ‫ וַ יְ נַ ֣סּוּ ַ ֭ויַּ ְמרוּ ֶא‬56
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
them in vv.43-55 they disobey him. The opening hendiadys144 of v.56, “‫”וינסו וימרו‬, recalls,
and relates it to, vv.40 and 41, “...‫“ ;”כמה ימרוהו במדבר‬...‫”וישובו וינסו אל‬. These verses
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,
but the second colon relates it to failing to keep God’s ordinances. The reference to ‫ עדותיו‬145
alludes to the ordinances first mentioned in v.5, “ ‫שׁר ִ ֭צוָּ ה‬
֣ ֶ ‫תוֹר ֘ה ָ ֤שׂם ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָ ֫ר ֵ ֥אל ֲא‬
ָ ְ‫דוּת׀ ְ ֽבּיַ ֲע ֗קֹב ו‬
֙ ‫וַ ָיּ֤ ֶ קם ֵע‬
‫יהם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫יעם ִל ְב ֵנ‬
ָ ֗ ‫הוֹד‬
ִ ‫וֹתינוּ ֜ ְל‬
֑ ֵ ‫ת־אב‬
ֲ ‫” ֶא‬, those YHWH instituted for his people. Thus, in disobeying the
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
ָ ‫”וּ֜ ְב‬, who also failed to keep his laws and
in v.10, “‫ֹלהים‬
֑ ִ ‫תוֹר ֗תוֹ ֵמ ֲאנ֥ וּ ָל ֶ ֽל ֶכת׃ ֣ל ֹא ָ ֭שׁ ְמרוּ ְבּ ִ ֣רית ֱא‬
commands.
‫בוֹתם ֶ֜נ ְה ְפּ ֗כוּ ְכּ ֶ ֣ ק ֶשׁת ְר ִמיָּ ֽה׃‬
֑ ָ ‫ וַ יִּ ֣סֹּגוּ וַ ֽ֭יִּ ְב ְגּדוּ ַכּ ֲא‬57
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
betrayed (God), “‫”ויסגו ויבגדו‬, like their forefathers. Is 50:5, “ ‫אזֶ ן וְ ָאנ ִ ֹ֖כי ֣ל ֹא‬
ֹ ֔ ‫ח־לי‬
֣ ִ ‫ֲאד ָֹנ֤י יְ הוִ ֙ה ָפּ ַ ֽת‬
‫”מ ִ ֑ר ִיתי ָא ֖חוֹר ֥ל ֹא נְ סוּ ֹֽג ִתי׃‬,
ָ recalls another instance in which the verb to turn back, ‫סוג‬, equates to
defiant behavior, as it does here. Though ‫ אבות‬frequently appears in the opening section, the
reference here is to the rebellious generation in v.8, “ ‫מ ֶ ֥רה דּ֭ וֹר‬
ֹ ֫ ‫סוֹרר וּ‬
֪ ֵ ‫דּוֹר‬
֘ ‫בוֹתם‬
ָ֗ ‫היוּ׀ ַכּ ֲא‬
֙ ְ ִ‫וְ ֤ל ֹא י‬
144
See Watson (2001:327f.). Duhm (1920:205), however, understands ‫ וינסו‬as a mistake even though there are no
problems with the reading in MT.
145
The occurrence of the phrase “‫ ”ועדותיו לא שמרו‬is often associated with Deuteronomic literature, suggesting a
Deuteronomist reworked the verse; s. Campbell (1979:52).
Page <78>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
...‫א־ה ִ ֣כין ִל ֑בּוֹ‬
ֵ ֹ ‫”ל‬, a fact explicated by the second colon. The second half of v.57 alludes to
Ephraim, and their turning away from God like a fearsome warrior from a battle, “ ‫י־א ְפ ַ ֗ריִ ם‬
ֶ ‫ְ ֽבּ ֵנ‬
‫י־ק ֶשׁת ָ֜ה ְפ ֗כוּ ְבּי֣ וֹם ְק ָ ֽרב׃‬
֑ ָ ‫רוֹמ‬
ֵ ‫”נוֹשׁ ֵ ֥ קי‬
ְ
(v.9), an association highlighted by a chiastic relationship
(‫ רמיה‬: ‫ כקשת‬:: ‫ קשת‬: ‫)רומי‬. Thus in the context of the psalm even though Israel as a whole is
singled out for this behavior, the tribe of Ephraim is also specifically targeted. Like v.9, v.57
depicts disobedience in which ‫ נהפכו‬represents turning back in a moral sense. The imagery of
“‫ ”קשת רמיה‬is that of a faulty bow that fails to shoot straight. When a warrior attempts to use
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
commitment. The phrase is also reminiscent of another Northern text, Hos 7:16,147 “ ‫יָ ֣שׁוּבוּ׀ ֣ל ֹא‬
...‫”על ָה ֙יוּ ְכּ ֶ ֣ ק ֶשׁת ְר ִמ ָ֔יּה‬,
ָ ֗ which similarly portrays an instance of deceptive behavior, that of the
Northern Kingdom.
‫יאוּהוּ׃‬
ֽ ‫יהם יַ ְק ִנ‬
ֶ֗ ‫מוֹתם וּ֜ ִב ְפ ִס ֵיל‬
֑ ָ ‫יסוּהוּ ְבּ ָב‬
֥ ‫ וַ יַּ ְכ ִע‬58
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
Israel provoking YHWH with their deeds, “‫ץ־בּם ַמגֵּ ָ ֽפה׃‬
֜ ָ֗ ‫יהם וַ ִתּ ְפ ָר‬
֑ ֶ ‫( ”וַ יַּ ְכ ִעיסוּ ְבּ ַ ֽמ ַע ְל ֵל‬106:29), where
the precise nature of the enraging deeds is more obscure. The source of YHWH’s anger are
the ‫במות‬, “high places”, that the Israelites established, those elevated locations upon which
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
idolatrous cultic rituals were performed.148 Second Kings 17:11, “ ‫גּוֹים‬
ִ֕ ‫ל־בּ ֔מוֹת ַכּ‬
ָ ‫רוּ־שׁ ֙ם ְבּ ָכ‬
ָ ‫וַ יְ ַק ְטּ‬
‫הוֽה׃‬
ָ ְ‫שׂוּ ְדּ ָב ִ ֣רים ָר ֔ ִעים ְל ַה ְכ ִ ֖עיס ֶאת־י‬
֙ ‫יהם ַ ֽו יַּ ֲע‬
֑ ֶ ֵ‫הו֖ה ִמ ְפּנ‬
ָ ְ‫ר־ה ְג ָ ֥לה י‬
ֶ ‫”א ֶשׁ‬,
ֲ records a similar instance of high
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
images, ‫פסיליהם‬. Such images were presumably those of foreign gods, “ ‫יהם ִתּ ְשׂ ְר ֣פוּן‬
֖ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬
ֵ ‫ילי ֱא‬
֥ ֵ ‫ְפּ ִס‬
...‫( ” ָבּ ֵ ֑אשׁ‬Deut 7:25), employed in Canaanite rituals (s. also Deut 12:3 and Is 30:22). The
phrase ‫ יקניאוהו‬constitutes another expression of Israel’s actions that angered YHWH. With
the exception of the present location, the parallel pair of ‫ קנא‬and ‫ כעס‬only appears in Deut 32,
once in v.16, “‫יסהוּ׃‬
ֽ ֻ ‫תוֹע ֖בֹת יַ ְכ ִע‬
ֵ ‫”יַ ְקנִ ֻ ֖אהוּ ְבּזָ ִ ֑רים ְבּ‬, and again in v.21, “ ‫א־אל ִכּ ֲע ֖ס ִוּני‬
ֵ֔ ֹ ‫ֵ ֚הם ִקנְ ֣א ִוּני ְבל‬
...‫יהם‬
֑ ֶ ‫” ְבּ ַה ְב ֵל‬.150
‫אד ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֽאל׃‬
ֹ ֗ ‫ֹלהים ַ ֽו יִּ ְת ַע ָ ֑בּר וַ יִּ ְמ ַ ֥אס ְ֜מ‬
ִ ‫ ָשׁ ַ ֣מע ֭ ֱא‬59
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
the verb of hearing, ‫שמע‬, illustrates how YHWH discovered Israel’s deeds. Though it seems
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
Israel are key themes connecting this verse with v.21, “ ‫הוה ַוֽ יִּ ְת ַע ָ ֥בּר ְו ֵ֭אשׁ ִנ ְשּׂ ָ ֣ קה ְביַ ֲע ֑קֹב‬
֗ ָ ְ‫ָל ֵכ֤ן׀ ָשׁ ַ ֥מע י‬
‫ם־אף ָע ָ ֥לה ְביִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֽאל׃‬
ַ֗ ַ‫”וְ ג‬. There, his anger arose because the desert generation tested the
limitations of his abilities. In v.59, it is a new generation angering YHWH with different
148
The association of ‫ במות‬with idolatrous practices is not consistently observed in biblical literature. In the premonarchic 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
similar way, 1Sam 16:1, “...‫וַ ֲא ִנ֣י ְמ ַא ְס ִ֔תּיו ִמ ְמּ ֹ֖לְך ַעל־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֑אל‬...”, recalls how God rejected Saul as
king, and perhaps more importantly, God’s spurning of the Northern Kingdom is similarly
portrayed, “...‫ל־ז ַ֤ רע יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל֙ וַ יְ ַע ֵ֔נּם ַוֽ יִּ ְתּ ֵנ֖ם ְבּיַ ד־שׁ ִ ֹ֑סים‬
ֶ ‫הוה ְבּ ָכ‬
֜ ָ ְ‫( ”וַ יִּ ְמ ַ֙אס י‬2Ki 17:20; s. also Lev 26:43;
and Israel’s refusal of Canaan as reported by the psalmist in Ps 106:24). The severity of
Israel’s rejection is intensified with the adverb ‫מאד‬,151 which similarly expresses the extent of
their satisfaction with God’s provision in v.29, “...‫”ויאכלו וישבעו מאד‬.
‫א ֶהל ִשׁ ֵ ֥כּן ָבּ ָא ָ ֽדם׃‬
ֹ ֜ ‫ ַ ֭ויִּ טֹּשׁ ִמ ְשׁ ַכּ֣ן ִשׁ ֑לוֹ‬60
Then he abandoned his dwelling at Shiloh, 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
people up to an enemy for destruction, as Jer 12:7 indicates, “ ‫ת־בּ ִ֔יתי נָ ַ ֖ט ְשׁ ִתּי ֶאת־נַ ֲח ָל ִ ֑תי‬
ֵ ‫תּי ֶא‬
֙ ִ ‫עז ְב‬
ַ֙
‫יה׃‬
ָ ‫”נָ ַ ֛ת ִתּי ֶאת־יְ ִד ֥דוּת נַ ְפ ִ ֖שׁי ְבּ ַ ֥כף אֹיְ ֶ ֽב‬. When ‫ שכן‬previously appeared it referred to the dwelling
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
it was located. Throughout the psalm, we can translate each instance of the word “tent”, ‫אהל‬,
as “dwelling”, rather than specifically “tent”: the dwelling of Ham (v.51), the dwelling of
Canaan, (v.55), and now God’s dwelling. The very notion of “God’s dwelling with man”, ‫אהל‬
‫שכן באדם‬, recalls v.55, “‫וישכן באהליהם שבטי ישראל‬...”, YHWH causing his people to inhabit
151
Its placement here appears somewhat awkward, and some evidence suggests it is a divine epithet; Ps 46:2,
“‫אד׃‬
ֹ ֽ ‫עז ֶעזְ ָ ֥רה ְ֜ב ָצ ֗רוֹת נִ ְמ ָ ֥צא ְמ‬
ֹ ֑ ָ‫ֹלהים ָ֭לנוּ ַמ ֲח ֶ ֣סה ו‬
֣ ִ ‫” ֱא‬, uses it in a similar fashion.
152
God’s anger and ensuing abandonment of Israel and the tent at Shiloh implies that the previous reference to
‫ ישראל‬indicates all 12 tribes as opposed to just the northern tribes because the Israelites abandoned the tent at
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
destruction of the Shiloh sanctuary, “ ‫א־שׁ ִ ֣מי ָע ֗ ָליו ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר ַא ֶתּ ֙ם בּ ְֹט ִ ֣חים ֔בּוֹ וְ ַ ֙ל ָמּ ֔קוֹם ֲא ֶשׁר־נָ ַ ֥ת ִתּי ָל ֶ ֖כם‬
ְ ‫וְ ָע ִ֜שׂ ִיתי ַל ַ ֣בּיִ ת׀ ֲא ֶ ֧שׁר ִ ֽנ ְ ק ָר‬
‫יכם ַכּ ֲא ֶ ֥שׁר ָע ִ ֖שׂ ִיתי ְל ִשׁ ֽלוֹ׃‬
֑ ֶ ‫( ”וְ ַל ֲא ֽב ֵוֹת‬Jer 7:14), and the rejection of the northern tribes, which led to their destruction,
“ ‫ל־ז֥ ַרע ֶא ְפ ָ ֽר יִ ם׃‬
ֶ ‫ל־א ֵח ֶ֔יכם ֵ ֖את ָכּ‬
ֲ ‫ת־כּ‬
ָ ‫תּי ֶא‬
֙ ִ ‫( ”… ִה ְשׁ ַ ֙ל ְכ‬7:15).
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
example of the overlap between the realm of God, and that of man. Previously in v.25, “ ‫ֶל ֶחם‬
‫ידה ָשׁ ַ ֖לח ָל ֶ ֣הם ָל ֽשׂ ֹ ַבע׃‬
֬ ָ ‫”א ִבּ ִירים ָ ֣א ַכל ִ ֑אישׁ ֵצ‬,
֭ ַ men ate the food of heaven, that which divine beings
eat. Here it is YHWH, a divine being, who dwells with man in the earthly realms.
‫־צר׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ וַ יִּ ֵ ֣תּן ַל ְשּׁ ִ ֣בי ֻעזּ֑ וֹ ְ ֽו ִת ְפ ַא ְר ֥תּוֹ ְביַ ד‬61
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
v.60), YHWH delivers “his strength”, ‫עזו‬, up to captivity. The appearance of ‫ נתן‬here reflects
a change from mercy to punishment. In rescuing his people from the hands of the Egyptians,
YHWH delivered their produce to locust, “‫יעם ָל ַא ְר ֶ ֽבּה׃‬
ָ ֗ ‫בוּל֑ם ִ ֜ו ִיג‬
ָ ְ‫( ”וַ יִּ ֵ ֣תּן ֶל ָח ִ ֣סיל י‬v.46), and now as
Israel’s enemy153 he delivers up his own dwelling place. The expression ‫ עזו‬refers to the Ark
of the Covenant, the place on earth in which YHWH dwelt, “ ‫ֹלהי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל֙ י ֵ ֹ֣שׁב‬
֤ ֵ ‫יהוה ְצ ָב ֜אוֹת ֱא‬
ָ֙
...‫( ” ַה ְכּ ֻר ִ֔בים‬Is 37:16).154 The term ‫ עזו‬also recalls his strength in leading a south wind to bring
meat for his people to satisfy their cravings in the desert, “‫ימן׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫”יַ ַ ֣סּע ָ ֭ק ִדים ַבּ ָשּׁ ָ ֑מיִ ם וַ יְ נַ ֵ ֖הג ְבּ ֻעזּ֣ וֹ ֵת‬
(v.26). Complementing ‫ עזו‬as a reference to the Ark is ‫תפארתו‬. This correspondence is
primarily ascertained from the terraced pattern employed in the verse, but also finds some
support in Lam 2:1, “...‫ֹם־ר ְג ָ ֖ליו‬
ַ ‫השׁ ִ ֤ליְך ִמ ָשּׁ ֙ ַמיִ ֙ם ֶ֔א ֶרץ ִתּ ְפ ֶ ֖א ֶרת יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֑אל וְ לֹא־זָ ַ ֥כר ֲהד‬
ְ ...”. In describing the
enemy as “‫”יד צר‬, the psalmist links v.61 with v.42, “‫ר־פּ ָ ֥דם ִמ ִנּי־ ָ ֽצר׃‬
ָ ‫”לֹא־זָ ְכ ֥רוּ ֶאת־יָ ֑דוֹ י֜ וֹם ֲא ֶשׁ‬, and
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.
See also “‫נוּח ֶ ֑תָך ַ֜א ָ֗תּה וַ ֲא ֥רוֹן ֻע ֶזּֽ ָך׃‬
ָ ‫קוּמה יְ ֭הוָ ה ִל ְמ‬
֣ ָ ”, (Ps 132:8). The allusion to events recorded in 1Sam 4 also
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).
154
Page <82>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
‫ וַ יַּ ְס ֵגּ֣ר ַל ֶ ֣ח ֶרב ַע ֑מּוֹ וּ֜ ְבנַ ֲח ָל ֗תוֹ ִה ְת ַע ָ ֽבּר׃‬62
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
employed to depict the punishment reserved for Israel’s enemies, ‫“( ויסגר‬...‫”ויסגר לברד בעירם‬,
v.48; “‫וחיתם לדבר הסגיר‬...”, v.50), now applies to God’s people. Verse 62 represents the third
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
YHWH reject his people to the point that they are no longer ‫עמו‬, “his (YHWH’s) people”.
Supporting this connection between God and his people is the term ‫נחלה‬, a synonym for ‫עם‬
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
employs ‫( התעבר‬s. also v.21), linking these two acts that recall God’s displeasure with his
people.
‫הוּלּלוּ׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫תוֹּלתיו ֣ל ֹא‬
ָ֗
‫ה־אשׁ וּ֜ ְב‬
֑ ֵ ‫חוּריו ָ ֽא ְכ ָל‬
֥ ָ ‫ ַבּ‬63
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
young men. Repetition of ‫ בחור‬recalls the earlier incident when God himself subdued the
choice ones of Israel,155 “‫חוּרי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֣אל ִה ְכ ִ ֽר ַיע׃‬
֖ ֵ ‫וּב‬
ַ ‫יהם‬
֑ ֶ ֵ‫ויַּ ֲהר ֹג ְבּ ִמ ְשׁ ַמנּ‬...”
ַ֭
(v.31). Similarly ‫ אש‬recalls
155
Here the Septuagint renders νεανίσκους αυτων (=‫)בחוריהם‬, implying “the chosen ones of Israel”. Though
this is ostensibly feasible, by maintaining the third-person masculine suffix, the psalm maintains the association
Page <83>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
another instance of God punishing his people for disobedience, “ ‫הוה ַ ֽו יִּ ְת ַע ָ ֥בּר ְו ֵ֭אשׁ‬
֗ ָ ְ‫ָל ֵכ֤ן׀ ָשׁ ַ ֥מע י‬
‫”נ ְשּׂ ָ ֣ קה ְביַ ֲע ֑קֹב‬
ִ (v.21). Even though the imagery of fire in the context of war is a known
phenomenon—as witnessed in the war against Benjamin, “ ‫ל־ה ָע ִ ֥רים ַהנִּ ְמ ָצ ֖אוֹת ִשׁ ְלּ ֥חוּ‬
ֶ ‫גַּ ם ָכּ‬...
‫”ב ֵ ֽאשׁ׃‬
ָ (Jud 20:48; s. also 1Sam 30:3, 1Ki 9:16)—, due to the aforementioned internal
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.
The idea of “consumption” or “eating”, ‫אכל‬, repeated a number of times in the psalm,
plays an important role. It first appears in a phrase expressing part of Israel’s rebellious
desires, as they request food to eat, “‫א ֶכל ְלנַ ְפ ָ ֽשׁם׃‬
ֹ ֥ ‫סּוּ־אל ִבּ ְל ָב ָ ֑בם ִ ֽל ְשׁ ָאל־‬
ֵ֥
ַ‫( ”וַ יְ נ‬v.18). The psalm then
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
light of disobedience. This same picture appeared in v.25, “...‫”לחם אבירים אכל איש‬, which
describes the food Israel ate as “the bread of angels”. In a similar context, v.29, “ ‫ויאכלו וישבעו‬
‫”מאד‬, depicts the people’s satisfaction with their meat and bread. A turning point occurs in
v.30, “‫יהם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫”לֹא־זָ ֥רוּ ִמ ַתּ ֲאוָ ָ ֑תם ֜עוֹד ָא ְכ ָ ֥לם ְבּ ִפ‬, as Israel sins whilst eating of the provisions God had
given them, and from here, the word ‫ אכל‬only ever appears in a negative context, in relation
to judgment. First, it recalls the swarms sent to consume the Egyptians, “ ‫יְ ַשׁ ֬ ַלּח ָבּ ֶ ֣הם ָ ֭ערֹב‬
...‫אכ ֵל֑ם‬
ְ ֹ ‫( ”וַ יּ‬v.45); and then in this verse it appears as judgment against Israel. The
transformation of Israel throughout this psalm from being the recipients of YHWH’s kindness
to the object of his punishment is thus reflected in the usage of ‫ אכל‬throughout the psalm.
Although the verse only reports that the men are struck, ramifications exist for the
women. Parallel to ‫בחוריו‬, “his young men”, the psalm speaks of ‫בתולתיו‬, “his maidens”.
Together, these form a merismus emphasizing totality. Deuteronomy 32:25, “ ‫ל־ח ֶרב‬
ֶ֔ ‫חוּץ ְתּ ַשׁ ֶכּ‬
֙ ‫ִמ‬
‫יבה׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ם־אישׁ ֵשׂ‬
֥ ִ ‫יוֹנ֖ק ִע‬
ֵ ‫תוּלה‬
ָ ֔ ‫חוּר גַּ ם־ ְבּ‬
֙ ‫ימה גַּ ם־ ָבּ‬
֑ ָ ‫”וּמ ֲח ָד ִ ֖רים ֵא‬,
ֵ
reflects a similar picture of totality
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 chosen
people.
Page <84>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
overall effect of the young men being slain in battle is that the maidens would remain
unmarried, “‫”לא הוללו‬, lit: “not praised” in wedding songs.156
‫ ֭כֹּ ֲה ָניו ַבּ ֶ ֣ח ֶרב נָ ָ ֑פלוּ ְ֜ו ַא ְל ְמנ ָֹ֗תיו ֣ל ֹא ִת ְב ֶ ֽכּינָ ה׃‬64
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
the priests falling to the sword, “‫”בחרב נפלו‬, additionally echoes an earlier time in the psalm
when Israel were the recipients of God’s mercy, “...‫גּוֹים וַ ֽ֭ יַּ ִפּ ֵילם ְבּ ֶ ֣ח ֶבל נַ ֲח ָל֑ה‬
ִ֗ ‫יהם׀‬
ֶ֙ ֵ‫”וַ יְ ָג ֶ֤ רשׁ ִמ ְפּנ‬
(v.55; s. also v.28, quail falling round the camp), and not the object of his wrath. The second
instance of ‫ חרב‬here closes a short inclusion with v.62 depicting those delivered up to the
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.
156
The Septuagint has apparently rendered ‫ הללו‬as though it were a hifil of ‫( ילל‬επενθηθησαν), meaning “to
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).
157
It is also possible to detect an instance of paronomasia here between ‫( חרב‬v.62), ‫( בחור‬v.63), and ‫( חרב‬v.64).
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
‫רוֹנ֥ ן ִמיָּ ֽ יִ ן׃‬
ֵ ‫ וַ יִּ ַ ֖ קץ ְכּיָ ֵ ֥שׁן׀ ֲאד ָֹנ֑י ְ֜כּגִ ֗בּוֹר ִמ ְת‬65
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
warrior to awake and fight for his people in Is 51:9-11, “… ‫ימי‬
ֵ ‫הוה ע֚ ִוּרי ִ ֣כּ‬
֔ ָ ְ‫עוּרי ִל ְב ִשׁי־ע ֹ֙ז זְ ֣ר ַוֹע י‬
֤ ִ ‫עוּרי‬
ִ֙
‫”ק ֶדם‬
֔ ֶ (v.9). On one hand, the idea of YHWH waking up from a deep sleep is somewhat
derogatory, recalling Elijah’s taunts in his confrontation with the prophets of Baal in 1Ki
18:27, “‫אוּלי יָ ֵ ֥שׁן ֖הוּא וְ יִ ָ ֽ קץ׃‬
֛ ַ ...”. Elsewhere in biblical literature, however, when God’s people
feel abandoned by him, falling victim to their enemies or a natural catastrophe, they often call
upon him to awaken. Psalm 35:23 reads, “‫יבי׃‬
ֽ ִ ‫ֹלהי ַוֽאד ָֹנ֣י ְל ִר‬
֖ ַ ‫יצה ְל ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ִ ֑טי ֱא‬
ָ ‫” ָה ִ ֣ע ָירה ְו ָ֭ה ִק‬, and in Ps
44:24, “‫ל־תּזְ נַ ח ָלנֶ ַצח‬
ִ ‫יצה ַא‬
ָ ‫ישׁן ֲאד ָֹני ָה ִק‬
ַ ‫”עוּרה ָל ָמּה ִת‬.
ָ
In these instances, the belief is not that God
really sleeps, but they constitute a desperate call for him to act on their behalf.160 Contrasting
159
Another possibility exists through an intertextual reading with Job 27:15, “ ‫) ְשׂ ִרידוֹ( ] ְ ֭שׂ ִר ָידיו[ ַבּ ָ ֣מּוֶ ת יִ ָקּ ֵ ֑ברוּ‬
‫” ְ֜ו ַא ְל ְמנ ָֹ֗תיו ֣ל ֹא ִת ְב ֶ ֽכּינָ ה׃‬, which depicts the fate of a wicked man. When he dies, his widow will not mourn for him.
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-induced161 sleep. Such a bold162 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.
‫ְך־צ ָ ֥ריו ָא ֑חוֹר ֶח ְר ַ ֥פּת ֜ע ֗ ָוֹלם ָנ ַ֣תן ָ ֽלמוֹ׃‬
ָ ַ‫ וַ יּ‬66
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
people. The phrase ‫ויך‬, “and he struck”, recalls the earlier instance in which God struck an
enemy on behalf of his people, “‫י־חם׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫אשׁית ֜א ִ֗וֹנים ְבּ ָא ֳה ֵל‬
֥ ִ ‫ל־בּ ֣כוֹר ְבּ ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם ֵר‬
ְ ‫( ”וַ יַּ ֣ ְך ָכּ‬v.51), in addition
to the striking of a rock to provide Israel with water, “...‫”הן ִה ָכּה־ ֙צוּר׀ וַ יָּ ז֣ וּבוּ ַמיִ ם֘ וּנְ ָח ִ ֪לים ִ֫י ְשׁ ֥טֹפוּ‬
ֵ֤
(v.20, as the Israelites recall the event). The enemy mentioned in v.66 is the same as that
introduced in v.61, “‫ד־צר׃‬
ֽ ָ ַ‫”וַ יִּ ֵ ֣תּן ַל ְשּׁ ִ ֣בי ֻעזּ֑ וֹ ְ ֽו ִת ְפ ַא ְר ֥תּוֹ ְבי‬. The third-person pronoun here, ‫למו‬, recalls
the similar morphological form ‫ עמו‬in v.62, reminding the reader of the close relationship that
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
enemies”, ‫צריו‬, recalls Israel’s forgetfulness, when they forgot that YHWH is the one who
161
Though the word ‫ מתרונן‬is a hapax legomenon, its meaning can be derived from the context, and the
translations of the Septuagint, κεκραιπαληκως, “to have a sick head-ache, consequent upon a debauch”, LSJ
989; and the Tgs., ‫מתפקח‬, “to open the eyes”.
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 Yahweh 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
redeems them from their oppressors, “‫י־צר׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ר־פּ ָ ֥דם ִמ ִנּ‬
ָ ‫ת־יָדוֹ י֜ וֹם ֲא ֶשׁ‬
֑ ‫( ”לֹא־זָ ְכ ֥רוּ ֶא‬v.42). If we return
to the probable allusion here to 1Sam 4, a double entendre arises with the depiction of
YHWH striking the enemy ‫אחור‬, “back”. In a strict military sense, it refers to driving an
enemy force backwards forcing them to retreat in battle, as reflected in Ps 9:4, “ ‫ְבּשׁוּב־אוֹיְ ַ ֥בי‬
‫אב ֗דוּ ִמ ָפּ ֶנֽיָך׃‬
ְ ֹ ‫”א ֑חוֹר יִ ָכּ ְשׁ ֥לוּ ְ ֜וי‬.
ָ Additionally, it may refer to the “rear part” or “rump”, as an
allusion to the piles that the Philistines were struck with after they had captured the Ark
(1Sam 5:6).163
In striking his enemies, God transforms them into an “eternal disgrace”, “‫”חרפת עולם‬.
The word ‫ חרפה‬supports the latter of the interpretations listed above, highlighting the disgust
caused by the nature of God’s vengeance. Together, as part of an expression, “‫ ”חרפת עולם‬is
only attested in Jer 23:40, “‫עוֹלם ֲא ֶ ֖שׁר ֥ל ֹא ִת ָשּׁ ֵ ֽכ ַח׃‬
ָ ֔ ‫וּכ ִל ֣מּוּת‬
ְ ‫עוֹל֑ם‬
ָ ‫”וְ נָ ַת ִ ֥תּי ֲעלֵ ֶיכ֖ם ֶח ְר ַ ֣פּת‬, where the
prophet employs it to castigate false prophets. ‫ נתן‬constitutes the final element of a chiasmus
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
(‫ נתן‬: ‫ צריו‬:: ‫ צר‬: ‫)ויתן‬.164
‫יוֹסף וּֽ ְב ֵ ֥שׁ ֶבט ֶ֜א ְפ ַ ֗ריִ ם ֣ל ֹא ָב ָ ֽחר׃‬
֑ ֵ ‫א ֶהל‬
ֹ ֣ ‫ ַ ֭ויִּ ְמ ַאס ְבּ‬67
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
begins in v.67. This verse sheds some light on v.59, “‫אד ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֽאל׃‬
ֹ ֗ ‫ֹלהים ַ ֽו יִּ ְת ַע ָ ֑בּר וַ יִּ ְמ ַ ֥אס ְ֜מ‬
ִ ‫” ָשׁ ַ ֣מע ֭ ֱא‬,
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]).
A valid and somewhat appealing alternative understanding for this verse identifies God’s enemies, ‫ צריו‬, as
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
the rejection of Joseph. Additionally supporting such a view is the aforementioned similarity between ‫ למו‬and
164
‫לעמו‬, suggesting God made his people a lasting reproach.
Page <88>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
tribe of Ephraim. As a result of their repeated transgressions, and failing to learn from their
forefathers, God rejects them. The first reference to Ephraim appears here in the phrase “ ‫אהל‬
‫”יוסף‬, Gen 41:52 attests that Ephraim was the son of Joseph. Furthering the association with
Ephraim is the word ‫אהל‬, which recalls v.60, “‫”ויטש משכן שלו אהל שכן באדם‬. From this we
can assert that God’s rejection was of the territory of Ephraim, the place where he had
previously chosen to dwell.
Complimenting the tents of Joseph in the second colon is “the tribe of Ephraim”, “ ‫שבט‬
‫”אפרים‬, who were first criticized for their disobedience in vv.9-11.165 Even though the
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.
The phrase “‫ ”לא בחר‬corresponds with ‫וימאס‬, expressing rejection, and completes a
chiasmus that makes the rejection of Ephraim even more emphatic. Selection of this slightly
clumsy phrase (“‫ )”לא בחר‬as a parallel probably stems from the psalmist’s desire to create an
association with the following verse.
‫שׁר ָא ֵ ֽהב׃‬
֣ ֶ ‫ת־הר ִ֜ציּ֗ וֹן ֲא‬
֥ ַ ‫הוּדה ֶ ֽא‬
֑ ָ ְ‫ת־שׁ ֶבט י‬
֣ ֵ ‫ ַ ֭ויִּ ְב ַחר ֶא‬68
And he chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which he loved
Key elements in v.67b now appear in 68a, providing an important degree of continuity. The
chiasmus between these verses (‫ שבט‬: ‫ ויבחר‬:: ‫ בחר‬: ‫ )בשבט‬emphasizes the rejection and
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
hill on which the Temple was built.166 The corresponding word pair ‫ ציון‬// ‫ יהודה‬is well
attested in verses such as Ps 69:36, “...‫הוּדה‬
֑ ָ ְ‫וֹשׁ ַיע ִציּ֗ וֹן ְו֭יִ ְבנֶ ה ָע ֵ ֣ר י י‬
֤ ִ ֨‫ֹלהים׀ י‬
ִ֙ ‫( ” ִ ֤כּי ֱא‬s. also Jer 14:19
and Ps 97:8). First mentioned in v.54, ‫ הר‬provided the earliest indication of the select and
unique status of Mt. Zion, “‫ר־זה ָקנְ ָ ֥תה יְ ִמינֽ וֹ׃‬
ֶ֗ ‫יאם ֶאל־גְּ ֣בוּל ָק ְד ֑שׁוֹ ַה‬
ֵ ‫”ויְ ִב‬.
֭ ַ It is only fitting to assume
now that the mount he acquired with his right hand is the same as that which he now loves.
Corresponding with ‫ בחר‬in the first colon is ‫אהב‬, which approximately bears the same
meaning in this context. Deuteronomy 4:37 similarly associates the two words, “ ‫וְ ַ֗ת ַחת ִ ֤כּי ָא ַה ֙ב‬
...‫ת־אב ֶֹ֔תיָך וַ יִּ ְב ַ ֥חר ְבּזַ ְר ֖עוֹ ַא ֲח ָ ֑ריו‬
ֲ ‫” ֶא‬, as does Is 41:8, “ ‫שׁר ְבּ ַח ְר ִ ֑תּיָך ֶז ַ֖ רע‬
֣ ֶ ‫וְ ַא ָתּ ֙ה ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֣אל ַע ְב ִ ֔דּי יַ ֲע ֖קֹב ֲא‬
‫”א ְב ָר ָ ֥הם א ֲֹה ִ ֽבי׃‬
ַ (s. also Deut 10:15 and Ps 47:5).
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.
‫עוֹלם׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫מוֹ־ר ִמים ִמ ְק ָדּ ֑שׁוֹ ְ֜כּ ֶ֗א ֶרץ ָיְס ָ ֥דהּ ְל‬
֭ ָ ‫ וַ ִיּ ֶ֣בן ְכּ‬69
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 Temple167 directly to God.168 Perhaps more
appropriately, however, we should probably amend the phrase “‫ ”כמו רמים‬to ‫כמרומים‬, “like the
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
permanence appears with the phrase “‫”כארץ יסדה‬. Psalm 104:5, “ ‫ל־תּ ֗מּוֹט‬
ִ֜ ‫֑יה ַבּ‬
ָ ‫כוֹנ‬
ֶ ‫ל־מ‬
ְ ‫ד־א ֶרץ ַע‬
ֶ֭ ‫ָי ַֽס‬
‫”עוֹלם וָ ֶ ֽעד׃‬,
ָ֥
recalls a similar image depicting eternal stability. The phrase also creates an
undeniable link with Amos 9:6, “‫ל־א ֶרץ יְ ָס ָ ֑דהּ‬
֣ ֶ ‫לוֹתיו[ וַ ֲא ֻג ָדּ ֖תוֹ ַע‬
ָ֔ ‫בּוֹנ֤ה ַב ָשּׁ ֙ ַמיִ ֙ם ) ַמ ֲעלוֹתוֹ( ] ַמ ֲע‬
ֶ ‫” ַה‬, which
depicts God building the upper rooms of his palace. Moreover, the phrase ‫ לעולם‬further
explicates the eternal nature of this abode.171
‫את ֽצ ֹאן׃‬
ֹ ֥ ‫ ַ ֭ויִּ ְב ַחר ְבּ ָדִו֣ד ַע ְב ֑דּוֹ ַ ֜ויִּ ָקּ ֵ֗חהוּ ִ ֽמ ִמּ ְכ ְל‬70
And he chose David his servant, and took him from the sheepfold
The process of selection continues in v.70, just as the tribe of Judah was selected, “ ‫ַ ֭ויִּ ְב ַחר‬
‫ת־שׁ ֶבט יְ הוּ ָ ֑דה‬
֣ ֵ ‫( ” ֶא‬v.69), so too is David. The psalm’s remaining three verses all relate to this
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
God’s servant, ‫עבדו‬, an exceptional term bestowed upon pre-eminent individuals, such as
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.
168
It is possible, but not preferable, to preserve MT here, reading ‫כמו רמים‬, which would simply refer to the
heights, as in the high places of the earth such as mountain tops, “…‫ל־הגְּ ָב ֔עוֹת‬
ַ ‫ים וְ ַע‬
֙ ‫ל־ה ָה ִ ֤רים ָ ֽה ָר ִמ‬
ֶ ‫ ַע‬...” (Deut 12:2),
or high trees, “...‫ל־א ְר ֵ ֣זי ַה ְלּ ָבנ֔ וֹן ָה ָר ִ ֖מים וְ ַהנִּ ָשּׂ ִ ֑אים‬
ַ ‫( ”וְ ַעל֙ ָכּ‬Is 2:13). Such a reference to “heights” recalls the high places
in v.58, but here, the height of the Lord’s mountain, going up to the heavens, exceeds that of the idols’ high
places.
169
See Pss 102:20, “‫ל־א ֶרץ ִה ִ ֽבּיט׃‬
ֶ֬ ‫הוה ִמ ָשּׁ ַ ֤מיִ ם׀ ֶא‬
ָ֗ ‫י־ה ְשׁ ִקיף ִמ ְמּ ֣רוֹם ָק ְד ֑שׁוֹ ְ֜י‬
֭ ִ ‫” ִ ֽכּ‬, and 148:1, “ ‫ַ ֥ה ְללוּ יָ֙ הּ׀ ַ ֽה ְל ֣לוּ ֶאת־יְ ֭ הוָ ה‬
‫רוֹמים׃‬
ֽ ִ ‫ן־ה ָשּׁ ַ ֑מיִ ם ַ֜ה ְל ֗לוּהוּ ַבּ ְמּ‬
ַ ‫( ” ִמ‬s. also Kraus [1988b:122], Briggs [1969:197], and BHS).
170
See close reading for v.26.
171
The perception of the Solomonic Temple being indestructible is discernable from Jer 7:4, “ ‫ל־תּ ְב ְט ֣חוּ ָל ֶ֔כם‬
ִ ‫ַא‬
‫הוה ֵ ֽה ָמּה׃‬
֖ ָ ְ‫יכל י‬
֥ ַ ‫הוה ֵה‬
ָ֔ ְ‫יכל י‬
֣ ַ ‫יכל יְ הוָ ֙ה ֵה‬
֤ ַ ‫מר ֵה‬
ֹ ֑ ‫ל־דּ ְב ֵ ֥רי ַה ֶ ֖שּׁ ֶקר ֵלא‬
ִ ‫” ֶא‬, in which its very existence promotes a sense of security.
Page <91>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
Moses (Num 12:7), Caleb (Num 14:24), Abraham (Gen 26:24), and Israel, as a nation (Jer
30:10). Psalm 132:10, “‫יחָך׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫ל־תּ ֵ֗שׁב ְפּ ֵנ֣י ְמ ִשׁ‬
ָ֜ ‫”בּ ֲעבוּר ָדִּו֣ד ַע ְב ֶ ֑דָּך ַא‬,
֭ ַ additionally ascribes David with
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
sheepfold, “‫”ממכלאת צאן‬. By mentioning ‫ צאן‬here, the psalmist recalls God leading his people
in the desert after he delivered them from Egypt, “‫( ”וַ יַּ ַ ֣סּע ַכּ ֣צּ ֹאן ַע ֑מּוֹ ַוֽ יְ נַ ֲה ֵג֥ם ַ֜כּ ֗ ֵע ֶדר ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֽבּר׃‬v.52).
The process of selection in v.70 echoes God’s words in 2Sam 7:8, “ ‫ן־הנָּ ֶ֔וה ֵמ ַא ַ ֖חר‬
ַ ‫א ִנ֤י ְל ַק ְח ִ֙תּ ֙יָך ִמ‬...
ֲ
‫ל־ע ִ ֖מּי ַעל־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֽאל׃‬
ַ ‫”ה ֑צּ ֹאן ִ ֽל ְהי֣ וֹת נָ ֔ ִגיד ַע‬.
ַ Concerning this quote, the similarities with v.70 are
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.
‫יַע ֣קֹב ַע ֑מּוֹ וּ֜ ְביִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֗אל נַ ֲח ָל ֽתוֹ׃‬
ֲ ‫יאוֹ ִ ֭ל ְרעוֹת ְבּ‬
֥ ‫ ֵמ ַא ַ ֥חר ָע ֗לוֹת ֱ֫ה ִב‬71
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
opening words of this verse, “‫”מאחר עלות‬, repeat the sentiment of v.70b: that David was a
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
is depicted as watching over ‫עלות‬,174 “nursing sheep and goats”, in need of special attention.
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.
173
Literally, ‫ מאחר‬means “following after”, but can also bear the nuance of “tending flocks”; s. 2Sam 7:8 and
Amos 7:15, “‫ל־ע ִ ֥מּי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֽאל׃‬
ַ ‫הוה ֵ ֥לְך ִהנָּ ֵ ֖בא ֶא‬
ָ֔ ְ‫אמר ֵא ַ ֙לי י‬
ֶ ֹ ‫הוה ֵמ ַא ֲח ֵ ֖רי ַה ֑צּ ֹאן וַ ֤יּ‬
ָ֔ ְ‫”וַ יִּ ָקּ ֵ ֣חנִ י י‬, another northern text that similarly
uses ‫ מאחר‬as a shepherding term.
174
The root ‫ עול‬literally means, “to give suck”, BDB 732.
Page <92>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
Utilizing similar imagery, Is 40:11, “‫וּב ֵח ֖יקוֹ יִ ָ ֑שּׂא ָע ֖לוֹת יְ נַ ֵ ֽהל׃‬
ְ ‫יְ ַק ֵבּ֣ץ ְט ָל ִ֔אים‬...”, recalls YHWH’s
gentle treatment of Israel. The two previous occurrences of ‫ הביא‬had YHWH as the subject
and expressed his undeserved mercy. He brought the Israelites their desires, “ ‫אכ ֣לוּ וַ יִּ ְשׂ ְבּ ֣עוּ‬
ְ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬
ֶ ֗ ‫יאם ֶאל־גְּ ֣בוּל ָק ְד ֑שׁוֹ ַה‬
ֵ ‫ַ ֭ויְ ִב‬
‫אד ְ ֜ו ַ ֽת ֲאוָ ָ֗תם יָ ִ ֥בא ָל ֶ ֽהם׃‬
ֹ ֑ ‫( ” ְמ‬v.29), and brought them to his holy land, “ ‫ר־ז֜ה‬
‫”קנְ ָ ֥תה יְ ִמינֽ וֹ׃‬
ָ (v.54). Similarly as an act of undeserved favor, God now brings David out from
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).
‫וּב ְתבוּנ֖ וֹת ַכּ ָ ֣פּיו יַ נְ ֵ ֽחם׃‬
ִ ‫תם ְל ָב ֑בוֹ‬
ֹ ֣ ‫ ַ ֭ויִּ ְר ֵעם ְכּ‬72
And he shepherded them with integrity, and with the wisdom of his craft he led them
The idea of shepherding continues in this verse with the repetition of the root ‫רעה‬. In addition
to David’s gentleness as a shepherd, the psalm now focuses on his innocence and integrity.
The phrase “‫”בתם לבב‬176 carries with it a sense of innocence, which is to say an absence of
intentional malice. Genesis 20:5, “‫וּב ִנ ְק ֹ֥ין ַכּ ַ ֖פּי ָע ִ ֥שׂ ִיתי ֽז ֹאת׃‬
ְ ‫ם־ל ָב ִ ֛בי‬
ְ ‫בּ ָת‬...”,
ְ
recalls how Abimelech
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 Psalm 151, 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
supported by a few Hebrew Mss (s. BHS). Moreover, biblical literature does not support the phrase “‫”כתם לב‬,
whereas “‫ ”בתם לב‬appears in the aforementioned locations.
Page <93>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
Moreover, the phrase carries a sense of obedience. In 1Ki 9:4 God requests Solomon to walk
like his father David, “ ‫שׁר‬
֣ ֶ ‫וּב ֔י ֹ ֶשׁר ַל ֲע ֕שׂוֹת ְכּ ֖כֹל ֲא‬
ְ ‫ם־ל ָ ֣בב‬
ֵ ‫ם־תּ ֵ ֣לְך ְל ָפ ַ֗ני ַכּ ֲא ֶ֙שׁר ָה ֜ ַלְך ָדִּו֤ד ָא ֙ ִב ֙יָך ְבּ ָת‬
ֵ ‫וְ ַא ָ֞תּה ִא‬
‫מר׃‬
ֹ ֽ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ַ ֖טי ִתּ ְשׁ‬
ִ ‫יתיָך ֻח ַ ֥קּי‬
֑ ִ ִ‫”צוּ‬,
ִ a context in which the phrase suggests obedience. On its own, the
word ‫ לבב‬recalls Israel’s disobedience in vv.8, 18, and 37, and this too contrasts with the
obedience of the man chosen to lead them.177
Contextually, the best way to understand the somewhat awkward and unique phrase
“‫ ”בתבונות כפיו‬is “the wisdom of his craft”.178 In adopting this interpretation, an explanation
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 one who leads God’s people. Selection of ‫ נחה‬as an expression of David’s kingship again
emphasizes his responsibility in adopting the leadership reins from God. With the two
previous instances of this word, God had led Israel with a cloud, “ ‫ל־ה ֗ ַלּיְ ָלה‬
ַ֜ ‫יוֹמם וְ ָכ‬
֑ ָ ‫ויַּ נְ ֵ ֣חם ֶבּ ָע ָנ֣ ן‬
‫( ” ְבּ ֣אוֹר ֵ ֽאשׁ׃‬v.14), and safely through the sea, “‫יהם ִכּ ָ ֥סּה ַה ָיּֽם׃‬
ֶ֗ ‫ת־אוֹיְ ֵב‬
֜ ‫”וַ יַּ נְ ֵ ֣חם ָ ֭ל ֶב ַטח וְ ֣ל ֹא ָפ ָ ֑חדוּ וְ ֶא‬
(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
177
An additional allusion exists with 1Sam 13:14, “…‫הוה ֜לוֹ ִ ֣אישׁ ִכּ ְל ָב ֗בוֹ‬
ָ ֙ ְ‫א־ת ֑קוּם ִבּ ֵקּשׁ֩ י‬
ָ ֹ ‫”וְ ַע ָ ֖תּה ַמ ְמ ַל ְכ ְתָּך֣ ל‬, which refers
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
individual components of the phrase. ‫ תבונה‬refers to “wisdom” or “understanding” (s. Ex 31:3, with respect to a
craft), and ‫כפים‬, “hands” represents the work of one’s hands, a trade.
179
Keil and Delitzsch (1982:361) note this verse’s correspondence with Ps 77:21, “ ‫ית ַכ ֣צּ ֹאן ַע ֶ ֑מָּך ְ ֽבּיַ ד־מ ֶ ֹ֥שׁ ה‬
ָ ‫נָ ִ ֣ח‬
‫”וְ ַא ֲה ֽר ֹן׃‬, which recalls Moses and Aaron leading Israel like a flock. Psalm 78:72, however, transposes this role to
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 wisdom literature. 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 remembering181 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.
181
The idea of “remembering” and “forgetting” repeat throughout the psalm via ‫( זכר‬vv.35, 39, 42) and ‫שכח‬
(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 LBH184 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 distribution186 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
definite article “‫ ”ה‬indicates a writing style more akin to the pre-exilic era.188 Fourth, because
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:
“‫ ”זה‬functioning as a relative particle in v.54, “‫יְמינֽ וֹ׃‬
ִ ‫ר־זה ָקנְ ָ ֥תה‬
ֶ֗ ‫יאם ֶאל־גְּ ֣בוּל ָק ְד ֑שׁוֹ ַה‬
ֵ ‫” ַ ֭ויְ ִב‬, “the
mountain which he acquired”;190 the frequent appearance of the accusative particle “‫( ”את‬s.
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).
185
Contrary to this view, Briggs (1969:181) raises the possibility of “‫ ”אהלי חם‬and “‫ ”כסל‬constituting examples
of LBH, although he offers no further evidence proving their lateness. Because the former phrase is a hapax
legomenon, its distribution is insufficient for ascertaining the date. The distribution of “‫”כסל‬, as a noun meaning
“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
masculine plural suffix “‫מו‬-” in vv. 24 and 66.192
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 destruction195 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
192
See Sáenz-Badillos (1993:58).
See Young (1993:125f.). Another possibility concerns the poetic form ‫ בל‬replacing ‫( לא‬v.44) as a negative
particle, “‫יה ם ַבּל־יִ ְשׁ ָתּיֽ וּן׃‬
ֶ֗ ‫יהם ְ֜ונֹזְ ֵל‬
֑ ֶ ‫”וַ יַּ ֲה ֣ ֹפְך ְ ֭ל ָדם יְ א ֵֹר‬. Even though this particle occurs in a relatively large number of
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.
194
Weinfeld (1972:365) identifies the following: ‫נצר‬, ‫הלך בתורת יהוה‬, ‫אותות ומופתים‬, ‫יקניאהו\\יכעיסהו‬, ‫סורר ומורה‬
‫שמר עדות יהוה‬, ‫מצוות 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.
SOURCES
197
Ps 78:13
Ex 14:16
P
Ps 78:13
Ex 15:8
NS
Notably, in addition to the prosaic
Ps 78:14
Ex 13:21
JE
traditions of the Torah,203 the psalmist employs a poetic
Ps 78:15
Num 20:8
P198
Ps 78:19
Num 21:5
JE
Ps 78:21
Num 11:1-3
JE
Ps 78:24
Ex 16:4
JE
Ps 78:26 (28)
Num 11:31
JE
Ps 78:29 (30)
Num 11:4
JE
counterpart in Exodus due to a higher concentration of
Ps 78:30
Num 11:20
JE
markers.205 Finally, and with perhaps more doubt than the
Ps 78:31
Num 11:33
JE
Table 1 summarizes Psalm 78’s possible201 allusions to
202
biblical literature.
tradition: the Song of the Sea (Ex 15). The complaints for
food recorded in Psalm 78:18-31 bear lexical and
contextual similarities with Num 11:1-9, 18-23, and 31204
34,
which presents a more preferable source than its
199
Ps 78:44
Ex 7:20-21
JE
Ps 78:45
Ex 8:17
JE
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
correspondences.206
Ps 78:54
Ex 15:16
NS200
aforementioned instances, it would appear the psalmist
knew of, even if he did not specifically quote from, the
197
See Appendix A for a detailed listing of the sources together with their corresponding psalm verses.
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.
205
The word for testing, ‫נסה‬, in Psalm 78:18 could, however, allude to the giving of manna in the Exodus
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
see if they would be faithful to his request, “ ‫טוּ‬
֙ ‫ן־ה ָשּׁ ָ ֑מיִ ם וְ ָ֙יָצא ָה ָ ֤עם וְ ָ ֽל ְק‬
ַ ‫אמר יְ הוָ ֙ה ֶאל־מ ֶֹ֔שׁה ִהנְ נִ֙ י ַמ ְמ ִ ֥טיר ָל ֶ ֛כם ֶ ֖ל ֶחם ִמ‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֤יּ‬
198
‫ם־ל ֹא׃‬
ֽ ‫תוֹר ִ ֖תי ִא‬
ָ ‫יוֹמוֹ ְל ַ ֧מ ַען ֲאנַ ֶ ֛סּנּוּ ֲהיֵ ֵ ֥לְך ְבּ‬
֔ ‫( ” ְדּ ַבר־י֣ וֹם ְבּ‬Ex 16:4).
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.
psalm stem from this source. In the event that the ‫ברד‬,
Psalm 78
J207
P
mentioned in Ps 78:48, actually refers to the cattle plague
‫דם‬
‫דם‬
‫דם‬
(‫ )דבר‬in Ex 9:3-7, the connection remains with the JE
‫ערב‬
‫צפרדעים‬
‫צפרדעים‬
tradition because P fails to recall such a plague.208
‫צפרדעים‬
‫ערב‬
‫שחין‬
Furthering the association with JE is the fact that all of the
‫ארבה‬
‫דבר‬
‫ברד‬
‫ברד‬
‫ברד‬
‫ארבה‬
‫דבר‬
‫ארבה‬
‫מכות הבכור‬
‫מכות הבכור‬
‫מכות הבכור‬
plagues recorded in Psalm 78 (with the aforementioned
caveat concerning ‫ )דבר‬can be located solely to the J
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 psalm209 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
description of the manna as “‫”דגן שמים‬, “heavenly grain”. Such a description suggests the
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
eat in heaven. The further description of the manna as “‫”לחם אבירים‬, “the bread of angels”,
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
questions Elisha’s prediction that a famine would end overnight, “ ‫בּוֹת‬
֙ ‫הוה ע ֶ ֹ֤שׂה ֲא ֻר‬
֗ ָ ְ‫אמ ֒ר ִה ֵנּ֣ה י‬
ַ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬...
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
...‫” ַבּ ָשּׁ ַ֔מיִ ם ֲהיִ ְהיֶ ֖ה ַה ָדּ ָ ֣בר ַה ֶזּ֑ה‬.210 A second possibility concerns the plagues’ tradition. Though it is
possible that the author of Psalm 78 was the originator of the tradition therein, the
consensus211 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: Miriam 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 Levites 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.
212
Another potential lost tradition concerns the destruction of Shiloh echoed in v.60, “ ‫א ֶהל ִשׁ ֵ ֥כּן‬
ֹ ֜ ‫ַ ֭ויִּ טֹּשׁ ִמ ְשׁ ַ ֣כּן ִשׁ ֑לוֹ‬
‫”בּ ָא ָ ֽדם׃‬.
ָ Here the wording suggests more than just the loss of the Ark, but that the tent housing it together with
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
Israel is only apparent via an allusion; v.5 recalls Israel receiving the Law, “ ‫וַ ָיּ֤ ֶ קם ֵע ֙דוּת׀ ְ ֽבּיַ ֲע ֗קֹב‬
...‫תוֹר ֘ה ָ ֤שׂם ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָ ֫ר ֵ ֥אל‬
ָ ְ‫”ו‬. Perhaps the best reason for the psalmist’s omission of this event is that it
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,
God hears (‫וישמע‬, v.1) and becomes angry sending fire (‫אש‬, v.1) that burns against them
(“‫”ותבער בם‬, v.1). Repenting of their sin, the Israelites cry out to Moses for help. He
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
riff-raff,218 who apparently accompanied the Israelites from Egypt, start to crave (“ ‫התאוו‬
‫ )”תאוה‬a wider variety of food, and their complaints become infectious. Then the Israelites
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
travail. They complain that their gullets (‫נפשנו‬, v.6) are shriveled because all they eat is the
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
rich cream (“‫”לשד השמן‬, v.8). When the dew fell on the camp (‫מחנה‬, v.9) in the mornings, so
too would the manna. The account resumes in vv.18-23 when God responds to the request for
variety by promising to send them meat to the point that it will become loathsome (‫לזרא‬, v.20)
to them. At this point, another break in the narrative occurs and it continues in v.31, which
records a wind (‫רוח‬, v.31) from God sweeping quail from the sea and scattering them about
the camp (“‫”סביבות המחנה‬, v.31) to a depth of two cubits, enabling the Israelites to collect
them. With respect to their gathering, Numbers recalls that even those who gathered least had
a significant quantity (ten homers). Then, whilst (‫עודנו‬, v.33) still eating, indulging in their
lust for food, YHWH’s anger (“‫”אף יהוה חרה‬, v.33) arises and he strikes them with a severe
plague. No obvious cause arises concerning how the plague abated, and the account finishes
with an etiological verse explaining the place name “‫”קברות התאוה‬, “graves of craving”
(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
God in their hearts, requesting food for their appetites (‫לנפשם‬, v.18). At this point in Psalm
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
218
This term refers to the mixed multitude recorded in Ex 12:38, which describes them as “‫ ;”ערב רב‬s. BDB 63
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,
‫( לערך שלחן‬v.19), corresponds with the long list of delicacies presumably available to the
Israelites in Egypt. Unlike Numbers, the psalmist refrains from blaming the non-Israelite riffraff 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.
Psalm 78 proceeds by recounting how God hears (‫שמע‬, v.21) this complaint, which
consequently angers him. The psalm’s portrayal of God becoming angry, ‫יתעבר‬, in v.21
recalls the burning fire in the opening narrative of Numbers (“‫”ותבער בם אש‬, 11:1) where, as
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
Ps 78 and that in Numbers comes via the phrase “‫( ”וימטר‬78:24), which is vaguely
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
the people’s satisfaction (‫לשבע‬, v.25). Numbers, on the other hand, recalls that they detested it
(Num 11:6).
219
The phrase, “‫”וידברו באלהים‬, used in Ps 78:19 to describe how the people spoke against God may have been
influenced by Num 21:5, “...‫ה ָל ָ ֤מה ֶ ֽה ֱע ִל ֻ֙ית ֙נוּ ִמ ִמּ ְצ ַ ֔ריִ ם ָל ֙מוּת ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֑בּר‬
֒ ‫וּבמ ֶֹשׁ‬
ְ ֘‫אֹלהים‬
ִ ‫”וַ יְ ַד ֵ ֣בּר ָה ֗ ָעם ֵ ֽבּ‬, another text reporting
the Israelites’ grumbling for food.
220
With respect to the phrase “‫”דגן שמים‬, “the grain of heaven”, the word “‫ ”שמים‬could refer not just to the
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
(vv.26-29). Similar to Numbers, God sends (‫יסע‬, v.26) an east wind (‫קדים‬, v.26) from heaven
as an agent to assemble the birds, equivalent to the ‫רוח‬, “wind”, in the Torah (Num 11:31).
The psalm’s rendition utilizes the hifil of ‫נסע‬, which, as recorded in the close reading,
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
sea(shore)”. Likewise, instead of specifically mentioning quail, ‫שלו‬, the psalmist employs the
term “‫( ”עוף כנף‬presumably to comply with the assonance within the verse—see close reading
for v.27). In addition to falling around (‫ )סביב‬the camp (‫מחנהו‬, v.28), the psalmist notes that
the birds fall in its midst, where he adds the direct object “‫הו‬-” to the word “camp” associating
it with God.221 Verse 29, which recalls the sentiment of Num 11:32, records Israel’s
satisfaction with the meat (‫)וישבעו‬, suggesting that even those who collected the least quail
had more than enough; moreover, Ps 78:29 explicitly claims that God satisfied their desire
(‫)תאותם‬. In both texts, the turning point from provision to anger and subsequent judgment
occurs whilst (‫עוד‬, v.30) the Israelites were still eating.
A further link between the two texts occurs in v.30, which speaks of the Israelites not
turning, (‫זרו‬, v.30)222 from their craving. In utilizing such a rare phrase, the psalmist recalls
Num 11:20 depicting God’s punishment on the people, the food became detestable (‫ )זרא‬to
them. With respect to punishment, the psalm recalls how God directly kills the “choice ones”
(‫ )משמניהם‬and young men of Israel. Rather than mentioning a plague, the psalmist portrays
YHWH as directly striking the Israelites; this resonates with the psalm’s overall perception
and portrayal of God. In mentioning the “choice ones” (‫משמניהם‬, v.31), a somewhat peculiar
and unexpected phrase, the psalmist recalls the description of the manna’s taste: like rich
cream (“‫”לשד השמן‬, Num 11:8).
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
brought about Israel’s deliverance (‫ישועה‬, v.2). YHWH is then portrayed as the one who cast
Pharaoh’s chariots and army into the sea, where they drowned when the deep covered them
(‫יכסימו‬, v.5). The song then attributes the power of God’s right hand (‫ימינך‬, v.6) as being
responsible for the victory, and his fury (‫חרנך‬, v.7) consumes Israel’s enemy. Additionally,
YHWH directs his might against the sea, as the blast of his nostril causes the waters to rise up
(‫נצבו‬, v.8) like a wall (“‫”כמו נד‬, v.8) and congeal. The song then narrates the enemy’s
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.
Following this, attention turns to YHWH’s leading (‫נחית‬, v.13) the people he redeemed (‫גאלת‬,
v.13) to his holy abode (“‫”נוה קדשך‬, v.13). After mentioning the Canaanites’ fear of the
Israelites entering the land (15-17), the song closes with the people whom God had acquired
(‫קנית‬, v.16) crossing into Canaan, and God planting them on the mountain (‫הר‬, v.17) of his
inheritance (‫נחלתך‬, v.17), the place he chose for his own dwelling.
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.
Like Exodus 15, Psalm 78 recalls the waters standing in a heap (“‫”ויצב מים כמו נד‬,
v.13) during the Israelites’ deliverance. The psalmist, however, employs the word “‫ ַ”וֽ יַּ ֶצּב‬as a
Page <105>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
hifil as opposed to a qal, raising the profile of God’s involvement in events. Subsequent to the
Sea deliverance, God leads (‫וינחם‬, v.14) his people in the desert, a description Psalm 78
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
salvation (‫ישועתו‬, v.22), in contrast to Moses’ declaration in Ex 15:1. Israel’s response to
God’s redemption 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
(‫)גאלם‬, this memory proves ephemeral and they soon lie to him, showing themselves false.
Like Exodus, the psalm recalls God’s anger (‫חרון‬, v.49) being unleashed against the
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. 5255, God is portrayed as leading (‫וינחם‬, v.53) the people in safety, since the sea had covered
(‫כסה‬, v.53) their enemies, and at this point it fails to recall the name Pharaoh. After leading
them through the wilderness, YHWH brings the Israelites to the land of his holy hill (‫הר‬,
v.54), the mountain which his right hand (‫ימינו‬, v.54) acquired (‫קנתה‬, v.54), as opposed to the
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
(‫מקדשו‬, v.69).
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 7-13223 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
psalm, which recalls the rebellion in
1
‫דם‬
7:14-25
‫דם‬
44
the
2
‫צפרדעים‬
7:26-8:11
‫ערב‬
45
3
‫כנים‬
8:12-15
‫צפרדעים‬
45
4
‫ערב‬
8:16-28
‫ארבה‬
46
5
‫דבר‬
9:1-7
‫ברד‬
47
6
‫שחין‬
9:8-12
‫דבר‬
48-50
7
‫ברד‬
9:13-35
‫מכות הבכור‬
51
8
‫ארבה‬
10:1-20
9
‫חשך‬
10:21-23
wilderness
tradition
before
enumerating the plagues’ account.
Both
accounts
begin
their
respective renditions with the same
plague, blood (‫דם‬, 7:14-25). Exodus
recalls Moses striking the Nile and
turning the rivers and streams into
blood, in addition to all of the water in
the Egyptians’ vessels; the fish in the
Nile also die as a result, creating a
10
‫מכת הבכור‬
12:29-32
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.
The frogs (‫ )צפרדעים‬in Exodus (Ex 7:26-8:11), recorded as a single plague, enter into
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
224
In this analysis, I have primarily followed the order of the plagues as they appear in Exodus.
See for example Ex 5:19-21.
Page <107>
Chapter 1-Psalm 78
Psalm 78:45 recalls the frogs together with the swarms (‫)ערב‬, the fourth plague in Exodus.
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.
Psalm 78 omits any recollection of the gnats (‫ )כנים‬as found in Ex 8:12-15 (the third
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
(‫)ערב‬, fourth in Exodus, with the frogs, and, as previously mentioned, portrays them far more
maliciously than their Exodus counterpart, with the ability to devour.
As the fifth plague in Exodus (9:1-7), ‫ דבר‬assumes responsibility for the destruction of
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
plague, ‫ברד‬. Psalm 78 employs ‫ דבר‬as the sixth and penultimate plague whose effects are the
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
Exodus, ‫( שחין‬Ex 9:8-12), affecting man and beast, has no recollection in Psalm 78. Because
this plague constitutes a type of pestilence, the psalmist may have omitted it due to its
similarity with ‫דבר‬.
Exodus’ seventh plague, ‫ברד‬, (fifth in Psalm 78) has the potential for killing man,
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.
Though Psalm 78 fails to record the affects of the ‫ ברד‬on man, a degree of escalation occurs
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,
together with the hail, Psalm 78 includes frost (‫ )חנמל‬as an accompaniment.225
Locust (‫)ארבה‬, the eighth plague in Exodus, appears fourth in the psalm. In Exodus,
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
refrains from mentioning Exodus’ ninth plague, darkness (‫חשך‬, 10:21-23), which conforms to
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 Passover, 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
225
Although a possible allusion to fire appears in v.48, ‫רשף‬.
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).
227
As witnessed in the close reading, a reminder of the darkness, ‫ ֖חֹ ֶשְׁך‬, is apparent from the similar
226
morphological form, ‫ ָח ַ ֣שְׂך‬, in v.50.
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
animals. Exodus recalls that all the cattle die during the ‫( דבר‬Ex 9:1-7). Two plagues later,
during the ‫ברד‬, the cattle are alive and endangered again (they additionally suffer 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
upon his distress, and calling out to God to hear him (‫האזין‬, v.2) in his distress. The psalmist
then turns his thoughts to days of old (‫מקדם‬, v.6) and starts questioning God’s faithfulness (811). After confessing his own faults (v.11), he begins recalling God’s deeds (“‫”מעללי יה‬, v.12)
and his wonders of old (“‫”מקדם פלאך‬, v.12) in an attempt to lift his spirits. He declares
YHWH as being the God who works wonders (‫פלא‬, v.15), and manifests his strength among
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
mighty acts (‫נפלאותיו‬, v.4) so that the following generations will perpetuate the retelling,
putting their trust in YHWH and not forgetting his works (“‫”מעללי אל‬, v.7). Unlike the
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
works (“‫”עלילותיו ונפלאותיו‬, v.11) which he had shown them, and this in turn led to their
punishment. The very idea of recalling YHWH’s works from days of old (‫ )קדם‬forms a
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
on such thoughts, the psalmist finds some solace in his distress. Psalm 78 uses the past (“ ‫מני‬
‫”קדם‬, v.2) as a parable, or an example, from which the present and future generations should
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.
229
Zakovitch (1997:183f.) also notes that Psalm 78 functions as a response to Ps 77 via the root ‫אזן‬. In the latter
psalm, the psalmist turns to God pleading for YHWH to hear him, “‫( ”האזין אלי‬v.2). In reply to this call, we can
see YHWH answering back, and calling for his people to listen to his instruction, “...‫( ”האזינה עמי תורתי‬v.1).
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
by the nations, who entered God’s domain (‫בנחלתך‬, v.1). They left God’s servants as food for
the birds (‫עוף‬, v.2) of heaven, and as flesh for the wild beasts. Their blood (‫דמם‬, v.3) was shed
like water round Jerusalem and they became detestable (‫חרפה‬, v.4) to their neighbors. The
following verses ask how long will God’s indignation blaze like fire (‫אש‬, v.5) and continues
to ask YHWH to pour out his fury (‫חמתך‬, v.6) on the nations that do not know him, and not to
hold (‫תזכר‬, v.8) Israel’s former iniquities against them. The psalmist then cries out for help
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
enemies for the abuse they directed towards him (“‫”חרפתם אשר חרפוך‬, v.12). The final verse
reaffirms the Israelites’ relationship with YHWH, referring to them as the flock (‫צאן‬, v.13) of
his pasture, and also affirms that they will tell (‫נספר‬, v.13) of his praises forever (“‫”לדר ודר‬,
v.13).
Repetition of “‫דר תהלה‬...‫ ”לספר‬between the two psalms represents a failing in the
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. Psalm 79 begins by recounting a time in which Israel are
already suffering punishment. Together with the fact that later in the composition they call for
God to repay their enemies so that his people can eternally tell of his praises (“ ‫נספר‬...‫לדר ודר‬
‫”תהלתך‬, v.13) suggests a cessation of this very activity had occurred. In short, Judah suffered
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
recalls Moses and Aaron leading Israel like a flock through the sea, “ ‫ית ַכ ֣צּ ֹאן ַע ֶ ֑מָּך ְ ֽבּיַ ד־מ ֶ ֹ֥שׁה‬
ָ ‫נָ ִ ֣ח‬
‫”וְ ַא ֲה ֽר ֹן׃‬, v.21. This perception of human shepherds for God’s people alters temporarily in
Psalm 78 as the focus shifts unto God as Israel’s shepherd. He led them via a pillar of cloud
and fire, “ ‫ל־ה ֗ ַלּיְ ָלה ְבּ ֣אוֹר ֵ ֽאשׁ׃‬
ַ֜ ‫יוֹמם וְ ָכ‬
֑ ָ ‫( ”וַ יַּ נְ ֵ ֣חם ֶבּ ָע ָנ֣ ן‬v.14), and in v.53 “...‫”וַ יַּ נְ ֵ ֣חם ָ ֭ל ֶב ַטח וְ ֣ל ֹא ָפ ָ ֑חדו‬, he
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
God’s people, “‫יאוֹ ִ ֭ל ְרעוֹת ְבּיַ ֲע ֣קֹב ַע ֑מּוֹ וּ֜ ְביִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֗אל נַ ֲח ָל ֽתוֹ׃‬
֥ ‫”מא ַ ֥חר ָע ֗לוֹת ֱ֫ה ִב‬
ַ
(v.71). As time passes
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
identify themselves as the sheep of God’s pasture (with him shepherding them), “ ‫וַ ֲא ַנ ְ֤חנוּ ַע ְמּ ָ֙ך׀‬
...‫וֹלם‬
֥ ָ ‫וֹדה ְלּ ָ֗ך ְל ֫ע‬
֥ ֶ ֤‫( ”וְ ֥צ ֹאן ַמ ְר ִע ֶית ָ֘ך נ‬v.13), recalling the days recorded by Psalm 78 when YHWH
himself led them (v.53).232
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
Israel like a flock continues in Ps 80:2, which also employs the word ‫ האזינה‬recalling Psalm 78:1. Additionally,
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
most part the changes are best described as stylistic and orthographic (e.g. ‫[ פיו פיהו‬1Chr 8:12 vs. Ps 105:5],
‫[ עלילותיו עלילתיו‬1Chr 16:8 vs. Ps 105:1], ‫[ ישחק יצחק‬1Chr 16:16 vs. Ps 105:9]). On at least three occasions
(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 the
chronicler 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
appear in the opening section that portray his mighty acts: ‫( נפלאות‬vv.2, 5), ‫( עלילות‬v.1),
‫( משפט‬vv.5, 7) and ‫( מופת‬v.5). No geographical limitations apply to these deeds; they are for
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-incommand. 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
being responsible for the plagues. His mighty acts (‫)מופתים‬, first mentioned in the first stanza,
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
second stanza, along with the words ‫אברהם‬, ‫ארץ‬, and ‫חק‬. The second stanza recalls the
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
‫ילוֹתיו׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫הוֹדיעוּ ָ֜ב ַע ִ֗מּים ֲע ִל‬
֥ ִ ‫הוֹדוּ ַ ֭ליהוָ ה ִק ְר ֣אוּ ִבּ ְשׁ ֑מוֹ‬
֣ 1
Proclaim thanks to YHWH, call out his name, make known among the nations his deeds
The psalm opens with an exhortation to declare praise to YHWH, “‫”הודו ליהוה‬3, which
constitutes one of the features defining it as a Hymn of Praise. Verse one employs three
imperatives to exhort the listeners to praise God, “…‫” הודו…קראו…הודיעו‬,4 each being a verb
expressing vocal declaration.5 On one hand, “‫ ”קראו בשמו‬suggests invoking God and being
involved with him in an act of worship.6 On the other hand, this same expression bears the
nuance of declaring and speaking out his name. Within the present context, ‫ שם‬is best
understood as a reference to God’s reputation. In Gen 11:4, the people of Shinar sought a
reputation (‫ )שם‬for themselves, attempting to accomplish something that would make them
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
declaration among the nations, “‫”…הודיעו בעמים עלילותיו‬. The second colon introduces the idea
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
this psalm, are represented in this verse by ‫עלילותיו‬. When used of God, this word frequently
refers to miraculous deeds YHWH enacts to aid his people, as in Psalm 77:13 where it
2
See close reading for v.45.
The Septuagint moves “Hallelujah” 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.
5
For ‫ להודות‬as a verb of vocal declaration, see BDB 986, and Jos 7:19, which employs the noun ‫ תודה‬from the
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
3
Page <118>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
parallels ‫פעל‬, another verb of action, “‫יחה׃‬
ָ ‫ילוֹתיָך ָא ִ ֽשׂ‬
֣ ֶ ‫ל־פּ ֳע ֶלָ֑ך ֽוּ ַב ֲע ִ ֖ל‬
ָ ‫( ”וְ ָהִ ֥ג ִיתי ְב ָכ‬s. also Ps 66:5). In
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,
“...‫יֹלתיו‬
֑ ָ ‫הוֹדיעוּ ָ ֽב ַע ִ ֖מּים ֲע ִ ֽל‬
֥ ִ ‫הוֹדוּ ַ ֽליהוָ ֙ה ִק ְר ֣אוּ ִב ְשׁ ֔מוֹ‬
֤ ...” (Isa 12:4), which speaks of a new song that
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.
‫אוֹתיו׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫רוּ־לוֹ ִ֜שׂיחוּ ְבּ ָכל־נִ ְפ ְל‬
֑ ‫ ִ ֽשׁירוּ־ל֖ וֹ זַ ְמּ‬2
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
vocalization, “...‫שיחו‬...‫ ;”שירו…זמרו‬the first two suggest a musical accompaniment and are
commonly used synonymously (s. Pss 21:14, 57:8 for ‫ שיח‬as a verb of speaking), and Job
7:11 contrasts “‫ ”לא אחשך פי‬with ‫ שיחו‬and ‫( אדברה‬s. also Jud 5:10 and Pr 6:22).8 The second
half of the verse presents another synonym for God’s deeds: ‫ ;נפלאותיו‬v.1 employed ‫עלילותיו‬
and the two appear together in Psalm 78:11. The root ‫ פלא‬generally indicates something
difficult to understand (see Job 37:5, 42:3) or a task difficult for a man to accomplish (Deut
17:8). In the context of this psalm, ‫ נפלאות‬refers to the unique works YHWH wrought on
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.
The preposition ‫ ל‬could be rendered “about”, reading “Sing about him!”, which is to say about the acts he has
performed. See Psalm 98:1 for this understanding, and BDB 514.
9
See close reading for Ps 78:4.
8
Page <119>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
‫הוה׃‬
ֽ ָ ְ‫שׁם ָק ְד ֑שׁוֹ ִ֜י ְשׂ ַ֗מח ֵל֤ב׀ ְמ ַב ְק ֵ֬שׁי י‬
֣ ֵ ‫ ִ ֭ה ְת ַה ְללוּ ְבּ‬3
Praise his holy name; let the seekers of YHWH rejoice
Verbal declaration continues in v.3 with ‫התהללו‬, meaning “to boast on the grounds of…” or
“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,
originally mentioned in v.1, is further described here as holy “‫”שם קדשו‬, that is to say unique
and set apart from all others (s. Gen 2:3 concerning the Sabbath). Additionally, the word ‫שם‬
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
the first time, “‫—”מבקשי יהוה‬in all likelihood a reference to the Israelites (s. Ps 69:7), or more
specifically, godly Israelites (s. Zeph 1:6). The wish for happiness, “‫”ישמח לב‬, to those who
seek the Lord is echoed in Psalm 70:5, and contrasts with the string of imperatives previously
mentioned. The change in mood corresponds with a change in subject to “‫”מבקשי יהוה‬, and
we see a new theme introduced, “seeking the Lord”, highlighted by the root ‫בקש‬.
‫הו֣ה וְ ֻעזּ֑ וֹ ַבּ ְקּ ֖שׁוּ ָפ ָנ֣יו ָתּ ִ ֽמיד׃‬
ָ ְ‫ ִדּ ְר ֣שׁוּ י‬4
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.3b; 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
‫ דרשו‬and ‫ בקשו‬both emphasize the action of seeking;10 they frequently appear in parallel (Is
65:1, Ps 24:6, Pr 11:27) and in exhortations to worship (Deut 4:29, Hos 3:5, 7:10, Jer 50:4).
As the verb’s object, 11‫ עזו‬here signifies God’s presence, understandable from the parallel with
10
The Septuagint translates both verbs as ζητησατε, indicating they are synonymous in this context.
Here, the Septuagint reads an imperative form, which may have been influenced by the multiple imperatives
found in vv.1-7.
11
Page <120>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
‫פניו‬, where his face equates to his presence, in addition to its use in Ps 78:61 “ ‫וַ יִּ ֵ ֣תּן ַל ְשּׁ ִ ֣בי ֻעזּ֑ וֹ‬
‫ד־צר׃‬
ֽ ָ ַ‫”ו ִת ְפ ַא ְר ֥תּוֹ ְבי‬,
ֽ ְ where it signifies the Ark, the place where YHWH was present among the
Israelites. An alternative way of rendering ‫ עוז‬is “God’s strength to save”, based on Ex 15:13,
“‫ית ְב ַח ְס ְדָּך֖ ַעם־ז֣ וּ גָּ ָ ֑א ְל ָתּ נֵ ַ ֥ה ְל ָתּ ְב ָעזְּ ָך֖ ֶאל־נְ ֵו֥ה ָק ְד ֶ ֽשָׁך׃‬
ָ ‫( ”נָ ִ ֥ח‬s. also Pss 21:2, 66:3, and 74:13).
Interpreting it this way suits the psalm’s context because the following sections speak of
YHWH’s great power in deliverance. The modifier ‫ תמיד‬functions both adverbially, meaning
“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.
‫י־פיו׃‬
ֽ ִ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ְפּ ֵט‬
ִ ‫מ ְפ ָ֗תיו‬
ֹ ֜ ‫ר־ע ָ ֑שׂה‬
ָ ‫אוֹתיו ֲא ֶשׁ‬
֥ ָ ‫ זִ ְכ ֗רוּ נִ ְפ ְל‬5
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
denoting remembrance. More than just remembering, however, ‫ זכר‬usually signifies acting in
accordance with what you have remembered. Nehemiah 4:8, “ ‫נּוֹר ֙א זְ ֔כֹרוּ‬
ָ ‫ת־אד ָֹ֞ני ַה ָגּ ֤דוֹל וְ ַה‬
ֲ ‫ ֶא‬...
‫יכם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫וּב ֵתּ‬
ָ ‫יכם ְנ ֵשׁ ֶיכ֖ם‬
ֶ֔ ‫וּבנ ֵֹת‬
ְ ‫יכ ֙ם ְבּ ֵנ ֶיכ֣ם‬
ֶ ‫ל־א ֵח‬
ֲ ‫”וְ ִ ֽה ָלּ ֲח ֗מוּ ַע‬, exhorts the exiles not just to remember the
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
speak of God’s magnificent deeds (‫)נפלאות‬, and so it is only logical that here they are called
12
Similar instances in which ‫ תמיד‬modifies that which immediately precedes it appear in Nah 3:19 and Ps 71:6;
s. Dahood (1981).
13
See close reading for Ps 78:42.
Page <121>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
upon to remember them. The word corresponding to ‫ נפלאות‬in the second colon is ‫מפתיו‬,
which similarly often recalls the plagues’ tradition of Exodus.14
In the present context the word ‫ משפט‬signifies deeds of judgment (s. Is 26:9, Jer
48:21, Ezek 39:21, and Ps 7:7), referring to those instances in which YHWH intervenes to
administer punishment or reward. With this understanding, “‫ ”משפטי פיו‬describes verbal acts
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
‫יריו׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫יַע ֣קֹב ְבּ ִח‬
ֲ ‫ ֶ֭ז ַרע ַא ְב ָר ָ ֣הם ַע ְב ֑דּוֹ ְבּ ֵנ֖י‬6
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 Abraham16 in this psalm separates it from the other
historiographic psalms, which neither mention him nor allude to events in his life. Abraham’s
seed, “‫”זרע אברהם‬, in this verse naturally refers to the nation of Israel, paralleling “‫”בני יעקב‬
(s. also Jer 33:26). The psalm accentuates Israel’s unique status in various ways. In this verse,
the emphasis manifests itself in the term ‫בחיריו‬17 (s. also vv.26 and 43), which together
with ‫ עבדו‬constitutes a word pair frequently found in Isaiah, where it similarly relates Israel to
the Patriarchs, “‫( ”וְ ַע ָ ֥תּה ְשׁ ַ ֖מע יַ ֲע ֣קֹב ַע ְב ִ ֑דּי וְ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֖אל ָבּ ַ ֥ח ְר ִתּי ֽבוֹ׃‬Is 44:1; s. also Is 41:8 and 45:418).
14
See Ex 4:21, 7:3, 7:9, 11:9, and 11:10.
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.
15
Page <122>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
‫ל־ה ָ֗א ֶרץ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ָ ֽטיו׃‬
ָ֜ ‫ֹלהינוּ ְבּ ָכ‬
֑ ֵ ‫הו֣ה ֱא‬
ָ ְ‫ ֭הוּא י‬7
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 thirdperson common plural pronoun ‫אלהינו‬, which additionally establishes an intimate relationship
between God and his people. His judgments (‫ )משפטיו‬are further detailed in this verse,
previously they were verbal (v.5) and now the psalmist states they are not limited by
geographical boundaries, but exist in all the world, “‫”בכל הארץ‬. In describing God this way,
the psalmist alludes to the title Abraham gave to God when he mediated on behalf of Lot in
ָ ‫השׁ ֵֹפ ֙ט ָכּ‬...”.
ֲ
In this context, God indeed serves as a judge
Gen 18:25, “‫ל־ה ָ֔א ֶרץ ֥ל ֹא יַ ֲע ֶ ֖שׂה ִמ ְשׁ ָ ֽפּט׃‬
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
‫יתוֹ ָדּ ָ ֥בר ִ֜צ ָ ֗וּה ְל ֶ ֣א ֶלף ֽדּוֹר׃‬
֑ ‫עוֹל֣ם ְבּ ִר‬
ָ ‫ זָ ַכ֣ר ְל‬8
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
Israelites to remember (‫ )זכרו‬the Lord’s mighty acts performed on their behalf (v.5), and now
19
The repeated plural imperatives, concentration of the divine name, reasons for praising him (in this case his
wonders), and words of praise such as ‫( הודו‬v.1), ‫( שירו‬v.2), ‫( זמרו‬v.2), and ‫( התהללו‬v3) constitute strong
indicators for Gunkel’s form-critical category Hymn of Praise; s. Gunkel and Begrich (1998:22-34).
Page <123>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
it shows how God remembered20 (‫ )זכר‬his covenant. The chiastic structure within v.8 serves
as an emphatic opening to the section and highlights through repetition the eternal nature of
the covenant: ‫ לאלף דור‬: ‫ דבר‬:: ‫ בריתו‬: ‫לעולם‬. The corresponding terms ‫ דבר‬and ‫ ברית‬here
represent the important theme of God’s covenant, or promise.21 Furthermore, we can surmise
that ‫ דבר‬further defines ‫ ברית‬not as a two-sided covenant but as a unilateral promise that
YHWH alone is obliged to keep, such as that found in Gen 9:16, “ ‫וְ ָהיְ ָ ֥תה ַה ֶ ֖קּ ֶשׁת ֶ ֽבּ ָע ָנ֑ ן ְוּר ִא ִ֗ית ָיה‬
...‫ל־נ ֶ֣פשׁ ַח ָ֔יּה‬
ֶ ‫וּב ֙ין ָכּ‬
ֵ ‫ֹלהים‬
ִ֔ ‫עוֹלם ֵבּ֣ין ֱא‬
ָ ֔ ‫” ִלזְ כּ ֹ֙ר ְבּ ִ ֣רית‬. Additionally, the word ‫ דבר‬bears the meaning
“word”, which is to say a “spoken utterance”, alluding to one of the “‫ ”משפטי פיו‬mentioned in
v.5; thus, the promise mentioned here exemplifies one of YHWH’s spoken judgments. The
promise made by God is something that he has determined to do, ‫צוה‬, a modifier expressing a
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.
‫וּע ֣תוֹ ְליִ ְשׂ ָ ֽחק׃‬
ָ ‫וּשׁ ֖ב‬
ְ ‫ת־א ְב ָר ָ ֑הם‬
ַ ‫שׁר ָ ֭כּ ַרת ֶא‬
֣ ֶ ‫ ֲא‬9
Which he cut with Abraham, and his oath to Isaac23
Verse 9 continues by further detailing the covenant introduced in v.8. The connection between
the verses is primarily established by the relative pronoun ‫אשר‬, and subsequently
strengthened by the breaking up of a composite phrase, “‫( ”כרת ברית‬cf. Hos 10:4, Ps 89:4).
The psalm specifically identifies the promise mentioned in vv.8-9 with God’s promise to
20
The chronicler here apparently adds a waw to the word ‫זכר‬, making the form an imperative addressed to his
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.
21
Even though the term ‫ ברית‬stems from a pool of legal terminology, it does not necessarily bear this nuance in
the present context.
22
The only other place “‫ ”אלף דור‬occurs in the Bible is Deut 7:9, where it describes God’s faithfulness to his
covenant, although the covenant mentioned in Deuteronomy differs.
23
This variation of the word ‫ יצחק‬stems from the phonetic similarity between ‫ צ‬and ‫ ;ש‬s. Kutscher (1974:104f.).
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,
‫יצחק‬, which occurs in both pre-exilic and postexilic texts. Consequently, the change in representation probably
represents a dialectal variant.
Page <124>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
Abraham in Genesis, “…‫ת־א ְב ָ ֖רם ְבּ ִ ֣רית‬
ַ ‫הו֛ה ֶא‬
ָ ְ‫”בּיּ֣ וֹם ַה ֗הוּא ָכּ ַ ֧רת י‬
ַ (Gen 15:18). In both passages the
particle ‫ את‬does not serve as a direct object marker but a preposition “with” (s. also Gen
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
ַ ‫ֹתי ֶא‬
֙ ִ ‫וַ ֲה ִ ֽ קמ‬...
the covenant, the second colon alludes to Gen 26:3, “ ‫ת־ה ְשּׁ ֻב ֔ ָעה ֲא ֶ ֥שׁר ִנ ְשׁ ַ ֖בּ ְע ִתּי‬
‫”ל ַא ְב ָר ָ ֥הם ָא ִ ֽביָך‬,
ְ when God reaffirmed the promise he originally made with Abraham to Isaac.
Appearing in this colon is a third synonym for the promise, ‫שבועתו‬, meaning oath (s. Deut
7:8, Jer 11:5), a word that further reinforces the connection between vv.8-9.24
‫עוֹלם׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫יד ָה ְליַ ֲע ֣קֹב ְל ֑חֹק ֜ ְליִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֗אל ְבּ ִ ֣רית‬
֣ ֶ ‫ וַ יַּ ֲֽע ִמ‬10
He
established it for Jacob as an ordinance, for Israel an everlasting covenant
Continuing to describe the promise, v.10 recalls events in Gen 28:13, “ ‫ ָה ָ֗א ֶרץ ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר ַא ָתּ ֙ה שׁ ֵֹכ֣ב‬...
‫וּלזַ ְר ֶ ֽעָך׃‬
ְ ‫יה ְלָך֥ ֶא ְתּ ֶנ֖נָּ ה‬
ָ ‫” ָע ֔ ֶל‬, when God appears to Jacob reaffirming the oath he originally made
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
stronger link with the previous verse. In the present stanza, ‫ חק‬refers to the covenant with
Abraham, which was first introduced in v.8 (s. also Jos 24:25 for a similar association
between ‫ חק‬and ‫)ברית‬. Within the present context, ‫ ישראל‬refers to the nation because in
vv.10-11 each colon represents a separate generation in which the promise is preserved
(“‫ישראל‬...‫יעקב‬...‫ישחק‬...‫)”אברהם‬, from the Patriarch Abraham via Isaac and Jacob to the
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
is the last phrase of the verse, “‫”ברית עולם‬, which creates an inclusion with the start of v.8
24
The two words ‫ שבועה‬and ‫ דבר‬appear synonymously in Num 30:3.
Page <125>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
“‫”עולם ברית‬: within this envelope, the promise’s durability is demonstrated. At this stage, it is
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.
‫ץ־כּ ָנ ַ֑ען ֶ֜ח ֶבל נַ ֲח ַל ְת ֶ ֽכם׃‬
ְ ‫ת־א ֶר‬
ֽ ֶ ‫מר ְל ָ֗ך ֶא ֵ ֥תּן ֶא‬
ֹ ֗ ‫ ֵלא‬11
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
itself, alluding to Gen 15:18, “...‫ת־ה ָ ֣א ֶרץ ַה ֔זּ ֹאת‬
ָ ‫תּי ֶא‬
֙ ִ ‫מר ְלזַ ְר ֲע ָ֗ך נָ ַ֙ת‬
ֹ ֑ ‫לא‬...”.
ֵ
Even though the psalmist
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
Abraham’s descendants the land of Canaan. The psalmist’s use of ‫ לאמר‬is slightly out 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
situation: the promise is phrased in the singular to Abraham, ‫לך‬, but the fulfillment appears in
the plural, ‫נחלתכם‬,27 encompassing the psalmist’s contemporary audience. Appearing for the
second time in the psalm is ‫ארץ‬, which here only refers to the land of Canaan, as opposed to
the whole earth in v.7. The land of Canaan is bestowed to Abraham’s descendants as a ‫נחלה‬,
an inheritance passed down from generation to generation, as Num 36:7 implies, “ ‫סּב‬
ֹ ֤ ‫א־ת‬
ִ ֹ ‫וְ ֽל‬
‫ל־מ ֶ ֑טּה ִ ֣כּי ִ֗אישׁ ְבּנַ ֲח ַל ֙ת ַמ ֵ ֣טּה ֲאב ָֹ֔תיו יִ ְד ְבּ ֖קוּ ְבּ ֵנ֥י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֽאל׃‬
ַ ‫( ”נַ ֲח ָל ֙ה ִל ְב ֵנ֣י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֔אל ִמ ַמּ ֶ ֖טּה ֶא‬s. also Job 42:15).
The act of giving land as an inheritance further exemplifies God’s judgments going out into
25
An alternative reading of this verse is possible by moving the pause to ‫ארץ‬, rendering “…I will give the land,
Canaan as an everlasting possession” breaking the composite phrase, “‫”ארץ כנען‬, creating a relationship in which
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
all the earth, “‫( ”בכל הארץ משפטיו‬v.7). YHWH’s ability to bestow the land of one nation to
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
as a “‫”ברית עולם‬. The psalm further illustrates this fact in its remaining verses, which detail
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.
‫יוֹתם ְמ ֵ ֣תי ִמ ְס ָ ֑פּר ִ֜כּ ְמ ֗ ַעט וְ גָ ִ ֥רים ָ ֽבּהּ׃‬
ָ ‫ ִ ֭בּ ְה‬12
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
as the forces of Creation. Verse 12 recalls when the Patriarchs were small in number,30 “ ‫מתי‬
‫”מספר‬, and lived in the land of Canaan. Literally, “‫ ”מתי מספר‬means “men of small number”,
although the word ‫ מספר‬by itself can simply be translated “few” (s. Is 10:19).31 The phrase
“‫ ”מתי מספר‬recalls Gen 34:30, “...‫וַ ֲא ִ ֙ני ְמ ֵ ֣תי ִמ ְס ֔ ָפּר וְ נֶ ֶא ְס ֤פוּ ָע ַ ֙לי וְ ִה ֔כּ ִוּני‬...”, which is one of the few
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
generations to his audience. This he achieves by altering the suffix on ‫ בהיותם‬from the third-person plural to the
second-person plural (‫)בהיותכם‬.
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.
The Psalm portrays the Patriarchs here as ‫גָ ִרים‬, which is to say sojourners, people who
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
promise is fulfilled are they no longer ‫גרים‬. In using this word, the psalmist additionally
recalls Gen 23:4, “...‫תוֹשׁב ָאנ ִ ֹ֖כי ִע ָמּ ֶכ֑ם‬
֥ ָ ְ‫”גֵּ ר־ו‬,34 in which Abraham describes himself as a
sojourner when he purchase a plot of land to bury Sarah. At this stage in his life, he wandered
from place to place and the promise of land was still awaiting fulfillment. The pronoun ‫ בה‬in
this verse refers to ‫כנען‬, previously mentioned in v.11; it also determines the geographical
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.
‫ל־עם ַא ֵ ֽחר׃‬
֥ ַ ‫ ַ ֭ויִּ ְת ַה ְלּכוּ ִמגּ֣ וֹי ֶאל־גּ֑ וֹי ִ֜מ ַמּ ְמ ָל ָ֗כה ֶא‬13
They walked about from nation to nation, from kingdom to another people
As a consequence of being sojourners, ‫גרים‬, the Patriarchs traveled from people to people.
The verb ‫התהלכו‬, meaning to wander about with no specific destination (s. Ps 82:5 and Esth
2:11), complements the patriarchal status of ‫גרים‬, because they had not yet established a
country of residence. Verse 13 recalls Gen 13:17, which speaks of God’s command to
Abraham to walk about the land and re-emphasizes God’s promise to give it to him, “ ‫ק֚ וּם‬
33
34
See BDB 157; and also Jud 17:7-9.
Here, the related noun ‫גֵ ר‬, “stranger”, is used.
Page <128>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
‫וּל ָר ְח ָ ֑בּהּ ִ ֥כּי ְלָך֖ ֶא ְתּ ֶנֽנָּ ה׃‬
ְ ‫” ִה ְת ַה ֵלְּ֣ך ָבּ ָ֔א ֶרץ ְל ָא ְר ָ ֖כּהּ‬.35 Even though ‫ גוי‬is a general term referring to a
people or nation, in this context it specifically relates to those peoples living in Canaan
because this was the region in which the Patriarchs wandered. The word ‫ ממלכה‬alludes to
another incident in which the Patriarchs faced danger. The only instance in which it appears
with respect to the Patriarchs occurs in Gen 20:9, “...‫ל־מ ְמ ַל ְכ ִ ֖תּי ֲח ָט ָ ֣אה ְגד ָֹל֑ה‬
ַ ‫את ָע ַל֛י וְ ַע‬
ָ ‫־ה ֵ ֧ב‬
ֵ ‫ ִ ֽכּי‬...”.36
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
promise. Heightening the notion of a threat is the phrase ‫עם אחר‬, which appears as a synonym
for Israel’s enemies in Deut 28:31-32, “ ‫בּניָך‬
ֶ֙ ָ ‫מוֹשׁ ַיע׃‬
ִֽ
֖‫אנ ָ֙ך נְ ֻתנוֹת ְלאֹיְ ֶ֔ביָך וְ ֵ ֥אין ְלָך‬
ְ ֹ ‫וְ ֥ל ֹא יָ ֖שׁוּב ָלְ֑ך ֽצ‬...
ִ֙‫”וּבנ ֶֹ֜תיָך נְ ֻ נ‬.
ְ
The use of ‫ עם אחר‬here in the psalm refers to the nations that stood
...‫ת ים ְל ַ ֤עם ַא ֵחר‬
as a threat to the promise, it also recalls the nations to whom YHWH’s deeds were proclaimed
in v.1, “‫ילוֹתיו׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫הוֹדיעוּ ָ֜ב ַע ִ֗מּים ֲע ִל‬
֥ ִ ...”.
‫יהם ְמ ָל ִ ֽכים׃‬
֣ ֶ ‫וֹכח ֲע ֵל‬
ַ ֖‫א־ה ִנּ ַ֣יח ָא ָ ֣דם ְל ָע ְשׁ ָ ֑ קם וַ יּ‬
ִ ֹ ‫ ֽל‬14
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
devoted to God and his ability to protect them. He never permitted “‫( ”לא הניח‬s. also Ecc
5:11, Jud 16:26, and Lam 5:5) anyone to harm them, in spite of the potential danger. The
merismus “‫ ”אדם…מלכים‬highlights YHWH’s prevention of anyone from oppressing (‫לעשקם‬,
s. 1Sam 12:3, Ps 62:11) the Patriarchs, from a single man, to many kings, implying all in
between. More specifically, the word ‫ מלכים‬points to two different events in the lives of the
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
oppressing the Patriarchs, God had to intervene verbally and rebuke, ‫ויוכח‬, those who
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.
36
Together, the words ‫ גוי‬and ‫ ממלכה‬are well attested in biblical literature as a parallel pair; s. for example Jer
51:20, in addition to Pss 46:7 and 79:6.
Page <129>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
threatened them. An instance of this occurs in Gen 31:42 “‫וֹכח ָ ֽא ֶמשׁ׃‬
ַ ֥‫ֹלהים וַ יּ‬
֖ ִ ‫”…ר ָ ֥אה ֱא‬,
ָ
when
Laban threatened Jacob’s life. Furthermore, the root ‫ יכח‬recalls the incident in which the king
of Gerar posed a threat to Abraham and Sarah. Unlike the previous instance, however, the
king was not reproved, “ ‫שׁר‬
֣ ֶ ‫הוּא־ל ְ֙ך ְכּ ֣סוּת ֵע ַ֔יניִ ם ְל ֖כֹל ֲא‬
ָ
‫וּל ָשׂ ָ ֣רה ָא ַ֗מר ִהנֵּ֙ ה נָ ַ֜ת ִתּי ֶ ֤א ֶלף ֶכּ ֶ֙ס ֙ף ְל ָא ִ֔חיְך ִה ֵ ֤נּה‬
ְ
‫֖כֹּל וְ נ ָ ֹֽכ ַחת׃‬
‫( ” ִא ָ ֑תְּך וְ ֵ ֥את‬Gen 20:16). Though the meaning of ‫ נכחת‬here refers to Sarah’s
vindication, the account itself speaks of God intervening on her behalf.
‫ל־תּ ֵ ֽרעוּ׃‬
ָ ‫יאי ַא‬
ַ ‫יחי ְ ֜ו ִלנְ ִב‬
֑ ָ ‫ ַ ֽאל־ ִתּ ְגּ ֥עוּ ִב ְמ ִשׁ‬15
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
By employing the word ‫ נגע‬together with ‫( יכח‬v.14), the psalmist creates a semantic
connection with the previous verse, in 2Sam 7:14 both appear together synonymously, “ ‫ֲא ִ ֙ני‬
‫שׁ ֶבט ֲא ָנ ִ֔שׁים וּ ְבנִ ְג ֵ ֖עי ְבּ ֵ ֥ני ָא ָ ֽדם׃‬
֣ ֵ ‫וֹתוֹ וְ ֽהֹ ַכ ְח ִתּ ֙יו ְבּ‬
֔ ‫ה־לּי ְל ֵ ֑בן ֲא ֶשׁ ֙ר ְבּ ַ ֣ה ֲע‬
֣ ִ ֶ‫”א ְהיֶ ה־לּ֣ וֹ ְל ָ֔אב וְ ֖הוּא יִ ְהי‬.
ֶ Recalling Gen
20:6, the phrase “‫ ”אל תגעו במשיחי‬echoes God’s words when he rebuked Abimelech for taking
֥ ֵ ‫ע‬...”.
ַ
Furthermore, the verse echoes an event in
Abraham’s wife, “‫ל־כּן לֹא־נְ ַת ִ ֖תּיָך ִלנְ ֹ֥גּ ַע ֵא ֶ ֽל ָיה׃‬
Isaac’s life. In Gen 26:11, Abimelech charges all of his citizens to leave Isaacs wife alone,
“‫יוּמת׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫וּב ִא ְשׁ ֖תּוֹ ֥מוֹת‬
ְ ‫מר ַהנּ ֵֹ֜ג ַע ָבּ ִ ֥אישׁ ַה ֶ ֛זּה‬
ֹ ֑ ‫ל־ה ָ ֖עם ֵלא‬
ָ ‫ת־כּ‬
ָ ‫ימ ֶלְך ֶא‬
ֶ֔ ‫”וַ יְ ַ ֣צו ֲא ִב‬. With this last citation, it is
possible to see the psalmist relating to at least one event in each of the Patriarchs’ lives. The
corresponding terms ‫ משיחי‬and ‫ נביאי‬bear a nuance of being “chosen”, as did the words ‫עבד‬
and ‫ בחיר‬in v.6. Ordinarily, ‫ משיח‬is reserved for priests and kings38 (s. Lev 4:5, 16:32 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).
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
anointing.
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.
38
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”
in v.15, ‫נביאי‬, draws our attention to the peculiar40 verse Gen 20:7, “ ‫ישׁ‬
֙ ‫ת־ה ִא‬
ָ ‫וְ ַע ָ֗תּה ָה ֵ ֤שׁב ֵ ֽא ֶשׁ‬
...‫”כּי־נָ ִ ֣ביא ֔הוּא וְ יִ ְת ַפּ ֵ ֥לּל ַ ֽבּ ַע ְדָך֖ ֶו ְֽח ֵי֑ה‬,
ֽ ִ where Abraham receives this title. It constitutes the only
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
behalf of the king of Gerar. In the second colon, the phrase ‫ אל תרעו‬recalls another incident in
which God verbally intervenes on behalf of the Patriarchs. As mentioned in v.14, God
prevents Laban from harming Jacob in Gen 31:7, “‫ֹלהים ְל ָה ַ ֖רע ִע ָמּ ִ ֽדי׃‬
ִ֔ ‫וְ ֽל ֹא־נְ ָתנ֣ וֹ ֱא‬...”.
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
verses represents an example of the judgments of his mouth, “‫”משפטי פיו‬, mentioned in v.5.41
‫ה־ל ֶחם ָשׁ ָ ֽבר׃‬
֥ ֶ ‫ל־מ ֵטּ‬
ַ ‫ל־ה ָ ֑א ֶרץ ָ ֽכּ‬
ָ ‫ וַ יִּ ְק ָ ֣רא ָ ֭ר ָעב ַע‬16
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.
Opening the section is a reference to God calling a famine on the earth, “‫”ויקרא רעב‬,
which once again recalls “‫ ”משפטי פיו‬from v.3 since ‫ קרא‬is a verb usually associated with
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
phrase ‫ויקרא‬, contributing to the author’s plan of portraying God’s omnipotence, in good and
bad situations.43 The expression “‫ ”מטה לחם שבר‬constitutes an expansion of ‫ רעב‬in the first
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 famine44 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
that it contains the root ‫שבר‬, which copiously appears in the Genesis Joseph narrative with
different meanings (s. for example 41:56, 57, 42:1-3, 7, 10, 19).
‫יוֹסף׃‬
ֽ ֵ ‫יהם ִ ֑אישׁ ֜ ְל ֗ ֶע ֶבד נִ ְמ ַ ֥כּר‬
֣ ֶ ‫ ָשׁ ַל֣ח ִל ְפ ֵנ‬17
He sent before them a man; as a slave he was sold, Joseph
In addition to calling a famine, God sent a man, “‫”שלח לפניהם איש‬, to prepare the way for the
patriarchal family. Verse 17 recalls Joseph’s own words when he speaks of the same situation
in Gen 45:7, “...‫יכם ָל ֥שׂוּם ָל ֶכ֛ם ְשׁ ֵא ִ ֖רית ָבּ ָ ֑א ֶרץ‬
ֶ֔ ֵ‫ֹלה ֙ים ִל ְפנ‬
ִ ‫”וַ יִּ ְשׁ ָל ֵ ֤ח ִני ֱא‬. Moreover, on various occasions
the Genesis narrative describes Joseph as ‫איש‬, such as, “ ‫יְהי ִ ֣אישׁ ַמ ְצ ִ ֑ל ַיח וַ יְ ִ֕הי‬
֖ ִ ַ‫ת־יוֹסף ו‬
ֵ֔
‫וַ יְ ִ ֤הי יְ הוָ ֙ה ֶא‬
‫”בּ ֵ ֥בית ֲאד ָֹנ֖יו ַה ִמּ ְצ ִ ֽרי׃‬
ְ (39:2; s. also 43:3-14). We can interpret Joseph’s role as an ‫ עבד‬in two
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 Ruth 1:1, the author does not attribute the famine to God; rather, it simply
happened as a natural course of events.
44
The term ‫ מטה לחם‬is generally understood as the pole on which bread rings were hung to protect them from
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
wife describes him thus in Gen 39:17, “...‫א־א ֞ ַלי ָה ֶ ֧ע ֶבד ָ ֽה ִע ְב ִ ֛רי‬
ֵ ‫מר ָ ֽבּ‬
ֹ ֑ ‫”וַ ְתּ ַד ֵבּ֣ר ֵא ֔ ָליו ַכּ ְדּ ָב ִ ֥רים ָה ֵ ֖א ֶלּה ֵלא‬.
On the other hand, ‫ עבד‬also indicates Joseph’s position before YHWH, as his “servant” or
“chosen one”, a title previously bestowed to Abraham in v.6. Though Joseph was obviously
sold as a slave, the psalm obscures the identity of those who sold him via a nifal verb, ‫נמכר‬, as
ְ
opposed to the qal in Gen 37:27, “...‫י־א ִ ֥חינוּ ְב ָשׂ ֵ ֖רנוּ ֑הוּא‬
ָ ‫י־בוֹ ִ ֽכּ‬
֔ ‫ל־תּ ִה‬
ְ ‫אלים וְ יָ ֵ ֙ד ֙נוּ ַא‬
ִ ֗ ‫;”ל ֞כוּ וְ נִ ְמ ְכּ ֶ ֣רנּוּ ַליִּ ְשׁ ְמ ֵע‬
consequently, the fact that Joseph’s own brothers sold him is not conveyed in this rendition of
events. By substituting ‫ איש‬in the first colon for the name ‫יוסף‬, the psalmist creates an
instance of delayed identification, waiting until the last moment to reveal the subject’s
identity.46
‫ ִענּ֣ וּ ַב ֶכּ ֶ֣בל ) ַר ְג ָליו( ] ַר ְג ֑לוֹ[ ַ֜בּ ְר ֶ֗זל ָבּ ָ֣אה נַ ְפ ֽשׁוֹ׃‬18
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.
His feet were bound, ‫( ענו‬lit. “oppressed”), with chains, and his neck, ‫נפש‬, with iron. Together
‫ נפש‬and ‫ רגל‬constitute a merismus, which is to say Joseph was bound from head to foot (the
equivalent of being bound “hand and foot” in English). In this interpretation, ‫ נפש‬has the
literal interpretation of “neck”, as in Jon 2:5.47 One’s “neck” could also be read figuratively
constituting an expression of subjugation as Jer 27:12 indicates, “ ‫אר ֶ֜יכם ְבּ ֣עֹל‬
ֵ ְ‫ת־צוּ‬
ַ ‫ ָה ֙ ִביאוּ ֶא‬...
‫ְך־בּ ֶ֗בל וְ ִע ְב ֥דוּ א ֹ֛תוֹ וְ ַע ֖מּוֹ ִ ֽו ְחיֽ וּ׃‬
ָ ‫”מ ֶל‬.
ֽ ֶ 48 Genesis provides no evidence supporting this description;
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).
For another example of this concept, see Ps 112:6.
47
See also KB (vol. 2, 711f.); and Is 5:14 where it parallels ‫פה‬, and forms the object of ‫הרחיב‬.
46
48
It is also possible to read “soul” (like the Septuagint, ψυχὴ). The word ‫ נפש‬may additionally form part of an
expression ‫נפש‬...‫ ענה‬meaning “to humble” (s. Lev 16:31, Num 30:14, Is 58:5, Psalm 35:13). Understanding it
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.
‫הו֣ה ְצ ָר ָ ֽפ ְתהוּ׃‬
ָ ְ‫א־ד ָב ֑רוֹ ִא ְמ ַ ֖רת י‬
ְ ֹ ‫ד־עת ֽבּ‬
֥ ֵ ‫ ַע‬19
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
promise, “‫”עד עת בא דברו‬, where the word ‫ בא‬additionally links vv.18-19. By itself, the
phrase ‫ דברו‬serves two functions in this context. In the life of Joseph it refers to God’s word,
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
descendants. Verse 19 consists of a terrace pattern50 with ‫ דברו‬corresponding to “‫”אמרת יהוה‬,
a word pair found in Ps 147:15, “‫ד־מ ֵה ָ ֗רה יָ ֥רוּץ ְדּ ָב ֽרוֹ׃‬
ְ֜ ‫”השּׁ ֵֹל ַ֣ח ִא ְמ ָר ֣תוֹ ָ ֑א ֶרץ ַע‬,
ַ that similarly depicts
an action brought about by God’s spoken word. The poetic word ‫ אמרה‬represents another
actualization of “‫”משפטי פיו‬. God’s spoken word, “‫”אמרת יהוה‬, purifies and prepares Joseph,
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
by the wording of Ps 18:31, “...‫רוּפה‬
֑ ָ ‫הו֥ה ְצ‬
ָ ְ‫” ָה ֵא ֘ל ָתּ ִ ֪מים ַ ֫דּ ְר ֥כּוֹ ִא ְמ ַ ֽרת־י‬, which similarly describes
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.
‫ יְפ ְתּ ֵ ֽחהוּ׃‬
ַ ‫ירהוּ מ ֵ ֹ֥שׁל ֜ ַע ִ֗מּים ַ ֽו‬
֑ ֵ ‫ ָ ֣שׁ ַלח ֶ֭מ ֶלְך וַ יַ ִתּ‬20
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
he did with the Patriarchs. The dramatic turnaround recalls events in Gen 41:14, “ ‫וַ ִיּ ְשׁ ַ ֤לח ַפּ ְרע ֹ֙ה‬
...‫ן־ה ֑בּוֹר‬
ַ ‫יצהוּ ִמ‬
֖ ֻ ‫ת־יוֹסף וַ יְ ִר‬
ֵ֔
‫”וַ יִּ ְק ָ ֣רא ֶא‬. From the form of the verb ‫שלח‬, we can derive two subjects.
On one hand, the subject could be Pharaoh, who sends for Joseph to release him (‫)ויפתחהו‬, a
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
judgments. Even though Pharaoh is a ruler of peoples, “‫”משל עמים‬, he is subject to God’s
bidding. Supporting this notion is the selection of the word ‫ מלך‬as opposed to ‫פרעה‬, as
recorded in Genesis, because the former corresponds with the kings God rebukes in v.14.
Another recollection of earlier verses concerns the word ‫עמים‬, which recalls v.1, where the
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.
‫ל־קנְ יָנֽ וֹ׃‬
ִ ‫יתוֹ וּ֜ מ ֵֹ֗שׁל ְבּ ָכ‬
֑ ‫ ָשׂ ֣מוֹ ָא ֣דוֹן ְל ֵב‬21
He made him lord over his house and ruler over all his possessions
Page <135>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
After being set free, the king appoints Joseph lord of his house, “‫”שמו אדון לביתו‬, recalling
events in Gen 45:8, “ ‫יתוֹ‬
֔ ‫ל־בּ‬
ֵ ‫דוֹן ְל ָכ‬
֙ ‫וּל ָא‬
ְ ‫ימ ִני ְל ָ֜אב ְל ַפ ְר ֗עֹה‬
ֽ֙ ֵ ‫ֹלהים וַ ְי ִשׂ‬
֑ ִ ‫ֹתי ֵ֔הנָּ ה ִ ֖כּי ָה ֱא‬
֙ ִ ‫א־א ֶ֞תּם ְשׁ ַל ְח ֶ ֤תּם א‬
ַ ֹ ‫וְ ַע ָ֗תּה ֽל‬
‫ל־א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָ ֽריִ ם׃‬
֥ ֶ ‫” וּמ ֵ ֹ֖שׁל ְבּ ָכ‬, as recalled by Joseph. Previously, when Joseph’s brothers spoke about
him, they refered to him as the lord, ‫אדון‬, of the land (s. Gen 42:10, 30, 33, 43:20). The second
colon in the verse parallels the first, repeating and dwelling on the exalted status Joseph
receives. Corresponding with ‫ לביתו‬we find ‫קנינו‬, a phrase usually associated with livestock
that here represents all Pharaoh owned (s. Gen 31:18, 36:6, Jos 14:4, Ezek 38:12).
‫סר ָשׂ ָ ֣ריו ְבּנַ ְפ ֑שׁוֹ וּזְ ֵק ָנ֥יו יְ ַח ֵ ֽכּם׃‬
ֹ ֣ ‫ ֶל ְא‬22
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
on events narrated in Genesis. It is possible to understand ‫ לאסר‬as “to imprison” or “to bind”,
as in Psalm 149:8, “‫יהם ְבּ ַכ ְב ֵ ֥לי ַב ְר ֶזֽל׃‬
ֶ֗ ‫יהם ְבּזִ ִ ֑קּים ְ ֜ונִ ְכ ְבּ ֵד‬
֣ ֶ ‫”ל ְא ֣סֹר ַמ ְל ֵכ‬,
ֶ which completes the role
reversal that began in v.18. Joseph was bound and imprisoned in v.18 (also known from the
Genesis account) but here he has authority to incarcerate Pharaoh’s ministers, ‫שריו‬, as he
pleases ‫בנפשו‬52 (s. Ps 35:25). Joseph’s authority to imprison individuals is reflected in Gen
42:17 when he imprisoned his brothers. Perhaps more importantly, his authority to bind
individuals is reflected in the binding and imprisonment of Simeon, “ ‫ת־שׁ ְמ ֔עוֹן‬
ִ ‫וַ יִּ ַ ֤קּח ֵ ֽמ ִא ָתּ ֙ם ֶא‬...
‫יהם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫( ”וַ יֶּ ֱא ֥סֹר א ֹ֖תוֹ ְל ֵע ֵינ‬Gen 42:24).
Alternatively, ‫ לאסר‬could be corrected to ‫ליסר‬,53 “to instruct” (s. Ps 94:10), creating an
internal parallel with ‫ יחכם‬in the second colon, and emphasizing Joseph’s role as an instructor
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 Peshitta.
Page <136>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
instructing54 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
dramatized by the chiasmus in vv.18-22, ‫ בנפשו‬: ‫ משל‬:: ‫ משל‬: ‫( נפשו‬vv.18, 20, 21, 22
respectively), the one whose soul was ruled over now rules over other souls.
‫ץ־חם׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ וַ יָּ ֣ב ֹא יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֣אל ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם ְ ֜ויַ ֲע ֗קֹב ָגּ֣ר ְבּ ֶ ֽא ֶר‬23
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
events by recalling Ex 1:1, “…‫יתוֹ ָ ֽבּאוּ‬
֖ ‫וּב‬
ֵ ‫”וְ ֵ֙א ֶלּה ְשׁ ֧מוֹת ְבּ ֵנֽי־ ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֛אל ַה ָבּ ִ ֥אים ִמ ְצ ַ ֖ריְ ָמה ֵ ֣את יַ ֲע ֣קֹב ִ ֥אישׁ‬.55
The psalmist forges a connection with the previous sections via the word ‫בוא‬, which earlier
portrayed steel passing over Joseph’s neck (v.18) and the fulfillment of God’s word (v.19).
Another link appears to the second stanza via the chiastic arrangement of :: ‫ יעקב‬: ‫ישראל‬
‫ ישראל‬: ‫ יעקב‬with v.10. Unlike v.10, however, both references here refer to the Patriarch and
not the nation. After entering into Egypt, Jacob settles in the land of Ham, “‫”גר בארץ חם‬. Just
as the other Patriarchs were few in number when they dwelt in Canaan, “‫”כמעט וגרים בה‬
(v.12), so too was Jacob’s family when he dwelt, ‫גר‬, in the land of Ham. As a designation for
Egypt, the term “‫ ”ארץ חם‬no doubt stems from the table of nations in Gen 10:6. The choice of
54
The notion of Joseph being renowned for his wisdom is also recorded in Acts 7:9-16.
There is an additional allusion to Gen 15:13, “...‫כי גר יהיה זרעך בארץ לא להם‬...”, which speaks of Jacob’s move
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).
55
Page <137>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
this term may have been motivated by the psalmist’s desire to include the word ‫ ארץ‬in an
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
earth. As with Ps 78:51, recollection of ‫ חם‬brings with it a derogatory element since Ham, one
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.
‫אד ַ֜ויַּ ֲֽע ִצ ֵמהוּ ִמ ָצּ ָ ֽריו׃‬
ֹ ֑ ‫ת־ע ֣מּוֹ ְמ‬
ַ ‫ וַ ֶיּ ֶ֣פר ֶא‬24
He multiplied his people greatly, and strengthened them more than their enemies
After arriving in Egypt, God greatly multiplied his people, the sons of Jacob, “ ‫ויפר את עמו‬
ְ
...‫”מאד‬. In reciting this incident, the psalmist recalls events in Ex 1:7, “ ‫וּב ֵנ֣י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֗אל ָפּ ֧רוּ וַ יִּ ְשׁ ְר ֛צוּ‬
...‫אד‬
ֹ ֑ ‫אד ְמ‬
ֹ ֣ ‫( ”וַ יִּ ְר ֥בּוּ וַ ַיּ ַֽע ְצ ֖מוּ ִבּ ְמ‬s. also Ex 1:20). The psalmist’s rendition of events, however,
employs causative verbs as opposed to simple verbs. Exodus simply states that Israel
multiplied (‫ פרה‬in qal), whereas the psalmist reinterprets this to imply that God caused this
growth (‫ פרה‬in hifil). A similar difference appears with the stem ‫עצם‬, which the psalm
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
a nation. Consequently, v.24 contains the first mention of ‫עמו‬, with the third-person masculine
singular suffix, “his (God’s) people”. Previously ‫ עם‬referred to other nations—those to whom
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
enemies in the current verse as ‫מצריו‬, which presents a lucid reminder of their identity via its
similarity with ‫מצרים‬.
‫ ָה ַ ֣פְך ִ ֭ל ָבּם ִל ְשׂ ֣נ ֹא ַע ֑מּוֹ ֜ ְל ִה ְתנַ ֵ֗כּל ַבּ ֲע ָב ָ ֽדיו׃‬25
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
does not occur on their own accord, rather, YHWH causes them to hate his people, “ ‫לשנא‬
‫”עמו‬. In the same way that YHWH called a famine on the land in v.16, creating a problem for
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
Israelite’s oppression, “‫ת־ה ָ ֽעם׃‬
ָ ‫ת־ל ֔בּוֹ וְ ֥ל ֹא יְ ַשׁ ַ ֖לּח ֶא‬
ִ ‫וַ ֲא ִ ֙ני ֲא ַח ֵזּ֣ק ֶא‬...” (Ex 4:21, s. also 7:3). The
previous object of YHWH’s benevolence in v.24, his people (‫)עמו‬, is now the object of their
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,
‫להתנכל‬, against them in the same way Joseph’s brothers plotted against him, “ ‫וַ יִּ ְר ֥אוּ א ֹ֖תוֹ ֵמ ָר ֑חֹק‬
‫יתוֹ׃‬
ֽ ‫יהם וַ ִיּ ְֽתנַ ְכּל֥ וּ א ֹ֖תוֹ ַל ֲה ִמ‬
ֶ֔ ‫”וּב ֶ֙ט ֶר ֙ם יִ ְק ַ ֣רב ֲא ֵל‬
ְ (Gen 37:18). Exodus’ account of Israel’s sojourn in
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
children (Ex 1:22). The reference to the Israelites in the second colon, ‫עבדיו‬, recalls the titles
bestowed upon Abraham (v.6) and Joseph (v.17). In each instance, the title represents the
bearers of God’s original promise to Abraham.
‫ר־בּוֹ׃‬
ֽ ‫שׁר ָ ֽבּ ַח‬
֣ ֶ ‫ֹשׁה ַע ְב ֑דּוֹ ַ֜א ֲה ֗ר ֹן ֲא‬
֣ ֶ ‫ ָ ֭שׁ ַלח מ‬26
He sent Moses his servant and Aaron whom he chose
Page <139>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
In response to the threat created by the Egyptians, God sends his servant Moses, “ ‫שלח משה‬
...‫”עבדו‬, in addition to Aaron, probably alluding to Ex 3:13-16, which recounts YHWH’s
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
affirmed Aaron’s selection as high priest “...‫ר־בּוֹ ַמ ֵ ֣טּהוּ יִ ְפ ָ ֑רח‬
֖ ‫”וְ ָה ָ֗יה ָה ִ ֛אישׁ ֲא ֶ ֥שׁר ֶא ְב ַח‬. More
importantly, the two titles for Moses and Aaron here reflect those given to Israel in v.6, “ ‫ֶ֭ז ַרע‬
‫יריו׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫”א ְב ָר ָ ֣הם ַע ְב ֑דּוֹ ְבּ ֵנ֖י יַ ֲע ֣קֹב ְבּ ִח‬,
ַ linking the two sections and creating a bond between the
psalmist’s listeners and their righteous forefathers.
‫ וּ֜ מ ְֹפ ִ֗תים ְבּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ָ ֽחם׃‬57‫ֹתוֹתיו‬
֑ ָ ‫מוּ־בם ִדּ ְב ֵ ֣רי א‬
֭ ָ ‫ ָ ֽשׂ‬27
They executed against them (the Egyptians) his mighty works58, and mighty acts in the land of
Ham
Moses and Aaron,59after receiving their commission from YHWH, now execute, ‫שמו‬, his
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
57
To improve parallelism within the verse, the BHS suggests reading ‫ במצרים‬in place of “‫”בם דברי‬. Such an
emendation, however, contradicts the psalmist’s overall schema; throughout his account of the sojourn in Egypt,
he avoids the use of ‫מצרים‬, replacing it with synonyms and pronominal references such as “‫ ”ארץ חם‬and ‫גבולם‬.
58
The phrase is somewhat tautological, and I have chosen here to translate it as a single word. A similar type of
construction appears in Deut 33:19, “‫פוּני ְט ֥מוּנֵ י ֽחוֹל׃‬
֖ ֵ ‫וּשׂ‬
ְ ...”.
59
The Septuagint and Peshitta amend the third-person plural reading of ‫ שמו‬to the third-person singular ‫שם‬.
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
following verse, v.27. This he would have done by adding a waw to the verb ‫שם‬. Were we to remove the two
Page <140>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
portrayal in the psalms is that YHWH alone punishes the Egyptians. Verse 27 refers to
YHWH’s works with the peculiar phrase “‫( ”דברי אתותיו‬lit. “The works/words of his mighty
acts”), a phrase unattested anywhere in biblical literature. In order to make the verse more
readable, it is possible to remove the form ‫דברי‬.61 Such an emendation, however, is
unnecessary for two reasons. First, a similar form appears within the confines of biblical
literature, “‫אוֹתיָך‬
֣ ֶ ‫”דב ֵ ֖רי נִ ְפ ְל‬
ְ
in Ps 145:5, which employs ‫ נפלאות‬instead of ‫אתות‬.62 Second, by
maintaining the phrase as it appears in MT, the word ‫ דבר‬aligns the verse with the psalmist’s
emphasis on God’s spoken judgments. Verse 5 introduces the idea with “‫”משפטי פיו‬, “the
judgments of his mouth”, v.16 recounts God calling, ‫ויקרא‬, a famine on the land, and in v.19
it is the word of the Lord, ‫דברו‬, that is fulfilled in Joseph’s life. In line with this motif within
the psalm, it would thus seem natural that the psalmist portrays the plagues in reference to
YHWH’s words.
The first reference to the Egyptians, ‫בם‬, appears as a pronoun and thus delays their full
identification until the end of the verse. Joseph’s identification was similarly delayed in v.17.
ֹ ֽ ‫ל־ה‬
ַ ‫ר ֵ֗אה ָכּ‬...
ְ
The word ‫ מופתים‬appears in a context reminiscent of Ex 4:21 “ ‫מּ ְפ ִת ֙ים ֲא ֶשׁר־ ַ ֣שׂ ְמ ִתּי‬
...‫” ְביָ ֶ ֔דָך‬, which also uses the verb ‫שים‬. Usually the words ‫ אתות‬and ‫ מפתים‬indicate general
“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
demonstrates, “‫ת־מוֹפ ַ ֖תי ְבּ ֶ ֥א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָ ֽר יִ ם׃‬
ְ
‫את ַ ֹ֛תי וְ ֶא‬
ֹ ‫יתי ֶאת־‬
֧ ִ ‫עה וְ ִה ְר ֵבּ‬
ֹ ֑ ‫ת־ל֣ב ַפּ ְר‬
ֵ ‫”וַ ֲא ִ ֥ני ַא ְק ֶ ֖שׁה ֶא‬, (s. also Deut
7:19, Ps 78:43). Repetition of the phrase “‫ ”ארץ חם‬creates an inclusion with v.23, enclosing
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
flow, and the psalm would resonate extremely well with Ex 10:2 “...‫ר־שׂ ְמ ִתּי ָ ֑בם‬
֣ ַ ‫את ַ ֹ֖תי ֲא ֶשׁ‬
ֹ ‫וְ ֶאת־‬...” (s. also close
reading for Ps 135:9).
61
As the Peshitta has done.
62
Both terms ‫ נפלאות‬and ‫ אתות‬should be considered interchangeable, because they represent standard biblical
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
‫א־מ ֗רוּ ֶאת־) ְדּ ָב ָרוו( ] ְדּ ָב ֽרוֹ[׃‬
ָ֜ ֹ ‫ח ֶשְׁך וַ יַּ ְח ִ ֑שְׁך וְ ֽל‬
ֹ ֭ ‫ ָ ֣שׁ ַ ֽלח‬28
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
psalmist viewed this particular act of deliverance. Just as God sent, ‫שלח‬, his servant Moses,
he now sends another messenger, darkness,65 recalling Ex 10:21, “ ‫הוה ֶאל־מ ֶֹ֗שׁה נְ ֵ ֤טה ָי ְֽ ד ָ֙ך‬
֜ ָ ְ‫אמר י‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֙יּ‬
‫ל־א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם וְ יָ ֵ ֖משׁ ֽחֹ ֶשְׁך׃‬
֣ ֶ ‫יהי ֖חֹ ֶשְׁך ַע‬
ִ ‫ל־ה ָשּׁ ַ֔מיִ ם ִ ֥ו‬
ַ ‫”ע‬.
ַ Duplication of the root ‫ חשך‬could be indicative
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
God commanded the darkness, it did not disobey his word, “‫לא מרה את דברו‬...”. By
recounting that God commanded the darkness, the psalmist utilizes an image similar to v.16,
“‫ה־ל ֶחם ָשׁ ָ ֽבר׃‬
֥ ֶ ‫ל־מ ֵטּ‬
ַ ‫ל־ה ָ ֑א ֶרץ ָ ֽכּ‬
ָ ‫”וַ יִּ ְק ָ ֣רא ָ ֭ר ָעב ַע‬, that involves another instance of YHWH
manipulating Creation to accomplish his goals. Repetition of ‫דבר‬66 links v.28 to v.27 and
65
A long-standing problem with this verse concerns the identification of the subject of “‫”לא מרו‬. The Peshitta
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
‫ מרה‬in the singular; s. also Booij (1989). Technically, as Keil and Delitzsch (1982:146) suggest, all of the
wording of MT could be preserved, reading Moses and Aaron as the subjects of ‫מרו‬. This reading of the text
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
amending ‫ מרו‬to ‫ שמרו‬and applying the verb to the Egyptians again. Dahood (1981:60) prefers reading ‫אמרו‬,
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.
66
In a text without pointing, these letters allude to pestilence (‫)דבר‬, a plague mentioned in the Exodus tradition
but omitted in this Psalm (s. Ex 9:3-4).
Page <142>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
perpetuates the notion of God’s verbal judgments (“‫)”משפטי פיו‬. Unlike the plagues’ tradition
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
‫ת־דּגָ ָ ֽתם׃‬
ְ ‫יהם ְל ָ ֑דם ַ ֜ו ָ֗יּ ֶמת ֶא‬
֣ ֶ ‫ימ‬
ֵ ‫ת־מ‬
ֵ ‫ ָה ַ ֣פְך ֶא‬29
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
YHWH killed the fish therein, “‫וימת את דגתם‬...”. Even though the psalm reflects Ex 7:20-21,
“ ‫ל־א ֶרץ‬
֥ ֶ ‫אר וַ יְ ִ ֥הי ַה ָ ֖דּם ְבּ ָכ‬
ֹ ֑ ְ‫ן־הי‬
ַ ‫אר וְ לֹא־יָ ְכ ֣לוּ ִמ ְצ ַ ֔ריִ ם ִל ְשׁ ֥תּוֹת ַ ֖מיִ ם ִמ‬
ֹ ֔ ְ‫אר ֵ֙מ ָת ֙ה וַ יִּ ְב ַ ֣אשׁ ַהי‬
ֹ ֥ ְ‫ר־בּי‬
ַ ‫וְ ַה ָדּגָ֙ ה ֲא ֶשׁ‬...
‫”מ ְצ ָ ֽריִ ם׃‬
ִ (v.21), it fails to mention the inconvenience caused by the interruption to the
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
of the Egyptians’ drinking supply, “‫יהם ַבּל־יִ ְשׁ ָתּיֽ וּן׃‬
ֶ֗ ֵ‫יהם ְ ֜ונֹזְ ל‬
֑ ֶ ‫”וַ יַּ ֲה ֹ֣פְך ְ ֭ל ָדם יְ א ֵֹר‬.
‫יהם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫ ָשׁ ַ ֣רץ ַא ְר ָ ֣צם ְצ ַפ ְר ְדּ ִ ֑עים ְ֜בּ ַח ְד ֵ ֗רי ַמ ְל ֵכ‬30
Their land multiplied with frogs, even in the chambers of their kings68
67
A fuller examination of the plagues appears in the section on allusions.
The plural of ‫ מלך‬is peculiar since there was only a single king (Pharaoh) during the plague infestations.
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.
68
Page <143>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
After the rivers turned to blood, YHWH caused69 the land of the Egyptians to teem with frogs,
“...‫”שרץ ארצם צפרדעים‬.70 Continuing to develop the leitmotif of land, ‫ארץ‬, the psalmist uses
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,
“‫”בחדרי מלכיהם‬. The event as Exodus recalls it has a similar effect, “ ‫ם וְ ָע ֙לוּ‬
֒ ‫וְ ָשׁ ַ ֣רץ ַהיְ א ֹ֘ר ְצ ַפ ְר ְדּ ִעי‬
... ֖‫וּב ֲח ַ ֥דר ִמ ְשׁ ָכּ ְבָך‬
ַ ‫”וּבאוּ ְבּ ֵב ֶ֔יתָך‬
֣ ָ (Ex 7:28). Once again, the use of ‫ מלך‬recalls God rebuking kings
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
destruction, “‫יתם׃‬
ֽ ֵ ‫אכ ֵל֑ם וּ֜ ְצ ַפ ְר ֵ ֗דּ ַע וַ ַתּ ְשׁ ִח‬
ְ ֹ ‫”יְ ַשׁ ֬ ַלּח ָבּ ֶ ֣הם ָ ֭ערֹב וַ יּ‬. Notably, throughout the present
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.
‫בוּלם׃‬
ֽ ָ ְ‫ ָ ֭א ַמר וַ יָּ ֣ב ֹא ָע ֑רֹב ִ֜כּ ִ֗נּים ְבּ ָכל־גּ‬31
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
forth swarms, “...‫”אמר ויבא ערב‬. The author’s use of the phrase “‫ ”אמר ויבא‬is reminiscent of
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
subject ‫ ארץ‬does not agree with the masculine verb ‫שרץ‬, an interpretation followed by the Septuagint: ἐξῆρψεν
ἡ γῆ αὐτῶν βατράχους (s. also BDB 1056). In spite of this, I have opted to read the verb ‫ שרץ‬as a causative,
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.).
70
With regards to this colon, one can detect a degree of alliteration as the psalmist repeats ‫ צ‬in each word.
Page <144>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
results. Verse 31 recalls events in Ex 8:20, “…‫יתה ַפ ְר ֖עֹה‬
ָ ‫”…וַ יָּ ב ֹ ֙א ָע ֣רֹב ָכּ ֵ֔בד ֵ ֥בּ‬. In Exodus, as well
as the present psalm, the ‫ ערב‬are more of a nuisance than a serious threat to health; however,
in Psalm 78:45, their function is intensified and they possess the ability to devour. Within the
context of Ps 105, ‫ ערב‬need not be translated as “flies”, but simply as “swarms”,71 where the
second colon further identifies the content as lice, ‫כנים‬, which enter into all the borders of
Egypt, “‫”בכל גבולם‬. Thus the psalmist interprets a single plague,72 unlike Exodus that recalls
two separate incidents (s. Ex 8:12 “‫ל־א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָ ֽריִ ם׃‬
֥ ֶ ‫וְ ָה ָי֥ה ְל ִכ ִנּ֖ם ְבּ ָכ‬...”). It is more appropriate to
understand a single plague in order to create a seven-plague tradition, a number expressing
completion73 (similar to Psalm 78).
‫יהם ָבּ ָ ֑רד ֵ ֖אשׁ ֶל ָה ֣בוֹת ְבּ ַא ְר ָ ֽצם׃‬
֣ ֶ ‫ נָ ַ ֣תן ִגּ ְשׁ ֵמ‬32
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
over meteorological elements as he turns the rain of the Egyptians into hail, “‫”נתן גשמיהם ברד‬
(for this meaning of ‫נתן‬, s. Is 3:4 and Jer 9:10). As with the other plagues reported thus far in
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
with the hail, burning fire, “‫”אש להבות‬, is sent against the Egyptians’ land. Verse 32 recalls
Exodus 9:23, “‫ל־א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָ ֽריִ ם׃‬
֥ ֶ ‫הו֛ה ָבּ ָ ֖רד ַע‬
ָ ְ‫וּב ָ ֔רד וַ ִ ֥תּ ֲה ַלְך ֵ ֖אשׁ ָ ֑א ְר ָצה וַ יַּ ְמ ֵ ֧טר י‬
ָ ‫ֹֹלת‬
֙ ‫ֽיהוה נָ ַ ֤תן ק‬
ָ֗ ‫ו‬...”,
ַ
but adds
71
See close reading on Ps 78:45 for a discussion on this concept.
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.
72
Page <145>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
‫ להבות‬as a natural poetic accompaniment to ‫( אש‬s. Ps 83:15, “ ‫ְכּ ֵ ֥אשׁ ִתּ ְב ַער־יָ ַ֑ער וּ֜ ְכ ֶל ָה ָ֗בה ְתּ ַל ֵ ֥הט‬
‫)”ה ִ ֽרים׃‬.
ָ 74
‫בוּלם׃‬
ֽ ָ ְ‫וּת ֵאנָ ָ ֑תם ַ ֜ויְ ַשׁ ֵ֗בּר ֵע֣ץ גּ‬
ְ ‫ וַ יַּ ֣ ְך ַ ֭גּ ְפנָ ם‬33
He struck their vines75 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
list of crops destroyed. Both the Egyptian vines and figs were struck, “‫”ויך גפנם ותאנתם‬, in
addition to every tree in their territory being shattered, “‫”וישבר עץ גבולם‬. The striking of the
‫ גפן‬is not mentioned in the Exodus account, but Psalm 78:47 recounts the same plague
recalling a destruction of the vines. Similarly absent from the Exodus account are figs, ‫;תאנתם‬
however, these are often coupled with ‫ גפן‬expressing the richness of a land, non-essential
items or luxuries.76 By mentioning these items first, we can see a development in the idea of
increasing intensity as the plagues progress.
Repetition of ‫ שבר‬recalls the famine initiated by God in v.16, when every staff of
bread was broken. This time, however, the disaster does not encompass the whole earth, but
only the land of Egypt. Comparing this verse to Ex 9:25, “ ‫שׁר‬
֣ ֶ ‫ל־א‬
ֲ ‫ל־א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַ ֗ריִ ם ֵ ֚את ָכּ‬
֣ ֶ ‫וַ יַּ֙ ְך ַה ָבּ ָ ֜רד ְבּ ָכ‬
‫ל־עץ ַה ָשּׂ ֶ ֖דה ִשׁ ֵ ֽבּר׃‬
֥ ֵ ‫ת־כּ‬
ָ ‫ל־ע ֶשׂב ַה ָשּׂ ֶד ֙ה ִה ָכּ֣ה ַה ָבּ ָ ֔רד וְ ֶא‬
֤ ֵ ‫ד־בּ ֵה ָ ֑מה וְ ֵ֙את ָכּ‬
ְ ‫”בּ ָשּׂ ֶ ֔דה ֵמ ָא ָ ֖דם וְ ַע‬,
ַ highlights a
significant difference: the psalmist avoids mentioning any destruction to livestock, an
omission tempering his account.
‫ ָ ֭א ַמר וַ יָּ ֣ב ֹא ַא ְר ֶ ֑בּה ְ֜ו ֶ֗י ֶלק וְ ֵ ֣אין ִמ ְס ָ ֽפּר׃‬34
He spoke and locusts came, young locusts without number
74
See also Is 47:14, Pss 29:7, 83:15.
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.
75
Page <146>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
As with the swarms of lice, God also commands77 the locust into action: he speaks and they
come, “‫”אמר ויבא‬. The second colon, here, expands the first, accentuating the number of
locust involved in the plague, “‫”וילק ואין מספר‬. In contrast to Exodus 10:14, “ ‫אד ֠ ְל ָפ ָניו‬
ֹ ֔ ‫ ָכּ ֵב֣ד ְמ‬...
...‫מהוּ‬
ֹ ֔ ‫א־היָ ה ֵכ֤ן ַא ְר ֶבּ ֙ה ָכּ‬
ָ֙ ֹ ‫”ל‬, the psalmist chose the word ‫ילק‬78 as a poetic accompaniment for
locust, ‫ ;ארבה‬the two often appear together in the context of judgment.79 Psalm 78:46
similarly employs a poetic compliment, ‫חסיל‬, that Exodus fails to include. In contrast to v.12,
“...‫”בהיותם מתי מספר‬, repetition of ‫ מספר‬here denotes an uncountable multitude; it is a term
that often accompanies the description of locust, as in Jer 46:23, “ ‫הוה ִ ֖כּי ֣ל ֹא‬
֔ ָ ְ‫ָכּ ְר ֤תוּ יַ ְע ָר ֙הּ נְ ֻאם־י‬
‫בּוּ ֵ ֽמ ַא ְר ֶ֔בּה וְ ֵ ֥אין ָל ֶ ֖הם ִמ ְס ָ ֽפּר׃‬
֙ ‫”י ָֽח ֵ ֑ קר ִ ֤כּי ַר‬
ֵ (s. also Jud 6:5). The psalmist employs the expression to
reflect the density of the locust reported in Ex 10:15, “...֒‫ל־ה ָא ֶר ֘ץ וַ ֶתּ ְח ַ ֣שְׁך ָה ָא ֶרץ‬
ָ ‫ת־ע֣ין ָכּ‬
ֵ ‫”וַ יְ ַ֞כס ֶא‬.
‫אכל ְפּ ִ ֣רי ַא ְד ָמ ָ ֽתם׃‬
ַ ֹ ‫ל־ע ֶ֣שׂב ְבּ ַא ְר ָ ֑צם ַ ֜ו ֗יּ‬
ֵ ‫אכל ָכּ‬
ַ ֹ ‫ וַ ֣יּ‬35
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
damage caused by the plague. The locust consumed every green thing in their land, “ ‫כל עשב‬
‫”בארצם‬, in addition to the produce of the earth, “‫( ”פרי אדמתם‬s. Deut 7:13 and Num 13:20 for
this sense). An escalation in the destruction caused is detectable from the repetition80 of ‫אכל‬
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
continuation of the ‫ ארץ‬leitmotif in the psalm, it once again appears in this section referring to
77
See 2Ki 4:24, Ps 106:34, and Esth 1:17.
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.
78
Page <147>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
the land of Egypt. From a comparison with Ex 10:15, “ ‫ל־פּ ִ ֣רי‬
ְ ‫ל־ע ֶ֣שׂב ָה ָ֗א ֶרץ וְ ֵא ֙ת ָכּ‬
ֵ ‫ת־כּ‬
ָ ‫אכל ֶא‬
ַ ֹ ‫וַ ֜יּ‬...
...‫” ָה ֔ ֵעץ‬, it would appear that the psalmist possessed a source similar to MT.
‫ל־אוֹנם׃‬
ָֽ
‫אשׁית ְל ָכ‬
ִ֗ ‫ל־בּ ֣כוֹר ְבּ ַא ְר ָ ֑צם ֵ ֜ר‬
ְ ‫ וַ ַיּ֣ ְך ָכּ‬36
He struck every firstborn in their land, the first of all their strength
The final plague in the psalmist’s sequence, the striking of the firstborn, “‫”ויך כל בכור‬, is the
first in his rendition that directly harms man. To this point, the other six plagues have simply
damaged crops and animals, causing a nuisance. Repetition of ‫ ויך‬here recalls the beginning
of v.33, “...‫”ויך גפנם ותאנתם‬, but a comparison of the two verses reveals an increase in
intensity since people’s lives are damaged as opposed to plant life. The psalmist’s rendition of
֘ ‫ל־בּ‬
ְ ‫וֽיהוָ ֘ה ִה ָכּ֣ה ָכ‬...”;
ַ
however, the
the account certainly reflects Ex 12:29, “...‫ם‬
֒ ִ‫כוֹר ְבּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַרי‬
phrase “‫”ראשית…און‬, referring to the firstborn (s. Gen 49:3 and Deut 21:17), is absent from
the Exodus tradition but appears in Psalm 78:51, “‫י־חם׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫אשׁית ֜א ִ֗וֹנים ְבּ ָא ֳה ֵל‬
֥ ִ ‫ל־בּ ֣כוֹר ְבּ ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם ֵר‬
ְ ‫”וַ ַיּ֣ ְך ָכּ‬.
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’
account finishes with three occurrences of ‫ כל‬in the last two verses, “ ‫כל אונם…כל בכור…כל‬
‫”עשב‬, which expresses a totality of God’s judgments against the Egyptians, accentuating the
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.
‫כּוֹשׁל׃‬
ֽ ֵ ‫יאם ְבּ ֶכ ֶ֣סף וְ זָ ָ ֑הב וְ ֵ ֖אין ִבּ ְשׁ ָב ָ ֣טיו‬
ֵ ‫יּוֹצ‬
ִ ‫ ַ ֭ו‬37
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
Egypt, “‫”ויוציאם בכסף וזהב‬. By alluding to Exodus, “‫הו֖ה ֵמ ֶ ֥א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָ ֽריִ ם׃‬
ָ ְ‫ל־צ ְב ֥אוֹת י‬
ִ ‫ ָי ְֽצ ֛אוּ ָכּ‬...”
(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
God brought them out. Recollection of the silver and gold, “‫”כסף וזהב‬83 (s Ex 11:2, 12:35),
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
fails to mention that they left without weakness or stumbling, “‫”ואין בשבטיו כושל‬. In order to
find such a description of Israel’s departure, we must turn to the poetry of Isaiah, “ ‫יכם‬
֖ ָ ‫מוֹל‬
ִ
‫”בּ ְתּה ֹ֑מוֹת ַכּ ֥סּוּס ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֖בּר ֥ל ֹא יִ ָכּ ֵ ֽשׁלוּ׃‬
ַ (63:13), which depicts the same event. By turning to this
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.
‫יהם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫אתם ִ ֽכּי־נָ ַ ֖פל ַפּ ְח ָ ֣דּם ֲע ֵל‬
֑ ָ ‫ ָשׂ ַ ֣מח ִמ ְצ ַ ֣ריִ ם ְבּ ֵצ‬38
Egypt were happy when they left because the fear of them [Israel] fell upon them [Egyptians]
Egypt’s response to Israel departing from their land is one of joy and happiness, “ ‫שמח מצרים‬
‫”בצאתם‬, emotions that find no precise representation in Exodus. Repetition of the root ‫יצא‬
from the previous verse links the two verses, with v.38 adding detail to the nature of the
82
83
All traces of rebellion and murmuring disappear from our psalmist’s rendition of events, as we shall see.
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
‫ מצרים‬appears, which closes an inclusion that began in v.23. Within this division, the psalm
records all events transpiring in Egypt, and the psalmist apparently avoids any mention of the
word between vv.23-38.
The second colon, “‫ ”כי נפל פחדם עליהם‬explicates the reason for the Egyptians’
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
psalmist probably received some influence from Ex 15:16, “ ֖‫רוֹעָך‬
ֲ ְ‫ימ ָת ֙ה וָ ֔ ַפ ַחד ִבּ ְג ֥ד ֹל ז‬
ָ ֙ ‫יהם ֵא‬
֤ ֶ ‫ִתּ ֙פּ ֹל ֲע ֵל‬
‫ית׃‬
ָ ‫הוה ַ ֽעד־יַ ֲע ֖בֹר ַעם־ז֥ וּ ָק ִ ֽנ‬
֔ ָ ְ‫”יִ ְדּ ֣מוּ ָכּ ָ ֑א ֶבן ַעד־יַ ֲע ֤בֹר ַע ְמּ ָ֙ך י‬, which speaks of the fear that went before the
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
Israel’s joy recorded in v.3, “‫ישמח לב מבקשי יהוה‬...”, which results from the great deeds God
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.
‫ ָפּ ַ ֣רשׂ ָע ָנ֣ ן ְל ָמ ָ ֑סְך ְ ֜ו ֵ֗אשׁ ְל ָה ִ ֥איר ָ ֽליְ ָלה׃‬39
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
of events in Ex 13:21, “...‫יוֹמם ְבּ ַע ֤מּוּד ָענָ ֙ ן ַלנְ ח ָ ֹ֣תם ַה ֶ ֔דּ ֶרְך‬
ָ֜ ‫יהם‬
ֶ֙ ‫ֽיהוה ה ֵֹלְך֩ ִל ְפ ֵנ‬
֡ ָ ‫”ו‬,
ַ whereby God sent a
pillar of cloud by day to guide the Israelites on their journey. Contrasting this, however, is the
phrase “‫למסך‬...‫”פרש‬, which implies a screen of some description, separating two entities, as
with the various curtains used in the Tabernacle (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 14:1910, 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
may indeed be reflected in Is 4:5, “ ‫יוֹמ ֙ם וְ ָע ָ֔שׁן וְ ֹ֛נגַ הּ‬
ָ ‫ל־מ ְק ָר ֶ֗א ָה ָע ָנ֤ ן׀‬
ִ ‫ר־ציּ֜ וֹן וְ ַע‬
ִ ‫ל־מ ֙כוֹן ַה‬
ְ ‫הוה ַע ֩ל ָכּ‬
֡ ָ ְ‫וּב ָ ֣רא י‬
ָ
...‫” ֵ ֥אשׁ ֶל ָה ָ ֖בה ָ ֑ליְ ָלה‬, in which a cloud constitutes an agent of protection. Additionally, Wisdom
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
night, “‫”ואש להאיר לילה‬. The appearance of ‫ אש‬highlights a contrast in attitude between God’s
relationship with his people and his dealings with their adversaries. In v.32 the fire came
against the Egyptians as part of God’s judgment against them, “‫ ;”אש להבות בארצם‬here, in
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
‫יעם׃‬
ֽ ֵ ‫ ָשׁ ַ ֣אל וַ יָּ ֵב֣א ְשׂ ָל֑ו וְ ֶ ֥ל ֶחם ָ֜שׁ ַ֗מיִ ם ַי ְשׂ ִבּ‬40
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,
‫שאלו‬,85 food. The psalmist’s use of ‫ שאל‬here notably contrasts its appearance in Ps 78:18. In
the latter psalm, the Israelites test God in their request for food, “ ‫א ֶכל‬
ֹ ֥ ‫סּוּ־אל ִבּ ְל ָב ָ ֑בם ִ ֽל ְשׁ ָאל־‬
ֵ֥
ַ‫וַ יְ נ‬
‫”לנַ ְפ ָ ֽשׁם׃‬
ְ (s. also Ps 106:15), whereas v.40 refrains from any hint of rebellion, they simply turn
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
singular perfect of ‫שאל‬.
Page <151>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
to YHWH with a request and he meets their need. The author’s choice of ‫ שאל‬additionally
recalls vv.3-4, which emphasize seeking the Lord, because ‫ שאל‬often appears together with
‫ דרש‬and ‫ בקש‬to convey the idea of seeking or searching (s. Deut 13:15, Is 65:1). By linking
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
employed ‫ בוא‬in the context of judgment falling on the Egyptians (s. vv.31, 34). Here, in
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
God’s response to the Israelites’ request is to send them meat, via quail ‫שלו‬, and bread,
‫לחם‬. Here the psalmist reflected events in Ex 16:8, “...‫ ָבּ ֜ ֶע ֶרב ָבּ ָ ֣שׂר ֶל ֱא ֗כֹל וְ ֶל ֶ֤חם ַבּ ֙בּ ֹ ֶק ֙ר ִל ְשׂ ֔בֹּ ַע‬...” (s.
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
‫ שבע‬as a hifil, as opposed to the qal in the Torah, emphasizing God’s activity in the provision
of food. Previously when the psalm mentioned ‫( לחם‬v.16) it brought devastation in the form
of famine; here, in contrast, it forms the means by which YHWH sustains the life of Israel.
The psalmist’s wording “‫“( ”לחם שמים‬bread of heaven”) reflects the tradition in Ps 78:24,
“‫ן־שׁ ַ֗מיִ ם ָנ ַ֣תן ָ ֽלמוֹ׃‬
ָ֜ ‫יהם ָ ֣מן ֶל ֱא ֑כֹל ְוּד ַג‬
֣ ֶ ‫”וַ יַּ ְמ ֵ֬טר ֲע ֵל‬, more so than Exodus (s. 16:4, “ ‫אמר יְ הוָ ֙ה ֶאל־מ ֶֹ֔שׁה‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֤יּ‬
...‫ן־ה ָשּׁ ָ ֑מיִ ם‬
ַ ‫)” ִהנְ ִ֙ני ַמ ְמ ִ ֥טיר ָל ֶכ֛ם ֶ ֖ל ֶחם ִמ‬, representing “bread from heaven”.
‫ ָ ֣פּ ַתח צ֭ וּר וַ יָּ ז֣ וּבוּ ָ ֑מיִ ם ָ֜ה ְל ֗כוּ ַבּ ִצּיּ֥ וֹת נָ ָ ֽהר׃‬41
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
situations (s. v.32 for example, concerning the word ‫)אש‬.
Page <152>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
occurrences of ‫ פתח‬appear in the context of deliverance. Earlier it depicted Joseph’s release
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
since Moses is absent from the proceedings. In another instance of contrastive repetition, ‫מים‬
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
֔ ‫בוֹת ֽהוֹלִ ָ֔יכם ַ ֥מיִ ם ִמ ֖צּוּר ִה ִזּ֣יל ָל֑מוֹ וַ יִּ֙ ְב ַק‬
֙ ‫וְ ֣ל ֹא ָצ ְמ ֗אוּ ָבּ ֳח ָר‬
the psalmist is more akin to Is 48:21, “ ‫ע־צוּר וַ יָּ ֻז֖בוּ‬
‫”מיִ ם׃‬.
ֽ ָ In adopting this wording, the psalm forges a connection between the two texts. The
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
instance in which the psalmist relates his work to a later exodus.87 The poetic phrase “ ‫הלכו‬
‫( ”בציות נהר‬the form ‫ ציות‬being a poetic term, s. Jer 2:6, 50:12, Hos 2:5) portrays God’s
benevolence through vivid imagery, suggesting water flowed into the desert like a river,
providing an ample sufficiency for the Israelites.
‫ת־א ְב ָר ָ ֥הם ַע ְב ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ַ ‫ת־דּ ַ ֣בר ָק ְד ֑שׁוֹ ֶ ֽא‬
ְ ‫י־ז ַכר ֶא‬
ָ֭ ‫ ִ ֽכּ‬42
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
covenant with Abraham, “‫”כי זכר את דבר קדשו‬. YHWH’s faithfulness to the Patriarchs and to
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
merely recipients of his benevolence. Three words repeat themselves from vv.8-9, “‫”זכר‬,
87
See close reading for v.1.
Page <153>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
“‫”דבר‬, and “‫”אברהם‬, linking the second and sixth stanzas. In repeating ‫דבר‬, the psalm again
recalls YHWH acting via the words of his mouth. Just as God’s name is described as holy in
v.3, “...‫”התהללו בשם קדשו‬, so too is his promise to Abraham, “‫”דבר קדשו את אברהם‬.
‫יריו׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ת־בּ ִח‬
ְ ‫ ַע ֣מּוֹ ְב ָשׂ ֑שׂוֹן ְ֜בּ ִר ָ֗נּה ֶא‬88‫יּוֹצא‬
֣ ִ ַ‫ ו‬43
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
with joy, and with loud shouts of rejoicing. The word ‫ יוצא‬creates an inclusion with v.37 that
surrounds events transpiring from the Exodus to the end of the desert period. The title of the
chosen ones, ‫בחיריו‬, was introduced in v.6, and the root also appeared concerning Aaron’s
function as God’s messenger, “‫אהרן אשר בחר בו‬...” (v.26), here it is assigned once again to
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,
“...‫אשׁם ָשׂ ֤שׂוֹן וְ ִשׂ ְמ ָח ֙ה‬
֑ ָ ֹ ‫עוֹל֖ם ַעל־ר‬
ָ ‫וּבאוּ ִצ ֙יּוֹן ְבּ ִר ָ֔נּה וְ ִשׂ ְמ ַ ֥חת‬...”
ָ֤
(Is 51:11), where the context again
describes an exodus from Babylon.89
‫ירשׁוּ׃‬
ֽ ָ ִ‫ וַ יִּ ֵ ֣תּן ָ ֭ל ֶהם ַא ְר ֣צוֹת גּוֹיִ ֑ם וַ ֲע ַ ֖מל ְל ֻא ִ ֣מּים י‬44
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
second stanza. God promised the land to Abraham and his descendants, “ ‫לך אתן את ארץ‬
...‫ ”כנען‬in v.11, and now with similar words linking the two sections, he fulfils his words, “ ‫ויתן‬
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
‫”להם ארצות גוים‬. Verse 44 refers to the land as “‫”ארצות גוים‬, and recalls the patriarchal travels
in v.13, “...‫ ;”ויתהלכו מגוי אל גוי‬the same land in which Israel’s forefathers sojourned when
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
possessed the toil of the nations, “‫”עמל לאמים‬.90 All that the inhabitants of Canaan had
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.
‫ ַבּ ֲע ֤בוּר׀ י ְִשׁ ְמ ֣רוּ ֻ֭ח ָקּיו וְ תוֹר ָ ֹ֥תיו יִ נְ ֗צֹרוּ ַ ֽה ְללוּ־יָ ֽהּ׃‬45
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
so that, ‫( בעבור‬see 1Sam 23:10, Mic 2:10, and Ps 106:32), they might keep his laws, “ ‫ישמרו‬
‫ ;”חקיו‬God’s faithfulness carries direct implications for the recipients. All that YHWH did for
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
descendants would respond in kind by obeying his laws. Here in v.45, ‫ חק‬carries a different
90
91
This commonly appears with ‫גוים‬, s. Gen 25:23, Is 34:1, Ps 2:1, 44:3, and Pr 14:34.
For more on this concept, s. Jacobs (2006).
Page <155>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
meaning92 to its appearance in v.10, “...‫”ויעמידה ליעקב לחק‬. The present verse employs it to
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
second colon reiterates the sentiment of the first, “‫ותורתיו ינצרו‬...”, in reverse order, creating
another instance of chiasmus for increased emphasis, accentuating Israel’s responsibility in
obedience.93 Both words ‫ ישמרו‬and ‫ ינצרו‬mean, “to keep” as in “to do” (this pair also appears
in Deut 33:9 and Pr 5:2), and the Law of Moses94 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
(v.45). Closing the psalm is an imperative to praise YHWH, “‫”הללו יה‬,95 that corresponds with
the root ‫ הלל‬in the opening stanza (v.3); together, they create an inclusion for the entire work
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
via their obedience. Repetition of the word ‫ חק‬highlights this main theme as it represents both
92
The Septuagint recognizes this difference in meaning by translating the first instance of the word in v.10 as
προσταγμα (which is equivalent to ‫ )משפט‬and the second instance as δικαιωματα (usually associated with
‫)תורה‬.
93
See v.43.
94
Usually when ‫ חק‬appears with ‫ תורה‬the inference is to the Law of Moses (Deut 4:8, 17:19, 30:10).
95
In the Septuagint, the phrase “‫ ”הללו יה‬appears at the beginning of the following psalm as opposed to the end
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
is to repay him. The idea of land, ‫ארץ‬, repeated throughout the psalm, functions as a leitmotif
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 subthemes 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
person suffix on ‫עם‬,96 and the words ‫ בחר‬and ‫ עבד‬describing individuals and the nation as
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
97
See for example vv.24, 25, and 43.
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
phrase “‫( ”להעמיד…ברית‬v.10) is significant because the root ‫עמד‬98 in LBH adopts the meaning
of ‫ קום‬in SBH. During the SBH era, the root ‫ קום‬bore the meaning of “establish” and
“confirm”; however, in later books the root ‫ עמד‬adopts this meaning (s. 1Chr 17:14, 2Ch 9:8,
Dan 11:14). Thus, the presence of the phrase “‫”להעמיד…ברית‬, as opposed to
“‫ברית‬/‫”להקים…שבועה‬, as in Gen 26:3 (s. also Lev 26:9), patently represents late language in
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 reenactment 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 unlikely100 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
not overlook concerns the inclusion of the word ‫ נביא‬in v.15. Scholars often consider this
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.
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.
99
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 opposite103 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
Exodus.104 Though the psalm never quotes from Leviticus,
Ps 105:23-24
Ex 1:7
P
Ps 105:25
Ex 14:5
JE
Ps 105:27
Ex 7:3
P
Ps 105:28
Ex 10:21
Numbers, or Deuteronomy, it would be imprudent to
suggest the psalmist did not have these texts (or their
JE
102
equivalent) available to him. With regard to Leviticus and
Ps 105:29
Ex 7:20-21
JE
Deuteronomy, they have relatively little narrative material
Ps 105:30
Ex 7:28
JE
Ps 105:31
Ex 8:13, 20
JE
Ps 105:32-33
Ex 9:25
JE
and so one can understand why the psalmist did not include
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
—
Ps 105:43
Is 51:11
—
Isaiah to recount the wilderness tradition. The question of
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
“‫אונם‬...‫ ”ראשית‬as a poetic complement to ‫בכור‬. Additionally, concerning Ps 105:40’s
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
description of manna, “‫”לחם שמים‬, some influence may have originated from Ps 78:24-25’s
rendition of the same event.105 Another more certain connection exists between Ps 105:23, 27,
and Ps 106:22 since the common phrase “‫ ”ארץ חם‬only occurs in these two places in the
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.108Another 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
phrase “‫ ”לשמור חק‬is especially prominent in Deuteronomy (s. 4:40, 5:1, 6:17, 7:11, and
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
depicts him as stretching out a cloud for a screen, “‫”פרש ענן למסך‬. As discussed in the close
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.
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.
106
Page <160>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
PROCESS OF SELECTION
Psalm 105 draws upon five of the Exodus’ sub-motifs—Israel in Egypt, 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
The beginning of Exodus records the sons of Israel (“‫”בני ישראל‬, 1:1) who came (‫הבאים‬, 1:1)
to Egypt (‫מצרימה‬, 1:1), including Jacob (‫יעקב‬, 1:1). Once there, they multiply greatly,
becoming fruitful (‫פרו‬, 1:7), and very strong (“‫”ויעצמו במאד מאד‬, 1:7), and they fill the land.
Their rapid multiplication soon makes them stronger than their enemies (“‫”עצום ממנו‬, 1:9),
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 Midian where he settles down as a shepherd. As a shepherd, YHWH calls
Moses, sending him (“‫שלחני‬...‫”משה‬, 3:13) to deliver the Israelites from their captors, a calling
he is initially reluctant to accept due to his lack of eloquence. God overcomes the problem by
appointing Aaron, his brother, to accompany him as a spokesman. Thus, both Aaron (‫)אהרן‬
and Moses (‫ )משה‬are sent on their mission by God (s. Ex 4:13-16). As part of his instructions
to Moses, God tells him to return to Egypt with the signs (‫ )מפתים‬he has put (‫ )שמתי‬in his
hand (s. 4:21).
Psalm 105:23 begins like Exodus recalling Israel (‫ )ישראל‬coming (‫ )ויבא‬to live in
Egypt (‫)מצרים‬, and the children of Jacob (‫ )יעקב‬living in the land of Ham. Here, it deviates
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
then recalls how the Israelites became very (‫ )מאד‬fruitful (‫ )ויפר‬and stronger (‫ )ויעצמהו‬than
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
a change from simple forms in the source to causative forms in the psalm. Verse 25, “ ‫ָה ַ ֣פְך ִ ֭ל ָבּם‬
‫”ל ְשׂ ֣נ ֹא ַע ֑מּוֹ ֜ ְל ִה ְתנַ ֵ֗כּל ַבּ ֲע ָב ָ ֽדיו׃‬,
ִ
apparently originates from the psalmist’s imagination, but
nevertheless reflects Exodus’ account of God being responsible for hardening the heart of
Pharaoh, causing him to keep the Israelites captive (s. Ex 4:21, “ ‫ת־ל ֔בּוֹ וְ ֥ל ֹא יְ ַשׁ ַ ֖לּח‬
ִ ‫וַ ֲא ִ ֙ני ֲא ַח ֵזּ֣ק ֶא‬...
Page <162>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
‫ת־ה ָ ֽעם׃‬
ָ ‫;”א‬
ֶ also 9:12). Thus, the psalmist apparently shifts God’s treatment of Pharaoh to
apply to all of the Egyptians. The psalm proceeds, in v.26, enumerating how both Moses
(‫ )משה‬and Aaron (‫ )אהרן‬are sent (‫ )שלח‬by God, and the status it ascribes them (‫ עבדו‬and “ ‫בחר‬
‫”בו‬, neither of which appears in the source) reflects the psalmist’s desire to associate Moses
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
and signs—the leprous
1
‫חשך‬
28
‫דם‬
7:14-24
‫דם‬
44
hand,
2
‫דם‬
29
‫צפרדעים‬
7:25-8:11
‫ערב‬
45
3
‫צפרדעים‬
30
‫כנים‬
8:12-15
‫צפרדעים‬
45
4
‫ערב\כנים‬
31
‫ערב‬
8:16-28
‫ארבה‬
46
4:1-7 are recalled in
5
‫ברד‬
32-33
‫דבר‬
9:1-7
‫ברד‬
47
the psalm, and the
6
‫ארבה‬
34-35
‫שחין‬
9:8-12
‫דבר‬
48-50
psalmist
concentrates
7
‫מכת הבכור‬
36
‫ברד‬
9:13-35
‫מכות הבכור‬
51
on Exodus’ ten plagues
8
‫ארבה‬
10:1-20
that
9
‫חשך‬
10:21-23
10
‫מכת הבכור‬
Moses’
staff
turning into a snake
and
crocodile—
recorded
in
strike
Egyptians,
Exodus
the
forcing
them into submission
12:29-32
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
his staff on the water (‫מים‬, Ex 7:20) of the Nile turning it (‫ויהפכו‬, Ex 7:20) to blood (‫דם‬, Ex
7:17), causing the water to become undrinkable, and killing (‫מתה‬, Ex 7:21) the fish (‫הדגה‬, Ex
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
(7:27-8:11). The frogs multiply (‫שרץ‬, 7:28) coming out of the river, entering into houses and
bedrooms (“‫”חדר משכבך‬, 7:28), presenting themselves as a nuisance as they cover the whole
of the land (‫ארץ‬, 8:2). The psalm deviates slightly from this portrayal by specifically
mentioning that the frogs enter into the rooms of the kings, a detail unspecified in the source.
It is possible, however, to see this alteration as a deliberate association to 105:14, “ ‫א־ה ִנּ ַ֣יח‬
ִ ֹ ‫ֽל‬
‫יהם ְמ ָל ִ ֽכים׃‬
֣ ֶ ‫” ָא ָ ֣דם ְל ָע ְשׁ ָ ֑ קם וַ יּ֖ וֹ ַכח ֲע ֵל‬, which recalls God rebuking kings as an act of intervention on
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
plague in Psalm 105. Exodus depicts the lice (‫כנים‬, 8:12) being sent across the whole land of
Egypt (“‫)”בכל ארץ מצרים‬, affecting both man and beast. The swarms (‫ערב‬, 8:19), sent after the
lice, similarly cause a substantial amount of destruction across the land. By joining the two
plagues together, the psalmist interprets the somewhat ambiguous word ‫ערב‬, “swarms” in
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
The sixth plague in Exodus, ‫( ברד‬9:13-10:11), strikes men, beasts, and plants, killing
them; and among the destruction to the plant life, Exodus mentions that the hail destroys the
grass of the field (“‫”עשב השדה‬, 9:22). Along with the hail, Exodus reports of fire (‫אש‬, 9:23)
accompanying it, and together they destroy the grass of the field (‫עשב השדה‬, 9:25) and break
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
appearance of fire (‫ )אש‬in v.32. Psalm 105, however, alters the identification of plants struck
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
additionally adopts the verb ‫ נתן‬to depict the sending of the plague, as opposed to ‫ המטיר‬in
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.
Following the hail, both texts recall the sending of locust (‫ארבה‬, Ex 10:1-20, Ps
105:34-35); Exodus recalls it as the eighth plague and Psalm 105 as the sixth. In Exodus, the
locust cover the land (“‫”וכסה את עין הארץ‬, 10:5) and destroy the crops left by the hail. They
enter the houses of the Egyptians, and the text describes the phenomenon as a unique event
that none of the Egyptians’ forefathers had witnessed since they dwelt in the land (‫אדמה‬,
10:6). Exodus 10:12 and 15 depict the locust as consuming (‫ויאכל‬, 10:15) everything green in
the land (“‫”כל עשב הארץ‬, vv.12, 15). The source further states that an east wind brought the
plague (10:13), and that no greenery (‫ירק‬, 10:15) remained after the plague ended. As the
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
‫ ארבה‬the psalmist adopts the segolate ‫יֶ ֶלק‬, which recalls the similar sounding word for
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
greenery in Exodus (‫)יֶ ֶרק‬. The psalmist also repeats the phrase “‫ ”אמר ויבא‬to portray God
sending the plague. By employing this expression, he recalls both the words of Ex 10:4,
where God says he will bring (‫ )מביא‬an abundance of locust on their territory, in addition to
the calling of the swarms in v.31. As with the previous plague, ‫ברד‬, Psalm 105 dedicates two
full verses to the locust: the first of which announces the plague, and the second enumerates
the destruction it wreaks.
The penultimate plague in Exodus is darkness (‫)חשך‬, a pitch-blackness that covers the
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
In both texts, the striking of the first-born (“‫”מכת הבכור‬, Ex 11:1-12:32) constitutes
the final plague, which the Exodus account merges with the institution of Pesah. The source
reports that in the middle of the night the Lord struck (‫הכה‬, 12:29) every firstborn male ( ‫כל‬
‫ )בכור‬in the land (‫ )ארץ‬of Egypt. The psalmist recalls the event in words similar to Exodus,
but adds the phrase “‫ ”ראשית לכל אונם‬as a poetic compliment. When the psalmist selected this
phrase, he was probably influenced by the same words describing the event in Psalm 78:51,
“‫אונים‬...‫”ראשית‬. In developing the association with the Creation account, the striking of the
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
articles of gold and silver (“‫”כלי כסף וכלי זהב‬, Ex 11:2, 12:35) from the Egyptians, a command
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. Isaiah 63:7 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
stumble (“‫”לא יכשלו‬, 63:13). From this rendition of events, the psalmist only recalls the lack
of stumbling (“‫כושל‬...‫ ”אין‬v.37) among the tribes as they came into the desert. Furthermore,
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
leave Egypt, God leads them in the desert via a pillar of cloud (‫ )ענן‬by day, and a pillar of fire
(‫ )אש‬to give them light (‫ )להאיר‬at night, providing them with continual guidance (s. Ex
13:21). Psalm 105’s rendition of these events differs even though v.39 recalls both the fire
Page <167>
Chapter 2 - Psalm 105
and cloud. For the psalmist, the cloud (‫ )ענן‬does not function as a guide. Instead, the psalmist
depicts God spreading the cloud out like a screen, ‫מסך‬, as opposed to a pillar, ‫עמוד‬. In v.39,
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
foreign to the Torah. It is possible to read ‫ מסך‬as a veiled allusion to the protection God
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
(‫לחם‬, v.4) from heaven (“‫”מן שמים‬, v.4) upon them as part of a test to see if they would walk
in his ways. He subsequently instructs them concerning its collection each day and week. God
additionally promises them flesh (‫בשר‬, v.8) to eat (‫לאכל‬, v.8), enough for their satisfaction
(‫לשבע‬, v.8). YHWH reaffirms his promise of provision when he appears to the community,
reiterating that he has heard their complaints (v.12), and that in the evening they will eat
(‫תאכלו‬, v.12) meat (‫בשר‬, v.12) and in the morning they will be satisfied (‫תשבעו‬, v.12) with
bread (‫לחם‬, v.12). According to God’s word, later that evening quail (‫שלו‬, v.13) came and
covered the camp, and in the morning, together with the dew there was manna, which Moses
declared as the bread (‫לחם‬, v.15) that God provided for them to eat (‫)לאכלה‬. Psalm 105’s
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
their complaints to God, who instructs him to take some of the elders and go (‫והלכת‬, Ex 17:5)
to a rock (‫צור‬, v.6) where God will be standing. Moses is then instructed to strike the rock
(‫ )צור‬whereupon water (‫מים‬, v.6) would spring forth, from which the people could drink.
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
redeemed his servant Jacob (“‫”עבדו יעקב‬, v.20), and that he led them (‫הוליכם‬, v.21) through
parched places; he made water (‫מים‬, v.21) flow for them from a rock (‫צור‬, v.21); he split the
rock (‫צור‬, v.21), and water (‫מים‬, v.21) flowed out (‫ויזבו‬, v.21). Of the two aforementioned
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
from Babylon, back to Zion with shouts of happiness (‫רנה‬, 51:11) and joy (‫ששון‬, 51:11).
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
flames (‫אש‬, v.4) as his servants. Following this, it depicts YHWH’s work in separating the
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
earth (‫תשבע‬, v.13), supplies man with wine that cheers the heart (“‫”ישמח לבב‬, v.15), and from
the water provided, the trees are also satisfied (‫ישבעו‬, v.16). Verses 19-23 focus on the
creation of the moon and sun, and the activities that occur in the day and night hours. When
YHWH sends darkness (‫חשך‬, v.20) it becomes night and the beasts of the forest stir. The
following verses mention the multitude of creatures he created, creatures without number (“ ‫אין‬
‫”מספר‬, v.25), and all of them are satisfied (‫ישבעון‬, v.28) by YHWH’s provision. In the final
verses of the psalm, the psalmist is moved to praising YHWH for Creation. The psalmist says
that he will sing to the Lord (“‫”אשירה ליהוה‬, v.33) as long as he lives, and make music
(‫אזמרה‬, v.33) to him. He furthermore hopes that his meditation (‫שיחי‬, v.34) will be acceptable
to YHWH, and rejoices in him (“‫”אשמח ביהוה‬, v.34).117
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
with a call for the assembled community to speak out and declare YHWH’s (‫יהוה‬, v.1) deeds
to the nations. In developing this notion, it calls for them to sing (‫שירו‬, v.2) to him, and make
music (‫זמרו‬, v.2), and meditate (‫שיחו‬, v.2) on all of his wonderful acts. The following verse
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
additionally requests the seekers of YHWH (‫יהוה‬, v.3) to rejoice (“‫”ישמח לב‬, v.3). The link
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
most prominent of these is “‫”אין מספר‬, which Psalm 104:25 employs to depict a multitude of
creatures God created in the sea. Psalm 105 similarly relates the phrase to an act of God
because he sent an innumerable multitude (“‫”אין מספר‬, v.34) of locust against Egypt. With the
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
works is ‫שבע‬, which in both psalms forms an expression of God’s provision. Three times in
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”
(‫ )חשך‬in remarkably similar phrases to describe God commanding the darkness, and its
subsequent appearance. Psalm 104:20 recalls the phrase, “...‫֣יהי ָ ֑ליְ ָלה‬
ִ ‫” ָ ֽתּ ֶשׁת־ ֭חֹ ֶשְׁך ִו‬, to depict
YHWH’s creation of darkness as part of his formation of times and seasons; whereas, Psalm
105:28 employs the phrase “...‫ ” ָ ֣שׁ ַ ֽלח ֭חֹ ֶשְׁך וַ יַּ ְח ִ ֑שְׁך‬in a less natural occurrence, a break in the
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 sacrifice, 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
poetic standpoint, the root ‫ הלל‬envelops the introductory section.
The second stanza1 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
events in Numbers 16 when Israel craved meat to eat. From a literary standpoint, ‫ מדבר‬links
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
sin occurred, because they forgot the deeds performed for them in Egypt. The root ‫ ישע‬links
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
could bring them into the Promised Land and drive out its inhabitants. Reusing the verb ‫האמין‬
(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
delimits this section via the word ‫( ארץ‬vv.24, 27), which plays an integral part in the people’s
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
Phinehas; additionally, unlike Moses, Phinehas receives a reward for his act. Both ‫ אכל‬and
‫ פרץ‬link this stanza with the fifth, which recites Moses’ act of intercession.
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.
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
‫( יד‬cf. close reading for these verses).
3
Page <176>
Chapter 3 - Psalm 106
CLOSE READING
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫י־טוֹב ִ ֖כּי ְל‬
֑ ‫יהו֣ה ִכּ‬
ָ ‫הוֹדוּ ַל‬
֣ ‫ ַ ֽה ְללוּיָ֙ הּ׀‬1
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.
As with Psalm 135, the present psalm opens and closes with “‫”הללו יה‬, which forms an
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
of Psalm 106, the phrase “‫ ”כי טוב‬constitutes a compelling testimony of the psalmist’s hope
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
God’s inherent goodness first.4 YHWH’s eternal grace, ‫חסדו‬, in this psalm never fully
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 טוב‬is often “‫”כי טוב לנו‬.
Page <177>
Chapter 3 - Psalm 106
‫ל־תּ ִה ָלּ ֽתוֹ׃‬
ְ ‫הו֑ה ַ֜י ְשׁ ִ֗מ ַיע ָכּ‬
ָ ְ‫בוּרוֹת י‬
֣ ְ‫ ִמי ְי ַ֭מ ֵלּל גּ‬2
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
‫ידה‬, which not only expresses thanksgiving but also “declaration” and “annunciation” (s. close
reading for Ps 105:1). Verse 2 similarly begins with an expression of declaration, ‫ימלל‬,5 and
poses a rhetorical6 question: who can tell, or speak of YHWH’s might (for ‫ גבורה‬strictly in the
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
himself because he recounts YHWH’s mighty deeds in the psalm’s body. Both ‫ תהלה‬and
‫—גבורה‬even though the parallel pair is not attested elsewhere—represent puissant acts
performed by God. The former may depict a king’s accomplishments in much the same way
as it does here, “...‫בוּר ֑תו‬
ָ ְ‫ל־א ֶ ֥שׁר ָע ָ ֖שׂה וְ ָכל־גּ‬
ֲ ‫( ”וְ יֶ֙ ֶתר ִדּ ְב ֵ ֥רי יֵ ֛הוּא וְ ָכ‬2Ki 10:34; s. also 13:12). The
latter, in addition to praise (s. Ps 34:2), represents deeds performed that evoke a response of
praise. In Ps 9:15, YHWH’s praise stems from his ability to deliver, “ ‫ל־תּ ִה ֫ ָלּ ֶ ֥תיָך‬
ְ ‫ְל ַ ֥מ ַען ֲא ַס ְפּ ָ ֗רה ָ ֽכּ‬
‫ישׁוּע ֶ ֽתָך׃‬
ָ ‫ת־ציּ֑ וֹן ָ֜א ִ֗ג ָילה ִבּ‬
ִ ‫( ” ְבּ ַ ֽשׁ ֲע ֵ ֥רי ַב‬s. also Ps 78:4); thus, in effecting the psalmist’s redemption,
God evokes his praise.
‫ל־עת׃‬
ֽ ֵ ‫ ַ ֭א ְשׁ ֵרי שׁ ְֹמ ֵ ֣רי ִמ ְשׁ ָ ֑פּט ע ֵ ֹ֖שׂה ְצ ָד ָ ֣ קה ְב ָכ‬3
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
God’s deeds. The word ‫ אשרי‬means “fortunate”, “happy”, or more importantly “blessed”, as
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
Ps 32:1 suggests, “‫שׂוּי־פּ ַשׁע ְכּ ֣סוּי ֲח ָט ָ ֽאה׃‬
ֶ֗
‫( ” ְל ָד ִ֗וד ַ֫מ ְשׂ ִ ֥כּיל ַא ְשׁ ֵ ֥רי ְ ֽנ‬s. also 1Ki 10:8, the queen of
Sheba’s description of Solomon’s servants), and such terminology is usually reserved for
Wisdom Literature, e.g., Pr 3:13, “‫בוּנֽה׃‬
ָ ‫”א ְשׁ ֵ ֣רי ָ ֭א ָדם ָמ ָצ֣א ָח ְכ ָ ֑מה ְ֜ו ָא ָ ֗דם יָ ִ ֥פיק ְתּ‬
ַ (s. also Pr 8:34 and
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
instruction.8 The term “‫ ”שמרי משפט‬is best understood as a description of one who obeys
God’s laws, a definition exemplified by Lev 18:5, “ ‫ת־מ ְשׁ ָפּ ַ֔טי ֲא ֶ֙שׁר יַ ֲע ֶ ֥שׂה‬
ִ ‫ֹתי וְ ֶא‬
֙ ַ ‫ת־חקּ‬
ֻ ‫וּשׁ ַמ ְר ֶ ֤תּם ֶא‬
ְ
...‫( ”א ָ ֹ֛תם ָה ָא ָ ֖דם וָ ַ ֣חי ָבּ ֶ ֑הם‬cf. Psalm 119:106), in which ‫ משפט‬represents “laws” and ‫ שמר‬equates
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
rewards of those who obey. By repeating ‫כל‬, the psalmist forges a literary nexus between
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.
‫ישׁוּע ֶ ֽתָך׃‬
ָ ‫ זָ ְכ ֵ ֣ר ִני יְ ֭הוָ ה ִבּ ְר ֣צוֹן ַע ֶ ֑מָּך ֜ ָפּ ְק ֵ ֗דנִ י ִבּ‬4
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
psalm). Verse four reflects his desire (‫ )רצון‬to be remembered with the good will and favor
YHWH affords his people (s. Ps 5:13 and esp. Is 61:2 where it involves vindication and
comfort). Exegetes often interpret the personal element on the imperative ‫ זכרני‬as a copyist
error and replace it with the first-person common plural ending (‫)זכרנו‬,9 but this alteration
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.
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.
8
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
for help and intervention, also involving the parallel pair ‫ זכר‬// ‫פקד‬, appears in Jeremiah when
the prophet calls for God to intervene and judge his enemies, “...‫וּפ ְק ֵ ֙דנִ ֙י וְ ִה ָנּ ֶ֤ קם ִ ֙לי ֵמ ֣ר ֹ ְד ֔ ַפי‬
ָ ‫זָ ְכ ֵ ֤ר ִני‬...”
(15:15). Echoes of the psalmist’s distress additionally come to the fore in the word ‫ישועה‬, the
root of which, ‫ישע‬, commonly occurs in contexts of war and oppression demanding a physical
intervention for deliverance (s. Ex 14:13 and 1Sam 14:45).
‫יריָך ִ ֭ל ְשׂמ ַֹח ְבּ ִשׂ ְמ ַ ֣חת גּוֹיֶ ֑ ָך ֜ ְל ִה ְת ַה ֗ ֵלּל ִעם־נַ ֲח ָל ֶ ֽתָך׃‬
֗ ֶ ‫וֹבת ְבּ ִח‬
֤ ַ ‫ ִל ְר ֤אוֹת׀ ְבּ ֨ט‬5
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
preceding verb,10 in this instance ‫ פקדני‬in v.4. Thus, v.5 forms a detailing continuation of the
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
finds expression in repeated statements “‫”בחיריך…גויך…נחלתך‬. Such an emphasis serves as a
reminder to YHWH that they are still his special people, thus eliciting his compassion for
them. Somewhat unexpectedly, however, the psalmist has chosen a rare word, ‫גויך‬, to
designate the people’s privileged status. On one hand, this may simply stem from a desire to
avoid repetition,11 since ‫ עם‬appears in the previous verse. On the other hand, ‫ גוי‬serves as a
sullen reminder of the people’s current status before God, they stand before him almost as
10
11
See Gen 18:19, Ex 31:16, and Deut 13:19; also JM §124o.
A similar usage of this word also occurs in Zeph 2:9, “‫ויתר גויי ינחלום‬...”.
Page <180>
Chapter 3 - Psalm 106
though they had forfeited their unique status and were simply one of the other nations. Other
occurrences of ‫ גוי‬within the psalm12 enforce such an interpretation.13
Each expression depicting the select status of God’s people corresponds with a term
denoting joy and happiness. Within such a framework, ‫ התהלל‬adopts this meaning, as in Is
41:16, “‫יהוה ִבּ ְק ֥דוֹשׁ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֖אל ִתּ ְת ַה ָ ֽלּל׃‬
֔ ָ ‫”…וְ ַא ָתּ ֙ה ָתּ ִג֣יל ַ ֽבּ‬, where it parallels ‫גיל‬. Verse 5 closes the
opening section with an inclusion created by the word ‫טוב‬, a word embodying the initial
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.
‫בוֹתינוּ ֶה ֱעִ ֥וינוּ ִה ְר ָ ֽשׁ ְענוּ׃‬
ֵ֗ ‫ם־א‬
ֲ ‫ ָח ָ ֥טאנוּ ִע‬6
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 emphasizes14 joy, here it inculcates the severity of Israel’s transgressions.
The three roots employed here to represent the people’s transgressions (‫חטא‬, ‫עוה‬,15 and ‫)רשע‬
additionally appear in Jer 14:20, “‫בוֹתינוּ ִ ֥כּי ָח ָ ֖טאנוּ ָ ֽלְך׃‬
֑ ֵ ‫הו֛ה ִר ְשׁ ֵ ֖ענוּ ֲעוֹ֣ ן ֲא‬
ָ ְ‫”יָ ַ ֧ד ְענוּ י‬. The verse’s
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.
Cody (1964:6) classifies numerous instances in which the word ‫ גוי‬relates to the people of God. Amidst his
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.
14
For a further example of a threefold emphatic repetition, see Is 6:3, “...‫הוה ְצ ָב ֑אוֹת‬
֣ ָ ְ‫וְ ָא ַ֔מר ָק ֧דוֹשׁ׀ ָק ֛דוֹשׁ ָק ֖דוֹשׁ י‬...”.
13
15
The word ‫ עון‬originates from the root ‫ ;עוה‬s. BDB 730f.
Page <181>
Chapter 3 - Psalm 106
generation together with that of his forefathers also appears in Jer 14:20, “ ‫יָ ַד ְענוּ יְ הוָ ה ִר ְשׁ ֵענוּ ֲעוֹן‬
‫בוֹתינוּ ִכּי ָח ָטאנוּ ָלְך‬
ֵ ‫”א‬
ֲ (s. also Dan 9:16).
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.
‫ם־סוּף׃‬
ֽ ַ‫ל־י֣ם ְבּי‬
ָ ‫אוֹתיָך ֣ל ֹא ָז ְ֭כרוּ ֶאת־ ֣רֹב ֲח ָס ֶ ֑דיָך וַ יַּ ְמ ֖רוּ ַע‬
ֶ֗ ‫א־ה ְשׂ ִ֬כּילוּ נִ ְפ ְל‬
ִ ֹ ‫וֹתינוּ ְב ִמ ְצ ַ ֙ריִ ם׀ ל‬
֤ ֵ ‫ ֲא ֨ב‬7
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
failed to ‫—השכילו‬which is best understood as “learn” or “gain insight from”,17 as witnessed in
Neh 8:13, “ ‫ל־דּ ְב ֵ ֥ר י‬
ִ ‫וּל ַה ְשׂ ִ ֖כּיל ֶא‬
ְ ‫ל־עזְ ָ ֖רא ַהסּ ֵ ֹ֑פר‬
ֶ ‫ל־ה ֗ ָעם ַה ֽכֹּ ֲה ִנ ֙ים וְ ַהלְ וִ ִ֔יּם ֶא‬
ָ ‫אשׁי ָה ָא ֜בוֹת ְל ָכ‬
ֵ֙ ‫וּביּ֣ וֹם ַה ֵשּׁ ִ֡ני נֶ ֶא ְספוּ֩ ָר‬
ַ
‫תּוֹרה׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫”ה‬,
ַ when the dwellers of Judah congregated to learn from the law (s. also Ps 2:10, where
kings are advised to learn from discipline).18 The generation in Egypt never learned from the
mighty deeds, ‫נפלאות‬, YHWH enacted in Egypt. In all likelihood, the ‫נפלאות‬, mentioned here
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
16
Richardson (1987:193), incorrectly, seeks to “complete” this verse into a double bi-cola by adding ‫ ימרדו‬after
‫ ;מצרים‬such an alteration, however, is unnecessary.
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
‫ אשרי‬in v.3.
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.
The forefathers are chastised here for not remembering, ‫זכרו‬, YHWH’s merciful acts
towards them. As with v.4, “remember” connotes more than just mental recollection, but the
appropriate action according to the memory. In paralleling the two terms ‫ השכיל‬and ‫ זכר‬the
verse links the two concepts of failing to remember and failing to learn. Both roots ‫ זכר‬and
‫ חסד‬link the present stanza with the opening one. YHWH’s deeds in Egypt, mentioned here,
exemplify his everlasting mercy, ‫חסד‬, and in the context of the current verse it portrays his
power to liberate from oppression, as witnessed from its corresponding word, ‫;נפלאות‬
moreover, verses such as Ps 33:18, “‫”ה ֵנּ֤ה ֵע֣ין ְי֭הוָ ה ֶאל־יְ ֵר ָ ֑איו ַ ֽל ְמיַ ֲח ִ ֥לים ְל ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ִ (s. also Ps 17:7 and
109:26) reveal a similar correspondence.19
The shortcomings mentioned in the previous two statements—they never learned or
remembered—become explicit in 7b: they defied, ‫מרו‬,20 God21 at the Sea of Reeds. The
reference here recalls events in Ex 14:12 when the Israelites were caught between the Sea and
19
See also Richardson (1987:192), who, concerning ‫ חסד‬states, “…normally provides deliverance from dire
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.
21
Various explanations exist for ‫על ים‬. The Septuagint reads “αναβαινοντες” as though the vorlage read
“‫”ע ִֹלים‬, rendering a translation of “When they went up by the sea of Reeds”. Alternatively, Keil and Delitzsch
(1982:153) opted to preserve the reading claiming the preposition ‫ על‬alternates with ‫ ב‬elsewhere, citing Ezek
10:15 and Joel 4:8b. Perhaps the best reading, however, is ‫עליון‬, stating the Israelites rebelled directly against
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
(1987:194), who reaches the same conclusion by reading “‫”על ים‬, from the proper noun “‫”עלי‬, denoting God (the
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 God22 and complaining to
Moses.23
‫בוּר ֽתוֹ׃‬
ָ ְ‫הוֹד ַיע ֶאת־גּ‬
֗ ִ ‫יעם ְל ַ ֣מ ַען ְשׁ ֑מוֹ ֜ ְל‬
ֵ ‫יּוֹשׁ‬
ִ ‫ ַ ֭ו‬8
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
deliver his people (‫)ויושיעם‬. This work of redemption, however, is strictly founded upon his
merciful nature and performed according to his eternal mercy (v.1). The fact that YHWH
delivers his people for his namesake (“‫”למען שמו‬, s. Ps 23:3, 25:11, and 79:9), and not for the
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
should lead to a knowledge of him, “ ‫אתי‬
֥ ִ ‫הוֹצ‬
ֵ ְ‫ל־מ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם ו‬
ִ ‫הוה ִבּנְ ט ִ ֹ֥תי ֶאת־יָ ִ ֖די ַע‬
֔ ָ ְ‫י־א ִנ֣י י‬
ֲ ‫וְ יָ ְד ֤עוּ ִמ ְצ ַ ֙ריִ ֙ם ִ ֽכּ‬
‫תּוֹכם׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ת־בּ ֵנֽי־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֖אל ִמ‬
ְ ‫”א‬
ֶ (Ex 7:5; s. also Ex 14:4). Verse 8 echoes v.2 which asks the question:
“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
‫יכם ַ֜בּ ְתּה ֹ֗מוֹת ַכּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֽבּר׃‬
֥ ֵ ‫יּוֹל‬
ִ ַ‫ם־סוּף ַ ֽו יֶּ ֱח ָ ֑רב ו‬
֭ ַ‫ וַ יִּ ְג ַ ֣ער ְבּי‬9
He rebuked Yam Suf24 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
progressing the plot. YHWH rebukes the sea, “‫”ויגער בים סוף‬, in order to rescue his people.
The word ‫גער‬, though often appearing in a human context with the meaning “rebuke” or “tell
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
Similar traditions echo in biblical passages such as Nah 1:4, “ ‫ל־הנְּ ָה ֖רוֹת‬
ַ ‫גּוֹער ַבּיָּ ֙ם ַוֽ יַּ ְבּ ֵ֔שׁהוּ וְ ָכ‬
ֵ֤
...‫” ֶ ֽה ֱח ִ ֑ריב‬, portraying God’s power over Creation and its reaction to his wrath, and also Ps
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
the repetition of “‫”ים סוף‬, we are reminded of Israel’s rebellion in v.7, “‫ם־סוּף׃‬
ֽ ַ‫ל־י֣ם ְבּי‬
ָ ‫וַ יַּ ְמ ֖רוּ ַע‬...”,
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
employs the verb ‫ החריב‬as a vivid portrayal of the sea drying up; thus creating an antithesis of
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.
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.
26
Also adding to the mythological aspect is the appearance of ‫ תהום‬for “deep”, which bears the obvious
similarities to the name Tiamat, the water god defeated by Marduk in the Babylonian epic Enuma Elis.
Richardson (1987:104) rightly asserts ‫ תהום‬echoes the Ancient Near Eastern myths, but more importantly notes
the relationship between the two events, stating: “…the historical account of liberation was enlarged by
incorporating into it elements of the Creation myth…” (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,
Cassuto (1973d:83, 89) remarks that both ‫ תהום‬and ‫ גער‬were employed in an Israelite national epic recounting
YHWH’s victory over the sea.
25
Page <185>
Chapter 3 - Psalm 106
however, are apparent in Isaiah, “‫יכם ַבּ ְתּה ֹ֑מוֹת ַכּ ֥סּוּס ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֖בּר ֥ל ֹא יִ ָכּ ֵ ֽשׁלוּ׃‬
֖ ָ ‫”מוֹל‬
ִ
(63:13). Unlike the
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
‫אוֹיֽב׃‬
ֵ ‫שׂוֹנ֑א ַ ֜ויִּ גְ ָא ֗ ֵלם ִמיַּ ֥ד‬
ֵ ‫יּוֹשׁי ֵעם ִמ ַיּ֣ד‬
ִ ‫ ַ ֭ו‬10
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
Egyptians, as opposed to the sea in the previous verse. Repetition of ‫( ויושיעם‬s. v.8) reminds
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
‫ שונא‬and ‫ אויב‬refer to the Egyptians even though they are not explicitly mentioned by name.
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.
‫נוֹתר׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫יהם ֶא ָ ֥חד ֵ֜מ ֶ֗הם ֣ל ֹא‬
֑ ֶ ‫סּוּ־מיִ ם ָצ ֵר‬
֥ ַ ‫ וַ יְ ַכ‬11
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,
which reports the same event in similar words, “ ‫ת־ה ָ ֣פּ ָר ִ֔שׁים ְלכֹל֙ ֵ ֣חיל‬
ַ ‫ת־ה ֶ ֙ר ֶכ ֙ב וְ ֶא‬
ָ ‫שׁבוּ ַה ַ֗מּיִ ם וַ יְ ַכ ֤סּוּ ֶא‬
֣ ֻ ‫וַ ָיּ‬
‫ד־א ָ ֽחד׃‬
ֶ ‫יהם ַבּ ָיּ֑ם ֽל ֹא־נִ ְשׁ ַ ֥אר ָבּ ֶ ֖הם ַע‬
֖ ֶ ‫”פּ ְר ֔עֹה ַה ָבּ ִ ֥אים ַא ֲח ֵר‬.
ַ Without expressly mentioning the Egyptians,
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
the psalmist alludes to them here through the lexically and phonologically similar form “ ‫מים‬
‫”צריהם‬, similar to ‫מצרים‬.29 Further linking vv.10-11, this same word (‫ )זר‬constitutes a third
synonym for Egypt, even though it usually bears a more general meaning of “enemy” or
“adversary” (s. Esth 7:6, where it parallels ‫)אויב‬. The deliverance and destruction finds
completion in the verse’s final words, “‫”לא נותר‬, stressing the threat of an Egyptian attack was
not just partially removed but entirely eliminated.
‫ וַ יַּ ֲא ִ ֥מינוּ ִב ְד ָב ָ ֑ריו ָ֜י ִ֗שׁירוּ ְתּ ִה ָלּ ֽתוֹ׃‬12
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
Israelites correctly respond, in this instance, by believing him. In this verse, ‫ דבריו‬alludes to
the promise recorded in Ex 3:8, when God vows to intervene and deliver Israel and lead them
֘ ‫”וָ ֵא ֵ ֞רד ְל ַה ִצּיל֣ וֹ׀ ִמ ַיּ֣ד ִמ ְצ ַ ֗ר יִ ם וּֽ ְל ַה ֲע‬. As a
to a spacious land, “…‫טוֹב ֙ה ְוּר ָח ָ֔בה‬
ָ ‫ל־א ֶרץ‬
֤ ֶ ‫א ֶא‬
֒ ‫ן־ה ָ ֣א ֶרץ ַה ִהו‬
ָ ‫ֹלתוֹ ִמ‬
result of God delivering the people from Egypt, they trusted in his promise, ‫ויאמינו בדבריו‬, that
he could and would bring them to a spacious land. The resulting action, singing his praises,
֣ ָ (Ex 15:1),
‫ישירו‬, recalls the song of the sea, “...‫את‬
֙ ֹ ‫ירה ַהזּ‬
֤ ָ ‫ת־ה ִשּׁ‬
ַ ‫וּבני יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֜אל ֶא‬
ֵ֙ ְ ‫”אז יָ ִ ֽשׁיר־מ ֶֹשׁ ֩ה‬
following the sequence of events in Exodus. Perhaps more importantly, the reference here to
singing YHWH’s praises, or magnificent works (‫)תהלתו‬, alludes back to v.2 where the
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.
29
A similar play on this sound occurs in Psalm 105:24, where the similar sounding ‫ מצריו‬is employed, and also
in Ps 78:42, which contains the phrase “‫ ”מני צר‬that once again recalls ‫מצרים‬.
30
See v.47 for the development of this idea.
Page <187>
Chapter 3 - Psalm 106
‫א־ח ֗כּוּ ַל ֲע ָצ ֽתוֹ׃‬
ִ֜ ֹ ‫ ִ ֭מ ֲהרוּ ָשׁ ְכ ֣חוּ ַמ ֲע ָ ֑שׂיו ֽל‬13
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
paraphrases and interprets events with his own words. The hendiadys31 “‫”מהרו שכחו‬
represents the time it took for the Israelites to rejoice at seeing God’s hand at the Sea, to their
first complaint at a time of need. Moreover, ‫ שכחו‬creates a semantic link with v.7 (“‫)”לא זכרו‬.
The idea of forgetfulness leading to disobedience appears first in v.7, and now in v.13 the
psalmist provides a practical example.
More than just implying “waiting” the phrase “...‫ ”חכו ל‬also denotes “longing for” or
“deeply desiring”. Such a sentiment is apparent from Job 3:21, “‫המ ַח ִ ֣כּים ַל ָ ֣מּוֶ ת וְ ֵא ֶינ֑נּוּ ַ ֜ ֽויַּ ְח ְפּ ֻ ֗רהוּ‬
ְ
‫מוֹנים׃‬
ֽ ִ ‫”מ ַמּ ְט‬,
ִ which does not just speak of one who waits for death, but longs for its coming.32
The psalmist’s choice of ‫ עצה‬is open to a number of interpretations33 since it is not
immediately clear to which ‫ עצה‬he refers. In the immediate context it alludes to Israel’s
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,
however, never mentions such a sin. The word ‫ עצה‬may also be interpreted as law, “ ‫ם־עד ֶֹתיָך‬
֭ ֵ ‫ַ ֽגּ‬
‫”שׁ ֲע ֻשׁ ֗ ָעי ַאנְ ֵ ֥שׁי ֲע ָצ ִ ֽתי׃‬
ַ (Ps 119:24), which could thus be interpreted as a veiled reference to the
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
strengthened by the emphasis on the speed with which they sinned whilst at Mt. Sinai, “ ‫ָ ֣סרוּ‬
...‫יתם ָע ֣שׂוּ ָל ֶ֔הם ֵ ֖ע ֶגל ַמ ֵסּ ָ ֑כה‬
ִ֔ ִ‫שׁר ִצוּ‬
֣ ֶ ‫ן־ה ֶ ֙דּ ֶר ְ֙ך ֲא‬
ַ ‫”מ ֵ֗הר ִמ‬
ַ (Ex 32:8).
31
See also 1Sam 25:42, Abigail quickly rises; and Ps 143:7, a call for God to answer quickly.
The selection of ‫ חכו‬here creates an instance of assonance with ‫שכחו‬.
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.
32
Page <188>
Chapter 3 - Psalm 106
‫ימוֹן׃‬
ֽ ‫ישׁ‬
ִ ‫סּוּ־אל ִ ֽבּ‬
ֵ֗
ַ‫ וַ יִּ ְת ַאוּ֣ וּ ַ ֭ת ֲאוָ ה ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֑בּר וַ יְ נ‬14
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
incident. Even though the stem ‫ אוה‬does not necessarily imply an evil desire, as in Psalm
132:14 for instance, it does here as the psalmist alludes to Num 11:4, referring to the mixed
multitude34 that desired flesh to eat, “ ‫שׁבוּ וַ יִּ ְב ֗כּוּ ַ ֚גּם ְבּ ֵנ֣י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֔אל‬
֣ ֻ ָ‫שׁר ְבּ ִק ְר ֔בּוֹ ִה ְת ַאוּ֖ וּ ַתּ ֲאָ ֑וה וַ יּ‬
֣ ֶ ‫אס ְפ ֻס ֙ף ֲא‬
ַ ‫וְ ָ ֽה‬
‫אמ ֔רוּ ִ ֥מי יַ ֲא ִכ ֵל֖נוּ ָבּ ָ ֽשׂר׃‬
ְ ֹ ‫”וַ ֣יּ‬. Numbers’ context evidently indicates a selfish and wanton desire
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
repeats the word ‫מדבר‬, which appeared in v.9 where it expressly states that YHWH led them
through the deep as though it were a desert.35
In employing the stem ‫נסה‬, which the Pentateuch never uses with respect to the
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
Meribah in Ex 17:2, “‫הוֽה׃‬
ָ ְ‫ה־תּנַ ֖סּוּן ֶאת־י‬
ְ ‫יבוּן ִע ָמּ ִ ֔ד י ַמ‬
֙ ‫ה־תּ ִר‬
ְ ‫אמר ָל ֶה ֙ם מ ֶֹ֔שׁה ַמ‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֤יּ‬...”, (also recalled in
Deut 6:16). Numbers 14:22 additionally recalls ten instances in which Israel tested God in the
wilderness, “‫קוֹלי׃‬
ֽ ִ ‫וַ יְ נַ ֣סּוּ א ִֹ֗תי ֶז֚ה ֶע ֶ֣שׂר ְפּ ָע ִ֔מים וְ ֥ל ֹא ָשׁ ְמ ֖עוּ ְבּ‬...”. Overall, the image created by
recalling the word creates a negative picture of Israel’s relationship with God.
‫ וַ יִּ ֵ ֣תּן ָ ֭ל ֶהם ֶשׁ ֱא ָל ָ ֑תם וַ ְי ַשׁ ַלּ֖ח ָרז֣ וֹן ְבּנַ ְפ ָ ֽשׁם׃‬15
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.
Moreover, the parallel between ‫ מדבר‬and ‫ ישימון‬appears in Ps 107, and creates an interpretive link between the
two; see section on juxtaposition.
35
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
them their request, ‫( שאלה‬s. 1Sam 1:27 and 1Ki 2:16). Though this exact word never appears
in the Torah, with respect to the provision of quail in the desert, Ps 78 employs the verbal
form ‫ לשאל‬in a similar context, “‫א ֶכל ְלנַ ְפ ָ ֽשׁם׃‬
ֹ ֥ ‫סּוּ־אל ִבּ ְל ָב ָ ֑בם ִ ֽל ְשׁ ָאל־‬
֥ ֵ ַ‫( ”וַ יְ נ‬Ps 78:18, see also Ps
105:40).
Fundamentally, two possibilities exist for interpreting the second colon, and each
alternative hinges on the understanding of ‫רזון‬. If understood positively, one could read the
verse as an expression of YHWH’s mercy towards his people, understanding a theoretical root
‫ רוה‬meaning “sated”.36 In this instance, disregarding the lustful desires mentioned in the
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
Is 10:16, “‫הו֧ה ְצ ָב ֛אוֹת ְבּ ִמ ְשׁ ַמ ָנּ֖יו ָרז֑ וֹן וְ ַ ֧ת ַחת ְכּב ֹ֛דוֹ יֵ ַ ֥ קד יְ ֖קֹד ִכּ ֥יקוֹד ֵ ֽאשׁ׃‬
ָ ְ‫”ל ֵכן יְ ַשׁ ַ ֙לּח ָה ָא ֜דוֹן י‬.
ָ ֠ Such a
translation renders God’s response as one of judgment, whereby he does not meet their desire
but increases it.38 The specific mention of ‫ נפש‬suggests “throat”, i.e. an eating organ, which
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
dietary variation, “‫הו֥ה ָל ֶכ֛ם ָבּ ָ ֖שׂר וַ ֲא ַכ ְל ֶ ֽתּם׃‬
ָ ְ‫( ”…וְ נָ ַ֙תן י‬Num 11:18). On the other hand, an element
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
(1969:350), who claims a copyist error that should be corrected to ‫מזון‬, and Seybold (1996:421), both concur
with a positive assessment of YHWH’s actions here. Richardson (1987:195) also agrees with a positive context
for the verse, but does so with a negative interpretation of ‫רזון‬. He understands the word with a positive
connotation of “wasting”, and reads the ‫ ב‬in light of Ugaritic. His final conclusion being that God drove out the
leanness from their throat (‫)נפש‬, which is to say he removed their hunger.
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.
38
Similarly, interpreting ‫ רזון‬in light of Pr 14:28 as “ruin” renders a negative light on the proceedings, connoting
judgement upon the evil actions of the Israelites.
Page <190>
Chapter 3 - Psalm 106
very means their desires are met, “...‫יָמים ַ ֤עד ֲא ֶשׁר־יֵ ֵצ ֙א ֵ ֽמ ַא ְפּ ֶ֔כם וְ ָה ָי֥ה ָל ֶכ֖ם ְלזָ ָ ֑רא‬
ִ֗ ‫( ” ַ ֣עד׀ ֣חֹ ֶדשׁ‬Num
11:20). In this instance, the form ‫ לזרא‬recalls the word ‫ רזון‬in the psalm via a similarity in
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
can detect a wordplay with ‫רזון‬, stemming from its similarity with ‫רצון‬, “will”, or “desire”
(“...‫וֹהי‬
֥ ָ ‫י־א ָ ֪תּה ֱא ֫ל‬
ַ ‫ ” ַל ְמּ ֵ ֤ד ִני׀ ַ ֽל ֲע ֣שׂוֹת ְרצוֹנֶ ָ֘ך ִ ֽכּ‬Ps 143:10). Such a reading cynically hints that God
indeed gave them their desire.
‫הוה׃‬
ֽ ָ ְ‫ וַ יְ ַקנְ ֣אוּ ְ ֭למ ֶֹשׁה ַ ֽבּ ַמּ ֲח ֶ ֑נה ֜ ְל ַא ֲה ֗ר ֹן ְק ֣דוֹשׁ י‬16
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.
The specific sin mentioned in v.16 is jealousy, ‫ויקנאו‬, and the rebels envied Moses and
Aaron, as Rachel was envious of her sister in Gen 30:1, “…‫( ”…וַ ְתּ ַק ֵנּ֥א ָר ֵ ֖חל ַבּ ֲאח ָ ֹ֑תהּ‬s. also Pr
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).
41
Certain problems arise with the preposition in this verb because the root ‫ קנא‬together with ‫ ל‬usually appears in
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 Moses42 and Aaron as leaders43 of Israel,
but the specific mention of Aaron as “‫ ”קדוש יהוה‬is unique in historiographic psalms. Such a
reference, however, can plausibly be construed as an influence from verses detailing the high
priest’s vestments (s. Ex 28:36 and 39:3044). A further reference to Aaron’s status as holy
occurs in Numbers, “...‫ת־ה ָקּ ֖דוֹשׁ‬
ַ ‫ר־לוֹ וְ ֶא‬
֛ ‫ת־א ֶשׁ‬
ֲ ‫הו֧ה ֶא‬
ָ ְ‫( ”… ֠בֹּ ֶקר וְ י ַ ֹ֙דע י‬16:5), when YHWH singles
him out as the chosen priestly leader.
‫ל־ע ַ ֥דת ֲא ִב ָ ֽירם׃‬
ֲ ‫ח־א ֶרץ וַ ִתּ ְב ַל֣ע ָדּ ָ ֑תן ַ֜ו ְתּ ַ֗כס ַע‬
ֶ֭ ‫ ִתּ ְפ ַתּ‬17
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 thirdperson 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
Numbers 16, where we read “...‫יה וַ ִתּ ְב ַ ֥לע א ָ ֹ֖תם‬
ָ ‫ת־פּ‬
ִ ֔ ‫וַ ִתּ ְפ ַ ֤תּח ָה ָ֙א ֶר ֙ץ ֶא‬...” (16:32), and further on
“‫אב ֖דוּ ִמ ֥תּוְֹך ַה ָקּ ָ ֽהל׃‬
ְ ֹ ‫יה ֙ם ָה ָ֔א ֶרץ וַ יּ‬
ֶ ‫וַ ְתּ ַכ֤ס ֲע ֵל‬...” (16:33). Both instances report the same uprising and
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
Septuagint’s reading of “παρωργισαν”, the equivalent of ‫ הקניא‬or ‫( הכעיס‬to provoke to anger; s. Deut 32:21,
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 20:113, 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.
‫ר־אשׁ ַבּ ֲע ָד ָ ֑תם ֜ ֶל ָה ָ֗בה ְתּ ַל ֵ ֥הט ְר ָשׁ ִ ֽעים׃‬
֥ ֵ ‫ וַ ִתּ ְב ַע‬18
Then fire burned against their congregation and a flame burnt up the wicked
An emphatic semantic chiasmus, ‫ תלהט‬: ‫ להבה‬:: ‫ אש‬: ‫תבער‬, closes the section and highlights
the continued judgment passed on those opposing divine leadership: fire burned against the
congregation. Though only the word ‫ אש‬appears in Numbers, its associated word, ‫להבה‬,
frequently appears with it in poetic literature (s. Hos 7:6 and Joel 1:19). The repetition of ‫עדה‬
from v.17 creates a degree of continuity with the previous verse and links this act of judgment
with the remaining followers of Dathan and Abiram, ‫עדתם‬. In the second colon a flame burns
against the wicked, ‫רשעים‬, referring to the aforementioned congregation. The same word links
v.16 with v.6, “‫בוֹתינוּ ֶה ֱעִ ֥וינוּ ִה ְר ָ ֽשׁ ְענוּ׃‬
ֵ֗ ‫ם־א‬
ֲ ‫”ח ָ ֥טאנוּ ִע‬,
ָ suggesting an appropriate punishment for
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
incident, but additionally echoes Num 11:1-3, “ ‫הו֑ה וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַ ֤מע יְ הוָ ֙ה וַ ִיּ ַ֣חר‬
ָ ְ‫אנְ ִ֔נים ַ ֖רע ְבּ ָאזְ ֵנ֣י י‬
ֹ ֣ ‫וַ יְ ִ ֤הי ָה ָע ֙ם ְכּ ִמ ְת‬
...‫הוה‬
֔ ָ ְ‫ר־בּ ֙ם ֵ ֣אשׁ י‬
ָ ‫”א ֔פּוֹ וַ ִתּ ְב ַע‬
ַ (v.1), recording how fire from the Lord broke out against the
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.
‫שׂוּ־ע ֶגל ְבּח ֵ ֹ֑רב ַ֜ויִּ ְשׁ ַתּ ֲחו֗ וּ ְל ַמ ֵסּ ָ ֽכה׃‬
֥ ֵ ‫ יַ ֲע‬19
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
excerpts employed by the psalmist, this one concentrates on Israelite sin. The letters ‫ חרב‬here
remind the reader of YHWH rebuking and drying up the sea in v.9, “...‫”ויגער בים סוף ויחרב‬, an
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
proceed to worship it, “‫”וישתחוו למסכה‬, as they did in Ex 32:8, “ ‫יתם‬
ִ֔ ִ‫שׁר ִצוּ‬
֣ ֶ ‫ן־ה ֶ ֙דּ ֶר ְ֙ך ֲא‬
ַ ‫ָ ֣סרוּ ַמ ֵ֗הר ִמ‬
...‫ווּ־לוֹ‬
֙ ‫”ע ֣שׂוּ ָל ֶ֔הם ֵ ֖ע ֶגל ַמ ֵסּ ָכ֑ה וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַ ֽתּ ֲח‬.
ָ 48
‫בוֹדם ְבּ ַת ְב ִ ֥נית ֜שׁוֹר א ֵ ֹ֥כל ֵ ֽע ֶשׂב׃‬
֑ ָ ‫ת־כּ‬
ְ ‫ ויָּ ִ ֥מירוּ ֶא‬20
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 God49 for an idol, a repugnant representation of a calf. The
phrase “‫ ”וימירו את כבודם‬should not be understood so much as exchanging the “glory” or
“honor” of God, but as Israel exchanging YHWH for another god, as understood from verses
such as Jer 2:11, “‫יוֹעיל׃‬
ֽ ִ ‫בוֹדוֹ ְבּ ֥לוֹא‬
֖ ‫ֹלהים וְ ַע ִ ֛מּי ֵה ִ ֥מיר ְכּ‬
֑ ִ ‫ֹלהים וְ ֵ ֖ה ָמּה ֣ל ֹא ֱא‬
ִ֔ ‫גּוֹי ֱא‬
֙ ‫ימיר‬
֥ ִ ‫” ַה ֵה‬, in which the
two equivalent phrases, both depicting an exchange of gods, have been juxtaposed.50 The very
form of the word “exchange”, ‫ימירו‬, doubly serves as a subtle reminder of v.7 describing
Israel’s rebellion, ‫ימרו‬, at the Sea of Reeds.
By mentioning ‫תבנית‬, the psalmist recalls to the law prohibiting the fashioning of
images. Deuteronomy 4:16-18 specifically warns against such acts, “ ‫יתם ָל ֶכ֛ם‬
֥ ֶ ‫ן־תּ ְשׁ ִח ֔תוּן וַ ֲע ִשׂ‬
ַ ‫֙ ֶפּ‬
‫ל־ס ֶמל ַתּ ְב ִ ֥נית זָ ָ ֖כר ֥אוֹ נְ ֵק ָ ֽבה׃‬
֑ ָ ‫מוּנ֣ת ָכּ‬
ַ ‫( ֶ ֖פּ ֶסל ְתּ‬v.16)”. Rather than explicitly declaring the moral sin
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.
At this stage, however, Deut 9:16 presents itself as a strong candidate.
49
The mem should be read as waw here, reading ‫כבודו‬, and should be understood as a tiqqun sopherim, in which
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).
50
Even though there is probably another tiqqun sopherim in this verse, ‫( כבודי<כבודו‬s. BHS), the concept of a
nation exchanging God for something worthless is still apparent.
48
Page <194>
Chapter 3 - Psalm 106
manifest terms the crime’s ludicrous nature. Israel was delivered by the mighty hand of an
unseen God, and in response they pay obeisance and worship the image of a beast, ‫שור‬,51
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 commentators52 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.
‫יעם ע ֶ ֹ֖שׂה ְגד ֹ֣לוֹת ְבּ ִמ ְצ ָ ֽריִ ם׃‬
֑ ָ ‫מוֹשׁ‬
ִ ‫ ָ ֭שׁ ְכחוּ ֵ ֣אל‬21
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
against him. The proper noun ‫אל‬, repeated from v.14, reminds the reader of how the nation
tested YHWH in the wasteland, “‫ימוֹן׃‬
ֽ ‫ישׁ‬
ִ ‫סּוּ־אל ִ ֽבּ‬
֜ ֵ֗
ַ‫וַ יְ נ‬...”. Repetition of ‫ שכח‬and ‫ עשה‬recalls a
similar instance in v.13 when Israel quickly forgot YHWH’s deeds, “...‫” ִ ֭מ ֲהרוּ ָשׁ ְכ ֣חוּ ַמ ֲע ָ ֑שׂיו‬. The
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
witnessed in v.19, ‫ עשה‬recalls the differences between YHWH’s deeds and those of his
people. A semantic chiasmus with v.7, ‫ במצרים‬: ‫ שכחו‬:: ‫ לא זכרו‬: ‫במצרים‬, further emphasizes
the root of the problem: Israel’s forgetfulness of God’s works in Egypt. In mentioning the
God who saved them, “‫”אל מושיעם‬, the psalm refers back to the time when God delivered
Israel from the hand of their haters in v. 10, “...‫שׂוֹנ ַ֑א‬
ֵ ‫יעם ִמ ַיּ֣ד‬
ֵ ‫יּוֹשׁ‬
ִ ‫” ַ ֭ו‬. Because Israel had forgotten
this act of deliverance, they were led to commit idolatry with the calf idol.
51
Kraus (1988b:320) suggests this choice of word may relate to sources in Ugaritic literature linking ¾r (=‫ )שור‬to
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
‫ם־סוּף׃‬
ֽ ַ‫ ִנ ְ֭פ ָלאוֹת ְבּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ָ ֑חם נ֜ ָוֹר ֗אוֹת ַעל־י‬22
Amazing deeds in the land of Ham, fearful works at Yam Suf
Verse 22 continues the tri-cola beginning in v.21b recalling YHWH’s accomplishments at the
Reed Sea: “‫”גדלות במצרים‬, “‫”נפלאות בארץ חם‬, and “‫”נוראות על ים סוף‬.53 Each of the
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,
which ultimately led to their disobedience and rebellion. The appearance of ‫ נפלאות‬here refers
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
idol. The sentiment of Ex 14:31, “ ‫ת־ה ָיּ֣ד ַה ְגּד ֗ ָֹלה ֲא ֶ֙שׁר ָע ָ ֤שׂה יְ הוָ ֙ה ְבּ ִמ ְצ ַ ֔ריִ ם וַ ִ ֽיּ ְיר ֥אוּ ָה ָ ֖עם‬
ַ ‫וַ יַּ֙ ְרא יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֜אל ֶא‬
‫וּבמ ֶ ֹ֖שׁה ַע ְב ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ְ ‫יהוה‬
֔ ָ ‫ינוּ ַ ֽבּ‬
֙ ‫הו֑ה וַ ַיּ ֲֽא ֙ ִמ‬
ָ ְ‫”את־י‬,
ֶ is reflected in vv.21, 22, which possesses both lexical and
contextual congruency, but the people’s response in Exodus represents the desired response
that should have been emulated in this section of the psalm. The phrase “‫ ”בארץ חם‬only ever
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,
recalling the expression “the tents of Ham”, “‫י־חם׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫אשׁית ֜א ִ֗וֹנים ְבּ ָא ֳה ֵל‬
֥ ִ ‫ל־בּ ֣כוֹר ְבּ ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם ֵר‬
ְ ‫”וַ יַּ ֣ ְך ָכּ‬
(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
‫ירוֹ ָע ַ ֣מד ַבּ ֶ ֣פּ ֶרץ ְל ָפ ָנ֑יו ְל ָה ִ ֥שׁיב ֲ֜ח ָמ ֗תוֹ ֵ ֽמ ַה ְשׁ ִ ֽחית׃‬
֗ ‫מ ֶ ֤שׁה ְב ִח‬
ֹ ֨ ‫לוּלי‬
ֵ ֡ ‫ידם‬
֥ ָ ‫אמר ְ ֽל ַה ְשׁ ִ֫מ‬
ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ ֗יּ‬23
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
53
For more on ‫נפלאות‬, ‫נוראות‬, ‫ גדולות‬and the language of miracles; s. Yaron (1997:26-34) and Zakovitch
(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.
55
See close reading for Ps 78:51; selection of this rare phrase creates a wordplay with ‫ חמתו‬in the following
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
in the verse’s unusual length, as with v.7 depicting the rebellion. The verb ‫ אמר‬is best
rendered “consider” or “intend”, rather than simply “to say”; in the same way David’s men
considered stoning him in 1Sam 30:6, “...‫י־א ְמ ֤רוּ ָה ָע ֙ם ְל ָס ְק ֔לו‬
ָ ‫אד ִ ֽכּ‬
ֹ ֗ ‫”וַ ֵ֙תּ ֶצר ְל ָד ִ ֜וד ְמ‬. Moses’
description as God’s chosen one—only found here in biblical literature—corresponds
somewhat with the portrayal of Aaron as ‫ קדש יהוה‬in v.16. Moreover, it sheds light on v.5,
where the psalmist desires to see the goodness of the Lord’s chosen ones, ‫בחיריך‬. After
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
successfully interceded for Israel.56 At no point, however, in Exodus does the phrase “ ‫עמד‬
‫ ”בפרץ‬appear. Literally it means “to stand in the gap”, but here it adopts a metaphorical
meaning, referring to one who breaches the gap between man and God, thus averting a
catastrophe. God similarly sought such an individual in Ezek 22:30, “ ֩‫ר־גּ ֵדר‬
ָ ‫וָ ֲא ַב ֵ ֣קּשׁ ֵמ ֶ֡הם ִ ֣אישׁ ֹֽגּ ֵד‬
...‫”וְ ע ֙ ֵֹמד ַבּ ֶ ֧פּ ֶרץ ְל ָפ ַנ֛י ְבּ ַ ֥עד ָה ָ ֖א ֶרץ‬, and the psalmist’s selection of vocabulary suggests he was
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.
The infinitive construct form together with the lamed, ‫להשיב‬, signifies intent, “in order
to return his destructive anger”.57 The word ‫ מהשחית‬itself commonly expresses punitive
measures taken by God with respect to judgment. In Ex 12:23, “ ‫תּן ַה ַמּ ְשׁ ִ֔חית ָל ֥ב ֹא‬
֙ ֵ ִ‫וְ ֤ל ֹא י‬...
‫ל־בּ ֵתּ ֶיכ֖ם ִלנְ ֹֽגּף׃‬
ָ ‫”א‬,
ֶ it signifies the destroyer, the angel of the Lord coming to destroy the
firstborn of Egypt; a punitive action for their rebellious behavior in enslaving his people.
56
57
Another strong candidate, however, is Deut 9.
See JM §124l.
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
Exodus 32-34, the second one bears more similarities with Deut 10:10, “ ‫הוה ֵא ֔ ַלי ַ ֚גּם‬
֜ ָ ְ‫וַ יִּ ְשׁ ֙ ַמע י‬...
‫יתָך׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫הו֖ה ַה ְשׁ ִח‬
ָ ְ‫א־א ָ ֥בה י‬
ָ ֹ ‫;”בּ ַ ֣פּ ַעם ַה ִ֔הוא ל‬
ַ
a verse sharing the same context and vocabulary.
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.
‫א־ה ֱא ִ֗מינוּ ִל ְד ָב ֽרוֹ׃‬
ֶ֜ ֹ ‫ ַ ֭ויִּ ְמ ֲאסוּ ְבּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ֶח ְמ ָ ֑דּה ֽל‬24
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
their forefathers. The word ‫ ימאסו‬signifies the people’s refusal to enter the land and recalls
passages in the Torah such as Num 14:31, “‫ת־ה ָ֔א ֶרץ ֲא ֶ ֥שׁר ְמ ַא ְס ֶ ֖תּם ָ ֽבּהּ׃‬
ָ ‫עוּ ֶא‬
֙ ‫יאתי א ָֹ֔תם וְ יָ ְֽ ד‬
֣ ִ ‫וְ ֵה ֵב‬...”,
but in this refusal, they are effectively despising (s. Pr 3:11 and Job 42:6 for this emphasis of
‫ )מאס‬the gift offered by God. Nowhere in the Torah is Canaan described as “‫”ארץ חמדה‬, but
it is nonetheless an apt phrase reflecting the essence of the expression “flowing with milk and
honey” (s. for example Ex 3:8 and Num 14:8). Only in the prophets does the adjective ‫חמד‬
portray the land God intended for Israel, “‫ץ־ח ְמ ָ ֖דּה ְל ַשׁ ָ ֽמּה׃‬
ֶ ‫וַ יָּ ִ ֥שׂימוּ ֶ ֽא ֶר‬...” (Zech 7:14; s. also Jer
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
brought to light by the repetition of “‫“( ”האמינו לדברו‬believing his promise”). The generation
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
interpretation of ‫ דברו‬is somewhat equivocal since it may refer to God’s general promise 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
inhabitants. The latter notion recalls the words spoken in Deut 1:32, “ ‫ַוּב ָדּ ָ ֖בר ַה ֶזּ֑ה ֵ ֽאינְ ֶכ ֙ם ַמ ֲא ִמ ִ֔ינם‬
‫יכם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬
ֵ ‫יהו֖ה ֱא‬
ָ ‫”בּ‬,
ַ reflecting the same situation.
‫הוה׃‬
ֽ ָ ְ‫יהם ֥ל ֹא ָ֜שׁ ְמ ֗עוּ ְבּ ֣קוֹל י‬
֑ ֶ ‫ וַ יֵּ ָרגְ נ֥ וּ ְב ָא ֳה ֵל‬25
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
words similar to Deut 1:27, “...‫אמ ֔רוּ ְבּ ִשׂנְ ַ ֤את יְ הוָ ֙ה א ָֹ֔תנוּ‬
ְ ֹ ‫יכ ֙ם וַ ֣תּ‬
ֶ ‫”וַ ֵתּ ָרגְ נ֤ וּ ְב ָא ֳה ֵל‬, which contains the
only other occurrence of ‫ רגן‬in the Torah and reflects the same situation found in the psalm.
Throughout the psalm, the psalmist employs ‫ לא‬to illuminate negative Israelite behavior; they:
never remembered (v.7), never waited (v.13), never trusted (v.24), and now they never
hearkened to his voice. Deuteronomy is particularly fond of the phrase “‫( ”שמע בקול יהוה‬s. for
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
exemplifies this usage, “...‫הו֑ה‬
ָ ְ‫ת־פּי י‬
֣ ִ ‫יתם ֶא‬
֖ ֶ ‫וּמ ִר‬
ְ ‫הוה‬
֔ ָ ְ‫עוּ ְבּ ֣קוֹל י‬
֙ ‫ם־ל ֹא ִת ְשׁ ְמ‬
֤ ‫”וְ ִא‬, where “not listening”
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
relationship ‫ ישמיע‬: ‫ יהוה‬:: ‫ יהוה‬: ‫ שמעו‬creates a nexus with v.2 suggesting only those who
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.
‫וֹתם ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֽבּר׃‬
ָ֗ ‫ וַ יִּ ָ ֣שּׂא יָ ֣דוֹ ָל ֶ ֑הם ְל ַה ִ ֥פּיל ֜א‬26
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
planned to destroy them. The extent of God’s intent is expressed by the phrase “‫”נשא יד‬,
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
Ex 6:8, “…‫אתי ֶאת־יָ ִ ֔ד י ָל ֵ ֣תת א ָֹ֔תהּ ְל ַא ְב ָר ָ ֥הם‬
֙ ִ ‫ל־ה ָ֔א ֶרץ ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר ָנ ָ ֙שׂ‬
ָ ‫אתי ֶא ְת ֶכ ֙ם ֶא‬
֤ ִ ‫”וְ ֵה ֵב‬, he now resolves to
judge those who have refused the desirable land. The word ‫ להפיל‬here implies “to kill”, as
witnessed in 1Sam 4:10, “‫ֹלשׁים ֶ ֖א ֶלף ַר ְג ִ ֽלי׃‬
֥ ִ ‫”…וַ יִּ פֹּל֙ ִמיִּ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֔אל ְשׁ‬, depicting the results of a war (s.
also 2Sam 1:4 and 1Ki 22:20). Thus, the judgment he intended for them was death, to kill
them in the desert.
‫רוֹתם ָבּ ֲא ָר ֽצוֹת׃‬
ָ֗ ָ‫ ְוּל ַה ִ ֣פּיל ַז ְ֭ר ָעם ַבּגּוֹיִ ֑ם וּ֜ ְלז‬27
And to scatter59 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,
ִ ‫ם־א ִ֗ני נָ ָ ֧שׂ‬
ֲ ַ‫גּ‬
this one resonates more closely with Ezek 20:23, “ ‫אתי ֶאת־יָ ִ ֛די ָל ֶ ֖הם ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֑בּר ְל ָה ִ ֤פיץ א ָֹת ֙ם‬
‫אוֹתם ָבּ ֲא ָר ֽצוֹת׃‬
֖ ָ ‫וּלזָ ֥רוֹת‬
ְ ‫גּוֹים‬
ִ֔ ‫”בּ‬.
ַ For the psalmist, this association links the condemnation of the
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
59
Due to the similarity between ‫ להפיל‬and ‫להפיץ‬, I have opted to harmonise this word with Ezekiel 20:23; others
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
mistakenly influenced by the reading of ‫ להפיל‬in the previous verse, a second reading of ‫ להפיל‬in v.27 would
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.
‫אכ ֗לוּ זִ ְב ֵ ֥חי ֵמ ִ ֽתים׃‬
ְ ֹ ‫ וַ יִּ ָ ֣צּ ְמדוּ ְל ַ ֣ב ַעל ְפּ ֑עוֹר ַ֜ויּ‬28
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.1618), worshipping the calf idol (19-23), refusing the desirable land (vv.24-27), and now
worship of foreign gods. In this verse Israel is indicted for joining themselves ‫( יצמדו‬s. 2Sam
20:8 and Ps 50:19) to Baal Peor as in Num 25:3, “ ‫הו֖ה‬
ָ ְ‫ר־אף י‬
֥ ַ ‫וַ יִּ ָ ֥צּ ֶמד יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֖אל ְל ַ ֣ב ַעל ְפּ ֑עוֹר וַ ִיּ ַֽח‬
‫”בּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֽאל׃‬.
ְ The second colon has apparently received influence from Num 25:2, “ ‫וַ ִתּ ְק ֶ ֣ראן ָ ָל ֔ ָעם‬
‫יהן׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫אֹלה‬
ֵ ‫אכל ָה ֔ ָעם וַ ִ ֽיּ ְשׁ ַתּ ֲחוּ֖ וּ ֵ ֽל‬
ַ ֹ ‫יהן וַ ֣יּ‬
֑ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬
ֵ ‫”לזִ ְב ֵ ֖חי ֱא‬,
ְ which bears similar vocabulary. The use of “ ‫זבחי‬
‫ ”מתים‬may simply be understood as a metaphor describing a deeply detestable act.
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
inanimate idol in v.20, they now sacrifice to dead inanimate gods.61 The same phrase, “ ‫זבחי‬
‫”מתים‬, forms a wordplay between a living God, as seen in Deut 5:26, “ ‫שׁר ָשׁ ַ ֣מע‬
֣ ֶ ‫ל־בּ ָ֡שׂר ֲא‬
ָ ‫ִ ֣כּי ִ ֣מי ָכ‬
‫מנוּ וַ ֶיּ ִֽחי׃‬
ֹ ֖ ‫תּוְֹך־ה ֵ ֛אשׁ ָכּ‬
ָ
‫ֹלהים ַח ִ֜יּים ְמ ַד ֵ ֧בּר ִמ‬
ִ֙ ‫”קוֹ ֩ל ֱא‬, and dead idols/gods. This wordplay becomes more
pronounced in light of the association created with ‫אכל‬, linking this verse with v.20 “ ‫ ְבּ ַת ְב ִ ֥נית‬...
‫”שׁוֹר א ֵ ֹ֥כל ֵ ֽע ֶשׂב׃‬.
֗ ֜ In both instances the Israelites are exchanging something of worth and value
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
‫ץ־בּם ַמגֵּ ָ ֽפה׃‬
ָ֗ ‫יהם וַ ִתּ ְפ ָר‬
֑ ֶ ‫ ַ ֭ויַּ ְכ ִעיסוּ ְבּ ַ ֽמ ַע ְל ֵל‬29
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
witnessed by Deut 32:16, “‫יסהוּ׃‬
ֽ ֻ ‫תוֹע ֖בֹת יַ ְכ ִע‬
ֵ ‫( ”יַ ְקנִ ֻ ֖אהוּ ְבּזָ ִ ֑רים ְבּ‬s. also Jud 2:12 and 2Ki 17:17).
Numerous words for “deeds”, “works”, or “actions” appear in the psalm; here we see
‫מעלליהם‬, which contrasts God’s merciful acts in v.13. Verse 29 not only describes the anger
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
plague was stayed without a word concerning its origin. The word for plague, ‫מגפה‬, only ever
appears in the context of judgment in the Bible. Exodus 9:14 recalls the plagues wrought
against Egypt, “...‫ל־ל ְבּ ָ֔ך‬
ִ ‫ֹתי ֶ ֽא‬
֙ ַ ‫ל־מגֵּ פ‬
ַ ‫ת־כּ‬
ָ ‫אני שׁ ֜ ֵֹל ַח ֶא‬
ִ֙ ֲ ‫ ;” ִ ֣כּי׀ ַבּ ַפּ ַ֣עם ַה ֗זּ ֹאת‬and 2Sam 24 recounts the
plague sent against Israel due to the census arranged by David (s. also 1Sam 6:4 and Zech
14:12).
‫מד ִ ֭פּינְ ָחס וַ יְ ַפ ֵלּ֑ל ַ ֜ו ֵתּ ָע ַ֗צר ַה ַמּגֵּ ָ ֽפה׃‬
ֹ ֣ ‫ וַ יַּ ֲע‬30
But Phinehas arose and interceded, and the plague was stopped
As with the fifth stanza, the seventh recounts an instance of human intervention diverting
divine punishment. The verb ‫ יעמד‬directly links this stanza with the fifth stanza, specifically
v.23, “...‫ירוֹ ָע ַ ֣מד ַבּ ֶפּ ֶ֣רץ ְל ָפ ָנ֑יו‬
֗ ‫מ ֶ ֤שׁה ְב ִח‬
ֹ ֨ ‫לוּלי‬
ֵ ֡ ‫ידם‬
֥ ָ ‫אמר ְ ֽל ַה ְשׁ ִ֫מ‬
ֶ ֹ ‫”וַ ֗יּ‬, which depicts Moses standing in the
gap to return God’s anger. This time, however, it is not Moses, but Phinehas who rises up to
avert YHWH’s destructive anger. The verse is reminiscent of Num 25:7, “ ‫ן־א ְל ָע ָ֔זר‬
ֶ ‫וַ ַ֗יּ ְרא ִ ֽפּינְ ָח ֙ס ֶבּ‬
...‫ן־א ֲה ֖ר ֹן ַהכּ ֵ ֹ֑הן וַ יָּ֙ ָק ֙ם ִמ ֣תּוְֹך ָ ֽה ֵע ָ ֔דה‬
ַ ‫” ֶ ֽבּ‬, where ‫ קום‬equates62 to ‫ עמד‬in v.30. The verb ‫יפלל‬, though
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
anger. This interpretation additionally resonates with 1Sam 2:25, “ ‫וּפ ְל ֣לוֹ‬
ֽ ִ ‫ישׁ‬
֙ ‫ִאם־יֶ ֱח ָ֙טא ִ ֤אישׁ ְל ִא‬
...‫ל־לוֹ‬
֑ ‫א־אישׁ ִ ֖מי יִ ְת ַפּ ֶלּ‬
ִ֔ ‫ֹלהים וְ ִ ֤אם ַ ֽליהוָ ֙ה ֶי ֱֽח ָט‬
ִ֔ ‫ ;” ֱא‬here Eli explains to his sons that God can intercede
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
psalmist’s choice of a nifal verb ‫ו ֵתּ ָע ַצר‬,֜ ַ disguising the subject, obscures the direct notion that
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.
‫ד־עוֹלם׃‬
ָֽ
‫ וַ ֵתּ ָ ֣ח ֶשׁב ל֭ וֹ ִל ְצ ָד ָ ֑ קה ְל ֥ד ֹר ָ ֜ו ֗ד ֹר ַע‬31
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
speared two individuals whilst they committed a lewd act in the Tabernacle’s vicinity, “ ‫ָל ֵ ֖כן‬
‫יתי ָשׁ ֽלוֹם׃‬
֖ ִ ‫ת־בּ ִר‬
ְ ‫מר ִהנְ ִ֙ני נ ֵ ֹ֥תן ֛לוֹ ֶא‬
ֹ ֑ ‫”א‬.
ֱ Noticeably absent from Numbers is the word ‫ ;צדקה‬Numbers
63
For this meaning, s. BDB 813, and more recently Janowski (1983:170).
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
“intercede” is supported and ratified by Speiser (1963). In his article, he demonstrates that the root ‫ פלל‬carries
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.
64
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
author’s selection of ‫ צדקה‬we can turn to at least two, non-mutually exclusive, solutions.
First, selection of this specific word creates an internal association with v.3, in which the
psalmist declares, “Blessed is the man who does righteous works” (“‫)”עשה צדקה‬. In
associating the two verses, the psalmist exemplifies in v.31 an abstract statement in v.3,
proving that the man who does righteousness is blessed, ‫אשרי‬. Such a lesson encourages
individuals, even among a sinful people, to perform acts of righteousness, because men such
as these are rewarded. With respect to the selection of ‫צדקה‬, the second solution is that the
psalm alludes to Gen 15, the only other location in biblical literature in which the phrase
“‫ ”חשב…לצדקה‬occurs. Concerning Abraham’s willingness to obey God by following his
command to relocate to a foreign land, we see the words: “‫יהו֑ה וַ יַּ ְח ְשׁ ֶ ֥ב ָה ֖לּוֹ ְצ ָד ָ ֽ קה׃‬
ָ ‫”וְ ֶה ֱא ִ ֖מן ַ ֽבּ‬,
(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.
‫בוּרם׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫יבה וַ יֵּ ַ֥ רע ֜ ְלמ ֶֹ֗שׁה ַבּ ֲע‬
֑ ָ ‫ל־מי ְמ ִר‬
֥ ֵ ‫ ַ ֭ויַּ ְק ִציפוּ ַע‬32
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
the object of ‫יקציפו‬, “to provoke”, “to anger” (s. Ps 38:2), is not explicitly stated, we can, on
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
9:22, “‫הוֽה׃‬
ָ ְ‫יתם ֶאת־י‬
֖ ֶ ִ‫או֑ה ַמ ְק ִצ ִ ֥פים ֱהי‬
ָ ֲ ‫וּב ִק ְב ֖ר ֹת ַ ֽה ַתּ‬
ְ ‫וּב ַמ ָ֔סּה‬
ְ ‫”וּב ַת ְב ֵע ָר ֙ה‬
ְ (s. also Deut 9:7, 8). On the
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
By employing the phrase “‫”מי מריבה‬65 the psalm associates this event with the
crossing of the sea, especially v.11 in which God delivers Israel from their enemies by
causing the water to cover them, “‫”ויכסו מים צריהם‬. The link between the two sections once
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.
‫ת־רוּחוֹ ַ֜ו ַיְב ֵ֗טּא ִבּ ְשׂ ָפ ָ ֽתיו׃‬
֑
‫י־ה ְמ ֥רוּ ֶא‬
ִ ‫ ִ ֽכּ‬33
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
further emphasis falls on the people for causing him to behave as he did. ‫ המרו‬can be read
here in at least two different ways, each contributing to the psalm’s meaning. First, it can
represent the hifil of ‫) ִה ְמרוּ( מרה‬, meaning “to rebellion against”, suggesting Israel rebelled
against Moses causing him to sin. This is reminiscent of Moses words to Israel in Num 20:10,
“‫נוֹציא ָל ֶ ֖כם ָ ֽמיִ ם‬
֥ ִ ‫ן־ה ֶ ֣סּ ַלע ַה ֶ֔זּה‬
ַ ‫ ִשׁ ְמעוּ־נָ ֙א ַהמּ ִ ֹ֔רים ֲה ִמ‬...”. Additionally we can re-point this word to
read ‫ ֵה ֵמרוּ‬, “to embitter”,68 with Moses as the object, suggesting Israel embittered Moses’
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 Massah, as in Ex 17:7; second, only Moses is mentioned here, but both
he and Aaron incur the penalty of being denied entrance to the Promised Land (Num 20:12). The phrase “ ‫מי‬
‫ ”מריבה‬recalls Aaron’s involvement in this incident as recorded in Num 20:24. Similarly, it reminds the reader of
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
exception of Psalm 106:33 the phrase “‫ ”בטא בשפתים‬only appears70 in Lev 5:4, “ ‫ ֣אוֹ ֶ֡נ ֶפשׁ ִ ֣כּי‬...
...‫יטיב ֠ ְלכֹל ֲא ֶ֙שׁר יְ ַב ֵ ֧טּא ָה ָא ָ ֛דם ִבּ ְשׁ ֻב ָ ֖עה וְ נֶ ְע ַל֣ם ִמ ֶ ֑מּנּוּ‬
ִ֗ ‫”ת ָשּׁ ַב ֩ע ְל ַב ֵ֙טּא ִב ְשׂ ָפ ַ֜תיִ ם ְל ָה ַ ֣רע׀ ֣אוֹ ְל ֵה‬,
ִ which speaks
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.
‫הו֣ה ָל ֶ ֽהם׃‬
ָ ְ‫ת־ה ַע ִ ֑מּים ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר ָא ַ ֖מר י‬
ֽ ָ ‫א־ה ְשׁ ִמידוּ ֶא‬
֭ ִ ֹ ‫ ֽל‬34
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
word. Here the psalmist probably refers to Josh 9:24, “ ‫הו֤ה‬
ָ ְ‫הגּד ֻה ַגּ֤ד ַל ֲע ָב ֶ ֙ד ֙יָך ֵא ֩ת ֲא ֶ֙שׁר ִצ ָ ֜וּה י‬
ֵ֙ ֻ ֩‫ ִכּי‬...
...‫ת־כּל־י ְֹשׁ ֵ ֥בי ָה ָ ֖א ֶרץ ִמ ְפּ ֵנ ֶיכ֑ם‬
ָ ‫וּל ַה ְשׁ ִ ֛מיד ֶא‬
ְ ‫ל־ה ָ֔א ֶרץ‬
ָ ‫ת־כּ‬
ָ ‫ֹשׁה ַע ְב ֔דּוֹ ָל ֵ ֤תת ָל ֶכ ֙ם ֶא‬
֣ ֶ ‫ֹלה ֙יָך ֶאת־מ‬
ֶ֙ ‫” ֱא‬. From this
fundamental act of disobedience stem all the sins and punishments mentioned later in the
section. The word ‫ השמידו‬forms part of a chiastic structure, ‫ להשמידם‬: ‫ ויאמר‬:: ‫ אמר‬: ‫השמידו‬,
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
employs the word as a statement of disobedience. As with Esth 1:17, “ ‫המּ ֶלְך ֲא ַח ְשׁוֵ ֡רוֹשׁ ָא ַ֞מר‬
֣ ֶ ...
‫א־ב ָאה׃‬
ֽ ָ ֹ ‫”ל ָה ֙ ִביא ֶאת־וַ ְשׁ ִ ֧תּי ַה ַמּ ְל ָכּ֛ה ְל ָפ ָנ֖יו וְ ל‬
ְ (s. also Jos 11:9, 2Ki 4:24 and 1Ch 21:17), ‫ אמר‬should
in the present context be interpreted as “command”, signifying Israel rejected a direct
command from God.
‫יהם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫גּוֹי֑ם ַ֜ויִּ ְל ְמ ֗דוּ ַ ֽמ ֲע ֵשׂ‬
ִ ‫ וַ יִּ ְת ָע ְר ֥בוּ ַב‬35
And they commingled with the nations and learned their ways
70
The individual word ‫ בטה‬does, however, appear in Pr 12:18 denoting one who babbles.
Page <206>
Chapter 3 - Psalm 106
Disobedience mentioned in the previous verse leads to Israel’s further involvement with the
peoples they should have destroyed. Just as Israel joined themselves, ‫צמד‬, with Baal Peor
(v.28), they now commingled with the nations, “‫”ויתערבו בגוים‬. It was indeed this very
transgression that invoked Ezra’s dismay after the exiles returned from Babylon, “ ‫י־נ ְשׂ ֣אוּ‬
ָ ‫ִ ֽכּ‬
...‫בוּ ֶז֣ ַ רע ַה ֔קֹּ ֶדשׁ ְבּ ַע ֵ ֖מּי ָה ֲא ָר ֑צוֹת‬
֙ ‫יהם וְ ִה ְת ָ ֽע ְר‬
ֶ֔ ‫יהם ָל ֶה ֙ם וְ ִל ְב ֵנ‬
ֶ֗ ‫( ” ִמ ְבּ ֹֽנ ֵת‬9:2). Even though he specifically
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
their ways, “‫”וילמדו מעשיהם‬. Here Israel’s behavior directly contradicts Deut 18:9, “ ‫ִ ֤כּי ַא ָתּ ֙ה ָבּ֣א‬
‫גּוֹי֥ם ָה ֵ ֽהם׃‬
ִ ‫תוֹע ֖בֹת ַה‬
ֲ ‫א־ת ְל ַ ֣מד ַל ֲע ֔שׂוֹת ְכּ‬
ִ ֹ ‫ֹלהיָך נ ֵ ֹ֣תן ָלְ֑ך ֽל‬
֖ ֶ ‫הו֥ה ֱא‬
ָ ְ‫ל־ה ָ֔א ֶרץ ֲא ֶשׁר־י‬
ָ ‫”א‬,
ֶ a direct warning against
learning Canaanite customs. Even the psalmist’s specific choice of ‫ מעשיהם‬recalls the notion
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
other gods, the work of men’s hands “...‫ֹלהים ַמ ֲע ֵ ֖שׂה יְ ֵ ֣די ָא ָ ֑דם‬
ִ֔ ‫ם־שׁם ֱא‬
֣ ָ ‫”וַ ֲע ַב ְד ֶתּ‬. Jeremiah 10:3
similarly associates the two, and in Psalm 135:15, the nation’s idols are described as the
works of their hands, “‫”ע ַצ ֵבּ֣י ַ ֭הגּוֹיִ ם ֶכּ ֶ֣סף וְ זָ ָ ֑הב ַ֜מ ֲע ֵ֗שׂה יְ ֵ ֣די ָא ָ ֽדם׃‬
ֲ (s. also Deut 27:15). The term
‫ מעשיהם‬additionally serves as a reminder of v.13, explicating how Israel quickly forgot God’s
deeds. The link between the verses highlights another catastrophic result of forgetfulness.
‫יהם וַ יִּ ְהי֖ וּ ָל ֶ ֣הם ְלמוֹ ֵ ֽ קשׁ׃‬
֑ ֶ ‫ת־ע ַצ ֵבּ‬
ֲ ‫ וַ יַּ ַע ְב ֥דוּ ֶא‬36
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
gods of the nations, “‫ת־א ֹ֣ל ֵה ֶ֔יהם ִ ֽכּי־מוֹ ֵ ֥ קשׁ ֖הוּא ָ ֽלְך׃‬
ֱ ‫וְ ֤ל ֹא ַת ֲעב ֹ֙ד ֶא‬...” (Deut 7:16; s. also Ex 23:33).
Page <207>
Chapter 3 - Psalm 106
The derogatory term
71
‫—עצבים‬since the nations never referred to their objects of worship in
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
135 where the ‫ עצבים‬are the object of ridicule, depicted as worthless and reserved for other
nations, here it is indeed Israel that turns to worship them.72 Consequently, the idols become a
‫ מוקש‬to the people, an object causing trouble and grief—even as Saul hoped Michal, his
daughter, would be for David in 1Sam 18:21, “...‫מוֹקשׁ‬
֔ ֵ ‫י־לוֹ ְל‬
֣ ‫וּת ִה‬
ְ ‫אמר ָשׁ ֜אוּל ֶא ְתּ ֶנ֤נָּ ה ֙לּוֹ‬
ֶ ֹ ‫”וַ ֙יּ‬. For the
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.
‫יהם ַל ֵ ֽשּׁ ִדים׃‬
ֶ֗ ‫וֹת‬
ֵ ֽ‫ת־בּנ‬
ְ ‫יהם וְ ֶא‬
ֶ ‫ת־בּ ֵנ‬
֭ ְ ‫ וַ יִּ זְ ְבּ ֣חוּ ֶא‬37
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
daughters to ‫שדים‬. Specific instances of human sacrifice, as perpetrated by Israel, are absent
from the Torah as well as from Joshua and Judges,73 which recount the early conquest and
settlement.74 However, the injunction against such an act presents itself in Lev 18:21, “ ֥‫וּמזַּ ְר ֲעָך‬
ִֽ
...‫מּ ֶלְך‬
ֹ ֑ ‫א־ת ֵ ֖תּן ְל ַה ֲע ִ ֣ביר ַל‬
ִ ֹ ‫( ”ל‬s. also 20:2-5, and Deut 12:31). Only in the latter stages of Israel’s
history do we witness instances of Israelites sacrificing their sons and daughters to another
god, Molech, as in Jer 7:31, “ ‫יהם‬
֖ ֶ ‫ת־בּנ ֵֹת‬
ְ ‫יהם וְ ֶא‬
֥ ֶ ֵ‫ת־בּנ‬
ְ ‫ן־ה ֔נּ ֹם ִל ְשׂ ֛ר ֹף ֶא‬
ִ ‫תּ ֶפת ֲא ֶשׁ ֙ר ְבּ ֵג֣יא ֶב‬
ֹ ֗ ‫וּבנ֞ וּ ָבּ ֣מוֹת ַה‬
ָ
71
This word, always in plural, denotes an object made by human hands, and is always symbolic with idol
worship; s. Hos 4:17, 8:4, and Is 10:11 where it parallels ‫אליל‬. In the present verse, the context of idolatry is
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
...‫( ” ָבּ ֵ ֑אשׁ‬s. also 32:35). Verse 37 further describes the recipients of the sacrifices as ‫שדים‬.75
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
Deut 32:17, “...‫ֹלהים ֣ל ֹא יְ ָד ֑עוּם‬
֖ ִ ‫”יִ זְ ְבּ ֗חוּ ַל ֵשּׁ ִד ֙ים ֣ל ֹא ֱא ֹ֔ל ַה ֱא‬, a verse depicting sacrifices to demons,
but not human sacrifice. Somewhat paradoxically, the introduction of ‫ שדים‬brings an amount
of life to the previously identified idols, ‫עצבים‬, which do not possess life. The idols’
identification with demons thus creates a far worse picture of Israelite behavior.76
‫שׁר ִז ְ֭בּחוּ ַל ֲע ַצ ֵבּ֣י ְכ ָנ ַ֑ען וַ ֶתּ ֱח ַנ֥ ף ָ֜ה ָ֗א ֶרץ ַבּ ָדּ ִ ֽמים׃‬
֣ ֶ ‫יהם ֲא‬
ֶ֗ ‫נוֹת‬
ֵ ‫יהם וּֽ ְב‬
֤ ֶ ‫ם־בּ ֵ֨נ‬
ְ ‫ וַ יִּ ְֽשׁ ְפּ ֙כוּ ָ ֪דם נָ ִ֡קי ַדּ‬38
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 apostasy. The original sin of
failing to destroy the Canaanites (s. v.34) has led Israel to shed innocent blood, “ ‫וישפכו דם‬
‫( ”נקי‬s. also Jer 22:17), a crime the Lord specifically hates, “ ‫ ְ֜ויָ ַ ֗דיִ ם שׁ ְֹפ ֥כוֹת‬...‫הו֑ה‬
ָ ְ‫שׁ־הנָּ ה ָשׂ ֵנ֣א י‬
֭ ֵ ‫ֶשׁ‬
‫”דּם־נָ ִ ֽ קי׃‬,
ָ (Pr 6:16-17). Jeremiah 19:4-5 particularly relates this crime to the Israelite acts of
child sacrifice. The triple repetition of ‫ דם‬further inculcates the crime’s heinous nature, as
does the plural form ‫ דמים‬which often signifies murder, killing someone who does not deserve
to die, as in the case of Cain, “‫ן־ה ֲא ָד ָ ֽמה׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ית ק֚ וֹל ְדּ ֵ ֣מי ָא ִ֔חיָך צ ֲֹע ִ ֥ קים ֵא ַ ֖לי ִמ‬
ָ ‫אמר ֶ ֣מה ָע ִ ֑שׂ‬
ֶ ֹ ‫( ”וַ ֖יּ‬Gen 4:10).
The blood that was shed belonged to innocent individuals, the children of those performing
the sacrifices, “‫”דם בניהם ובנותיהם‬.77 The detestable picture painted in this verse is further
75
This is either a loanword from Akkadian, šēdu, which describes a protective spirit (Greek δαιμονιοις; s. also
BDB 993, CAD [vol. 17, 256-59],); or originates from the Aramaic ‫שדיא‬. It is difficult to know whether the
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).
77
Similarly, the plural ‫ דמים‬implies the guilt surrounding a person who takes an innocent life, “ ‫ִאם־זָ ְר ָ ֥חה ַה ֶ ֛שּׁ ֶמשׁ‬
‫ם־אין ֔לוֹ וְ נִ ְמ ַ ֖כּר ִבּגְ נֵ ָב ֽתוֹ‬
֣ ֵ ‫( ” ָע ָ ֖ליו ָדּ ִ ֣מים ֑לוֹ ַשׁ ֵ ֣לּם יְ ַשׁ ֔ ֵלּם ִא‬Ex 22:2; s. also Lev 20:9), which must be atoned. If it is not
Page <209>
Chapter 3 - Psalm 106
illuminated by the chiastic relationship formed between this verse and the previous one, : ‫זבחו‬
‫ יזבחו‬: ‫ בניהם ובנותיהם‬:: ‫בניהם בנותיהם‬, emphasizing the sacrifice of one’s own flesh and blood.
In a return to the imagery introduced in v.36, the psalmist repeats the notion that the Israelites
sacrificed to lifeless idols, ‫עצבים‬, those of Canaan. Moreover, the duplication of ‫ עצבים‬from
v.36 creates an inclusion in which the act of idolatry is depicted.
The idea of the whole land being polluted, or defiled, “‫ ”ותחנף ארץ‬by blood(guilt) is
reflected in Numbers, “ ‫ת־ה ָ ֑א ֶרץ וְ ָל ָ ֣א ֶרץ‬
ָ ‫ת־ה ָ֗א ֶרץ ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר ַא ֶתּ ֙ם ָ֔בּהּ ִ ֣כּי ַה ָ ֔דּם ֥הוּא יַ ֲח ִנ֖יף ֶא‬
ָ ‫א־ת ֲח ִנ֣יפוּ ֶא‬
ַ ֹ ‫וְ ל‬
‫י־אם ְבּ ַ ֥דם שׁ ְֹפ ֽכוֹ׃‬
֖ ִ ‫ְך־בּהּ ִכּ‬
ָ֔ ‫שׁר ֻשׁ ַפּ‬
֣ ֶ ‫”ל ֹא־יְ ֻכ ֗ ַפּר ַל ָדּ ֙ם ֲא‬
ֽ (35:33). Even though Numbers is not set in a
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”
(“‫ )”חנף ארץ‬and sets it in the context of spiritual idolatry committed by Israel in the latter part
of First Temple period, “‫וּב ָר ָע ֵ ֽתְך׃‬
ְ ‫נוּתיִ ְך‬
֖ ַ ְ‫֣יפי ֶ֔א ֶרץ ִבּז‬
ִ ‫וַ ַתּ ֲח ִנ‬...” (3:2).
‫יהם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫יהם ַ ֜ויִּ ְ֗זנוּ ְבּ ַ ֽמ ַע ְל ֵל‬
֑ ֶ ‫ וַ יִּ ְט ְמ ֥אוּ ְב ַמ ֲע ֵשׂ‬39
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
(“‫)”ויטמאו במעשיהם‬. Previously the psalmist stated that they defiled the land, “‫”ותחנף ארץ‬
(v.38), with innocent blood, now they themselves become ritually unclean78 (s. Lev 15:26)
through their deeds. The second half of the verse continues to explain how the Israelites
desecrated the land, through spiritual adultery. Literally the term ‫ זנה‬refers to the physical act
of unfaithfulness, involving a man and his wife (Pr 6:26), or a woman of loose morals (Gen
atoned for, the bloodguilt pollutes the people, as Deut 19:10 indicates, “ ‫הוה‬
֣ ָ ְ‫וְ ֤ל ֹא יִ ָשּׁ ֵפ ְ֙ך ָ ֣דּם ָנ ִ֔קי ְבּ ֶ ֣ ק ֶרב ַא ְר ְצ ָ֔ך ֲא ֶשׁ ֙ר י‬
‫ֹלהיָך נ ֵ ֹ֥תן ְלָך֖ נַ ֲח ָ ֑לה וְ ָה ָ ֥יה ָע ֶ ֖ליָך ָדּ ִ ֽמים׃‬
ֶ֔ ‫ ;” ֱא‬a verse that possibly influenced the psalmist’s choice of words.
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.
78
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
of ‫זנה‬, together with ‫טמא‬, in the context of spiritual idolatry is also attested in Hos 5:3, “ ‫ ִ ֤כּי‬...
‫֣ית ֶא ְפ ַ ֔ריִ ם נִ ְט ָ ֖מא יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֽאל׃‬
ָ ‫”ע ָתּ ֙ה ִהזְ ֵנ‬
ַ (s. also Ezek 20:3081). Israel’s sinful deeds again find mention
in v.39 through the repetition of two terms, ‫ מעלליהם‬and ‫מעשיהם‬, also associated in Psalm
28:4, “‫מוּל֣ם ָל ֶ ֽהם׃‬
ָ ְ‫יהם ֵ ֣תּן ָל ֶ ֑הם ָה ֵ ֖שׁב גּ‬
ֶ ‫שׂה ְי ֵ֭ד‬
֣ ֵ ‫יהם ְכּ ַמ ֲע‬
֥ ֶ ‫וּכ ֪ר ֹ ַע ַ ֽמ ַע ְל ֫ ֵל‬
ְ ֘‫ן־ל ֶ ֣הם ְכּ ָפ ֳע ָלם‬
ָ ‫”תּ‬.
ֶ By repeating the
latter, the stanza creates an inclusion with v.35 that encapsulates the acts of spiritual idolatry
that defiled the land.
‫הו֣ה ְבּ ַע ֑מּוֹ ַ ֜ויְ ָת ֗ ֵעב ֶאת־נַ ֲח ָל ֽתוֹ׃‬
ָ ְ‫ר־אף י‬
֣ ַ ‫וַ ִ ֽיּ ַח‬40
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;
he is angered with his people, “‫הו֣ה ְבּ ַע ֑מּוֹ‬
ָ ְ‫ר־אף י‬
֣ ַ ‫”וַ ִיּ ַֽח‬. The phrase ‫חרה אף‬, to become angry (Gen
30:2, 1Sam 20:30) frequently describes God’s anger against Israel, “ ‫ר־א ִ ֥פּי‬
ַ ‫֣יחה ֔ ִלּי וְ ִי ַֽח‬
ָ ‫וְ ַע ָתּ ֙ה ַה ִנּ‬
...‫( ” ָב ֶ ֖הם וַ ֲא ַכ ֵלּ֑ם וְ ֶ ֽא ֱע ֶ ֥שׂה‬Ex 32:10; s. also Ex 4:14 against Moses, and Num 11:1), as indeed it
does here. More importantly, a similar picture of God’s anger being aroused on account of
child sacrifice appears in 2Kings 23:26, “ ‫יהוּדה‬
֑ ָ ‫ר־ח ָ ֥רה ַא ֖פּוֹ ִ ֽבּ‬
ָ ‫פּוֹ ַה ָגּ ֔דוֹל ֲא ֶשׁ‬
֙ ‫יְהוה ֵמ ֲח ֤רוֹן ַא‬
֗ ָ ‫א־שׁב‬
֣ ָ ֹ ‫ַ ֣אְך׀ ֽל‬
‫יסוֹ ְמ ַנ ֶ ֽשּׁה׃‬
֖ ‫ל־ה ְכּ ָע ִ֔סים ֲא ֶ ֥שׁר ִה ְכ ִע‬
ַ ‫”על ָכּ‬,
֚ ַ in which Manasseh’s leading of Judah into detestable
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
themselves, as recorded in Num 25:1, “‫מוֹאב׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫ל־בּנ֥ וֹת‬
ְ ‫”וַ יֵּ ֥ ֶשׁב יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֖אל ַבּ ִשּׁ ִ ֑טּים וַ ָ ֣יּ ֶחל ָה ֔ ָעם ִלזְ נ֖ וֹת ֶא‬.
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 book of Ezekiel. Chapters 16 and 23 are particularly graphic concerning the spiritual unfaithfulness of
both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms.
Page <211>
Chapter 3 - Psalm 106
utterly despises his inheritance, “‫”יתעב את נחלתו‬.82 The same word, ‫תעב‬, appears in 1Ki 21:26
to describe Ahab’s abominable acts in chasing after idols, “...‫אד ָל ֶל ֶ֖כת ַא ֲח ֵ ֣רי ַה ִגּ ֻלּ ִ ֑לים‬
ֹ ֔ ‫( ”וַ יַּ ְת ֵע֣ב ְמ‬s.
also Ps 119:163 where it opposes ‫)אהב‬. Almost ironically the psalmist employs the term ‫נחלה‬
to describe his people, a term which so often conveys the intimate relationship shared between
Israel and YHWH, as witnessed in Ps 33:12, “‫ֹלהיו ָה ֓ ָעם׀ ָבּ ַ ֖חר ְלנַ ֲח ָל֣ה ֽלוֹ׃‬
֑ ָ ‫הו֣ה ֱא‬
ָ ְ‫” ַא ְשׁ ֵ ֣רי ַ ֭הגּוֹי ֲא ֶשׁר־י‬
(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
is compared with v.5, “‫”להתהלל עם נחלתך‬, where ‫ נחלה‬epitomizes enjoyment within the
confines of a close relationship with God.83
‫יהם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫ד־גּוֹי֑ם ַ ֽו יִּ ְמ ְשׁל֥ וּ ָ֜ב ֶ֗הם שׂ ֹנְ ֵא‬
ִ
ַ‫ וַ יִּ ְתּ ֵנ֥ם ְבּי‬41
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
the punitive action frequently recorded in Judges, “...‫ר־אף יְ הוָ ֙ה ְבּ ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵ֔אל ַוֽ יִּ ְתּנֵ ֙ם ְבּיַ ד־שׁ ִֹ֔סים‬
֤ ַ ‫”וַ ִיּ ַֽח‬
(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
such instance is recorded in 2Ki 17:20, “...‫ל־ז ַ֤ רע יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל֙ וַ יְ ַע ֵ֔נּם ַוֽ יִּ ְתּ ֵנ֖ם ְבּיַ ד־שׁ ִ ֹ֑סים‬
ֶ ‫הוה ְבּ ָכ‬
֜ ָ ְ‫”וַ יִּ ְמ ַ֙אס י‬,
describing the Northern Kingdom’s exile by Assyria. The word ‫ גוי‬in the present verse,
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
oppressors. Similarly, repetition of ‫ שנא‬together with ‫ יד‬forms an inclusion with v.10. The
connection between the verses returns Israel to where they began: suffering at the hand of
82
According to Briggs (1969:353), both this word together with the phrase “‫ ”חרה אף‬are of Deuteronomic
influence. Additionally, Richardson (1987:144) notes that the former develops the latter a step further: “‫”חרה אף‬
describes thoughts and feelings, whereas ‫ תעב‬depicts the subsequent action.
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.
‫יהם ַ ֜ויִּ ָכּנְ ֗עוּ ַ ֣תּ ַחת יָ ָ ֽדם׃‬
֑ ֶ ‫ וַ יִּ ְל ָח ֥צוּם אוֹיְ ֵב‬42
And their enemies oppressed them and they (Israel) were subdued under their hand
Verse v.42a intensifies v.41b, stressing that Israel’s enemies not only ruled over them, but
oppressed them too, even as the Israelites were oppressed by the Egyptians, “ ‫יתי‬
֙ ִ ‫ם־ר ִ֙א‬
ָ ַ‫וְ ג‬...
‫ֹלח ִ ֥צים א ָ ֹֽתם׃‬
ֲ ‫ת־ה ֔ ַלּ ַחץ ֲא ֶ ֥שׁר ִמ ְצ ַ ֖ריִ ם‬
ַ ‫”א‬
ֶ (Ex 3:9), which recalls the scene in the second stanza that
recorded events occurring in Egypt. The connection with v.10 in the second stanza creates an
instance of chiasmus: ‫ ידם‬: ‫ אויביהם‬:: ‫ אויב‬: ‫יד‬. Like v.41, the irony of God previously
delivering the Israelites from the hand of their oppressors to him now delivering them into the
hand of their enemies continues. Inclusion of the verb ‫כנע‬, to “humble”, “subdue”, or “bring
low”—as in 1Sam 7:13, “...‫עוּ ַה ְפּ ִל ְשׁ ִ֔תּים וְ לֹא־יָ ְס ֣פוּ ֔עוֹד ָל ֖בוֹא ִבּגְ ֣בוּל יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֑אל‬
֙ ‫”וַ יִּ ָ ֽכּ ְנ‬, when the
Philistines were subdued at the hands of Israel—creates a wordplay with ‫ כנען‬in v.38. Thus,
the very people whose gods the Israelites served have now become their oppressors. The
phrase “‫תחת יד‬...‫ ”כנע‬occurs in two other places in biblical literature, and only one of these
mentions Israel and an enemy, Jud 3:30, “...‫מוֹא ֙ב ַבּיּ֣ וֹם ַה ֔הוּא ַ ֖תּ ַחת יַ ֣ד יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֑אל וַ ִתּ ְשׁ ֥קֹט‬
ָ
‫”וַ ִתּ ָכּ ַנ֤ע‬.84
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
of their enemies. This reality is punctuated by the inclusion in vv.41-42 formed by ‫יד‬, which
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
‫מכּוּ ַבּ ֲע ָוֹנֽם׃‬
ֹ ֗ ָ‫ילם ְו ֵ֭ה ָמּה יַ ְמ ֣רוּ ַב ֲע ָצ ָ ֑תם ַ֜ויּ‬
֥ ֵ ‫ ְפּ ָע ִ ֥מים ַר ֗בּוֹת יַ ִ֫צּ‬43
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
the history of their existence in the land.85 The many times, “‫”פעמים רבות‬, God delivered them
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
forefathers. The psalm employs the third-person plural pronoun ‫המה‬, rather than the firstperson common plural characteristics of v.6 that included the psalmist and his generation
together with the unrighteous forefathers. Repetition of ‫ מרו‬here recalls the rebellion
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
here, recalls their failure to wait for God’s council in v.13, “‫”לא חכו לעצתו‬.
The psalmist employs a rare word to describe the result of the Israelite rebellion, ‫וימכו‬,
(from the root ‫)מכך‬, self debasement; a word only found in two other places in the Bible.86
Literally, it means to bring low physically, as in Ecc 10:18, “ ‫וּב ִשׁ ְפל֥ וּת יָ ַ ֖דיִ ם‬
ְ ‫ַבּ ֲע ַצ ְל ַ ֖תּיִ ם יִ ַ ֣מְּך ַה ְמּ ָק ֶ ֑רה‬
‫”יִ ְד ֹ֥לף ַה ָ ֽבּיִ ת׃‬, but the present context implies a moral degradation. At least two meanings of ‫עון‬
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
interpreted as the punishment brought about by their sin, as in Gen 4:13, “ ‫הו֑ה‬
ָ ְ‫אמר ַ ֖קיִ ן ֶאל־י‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֥יּ‬
85
Semantically ‫ הציל‬creates a link within the psalm to ‫הושיע‬, “to save/deliver”, and recalls instances in which
YHWH had accomplished this for his people, as in vv.8, 10, and 21.
86
I should also note that this could constitute a corruption of the verb ‫מוך‬, a word meaning “to be poor,
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
‫”גּ ֥דוֹל ֲע ִ ֖וֹני ִמנְּ ֽשׂ ֹא׃‬,
ָ where Cain’s punishment for iniquity is more than he can bear (s. also 1Sam
28:10 and 2Ki 7:9).
‫ת־רנָּ ָ ֽתם׃‬
ִ ‫ ַ ֭ויַּ ְרא ַבּ ַצּ֣ר ָל ֶ ֑הם ְ֜בּ ָשׁ ְמ ֗עוֹ ֶא‬44
But he saw their distress and heard their cry
The previous adverbial phrase, “‫”פעמים רבות‬, continues to govern verse v.44; thus, many
times YHWH saw their distress, “‫”ויַּ ְרא ַבּ ַצּ֣ר‬.
֭ ַ The verb ‫ ראה‬here does not just have the simple
meaning “to see”, but to look upon with compassion (s. Gen 29:32 and 1Sam 1:11), and to
notice with the intention of intervening and helping (s. Ex 2:25, “ ‫ת־בּ ֵנ֣י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֑אל וַ יֵּ ֖ ַ דע‬
ְ ‫ֹלהים ֶא‬
֖ ִ ‫וַ ַיּ ְ֥ רא ֱא‬
‫ֹלהים׃‬
ֽ ִ ‫”א‬,
ֱ God sees Israel’s suffering with the intention of delivering them). Often in biblical
literature, as it does here, the root ‫ צרר‬connotes suffering at the hands of one’s enemies, as
seen in Num 10:9, “...‫ל־ה ַצּ ֙ר ַהצּ ֵ ֹ֣רר ֶא ְת ֶ֔כם וַ ֲה ֵרע ֶ ֹ֖תם ַבּ ֲחצ ְֹצ ֑רוֹת‬
ַ ‫ ָת ֙ב ֹאוּ ִמ ְל ָח ָ֜מה ְבּ ַא ְר ְצ ֶ֗כם ַע‬...” (s. also
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
‫ שמע‬contrasts Israel’s and YHWH’s attitudes towards each other. God sees and listens to their
cry of distress (‫)רנתם‬, whereas they fail to listen to his advice. Such a contrast reflects his
compassion, in spite of their behavior, he is faithful to them. As seen from Ps 105:43, the
word ‫רנה‬, can imply a shout of joy and rejoicing, however, here it expresses an entreaty, or
cry of supplication to God, as Jer 7:16 indicates, “ ‫ל־תּ ָ ֧שּׂא‬
ִ ‫ד־ה ָ ֣עם ַה ֶ֗זּה וְ ַא‬
ָ ‫ל־תּ ְת ַפּ ֵלּ֣ל׀ ְבּ ַע‬
ִ ‫וְ ַא ָ֞תּה ַא‬
...‫( ” ַב ֲע ָ ֛דם ִר ָנּ֥ה‬s. also 1Ki 8:28, Ps 119:169).
‫יתוֹ ַ ֜ויִּ נָּ ֵ֗חם ְכּ ֣רֹב ) ַח ְסדּוֹ( ] ֲח ָס ָ ֽדיו[׃‬
֑ ‫ וַ יִּ זְ ֣כֹּר ָל ֶ ֣הם ְבּ ִר‬45
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
seen in Lev 26:45, “...‫אתי־א ָֹת ֩ם ֵמ ֶא ֶ ֙רץ ִמ ְצ ַ ֜ריִ ם‬
ִ ‫הוֹצ‬
ֵֽ
‫שׁר‬
֣ ֶ ‫”וְ זָ ַכ ְר ִ ֥תּי ָל ֶ ֖הם ְבּ ִ ֣רית ִראשׁ ִֹנ֑ים ֲא‬, which
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).
Together ‫ זכר‬and “‫ ”רב חסד‬remind the reader of v.7, and raise another contrast between the
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
of Israel corresponds with the mercy he shows them, ‫“( ינחם‬relent, turn back from”; s. Ex
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.
‫יהם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫ל־שׁוֹב‬
ֵ
‫אוֹתם ְל ַר ֲח ִ ֑מים ֜ ִל ְפ ֵ ֛ני ָכּ‬
֣ ָ ‫ וַ יִּ ֵ ֣תּן‬46
He was merciful to them before their captors
In remembering his covenant, God responds compassionately towards his people in v.46.
Verse 41 saw the verb ‫ נתן‬used as an expression of punishment, but here it is reversed,
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
signifying an expression of pity and mercy, “‫לרחמים‬...‫”נתן‬88 (s. Deut 13:18). More
specifically, this phrase directly corresponds with 1Ki 8:50, “ ‫אוּ־לְך‬
ָ ֔ ‫שׁר ָ ֽח ְט‬
֣ ֶ ‫וְ ָס ַל ְח ָ ֤תּ ְל ַע ְמּ ָ֙ך ֲא‬
‫יהם וְ ִ ֽר ֲח ֽמוּם׃‬
֖ ֶ ‫־בְך וּנְ ַת ָ ֧תּם ְל ַר ֲח ִ ֛מים ִל ְפ ֵנ֥י שׁ ֵֹב‬
֑ ָ ‫שׁר ָפּ ְשׁעוּ‬
֣ ֶ ‫יהם ֲא‬
֖ ֶ ‫ל־פּ ְשׁ ֵע‬
ִ ‫” ְוּל ָכ‬.89 Just as Solomon called for
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
the hand of their captors, ‫( שוביהם‬s. Gen 34:29 and Ps 137:3). Further strengthening the
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 deliverance90 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.
‫שׁם ָק ְד ֶ ֑שָׁך ֜ ְל ִה ְשׁ ַתּ ֵ֗בּ ַח ִבּ ְת ִה ָלּ ֶ ֽתָך׃‬
֣ ֵ ‫ן־ה ֫גּ ִוֹי֥ם ְ ֭להֹדוֹת ְל‬
ַ ‫ֹלהינוּ וְ ַק ְבּ ֵצנוּ֘ ִ ֽמ‬
ֵ֗ ‫יענוּ׀ יְ ֨הָו֤ה ֱא‬
ֵ ֙ ‫הוֹשׁ‬
ִ 47
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.
The opening imperative cry by the psalmist, ‫הושיענו‬, hearkens back to vv.8 and 10,
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
identifying the covenant name, ‫יהוה‬, with the God of the people, ‫אלהינו‬. The plea is further
detailed by the psalmist’s imperative cry to gather them, ‫( קבצנו‬s. Gen 41:35, gathering food;
Deut 13:17, gathering spoil), from the nations.91 Echoes of God gathering Israel from among
the peoples in which he has scattered them appear in Deut 30:3, “ ֖‫בוּתָך‬
ְ ‫ת־שׁ‬
ְ ‫ֹלהיָך ֶא‬
֛ ֶ ‫הו֧ה ֱא‬
ָ ְ‫וְ ָ֙שׁב י‬
‫ֹלהיָך ָ ֽשׁ ָמּה׃‬
֖ ֶ ‫הו֥ה ֱא‬
ָ ְ‫יצָך֛ י‬
ְ ‫ל־ה ַע ִ֔מּים ֲא ֶ ֧שׁר ֱה ִ ֽפ‬
֣ ָ ‫”וְ ִר ֲח ֶ ֑מָך וְ ָ֗שׁב וְ ִק ֶבּ ְצ ָ֙ך ִמ ָכּ‬. Like Deut 30:3, the psalmist hopes
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
proclaim thanks to his holy name, “‫”להדות לשם קדשך‬. The idea of proclaiming thanks to
YHWH creates an inclusion for the whole psalm: ‫ להדות‬: ‫ יהוה‬:: ‫ ליהוה‬: ‫הודו‬.92 In spite of the
negative tone apparent in the psalm’s composition, both the beginning and the end contain the
same statement of thanksgiving. God’s name, ‫שם‬, in the present verse recalls v.8, “ ‫יעם‬
ֵ ‫יּוֹשׁ‬
ִ ‫ַ ֭ו‬
‫בוּר ֽתוֹ׃‬
ָ ְ‫הוֹד ַיע ֶאת־גּ‬
֗ ִ ‫”ל ַ ֣מ ַען ְשׁ ֑מוֹ ֜ ְל‬,
ְ which in turn provides justification for any deliverance the Lord
may procure: for his namesake, and not according to Israel’s behavior. The hitpael of ‫שבח‬, “to
speak out” or “boast about”, only occurs here in the Bible (excluding 1Chr 16:35, which
adopts verses from this psalm). From the present context it is associated with ‫להדות‬, which
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
must act to save them. Repetition of ‫ תהלה‬also lends to this idea. Only after the Israelites were
delivered at the sea did they trust God and sing his praises (“‫”וַ יַּ ֲא ִ ֥מינוּ ִב ְד ָב ָ ֑ריו ָ֜י ִ֗שׁירוּ ְתּ ִה ָלּ ֽתוֹ׃‬,
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
‫ל־ה ָ ֥עם ָא ֵ֗מן ַ ֽה ְללוּ־יָ ֽהּ׃‬
ָ ‫עוֹלם וְ ָא ַ ֖מר ָכּ‬
ָ ֗ ‫עוֹלם׀ וְ ֬ ַעד ָה‬
֙ ָ ‫ן־ה‬
֤ ָ ‫ֹלהי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֡אל ִמ‬
֪ ֵ ‫הוה ֱא‬
ָ ֙ ְ‫ ָבּ ֤רוְּך־י‬48
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
the Psalter’s first three books: ‫“—ברוך‬name of God”—expression of eternity—(optional
blessing)—‫אמן‬. Table 5 reveals the similarity:
Table 6.
‫אמן‬
Optional
‫ָ֨א ֵ ֥מן׀ וְ ָא ֵ ֽמן׃‬
‫ָ֨א ֵ ֥מן׀ וְ ָא ֵ ֽמן׃‬
‫וְ יִ ָמּ ֵל֣א ְ ֭כבוֹדוֹ ֶאת־ ֥כֹּל ָה ָ֗א ֶרץ‬
‫ָ֨א ֵ ֥מן׀ וְ ָא ֵ ֽמן׃‬
‫ָא ֵ֗מן‬
‫ל־ה ָ ֥עם‬
ָ ‫וְ ָא ַ ֖מר ָכּ‬
Eternity
God
‫ברוך‬
‫עוֹלם‬
ָ ֗ ‫עוֹלם וְ ַ ֥עד ָה‬
ָ ‫ֵ ֭מ ָה‬
‫הוה׀ ֱא ֹ֨ל ֵ ֤הי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֗אל‬
ָ ֙ ְ‫י‬
‫ָ֨בּ ֤רוְּך‬
Ps 41:14
‫וֹלם‬
֥ ָ ‫ְל ֫ע‬
‫בוֹדוֹ‬
֗ ‫ֵ ֥שׁם ְכּ‬
‫וּב ֤רוְּך‬
ָ
Ps 72:19
‫עוֹלם‬
ָ ֗ ‫֜ ְל‬
‫הו֥ה‬
ָ ְ‫י‬
‫ָבּ ֖רוְּך‬
Ps 89:53
‫עוֹלם‬
ָ ֗ ‫עוֹלם׀ וְ ֬ ַעד ָה‬
֙ ָ ‫ן־ה‬
֤ ָ ‫ִמ‬
‫ֹלהי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֡אל‬
֪ ֵ ‫הוה ֱא‬
ָ ֙ ְ‫י‬
‫ָבּ ֖רוְּך‬
Ps 106:48
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
the psalm itself. The name “YHWH” creates both continuity with v.47, as does ‫אלהים‬, and a
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
as his kindness is eternal, so he should eternally be praised for it. The final “‫ ”הללו יה‬creates
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.112, 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.
Additionally, we must remember that in all likelihood this verse is a later gloss that does not appear in early
translations of the Septuagint.
96
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
importantly, gather them from the nations (“‫)”וקבצנו מן הגוים‬.97 Additionally, v.27 suggests a
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
appearing in the psalm reveal the probability of Aramaic influence on the psalmist. First ‫מלל‬
appears in v.2, which is a standard word in Aramaic for “speaking” and is much less common
in Biblical Hebrew.98 Additionally, ‫( השתבח‬hitpael of ‫ )שבח‬is considered by some99 to be an
97
In light of events recorded in the psalm, it is most logical to assume the Babylonian exile.
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).
98
Page <221>
Chapter 3 - Psalm 106
Aramaism.100 Two other points for consideration are the use of ‫ עמד‬as a late synonym for ‫קום‬
(v.30) and the plural form ‫( ארצות‬v.27).101 Together, the evidence cited above precludes any
possibility of the psalm originating during the exile of the Northern Kingdom or any other
period prior to the Babylonian exile.
Though most scholars agree102 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).
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).
100
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.
apparently influenced by Ezekiel, as seen
Ps 106:9
Is 63:13103
—
from vv.23, 26, and 27. Moreover, vv.9 and
Ps 106:10
Is 63:9
—
Ps 106:11
Ex 14:28
P
Ps 106:12
Ex 14:31-15:1
NS
borrowing
Ps 106:14
Num 11:4
JE
concerning this assumed source is somewhat
Ps 106:17
Num 16:32-33
JE
obscure.
‫”ויתאוו‬
Ps 106:18
Num 16:35 + 11:1
P + JE
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
the same context.109 With respect to the
Ps 106:26
Num 14:29-30 + Ezek 20:23
P
Ps 106:27
Ezek 20:23
—
10 also suggest some access to Isaiah;
however,
the
The
direction
keywords
of
“‫תאוה‬
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
more
Ps 106:30
Num 25:7 + 17:15
P105+P
preferable option for the following reasons:
Ps 106:31
Gen 15:6
JE
Ps 106:38
Num 35:33
P107
9:16,
Deuteronomy
is
a
first, ‫ חרב‬appears as the name for the
103
106
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
Torah, only Ps 106:23 and Deut 9:19 employ the words ‫ השמיד‬and ‫חמה‬. In addition to these
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
texts is the phrase “‫”עמד בפרץ‬, which only ever occurs in the context of intercession in these
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
“‫( ”האמין דבר‬1:32) and the description of the Israelites complaining in their tents, “‫”רגן באהל‬
(1:27). Concerning the allusion to Ezek 20:23, the markers employed by the psalmist are: ‫פוץ‬,
‫גוים‬, ‫זרה‬, ‫נשא‬, ‫יד‬, and ‫”ארצות‬.111 The psalmist’s account of the incident at Meribah in which
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
the transgression by Moses and Aaron. The phrase “‫“( ”מי מריבה‬waters of Meribah”) also
appears in Deut 32:51112 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
similar form ‫ויחרב‬.
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
sin, whereas with Dathan we read of a congregation (‫ )עדה‬that participated in the rebellion.114
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).
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.
114
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.
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
goodness, but because of his love and mercy. Moreover, YHWH acting for his namesake (“ ‫ַל ֲע ֥שׂוֹת ֖לוֹ ֵ ֥שׁם‬
116
‫”…עוֹלם׃‬,
ָֽ
63:12) forms an important part of the pericope. In light of God’s mercy towards Israel, Is 63 records
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
desert journey with words similar to those in our psalm, “‫יכם ַבּ ְתּה ֹ֑מוֹת ַכּ ֥סּוּס ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֖בּר ֥ל ֹא יִ ָכּ ֵ ֽשׁלוּ׃‬
֖ ָ ‫מוֹל‬
ִ ”.
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.
Three times in vv.10, 11 epithets are given to the Egyptians—‫צרים‬, ‫אויב‬, and, ‫—שונא‬
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 events118 begins with a group of people who presumably were not
Israelites, ‫( אספסף‬those who tagged along),119 that first felt gluttonous desires (“‫”התאוו תאוה‬,
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
such abundance that it will come out of their nostrils and become loathsome120 to them (“ ‫והיה‬
‫”לכם לזרא‬, v.20). At this point in the narrative, the precise reason for God’s anger is revealed:
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
YHWH brings in an abundance of quail (‫שלוים‬, v.31) that falls around the Israelites’ camp.
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
purely negative light.121 His reuse of Numbers 11 fails to include the ‫אספסף‬, who are 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
omits the specific mention of the word “quail” (‫)שלו‬. In failing to mention ‫שלו‬, the psalmist
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
portrayal, Ps 106:14, “‫ימוֹן׃‬
ֽ ‫ישׁ‬
ִ ‫סּוּ־אל ִ ֽבּ‬
ֵ֗
ַ‫”…וַ יְ נ‬, employs the stem ‫( נסה‬not mentioned in Numbers’
rendition of events), which serves as a general reminder of Israel testing YHWH at the waters
of Massah “‫הוה׃‬
ֽ ָ ְ‫ה־תּנַ ֖סּוּן ֶאת־י‬
ְ ‫”…מ‬
ַ
Ex 17:2 (s. also the ten times the Israelites tested God in the
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
never waited for God’s instruction,122 ‫עצה‬, implying they acted too hastily, a sin not
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
deliver them from exile. In v.15 the psalmist replaces the phrase “...‫וְ ָה ָי֥ה ָל ֶכ֖ם ְלזָ ָ ֑רא‬...” (Num
11:20) with “‫וַ יְ ַשׁ ַ ֖לּח ָרז֣ וֹן ְבּנַ ְפ ָ ֽשׁם׃‬...” in v.15,123 and it is quite possible this was done to alleviate
a potential difficulty in the source, which employs the hapex legomenon ‫זרא‬. If this
assumption is correct, then the psalmist would have replaced ‫ זרא‬with the word ‫ ;רזון‬however,
at least to the modern reader, such a motivation seems strange because the rephrasing involves
a similarly ambiguous word.124
DATHAN’S REBELLION
Numbers 16 reports that Korah, Dathan, and Abiram rose up (‫ויקמו‬, 16:2) against Moses,
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
concerned who YHWH considered holy (‫הקדוש‬, v.5), and whom the Lord had chosen. Moses
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
ground to open up and consume them (“‫ותבלע אתם‬...‫”ותפתח הארץ‬, v.32), and the earth is
reported to have covered them over (“‫”ותכס עליהם הארץ‬, v.33) together with their property.
At this point in the narrative, attention turns to the two hundred and fifty representatives.
Numbers recalls that fire (‫אש‬, 16:35) issues forth from the Lord and consumes them as they
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]).
123
Here, the possibility exists that the psalmist is playing on the graphical similarities between ‫ זרא‬and ‫רזון‬.
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), and initially refers to Aaron as being holy (‫קדוש‬, v.16), which reflects the dispute in
Num 16:5. The psalmist, however, chose the word ‫ ויקנאו‬to express the rebellion as opposed
to ‫ ויקמו‬in Num 16:2. A possible motivation for this is that ‫ יקמו‬would produce an unwelcome
association with Phinehas’ righteous act in v.30. He also rose up ‫ויעמד‬, but for a righteous
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
the leaders—the earth opened up and swallowed them (“‫”תפתח ארץ ותבלע‬, v.17)—the psalm
turns to the remainder of the faction. Though it fails to mention the trial by censor
specifically, it recalls the fire (‫אש‬, v.18) that came out from the Lord to consume the wicked
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
complained in their tents (“‫”ותרגנו באהליהם‬, v.27) because they also heard that the indigenous
population were fearsome warriors. Moses challenges the Israelites by saying that in spite of
all YHWH had done for them, they still had no faith in their God (“‫מאמינם‬...‫”ובדבר‬, v.32). In
the end, God hears their complaints (“‫”וישמע יהוה את קול דבריכם‬, v.34) and vows that none of
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
Within Ps 106, selection of the word ‫( מאס‬v.24)—expressing the Israelites’ rejection,
and even despising, of the Promised Land—interprets126 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
the event to an act of unbelief by the Israelites. The further addition of the adjective ‫חמדה‬128
goes some way to intensify the nature of the rejection: even when God strives to offer the
Israelites a pleasant land, they refused to accept it and complain in their tents (“ ‫וירגנו‬
‫”באהליהם‬, v.25). The psalmist paints the picture of the whole Israelite community rejecting
the promise of God and not trusting him (“‫”לא האמינו לדברו‬, v.24), and in order to create this
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
the same phrase to denote the Israelites’ disobedience (“‫”לא שמעו בקול יהוה‬, v.25).
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
first determines to destroy them, but then relents and instead swears (“‫”נשאתי את ידי להם‬,
v.23) to them in the wilderness (‫במדמר‬, v.23) that he would scatter (‫להפיץ‬, v.23) them among
the nations (‫בגוים‬, v.23) and disperse them (‫ולזרות אותם‬, v.23) throughout the lands (‫ארצות‬,
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
to return to the people because they have strayed and made a molten image (‫מסכה‬, v.12). At
this point, YHWH suggests destroying them (‫ואשמידם‬, v.14) and building a new nation
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
(“‫”מסכה עגל‬, v.16). In his anger, Moses throws down the tablets, breaking them, and returns
up the mountain to intercede for the people. In addition to God’s anger against Israel, he also
expresses his anger with Aaron, to the point that he was ready to destroy him (‫להשמידו‬, v.20)
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 bull132 eating grass. The psalmist’s interpretation is
furthered by his use of ‫ שכחו‬in the following verse (v.21), recasting Israel’s rebellion as an
expression of their forgetting what God had done for them. The dramatic threefold repetition
of YHWH’s acts of deliverance at the Reed Sea, 106:21b-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
shown that Deut 9:20 reveals signs of a later gloss because of the phrase “‫ ” ָבּ ֵעת ַה ִהוא‬at the end. Notwithstanding
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.
132
The psalmist’s description of this idol as a bull (‫ )שור‬is also an addition to intensify the way we perceive
Israel’s sin and rebellion because it reflects aspects of Canaanite worship; s. Phillips (1973:70).
Page <233>
Chapter 3 - Psalm 106
In Ezekiel 22, God searches for one man to stand in the gap, (“‫”עמד בפרץ‬, v.30) who
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
Moabite women, who invited them to sacrifice to their gods (“‫”לזבחי אלהיהן‬, v.2). The people
responded by eating (‫ויאכל‬, v.2) and bowing to the Moabite gods. Israel thus joined
themselves with Baal Peor (“‫לבעל פעור‬...‫”ויצמד‬, v.3), an act which raised YHWH’s anger
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
Phinehas (‫פינחס‬, v.7) saw this, he arose (‫ויקם‬, v.7) from the assembly, and taking a spear in
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
(“‫”ותעצר המגפה‬, v.8) even though no explicit record of its outbreak was ever made. Because
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
unimportant or contrary to his message. Phinehas’ zeal (‫ )קנא‬is emphasized in the source (s.
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
association with the root ‫קנא‬, which also appeared in the recounting of Dathan’s rebellion.
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 censorship134 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.
Numbers refers to it as a covenant of peace, “‫( ”בריתי שלום‬25:12).136 The psalmist’s decision
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
being attributed with righteousness, ‫צדקה‬, for believing God’s word. Thus, Phinehas is
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
Additionally, the psalmist’s employment of the phrase “‫( ”ותעצר המגפה‬v.30) alludes to
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
(“‫”והמגפה נעצרה‬, v.15). The important point of association between this act and the psalm is
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
gathered against Moses (‫משה‬, v.3) and Aaron complaining that they should have remained in
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
reportedly transpire at the waters of Meribah (“‫”מי מריבה‬, v.13).
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).
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
to enter it at the first opportunity. Even though no reference appears here to ‫ מריבה‬it is relevant because Aaron is
not mentioned, similar to the psalm, and Moses’ denial of entry into the land comes as a direct result of Israel’s
actions.
142
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)/NUMBERS(N)
1) Reed Sea Crossing
1) Reed Sea Crossing (E)
2) Egyptians’ Destruction
2) Egyptians’ Destruction
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 preSinai 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
complaints but the riff-raff (‫ )אספסף‬who accompanied them from Egypt (Num 11:4).
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
YHWH’s deeds, Ps 105 establishes its primary theme: God’s promise (‫דבר‬, v.8) of land to
Abraham and his descendants. It continues by recalling incidents from the Patriarchs’ lives
and proceeds to enumerate events in Joseph’s life. The psalm recalls how God sent (‫שלח‬,
v.17) a man before the Patriarchs, who is further identified as Joseph. He is sold as a slave and
bound as part of a process in which God tests him. After a designated period, God sends (‫שלח‬,
v.20) for the king, who releases Joseph (‫ויפתחהו‬, v.20) and appoints him ruler over all he
owned. After this, the psalm continues by recounting Jacob’s sojourn to Egypt, the land of
Ham (“‫”ארץ חם‬, v.23) and the events leading to Israel’s oppression and enslavement. In order
to secure their emancipation, God sends (‫שלח‬, v.26) Moses and Aaron, and through them he
works signs against the Egyptians, the plagues. Among the plagues, it is specifically noted
that God sent (‫שלח‬, v.28) darkness, which did not rebel (“‫”לא מרו‬, v.28) against his word, and
a flaming fire (‫אש‬, v.32). As a result of the plagues being unleashed against the land of Ham
(“‫”ארץ חם‬, v.27), YHWH secures the Israelites’ freedom and leads them out into the
wilderness with silver, gold, and much rejoicing. When they became hungry during their
desert sojourn, they asked (‫שאל‬, v.40) for food, and he provided them with meat, bread, and
water as an expression of his kindness. At this point, the psalm recalls that God performed all
of these deeds on behalf of Israel because he remembered his holy promise (‫דבר‬, v.42) to
Abraham. The psalm then reiterates the joy (‫רנה‬, v.43) with which God delivered Israel, and
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
Psalm 105. God answers their request (‫שאלתם‬, v.15) and also sends (‫ישלח‬, v.15) leanness to
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
group is punished when the ground opens (‫תפתח‬, v.17) and swallows Dathan, and a fire (‫אש‬,
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
with Baal Peor. After this, we hear of Israel rebelling (‫המרו‬, v.33) against Moses at the waters
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
their actions whilst they dwelt in the Promised Land. They rebelled (‫ימרו‬, v.43) numerous
times and were punished by YHWH, who permitted their enemies to oppress them. God,
however, would hear their cry (‫רנתם‬, v.44) and take pity on them.
In each instance above, keywords link Psalm 106 with Psalm 105, however, the
apparent reversal from positive to negative145 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.
The only two places in the Bible that use the phrase “‫ ”ארץ חם‬are Psalms 105:23, 27
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.
146
Notwithstanding the similar phrase in Psalm 78:51, “‫”אהלי חם‬.
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
specifically mention the plagues against Egypt, but via the link, “‫”ארץ חם‬, the psalm reminds
the reader of the events. In a similar fashion, the phrase “‫ ”ארץ חם‬completes a lacuna in
Psalm 105. Psalm 105 fails to recall the events of the Reed Sea, jumping from Israel’s
departure from Egypt to the desert wandering. Via the linking phrase “‫”ארץ חם‬, however, the
reader is brought to Ps 106:22, which recalls the miracle at the Reed Sea.
In Psalm 105:8, ‫ דבר‬represents a promise that YHWH makes to Abraham and his
descendants to give them the land of Canaan. This promise, ‫דבר‬, is fulfilled in v.42 when
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
promise, ‫דבר‬, Israel fails to trust in him when the time first came for them to conquer the land
(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.
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.
148
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,
149
Synonyms for wicked deeds ubiquitously occur in Psalm 106: ‫( חטאנו‬v.6), ‫( העוינו‬v.6), ‫( ויתאוו‬v.14), and
“‫( ”ויטמאו במעשיהם ויזנו במעלליהם‬v.39).
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
into all of the earth (Gen 1:28 “...‫שׁ ָה‬
֑ ֻ ‫ת־ה ָ ֖א ֶרץ וְ ִכ ְב‬
ָ ‫וּמלְ ֥אוּ ֶא‬
ִ ‫ ְפּ ֥רוּ ְוּר ֛בוּ‬...”). Because of their disobedience, God
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
(1-3) with a call to praise (“‫”הדו ליהוה כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬, v.1) that is addressed to the
redeemed of YHWH, and those he has gathered from the lands (“‫”ומארצות קבצם‬, v.3).152 It
then continues (vv.4-10) to speak of his provision of sustenance and how he led individuals in
a desert (‫בישימון‬, v.4), and provided their weary souls (‫נפשם‬, v.5) with sustenance even
though they had rebelled. The idea of YHWH as one who satisfies the hungry soul (‫)נפש‬, in
v.9, is adopted as an example of his wonderful works (‫ )נפלאות‬that deserve praise. Verses 1016 portray a deliverance from captivity that was induced through rebellion against his council
(“‫עצת עליון‬...‫”המרו‬, v.11). Similarly vv.17-22 speak of an affliction that was brought on by
God as punishment for sin in which the soul (‫נפשם‬, v.18) of the afflicted abhorred all manner
of food; whilst in their distress, however, he healed them. As a response to this, they are
exhorted to offer sacrifices of thanksgiving (“‫”ויזבחו זבחי תודה‬, v.22). Verses 23-33 recount a
situation in which individuals are saved from a storm at sea, and during their distress, the
psalm depicts the souls (‫נפשם‬, v.26) of these individuals as melting. In order to deliver them,
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).
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.
152
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.
Though both Psalms 106 and 107 start with exactly the same words (“ ‫הודו ליהוה כי טוב‬
‫)”כי לעולם חסדו‬, the contexts in which they appear differ significantly. Psalm 106 constitutes a
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
transformation, perhaps the most important phrase is “‫( ”מארצות קבצם‬v.3). The “lands”,
‫ארצות‬, appears in Ps 106:27, in the same plural form as a description of lands throughout
which YHWH scattered those of Ezekiel’s generation. Furthermore, the psalmist’s plea in Ps
106:47 is that God would gather (‫ )קבצנו‬the people from the nations.154 Thus Psalm 106 paints
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.
154
Though no exact lexical correspondence exists, the word ‫ גאל‬also creates an association with Psalm 106
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
The repeated references to ‫ נפלאות‬in Psalm 107 develop the notion of mighty acts that
appear in Psalm 106. Psalm 106 only speaks of those acts which God performed for Israel
whilst they were in Egypt, (“‫”במצרים לא השכילו נפלאותיך‬, v.7). On the other hand, Psalm 107
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.
Similar to the distribution of the phrase “‫ ”ארץ חם‬in Pss 105-106 is the word ‫ישימון‬,
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
to the sacrifices ‫ זבחים‬offered. Those sacrifices the Israelites formerly made to the dead (“ ‫זבחי‬
‫”מתים‬, 106:28) along with those (‫ויזבחו‬, v.37) of their sons and daughters to idols, are no
longer remembered. Replacing these aberrations, Psalm 107 only recalls correct sacrifices,
offerings of thanksgiving presented on account of YHWH’s deeds (107:22).
The phrase “‫( ”מרה עצה‬106:43 and 107:11, the only two places in the Bible they occur
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
council (“‫”ימרו בעצתם‬, v.43), which ultimately leads to a descending spiral of sin and
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 book of Judges: 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
of events is the word ‫רנה‬. “Shouts of joy” in Psalm 105:43 when the Israelites are brought
from their captivity are transformed to cries of distress in Psalm 106:44 as they suffer under
the hand of their oppressors. Finally, in Psalm 107:22 ‫ רנה‬is developed into a cry of
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 Moses157 because Moses creates an inclusion for the collection. Both the opening and
closing of this book explicitly mention his name. Psalm 90 bears the title, “ ‫ְתּ ִפ ָלּ ֘ה ְלמ ֶ ֹ֪שׁה‬
‫ישׁ־ה ֱא ֹ֫ל ִ ֥הים‬
ָ
‫”א‬
ֽ ִ (v.1), and as already noted, Psalms 105 and 106 frequently refer to this biblical
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
recalls Moses and Aaron as being among YHWH’s priests, “...‫מ ֶ ֤שׁה וְ ַא ֲה ֙ר ֹן׀ ְ ֽבּכ ֲֹה ָ֗ניו‬
ֹ ֨ ” (Samuel is
also mentioned at this point). The psalm further hints towards the desert itinerary in v.7 by
stating that God spoke to them in a pillar of cloud, “‫יהם‬
֑ ֶ ‫”בּ ַע ֣מּוּד ָ ֭ענָ ן יְ ַד ֵבּ֣ר ֲא ֵל‬,
ְ recalling instances
such as Ex 19:9 and 33:9. Moreover, the mention of Moses and Aaron obeying the laws
YHWH gave them, “...‫( ”שמרו עדתיו וחק נתן למו‬Ps 99:7) also recalls the lawgiving at Sinai
during Israel’s desert journey. Furthering Book IV’s relationship with Moses is Psalm 103:7.
In this composition, the psalmist declares that God made his ways known to Moses, “‫יוֹד ַיע‬
ִ֣
‫ֹשׁה‬
֑ ֶ ‫”דּ ָר ָ ֣כיו ְלמ‬,
ְ and the children of Israel.
Additionally, concerning this group of psalms159 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 salvation history (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
with the word ‫ שם‬forming an inclusion; and vv.4-5 both begin with the particle ‫כי‬. Unifying
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
terms “‫( ”עבדי יהוה‬v.1), ‫( אלהינו‬v.2), and ‫( אדנינו‬v.5); third, the explicit mention of YHWH’s
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
‫( שם‬v.13), ‫( יהוה‬vv.13 and 14), and ‫( כי‬v.14). Primarily, this short section develops the idea
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
compared with the impotency of idols. Repetition of the word ‫( רוח‬vv.7 and 17) together with
the root ‫( עשה‬vv.6-7, 15 and 18) associate these sections. The psalmist employs the root ‫עשה‬
to create an inclusion for the stanza. Additionally, he uses ‫ רוח‬together with ‫ עשה‬to
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 section3 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
the two sections are the repetition of ‫בית‬, and a returned focus to those worshipping in the
Temple courts. The final words of the psalm repeat its opening words, “‫”הללו יה‬, which forms
an inclusion for the whole composition.
CLOSE READING
‫הוה׃‬
ֽ ָ ְ‫הו֑ה ַ ֽה ְללוּ ַע ְב ֵ ֥די י‬
ָ ְ‫ת־שׁם י‬
֣ ֵ ‫ ַ ֥ה ְללוּ יָ֙ הּ׀ ַ ֭ה ְללוּ ֶא‬1
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
imperatives, ‫הללו‬, form a prominent part of v.1, the first two employ synonyms for God (‫יה‬
and “‫ )”שם יהוה‬as the verb’s object, and the last addresses the audience in the vocative. Each
of the opening imperatives recognizes YHWH in some way: first in the abbreviated form ‫יה‬,
then his name “‫”שם יהוה‬, and finally as an identifier for the worshiping community “ ‫עבדי‬
‫”יהוה‬. His name, ‫שם‬, in this context may be interpreted as his character, a synonym for who
he is. Psalm 122:4 demonstrates a similar use, “ ‫י־י֭הּ ֵע ֣דוּת ְל ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֑אל ֜ ְלה ֹ֗דוֹת‬
ָ ‫שׁשּׁם ָע ֪לוּ ְשׁ ָב ִ֡טים ִשׁ ְב ֵט‬
ָ֙
‫הוֽה׃‬
ָ ְ‫שׁם י‬
֣ ֵ ‫”ל‬,
ְ where ascending to give thanks to his name equates to thanking YHWH himself
(s. also Ps 54:8, 113:2, and 148:5). Alternatively, ‫ שם‬can be rendered “honor”, ‫כבוד‬,
portraying God’s fame, which stems from his mighty acts. Psalm 102:16 reflects such an
interpretation, “‫בוֹדָך׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫ת־כּ‬
ְ ‫ל־מ ְל ֵ ֥כי ָ֜ה ָ֗א ֶרץ ֶא‬
ַ ‫הו֑ה ְ ֽו ָכ‬
ָ ְ‫ת־שׁם י‬
֣ ֵ ‫”וי ְיר ֣אוּ ג֭וֹיִ ם ֶא‬,
ֽ ִ the nations that fear his name
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
potential meanings of ‫ שם‬mentioned above are not mutually exclusive since one’s personality,
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 18:14—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 Levi,
and the fearers of YHWH—assembled at the Temple to worship the Lord. In opening the
psalm with these words, the psalmist draws our attention to Ps 113:1, “ ‫הו֑ה‬
ָ ְ‫ַ ֥ה ְללוּ יָ֙ הּ׀ ַ ֭ה ְללוּ ַע ְב ֵ ֣די י‬
‫הוֽה׃‬
ָ ְ‫ת־שׁם י‬
֥ ֵ ‫”ה ְללוּ ֶא‬,
ַ֜ where all of the same words appear, but in the present psalm the word
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
knowledge of the other’s work.5
‫ֹלהינוּ׃‬
ֽ ֵ ‫הו֑ה ְ֜בּ ַח ְצ ֗רוֹת ֵבּ֣ית ֱא‬
ָ ְ‫ ֶ֭שׁ ֽעֹ ְמ ִדים ְבּ ֵ ֣בית י‬2
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
words ‫ אלהינו‬and ‫ יהוה‬intimately identify YHWH as the God of those worshiping in the
4
The designation also frequently appeared in Psalm 105; s. vv.6, 17, 25, 26, and 42.
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.
5
Page <253>
Chapter 4 - Psalm 135
Temple,6 and the remainder of the psalm repeatedly emphasizes this close kinship. A general
description of the worshippers’ location appears in the first colon, “‫”בית יהוה‬, “in the house of
the Lord”, and the second colon further details the precise location, “‫”בחצרות בית אלהינו‬, “in
the courts of our God” (the same parallel pair7 additionally occurs in Pss 84:11 and 92:14).8
Though v.2 mentions the name ‫יהוה‬, it is not associated with the people, as with v.1, but with
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.
‫הו֑ה זַ ְמּ ֥רוּ ֜ ִל ְשׁ ֗מוֹ ִ ֣כּי נָ ִ ֽעים׃‬
ָ ְ‫י־טוֹב י‬
֣ ‫ ַ ֭ה ְללוּ־יָ הּ ִכּ‬3
Praise Yah, surely YHWH is good; make music to his name for it is pleasant
Continuing to exhort the audience to praise, v.3 repeats “‫”הללו יה‬, and creates an inclusion
with v.1 that defines and closes the opening strophe. Further reinforcement of the section’s
demarcation occurs with the second appearance of ‫שם‬. Both occurrences of ‫ כי‬in v.3 can be
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
two valid interpretations for this verse exist with respect to the subjects of ‫ טוב‬and ‫נעים‬. The
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
6
Two factors here point towards a possible period in which the psalm was written: the relative particle ‫ ש‬and the
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.
9
Muilenberg (1961:147) details numerous functions for ‫כי‬, and argues that an aspect of emphasis typically
accompanies each occurrence. He also notes that ‫ כי‬often appears after an urgent imperative, in this instance
“‫”הללו יה‬, see also Psalms 6:5-6, 12:2, 25:16, and 69:18.
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
pleasant activity. Such an understanding compares with Ps 92:2, “ ֣‫יהו֑ה וּ ְלזַ ֵ ֖מּר ְל ִשׁ ְמָך‬
ָ ‫֗טוֹב ְלה ֹ֥דוֹת ַל‬
‫”ע ְליֽ וֹן׃‬,
ֶ
where the act itself of giving thanks and making music to God is undoubtedly
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.
‫י־יַע ֗קֹב ָבּ ַ ֣חר ֣לוֹ יָ ֑הּ ִ֜י ְשׂ ָר ֵ֗אל ִל ְס ֻג ָלּ ֽתוֹ׃‬
ֲ ‫ ִ ֽכּ‬4
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,
and like the first section the particle ‫ כי‬opens the statement. In the present verse, 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
reason for praise. The synonymous word pair ‫ ישראל‬// ‫ יעקב‬frequently appears in Isaiah
(29:23, 41:8, 42:24, 44:1, 5, 21, 23), in addition to other historiographic psalms such as 78:5,
“...‫תוֹר ֘ה ָ ֤שׂם ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָ ֫ר ֵ ֥אל‬
ָ ְ‫”וַ ָיּ֤ ֶ קם ֵע ֙דוּת׀ ְ ֽבּיַ ֲע ֗קֹב ו‬, (s. also 81:5, 105:10, 23, and 114:1). By specifically
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,
as demonstrated by Mal 1:2, “‫ם־יְהוה וָ א ַ ֹ֖הב ֶ ֽאת־יַ ֲע ֽקֹב׃‬
ָ֔
‫הלוֹא־אח ֵע ָ ֤שׂו ְליַ ֲֽעק ֹ֙ב נְ ֻא‬
ָ֙
...”.13 The psalm
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
selection, the term ‫ סגלתו‬indicates a special possession, or treasure,14 just like precious metals
11
See Muilenberg (1961:157).
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
12
Page <255>
Chapter 4 - Psalm 135
such as silver and gold, as Ecc 2:8 states, “...‫וּס ֻג ַ ֥לּת ְמ ָל ִ ֖כים וְ ַה ְמּ ִדינ֑ וֹת‬
ְ ‫ם־כּ ֶ֣סף וְ זָ ָ֔הב‬
ֶ ַ‫( ” ָכּ ַנ ְ֤ס ִתּי ִל֙י גּ‬s.
also 1Chr 29:3). However, this word also recalls that moment during the Exodus when God
selected for himself15 a people from among the nations, “ ‫ֹלהיָך ְבּ ָ֞ך ָבּ ַ ֣חר׀‬
֑ ֶ ‫יהו֖ה ֱא‬
ָ ‫דוֹשׁ ַא ָ֔תּה ַל‬
֙ ‫ִ ֣כּי ַ ֤עם ָק‬
ֶ֗ ‫הו֣ה ֱא‬
ָ ְ‫( ”י‬Deut 7:6; s. also Deut 14:2 and
‫ל־פּ ֵנ֥י ָה ֲא ָד ָ ֽמה׃‬
ְ ‫ֹלהיָך ִל ְהי֥ וֹת ֙לוֹ ְל ַע֣ם ְס ֻג ֔ ָלּה ִמכֹּל֙ ָ ֽה ַע ִ֔מּים ֲא ֶ ֖שׁר ַע‬
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.
‫ֹלהים׃‬
ֽ ִ ‫ל־א‬
ֱ ‫הו֑ה ַ ֜ו ֲאד ֵֹ֗נינוּ ִמ ָכּ‬
ָ ְ‫י־ג ֣דוֹל י‬
ָ ‫ ִ ֤כּי ֲא ִנ֣י ָי ַ֭ד ְע ִתּי ִכּ‬5
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
psalmist lauds, but God’s supremacy. The opening ‫ כי‬clause of v.5 further proclaims God’s
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 scholars19 to amend the text; the preservation of
this form, however, solidifies an association with Ex 18:11,20 when Moses’ father-in-law
personally declares God’s greatness after hearing about all he has done for Israel, “ ‫עתּה יָ ַ ֔ד ְע ִתּי‬
ָ֣
‫יהם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫ֹלהים ִ ֣כּי ַב ָדּ ָ֔בר ֲא ֶ ֥שׁר זָ ֖דוּ ֲע ֵל‬
֑ ִ ‫ל־ה ֱא‬
ָ ‫הו֖ה ִמ ָכּ‬
ָ ְ‫י־ג ֥דוֹל י‬
ָ ‫”כּ‬.
ֽ ִ The allusion recalls the word ‫ שם‬in vv.1, 3,
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 Jehovah
was the election of the Jewish people as the chosen nation of God”.
18
See Garsiel (1999a:241).
19
Duhm (1920:282), for example, claims a copyist has erred here, and “‫ ”כי אני ידעתי כי‬should read “‫ ”דעו כי‬or
“‫”הודו לו‬, both of which are tempting alternatives.
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.
The first-person plural suffix on ‫ אדנינו‬corresponds with ‫ אלהינו‬in v.2, and together
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
the community’s relationship to God. With respect to the names of God, v.5 employs ‫אלהים‬
with a different meaning to v.2, not referring to YHWH who is called ‫אדנינו‬, but referring to
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
throughout the Bible, such as Hiram’s declaration in 2Chr 2:4, “‫ֹלהים׃‬
ֽ ִ ‫ל־ה ֱא‬
ָ ‫ֹלהינוּ ִמ ָכּ‬
֖ ֵ ‫כּי־ג ֥דוֹל ֱא‬...”,
ָ
after Solomon requested wood from him for building the Temple. Likewise, Ps 95:3
proclaims his kingship over all other gods, “‫ֹלהים׃‬
ֽ ִ ‫ל־א‬
ֱ ‫ל־כּ‬
ָ ‫וּמ ֶלְך ֜ ָגּ ֗דוֹל ַע‬
֥ ֶ ‫הו֑ה‬
ָ ְ‫”כּי ֵ ֣אל ָגּ ֣דוֹל י‬
֤ ִ (s. also Ps
96:4).
‫הוֹמוֹת׃‬
ֽ ‫ל־תּ‬
ְ ‫וּב ָ ֑א ֶרץ ַ֜בּיַּ ִ֗מּים וְ ָכ‬
ָ ‫הוה ֫ ָע ָ ֥שׂה ַבּ ָשּׁ ַ ֥מיִ ם‬
֗ ָ ְ‫ר־ח ֵ ֥פץ י‬
ָ ‫ ֤ ֹכּל ֲא ֶשׁ‬6
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
literature, the two verbs ‫ חפץ‬and ‫עשה‬21 express an earthly sovereign’s power to act as he
pleases, as 1Ki 9:1 demonstrates, “ ‫ת־בּ֣ית ַה ֶ ֑מּ ֶלְך וְ ֵא ֙ת‬
ֵ ‫הו֖ה וְ ֶא‬
ָ ְ‫ת־בּית־י‬
ֵ ‫מה ִל ְבנ֥ וֹת ֶא‬
ֹ ֔ ‫הי ְכּ ַכ ֣לּוֹת ְשֹׁל‬
֙ ִ ְ‫וַ י‬
‫מה ֲא ֶ ֥שׁר ָח ֵ ֖פץ ַל ֲע ֽשׂוֹת׃‬
ֹ ֔ ‫ל־ח ֶשׁק ְשֹׁל‬
֣ ֵ ‫”כּ‬,
ָ suggesting Solomon accomplished whatever he desired (s.
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
self description of God in Is 46:10, “‫ל־ח ְפ ִ ֖צי ֶא ֱע ֶ ֽשׂה׃‬
ֶ ‫א ֵֹמ ֙ר ֲע ָצ ִ ֣תי ָת ֔קוּם וְ ָכ‬...”. In the present context,
the sphere in which God has dominion is expressed by the words ‫עשה‬, ‫שמים‬, and ‫;”ארץ‬22
however, these words additionally recall YHWH’s activities in Creation,23 as in Ex 31:17,
ַ ‫י־שׁ ֶשׁת ִ֗יָמים ָע ָ ֤שׂה יְ הוָ ֙ה ֶא‬
֣ ֵ ‫כּ‬...”.
ִ
By alluding to
“‫יעי ָשׁ ַ ֖בת וַ יִּ נָּ ַ ֽפשׁ׃‬
ִ ֔ ‫יּוֹם ַה ְשּׁ ִב‬
֙ ‫וּב‬
ַ ‫ת־ה ָ֔א ֶרץ‬
ָ ‫ת־ה ָשּׁ ַ ֣מיִ ם וְ ֶא‬
Creation, the psalmist attributes certain rights to YHWH: he is able, that is permitted, to
exercise his will in heaven and earth, because he created them. Though ‫ תהמות‬evidently
contains mythical24 connotations and allusions, the context here suggests a concrete meaning
depicting the deep depths of the sea—as Jonah 2:6 attests, “ ‫ד־נ ֶפשׁ ְתּ ֖הוֹם יְ ס ְֹב ֵ ֑בנִ י ֖סוּף‬
ֶ֔ ‫ֲא ָפ ֤פ ִוּני ַ֙מיִ ֙ם ַע‬
‫אשׁי׃‬
ֽ ִ ֹ ‫”ח ֥בוּשׁ ְלר‬,
ָ where the deep waters engulf him (s. also Amos 7:4 and Ezek 31:4).
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 merismic25 list encompasses everything lying between heaven and the
depths. On the whole, the present verse recalls Ps 115:3, “‫ר־ח ֵפ֣ץ ָע ָ ֽשׂה׃‬
ָ ‫ֽאֹלהינוּ ַב ָשּׁ ָ ֑מיִ ם ֭כֹּל ֲא ֶשׁ‬
֥ ֵ ‫”ו‬,
ֵ
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
‫רוֹתיו׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫וֹצ‬
ְ ‫א־ר ַוּח ֵמ ֽא‬
֜ ‫וֹצ‬
ֵ ‫ ַ ֽמ ֲע ֶל֣ה נְ ִשׂ ִאים֘ ִמ ְק ֵצ֪ה ָ֫ה ָ ֥א ֶרץ ְבּ ָר ִ ֣ קים ַל ָמּ ָ ֣טר ָע ָ ֑שׂה ֽמ‬7
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 3b) 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
raises clouds from the ends of the earth, “‫”מעלה נשאים מקצה הארץ‬, and makes lightning for
the rain, “‫”ברקים למטר עשה‬. Notwithstanding the fact that the Lord’s name is not mentioned
in this verse, the participle27 ‫ מעלה‬still refers to him as its subject. Within the context of v.7,
‫ נשאים‬are best understood as clouds, or vapors that rise up from the earth,28 as in Pr 25:14,
“‫ת־שׁ ֶקר׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫֭רוּח וְ ֶג ֶ֣שׁם ָ ֑איִ ן ִ ֥אישׁ ִ֜מ ְת ַה ֗ ֵלּל ְבּ ַמ ַתּ‬
ַ ‫יאים ְו‬
֣ ִ ‫”נ ִשׂ‬,
ְ which also contains references to rain and other
storm elements (cf. Jer 10:13). Together with ‫ כל‬in the previous verse, ‫קצה‬, “extremity”,
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
God has access to, and from which he brings them, “‫”מוצא רוח מאוצרותיו‬.30
The chiastic arrangement ‫ עשה‬: ‫ ארץ‬:: ‫ ארץ‬: ‫ עשה‬unites vv.6 and 7 and expresses
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,
‫מטר‬, and lightning, ‫ברקים‬, elements that additionally recall theophanies, including instances
when YHWH appears in judgment with visible displays of power.31 Psalm 77:19, “ ‫֤קוֹל ַר ַע ְמ ָ֙ך׀‬
‫” ַבּ ַגּ ְל ֗ ַגּל ֵה ִ ֣אירוּ ְב ָר ִ ֣ קים ֵתּ ֵ ֑בל ָר ְגָז֖ה וַ ִתּ ְר ַ ֣עשׁ ָה ָ ֽא ֶרץ׃‬, recounts how the earth quakes at God’s thunder
and lightning; Ps 97:4 presents a similar picture, “‫”ה ִ ֣אירוּ ְב ָר ָ ֣ קיו ֵתּ ֵ ֑בל ָר ֲא ָ ֖תה וַ ָתּ ֵ ֣חל ָה ָ ֽא ֶרץ׃‬,
ֵ with the
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”.
28
See also the Septuagint, which translates νεφελη, “clouds”; and the Tgs. that read ‫עננין‬. Garsiel (1999a:242)
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.
30
This defective form, for ‫מוציא‬, probably stems from the source text’s influence, s. Keil and Delitzsch
(1982:325), in this instance Jer 10:13 ‫ויוצא‬. Allen (2002:286), however, suggests that a desired assonance with
the form ‫ מאוצרותיו‬may also have motivated the psalmist. This would not be out of character for the psalmist
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
Hadad, 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,
“‫וֹצא ֖ר ַוּח ֵמא ְֹצר ָ ֹֽתיו׃‬
ֵ ֥‫]ה ָ ֑א ֶרץ[ ְבּ ָר ִ ֤ קים ַל ָמּ ָט ֙ר ָע ָ֔שׂה וַ יּ‬
ָ (‫)א ֶרץ‬
ֶ ‫וַ יַּ ֲע ֶ ֥לה נְ ִשׂ ִ ֖אים ִמ ְק ֵצ֣ה‬...” (repeated in 51:16),
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.
‫ד־בּ ֵה ָ ֽמה׃‬
ְ ‫כוֹרי ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם ֵ֜מ ָא ָ ֗דם ַע‬
֣ ֵ ‫ ֶ֭שׁ ִה ָכּה ְבּ‬8
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
participle ‫ מעלה‬portraying continual involvement with Creation, to the perfect ‫ הכה‬relating to
a specific instance in history. Extending the emphasis on totality33 in the present verse is the
phrase ‫עד בהמה‬. Usually, whenever the destruction of the firstborn appears, only the human
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
evidently recalls the smiting of the Egyptians’ firstborn, as recorded in Ex 12:12, “ ‫יתי‬
֤ ִ ‫וְ ִה ֵכּ‬...
...‫ד־בּ ֵה ָ ֑מה‬
ְ ‫כוֹר ְבּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַ ֔ריִ ם ֵמ ָא ָ ֖דם וְ ַע‬
֙ ‫”כל־ ְבּ‬.
ָ The association to this specific location in Exodus is
particularly pertinent because it describes a judgment against the Egyptians and their gods:34
32
The words ‫ ברק‬and ‫ מטר‬additionally appear in contexts depicting God’s work in Creation, as Jer 10:13 and
51:16 suggest.
33
Cf. vv.6 and 7 with respect to the word ‫כל‬, and the extended merismus in v.6.
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
“‫הוֽה׃‬
ָ ְ‫ֹלהי ִמ ְצ ַ ֛ריִ ם ֶ ֽא ֱע ֶ ֥שׂה ְשׁ ָפ ִ ֖טים ֲא ִ ֥ני י‬
֥ ֵ ‫ל־א‬
ֱ ‫וּב ָכ‬
ְ ...”, which corresponds with the latter portion of this
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
significance.35
‫ל־ע ָב ָ ֽדיו׃‬
ֲ ‫וּב ָכ‬
ְ ‫תוֹכ ִ֣כי ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם ְ֜בּ ַפ ְר ֗עֹה‬
ֵ ‫ ָשׁ ַל֤ח׀ א ֹ֣תוֹת ֭וּמ ְֹפ ִתים ְבּ‬9
(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
recalls the killing of the firstborn, do we hear of the mighty acts and signs, “‫”אתות ומופתים‬,
God wrought on Israel—referring to the plagues. A peculiarity concerning the plagues’ quote
as it appears here concerns the verb describing the sending of the plagues, ‫שלח‬. More often
than not, biblical literature employs the verb ‫נתן‬, as in Neh 9:10 and Deut 6:22, or ‫ שים‬as in
Pss 78:43 and 105:27, “‫ֹתוֹתיו וּ֜ מ ְֹפ ִ֗תים ְבּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ָ ֽחם׃‬
֑ ָ ‫מוּ־בם ִדּ ְב ֵ ֣רי א‬
֭ ָ ‫”שׂ‬.
ֽ ָ By employing ‫ שלח‬here in this
context, the psalmist recalls Psalm 105:28, “‫א־מ ֗רוּ ֶאת־) ְדּ ָב ָרוו( ] ְדּ ָב ֽרוֹ[׃‬
ָ֜ ֹ ‫” ָ ֣שׁ ַ ֽלח ֭חֹ ֶשְׁך וַ יַּ ְח ִ ֑שְׁך וְ ֽל‬,
which depicts God sending darkness against the Egyptians and its subsequent obedience.36
Both ‫ אות‬and ‫ מופת‬frequently appear together with a specific reference to the plagues wrought
on Egypt during Israel’s deliverance. In addition to Pharaoh being struck by plagues, so are all
of his servants, “‫”ובכל עבדיו‬. Repetition of the phrase ‫ עבדיו‬draws attention to v.1, which calls
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
‫צוּמים׃‬
ֽ ִ ‫ ֶ ֽשׁ ִה ָכּה גּוֹיִ ֣ם ַר ִ ֑בּים ְ ֜ו ָה ַ ֗רג ְמ ָל ִ ֥כים ֲע‬10
Who struck great nations and killed powerful kings
The present verse continues recalling God’s past intervention in history, and the reappearance
of the relative particle ‫ש‬, similar to v.8, relates to YHWH in v.5. Switching from God’s work
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
Egypt, “‫ד־בּ ֵה ָ ֽמה׃‬
ְ ‫כוֹרי ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם ֵ֜מ ָא ָ ֗דם ַע‬
֣ ֵ ‫” ֶ֭שׁ ִה ָכּה ְבּ‬, the psalmist repeats the phrase ‫ שהכה‬here. Just as
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
‫ נכה‬further links the two incidents as though they occurred at the same time, notwithstanding
the numerous events transpiring in the desert between the aforementioned acts of God. The
word pair ‫ הרג‬// ‫ נכה‬similarly appears in Jer 18:21, “ ‫י־ח ֶרב‬
֖ ֶ ‫יהם ֻמ ֵכּ‬
ֶ֔ ‫ ִי ְֽהי֖ וּ ֲה ֻ ֣ר ֵגי ָ ֑מוֶ ת ַבּ ֣ח ֵוּר‬...
‫”בּ ִמּ ְל ָח ָ ֽמה׃‬,
ַ expressing the prophet’s desires for those who conspire to kill him. Concerning the
parallel pair ‫ גוי‬// ‫מלך‬, it could be understood here as a type of merismus that exemplifies a
totality of peoples, those struck by YHWH. Such a nuance to the parallel is discernable in Ps
72:11, “‫ל־גּוֹי֥ם ַי ַֽע ְב ֽדוּהוּ׃‬
ִ ‫ל־מ ָל ִ ֑כים ָכּ‬
ְ ‫ווּ־לוֹ ָכ‬
֥ ‫”וְ ִי ְשׁ ַתּ ֲח‬.37
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
Canaan forms only a single perspective of the conquest events. Joshua 12:7, “ ‫וְ ֵ ֣א ֶלּה ַמ ְל ֵכ֣י ָה ָ֡א ֶרץ‬
...‫וּב ֵנ֣י ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵ֗אל ְבּ ֵ ֤ע ֶבר ַהיַּ ְר ֵ ֙דּן‬
ְ ‫הוֹשׁ ַע‬
ֻ֜ ְ‫” ֲא ֶשׁר֩ ִה ָכּ ֙ה י‬, accredits victory to Israel, and Josh 10:20 names
Joshua and the Israelites as being responsible for slaying the five kings. Because, however,
37
Notwithstanding this verse, the expected word order for this word pair is ‫ גוי‬then ‫( מלך‬s. Gen 17:6, Is 41:2, and
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 4QPsn, 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, 11QPsa.
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.
‫יחוֹן׀ ֶ ֤מ ֶלְך ָה ֱאמ ִ ֹ֗רי וּ ְ֭לעוֹג ֶ ֣מ ֶלְך ַה ָבּ ָ ֑שׁן וּ֜ ְל ֗כֹל ַמ ְמ ְל ֥כוֹת ְכּ ָנ ַֽען׃‬
֤ ‫ ְל ִס‬11
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 east41 of the Jordan are mentioned specifically
by name, and the remaining kings who dwelt west of the Jordan are merely referred to as
“‫”ממלכות כנען‬.42
‫ וְ נָ ַ ֣תן ַא ְר ָצ֣ם נַ ֲח ָ ֑לה ַ֜נ ֲח ֗ ָלה ְליִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֥אל ַע ֽמּוֹ׃‬12
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 136:21-22, the
deployment of the terraced pattern in this verse emphasizes the importance of the statement
being made. The phrase “‫נחלה‬...‫ ”לתת…ארץ‬is particularly common in Deuteronomy where it
40
The description of Og as a powerful, or mighty king (‫מלכים עצומים‬, v.10) is reflected in a Dead Sea Scrolls
tradition in 4Q373 1a+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).
42
Passages such as Jer 1:10, 18:7, and Zeph 3:8 witness the free interchange of ‫ ממלכה‬and ‫גוי‬.
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).
Similarly, in Psalm 135’s context, ‫ נחלה‬signifies a possession, usually property, that is
inherited, or passed from one party to another—typically a father to his children as in Num
27:8, “‫וּבן ֵ ֣אין ֔לוֹ וְ ַ ֽה ֲע ַב ְר ֶ ֥תּם ֶאת־נַ ֲח ָל ֖תוֹ ְל ִב ֽתּוֹ׃‬
֙ ֵ ‫ ִ ֣אישׁ ִ ֽכּי־יָ ֗מוּת‬...”. Additionally, however, the same
word often describes the special relationship between God and his people, where they, as a
people, are recalled as his inheritance, “‫ֹלהיו ָה ֓ ָעם׀ ָבּ ַ ֖חר ְלנַ ֲח ָל֣ה ֽלוֹ׃‬
֑ ָ ‫הו֣ה ֱא‬
ָ ְ‫”א ְשׁ ֵ ֣רי ַ ֭הגּוֹי ֲא ֶשׁר־י‬,
ַ (Ps
33:12, s. also Ps 28:9). Such an allusion corresponds with the various other words and phrases
in the psalm expressing this intimate relationship, such as ‫( סגלתו‬v.4) and ‫( עמו‬v.12).
YHWH’s ability to act as he pleases in the whole world, “‫ובארץ‬...‫”כל אשר חפץ יהוה עשה‬
(v.6), is demonstrated here as he allots a portion of land (‫ )ארץ‬to his people for an inheritance.
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
land. Reference to ‫ עמו‬here creates a comparison with v.10. The latter portrays those people,
‫גוים‬, who were struck down by YHWH, along with their mighty kings, whereas the former
presents a people who are loved by, and have an intimate relationship with, the same God.
‫הוה זִ ְכ ְרָך֥ ְלד ֹר־וָ ֽד ֹר׃‬
ָ֗ ‫עוֹלם ְ֜י‬
֑ ָ ְ‫ יְ ֭הוָ ה ִשׁ ְמָך֣ ל‬13
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
reminder of the key elements from section one: the name of the Lord, ‫יהוה‬, and his reputation
‫שם‬. An important temporal shift also accompanies the change in stanza. Until this point, the
psalm has predominantly relied on perfect verbs—such as ‫( בחר‬v.4), ‫( ידעתי‬v.5), ‫( חפץ‬v.6),
‫( הכה‬v.8), and ‫( שלח‬v.9)—to represent past and present actions. The current section, in
Page <264>
Chapter 4 - Psalm 135
contrast, employs imperfect verbs to express the present-future: God’s eternal name and his
memory for future generations. The corresponding phrases “‫ ”לדר ודר‬and ‫ עולם‬frequently
occur together43 in biblical literature (s. Pss 33:11 and 85:6), as do ‫ שם‬and ‫( זכר‬s. Job 18:17, Is
26:8), often depicting a reputation and the memory of one’s past actions. Thus, in Proverbs
10:7, “‫”ז ֶ֣כר ַ ֭צ ִדּיק ִל ְב ָר ָ ֑כה וְ ֵ ֖שׁם ְר ָשׁ ִ ֣עים יִ ְר ָ ֽ קב׃‬,
ֵ the remembrance of a man’s deeds constitutes a
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
recalls God’s words concerning himself in Ex 3:15, “‫זֶ ה־ ְשּׁ ִ ֣מי ְלע ֔ ָֹלם וְ ֶז֥ה זִ ְכ ִ ֖רי ְל ֥ד ֹר ֽדּ ֹר׃‬...” (cf. Ps
102:13). The distant parallelism between vv.13 and v.3, ‫ שמך‬: ‫ יהוה‬:: ‫ לשמו‬: ‫יהוה‬, creates a
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.
‫ל־ע ָב ָ ֗דיו יִ ְתנֶ ָ ֽחם׃‬
ֲ ֜ ‫הו֣ה ַע ֑מּוֹ וְ ַע‬
ָ ְ‫ ִ ֽכּי־יָ ִ ֣דין י‬14
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
causal rendering of ‫ כי‬in this verse comes secondary to its function as an asseverative particle
emphasizing YHWH’s gracious actions towards his people. Though ‫ דין‬often contains the
sense “to judge”—that is to apportion good to those who do good and punish those who do
evil, as in the case of Ps 9:9, “‫ישׁ ִ ֽרים׃‬
ָ ‫ט־תּ ֵ ֥בל ְבּ ֶצ ֶ֑דק יָ ִ ֥דין ֜ ְל ֻא ִ֗מּים ְבּ ֵמ‬
ֵ ‫—”וְ ֗הוּא ִי ְשׁ ֽ ֹפּ‬it often carries a
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
of ‫ דין‬here is “to vindicate”. First Samuel 24:16 records David’s words to Saul after David
spared his life, “‫ת־ר ִ֔יבי וְ יִ ְשׁ ְפּ ֵ ֖טנִ י ִמיָּ ֶ ֽדָך׃‬
ִ ‫וּב ֶינ֑ ָך וְ יֵ֙ ֶר ֙א וְ יָ ֵ ֣רב ֶא‬
ֵ ‫”וְ ָה ָי֤ה יְ הוָ ֙ה ְל ַד ָ֔יּן וְ ָשׁ ַ ֖פט ֵבּ ִינ֣י‬. David’s
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 casts44 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
and angered him.45 The imperfect form ‫ ידין‬should not be considered a future form, suggesting
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
appearance of ‫ עבדיו‬recalls v.9, and again draws a comparison between servants: those of
Pharaoh (and presumably the gods of the Egyptians) are punished with the plagues, even
judged (“ ‫ֹלהי ִמ ְצ ַ ֛ר יִ ם ֶ ֽא ֱע ֶ ֥שׂה ְשׁ ָפ ִ ֖טים ֲא ִ ֥ני‬
֥ ֵ ‫ל־א‬
ֱ ‫וּב ָכ‬
ְ ‫ד־בּ ֵה ָ ֑מה‬
ְ ‫כוֹר ְבּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַ ֔ריִ ם ֵמ ָא ָ ֖דם וְ ַע‬
֙ ‫ל־בּ‬
ְ ‫יתי ָכ‬
֤ ִ ‫וְ ִה ֵכּ‬...
‫הוֽה׃‬
ָ ְ‫”י‬, Ex 12:12), whereas the servants of YHWH are vindicated and comforted. In
vindicating his people, YHWH comforts ‫ יתנחם‬them also (Gen 27:42, 37:35), granting them
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
interpretation of ‫ יתנחם‬as “to vent one’s anger” (s. Ezek 5:13, “ ‫חוֹתי ֲח ָמ ִ ֛תי ָ ֖בּם‬
֧ ִ ִ‫וְ ָכ ָל֣ה ַא ֗ ִפּי וַ ֲהנ‬
...‫”וְ ִהנֶּ ָ ֑ח ְמ ִתּי‬,47 portraying God’s anger with Israel). As with v.7, the degree of replication
between the verse as it appears in the psalm and another location in biblical literature is
precise, without any lexical differences, “...‫ל־ע ָב ָ ֖דיו יִ ְתנֶ ָ ֑חם‬
ֲ ‫” ִ ֽכּי־יָ ִ ֤דין יְ הוָ ֙ה ַע ֔מּוֹ וְ ַע‬, (Deut 32:36).
‫ ֲע ַצ ֵבּ֣י ַ ֭הגּוֹיִ ם ֶכּ ֶ֣סף וְ זָ ָ ֑הב ַ֜מ ֲע ֵ֗שׂה יְ ֵ ֣די ָא ָ ֽדם׃‬15
The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands
44
The word ‫ כי‬may also conclude a parable or section, or give meaning to an oracle; s. Muilenberg (1961:146).
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
activities in Creation and history. The gods of the nations are here depicted as idols, ‫עצבים‬,
that have been constructed with silver and gold. Such materials commonly appear in
polemical descriptions of gods, such as Hos 13:2, “ ‫יוֹספוּ ַל ֲח ֗ט ֹא וַ יַּ ְע ֣שׂוּ ָל ֶה ֩ם ַמ ֵסּ ֙ ָכה ִמ ַכּ ְס ָ ֤פּם‬
֣ ִ ‫וְ ַע ָ ֣תּה׀‬
...‫” ִכּ ְתבוּנָ ֙ם ֲע ַצ ִ֔בּים ַמ ֲע ֵ ֥שׂה ָח ָר ִ ֖שׁים ֻכּ ֹּ֑לה‬, and Deut 4:28. Though silver and gold may be indicative
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.
Repetition of ‫ גוים‬in this verse draws one’s attention to those in v.10 whom were struck,
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
further comparison is induced via the root ‫עשה‬, contrasting gods formed by the hands of men
“‫”מעשה ידי אדם‬, and the God who makes lightning for the rain, “...‫ ְבּ ָר ִ ֣ קים ַל ָמּ ָ ֣טר ָע ָ ֑שׂה‬...” (v.7).48
‫ה־ל ֶהם וְ ֣ל ֹא ַיְד ֵבּ֑רוּ ֵע ַינ֥ יִ ם ֜ ָל ֶ֗הם וְ ֣ל ֹא ְיִר ֽאוּ׃‬
֭ ָ ‫ ֶ ֽפּ‬16
Mouths49 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
such creatures. In this verse they are ascribed mouths, “‫”פה להם‬, but lack the ability to speak,
“‫”ולא ידברו‬. The further description of having eyes and not seeing suggests these idols are
foolish. God’s indictment of Israel in Jer 5:21, “ ‫עוּ־נ֣א ֔ז ֹאת ַ ֥עם ָס ָ ֖כל וְ ֵ ֣אין ֵל֑ב ֵע ַינ֤ יִ ם ָל ֶה ֙ם וְ ֣ל ֹא יִ ְר ֔אוּ‬
ָ ‫ִשׁ ְמ‬
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.).
49
Though the Hebrew ‫ פה‬is singular, here the intention is plural. JM (1996:498) states: “Almost any noun may
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
‫”אזְ ַנ֥ יִ ם ָל ֶ ֖הם וְ ֥ל ֹא יִ ְשׁ ָ ֽמעוּ׃‬,
ָ demonstrates this association, where the foolish people have unseeing
eyes and deaf ears.50
‫יהם׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫שׁ־ר ַוּח ְבּ ִפ‬
֥ ֶ‫ ָאזְ ַנ֣ יִ ם ָ ֭ל ֶהם וְ ֣ל ֹא יַ ֲא ִז֑ינוּ ַ֜אף ֵאין־י‬17
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
having ears but being unable to hear, “‫”אזנים להם ולא יאזינו‬. Though the author employs
repetition in vv.16 and 17, “...‫להם ולא‬...”, the fourth51 and ultimate colon breaks this rhythm
to create an emphatic denial of the idols’ capabilities. The somewhat peculiar phrase, “ ‫אף אין‬
‫”יש‬, introduces the second colon in v.17, and carries with it a variety of nuances. Regardless
of its various interpretations,52 the basic understanding is the same: these idols do not possess
breath, and do not breathe. Though ‫ אף‬primarily functions as a particle of emphasis “even”, it
also recalls the word “nose”, which suits the context depicting other facial organs.53 The
emphatic nature of the final statement is stressed by the word ‫רוח‬, which, as opposed to the
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
7:22 and Job 27:3, where ‫ אף‬and ‫ רוח‬represent life). By mentioning the breath of one’s mouth,
“‫”רוח בפיהם‬, the psalmist recalls God’s work in Creation, where YHWH forms the heavens
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.
52
Many commentators simply interpret ‫ יש‬as a pleonastic element which should be discarded, e.g., Kraus
(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 i¾ bn lh, “surely he has no son”; Weiser (1965:788) and the BHS also
suggests deleting ‫יש‬. An alternative solution is to correct the verse according to the assumed source, Ps 115:6,
“‫להם ולא יריחון‬...”. Attractive as this may be, it also excessively stifles the psalmist’s creative ability. Talmon
(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
the idols any breath “‫ ;”אף אין רוח בפיהם‬and the other that poses a rhetorical question presupposing a negative
answer, “‫”אף יש רוח בפיהם‬.
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
stronger than ‫גם‬.
53
Page <268>
Chapter 4 - Psalm 135
by the breath of his mouth, Ps 33:6, “‫ל־צ ָב ָ ֽאם׃‬
ְ ‫וּב ֥ר ַוּח ֜ ִפּיו ָכּ‬
ְ ‫”בּ ְד ַ ֣בר ְי֭הוָ ה ָשׁ ַ ֣מיִ ם נַ ֲע ֑שׂוּ‬.
ִ Such an
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,
repetition of ‫ רוח‬further recalls v.7, and compares God—who brings the wind from its
storehouses, thus exhibiting dominance over this element—and the idols, which do not even
have breath within their bodies.
Here in v.17 ‫ פה‬creates an inclusion enveloping vv.16-17, which depict the facial
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
‫יהם ֹ֭כּל ֲא ֶשׁר־בּ ֵ ֹ֣ט ַח ָבּ ֶ ֽהם׃‬
֑ ֶ ‫יִהי֣ וּ ע ֵֹשׂ‬
ְ ‫מוֹהם‬
ֶ ‫ ְ ֭כּ‬18
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
association with Psalm 115 is evident, “‫יהם ֹ֭כּל ֲא ֶשׁר־בּ ֵ ֹ֣ט ַח ָבּ ֶ ֽהם׃‬
֑ ֶ ‫מוֹהם יִ ְהי֣ וּ ע ֵֹשׂ‬
ֶ ‫”כּ‬
֭ ְ (v.8), and the
omission of the “arms” and “legs” becomes more pronounced. Just as the word ‫ עשה‬created
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
Jews” (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
forms part of a chiastic arrangement with v.6, ‫ כל אשר‬: ‫ עשיהם‬:: ‫ עשה‬: ‫כל אשר‬, linking the
second and fourth stanzas. Moreover, the root closely associates those who worship the idols,
“‫”כמוהם יהיו עשיהם‬, with the idols themselves, “‫”מעשה ידי אדם‬. A similar association between
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.
‫הוה׃‬
ֽ ָ ְ‫הו֑ה ֵ ֥בּית ַ֜א ֲה ֗ר ֹן ָבּ ֲר ֥כוּ ֶאת־י‬
ָ ְ‫ ֵבּ֣ית יִ ְ֭שׂ ָר ֵאל ָבּ ֲר ֣כוּ ֶאת־י‬19
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
to the house of Israel, “‫”בית ישראל‬, here in v.19 addresses all Israelites (as in Ezek 12:27, and
Amos 5:25) who are gathered at the Temple. From this general reference, the psalm moves to
the house of Aaron, “‫”בית אהרן‬, which in all likelihood refers to a specific group of
individuals. Such a group appears in 1Chr 15:4, “‫ת־ה ְלוִ ִ ֽיּם׃‬
ַ ‫ת־בּ ֵנ֥י ַ ֽא ֲה ֖ר ֹן וְ ֶא‬
ְ ‫”וַ יֶּ ֱא ֥סֹף ָדִּו֛יד ֶא‬, where
David gathers together the sons of Aaron. The phrase “‫ ”בני אהרן‬in Chronicles corresponds
with “‫ ”בית אהרן‬in 135:19, and verses such as Ezek 37:16 attest to the freedom at which ‫בני‬
and ‫ בית‬are interchangeable. First Chronicles 15:4 further attests to the sons of Aaron and
Levi.
‫הוֽה׃‬
ָ ְ‫הוה ָבּ ֲר ֥כוּ ֶאת־י‬
֗ ָ ‫הו֑ה ִי ְֽ ר ֵ ֥אי ְ֜י‬
ָ ְ‫ ֵבּ֣ית ַ ֭ה ֵלּוִ י ָבּ ֲר ֣כוּ ֶאת־י‬20
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
identifies another two groups of worshipers: the House of Levi, “‫ ;”בית לוי‬and the Fearers of
the Lord, “‫”יראי יהוה‬. The House of Levi refers to another subgroup that functioned within the
Temple. Nehemiah 10:40, “ ‫רוּמת ַה ָדּ ָגן֘ ַה ִתּ ֣ירוֹשׁ‬
֣ ַ ‫ת־תּ‬
ְ ‫וּב ֵנ֣י ַה ֵלּ ִ ֗וי ֶא‬
ְ ‫ל־ה ְלּ ָשׁכוֹת יָ ֙ ִביאוּ ְבנֵ י־ ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵ֜אל‬
ַ ֠ ‫ִ ֣כּי ֶא‬
...֒‫”וְ ַהיִּ ְצ ָהר‬, mentions the same group of individuals, even though it employs the slightly
different, but interchangeable, word ‫בני‬. The final colon in v.20, in some respects, continues
the repetition that began in v.19 by mentioning a Temple group, but this rhythm is broken
with the identification of the Fearers of the Lord, “‫”יראי יהוה‬, as opposed to the expression
“X-‫”בית‬. Another break in repetition stems from the name of the specific group, “‫( ”יראי יהוה‬a
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
served YHWH. On the other hand, the phrase “‫ ”יראי יהוה‬may equally refer to all the faithful
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.
‫ֽרוּשׁ ֗ ָל ִם ַ ֽה ְללוּ־יָ ֽהּ׃‬
ָ ְ‫הוה׀ ִמ ִצּיּ֗ וֹן ֨שׁ ֹ ֵכ֤ן י‬
ָ ֙ ְ‫ ָ֨בּ ֤רוְּך י‬21
Be blessed YHWH in57 Zion, who dwells in Jerusalem, Praise Yah
After the psalm exhorts the worshippers to bless YHWH, it now addresses God, requesting
that the congregation’s praise is acceptable to him. In the psalms, the formula “‫”ברוך יהוה‬
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 Zion59 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
an earthly location in which he dwells, “‫”שכן ירושלם‬.60 The psalm’s final two words duplicate
the opening words, “‫”הללו יה‬, and create an inclusion for the whole psalm. For all that he has
57
Here I have interpreted a ‫ ב‬instead of ‫ מ‬as this provides a better reading. This interchange is a known
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
Lord, via repetition of the word ‫בית‬.
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
land to his people as an inheritance (‫)נחלה‬. Such an expression implies that the land he
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
God” (‫אלהינו‬, v.5); he bestows land to them as an inheritance (v.12); and he vindicates and is
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
its origins. In v.2, the psalm employs the relative particle ‫ ש‬together with the active participle
‫עמדים‬. Because the form “‫ש‬+participle”61 does not appear in First Temple literature, a corpus
preferring the alternative form “‫ה‬+participle”, we should accept the construction as a sign of
lateness.62 Additionally, the weqatal forms, ‫ והרג‬and ‫( ונתן‬v.12) used to indicate a pastcompleted act,63 reflect an Aramaic64 influence that is often considered late.65 The psalm’s
final stanza recalls the Temple group known as “‫”בית לוי‬, which constitutes a group peculiar
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
be cited that suggests a postexilic dating, such as the phrase “‫( ”בית אלהינו‬v.2), which
predominantly67 surfaces in postexilic literature, Joel (1:16), Ezra (8:17, 25, 30, 33; 9:9) and
Nehemiah (10:33-40, passim; 13:4);68 the preposition ‫ ל‬introducing a verb’s direct object69—
as in v.11 where ‫ לעוג‬and ‫ לסיחון‬form the two direct objects of the verb ‫ ;הרג‬the phrase “ ‫כל‬
61
For more details on the distribution and linguistic equivalence of this construction, see Hurvitz (1972:156).
The presence of the relative particle ‫ ש‬suggests lateness; s. Ecc 1:11, Ezra 8:20, 1Ch 5:20, 27:27. Scholars
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.
68
For the SBH linguistic equivalent of “‫”בית אלהים‬, cp. Ex 23:19 and Neh 10:37. See also Hurvitz (1972:174).
69
This phenomenon most probably derives from the influence of Aramaic on LBH; s. GKC §117n, and more
recently Hurvitz (1972:174).
62
Page <274>
Chapter 4 - Psalm 135
‫”אשר חפץ עשה‬70; and the reference to the house of Aaron, “‫( ”בית אהרן‬v.19).71 Another
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
consider, however, the nature of the additional material that appears in Psalm 135:11, “ ‫ולכל‬
‫”ממלכות כנען‬, the likelihood arises that Psalm 135 borrowed from Psalm 136. This scenario is
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.
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.
74
Norin (1977:156) additionally adduces what he considers an “un-classical use” of the phrase “‫ ;”אין יש‬he
explicitly states, “…äusserst unklassische weise benutzt”, but fails to supply further evidence of why it is “unclassical”.
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”.
71
Page <275>
Chapter 4 - Psalm 135
SOURCES
No doubts arise concerning the associations between
Psalms 135 and 136. A degree of uncertainty, however, is
Table 8.
Ps 135:4
Dt 7:6, 14:2
D
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
—
Ps 135:11
Ps 136:19-20
—
Ps 135:12
Ps 136:21-22
—
apparent concerning Psalm 135:4’s sources,
76
‫סגלה‬: Ex 19:5, Deut 7:6, and 14:2, all of which have a
similar context to the psalm. The additional word ‫בחר‬,
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
detail of “‫”מאדם עד בהמה‬, which appears in the psalm. Even though Psalm 135 depends on
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
includes the root ‫ שלח‬when depicting the sending of plagues. With respect to lexical
congruencies concerning the remaining words, Neh 9:10, “ ‫עה‬
ֹ ֤ ‫מ ְפ ִ֜תים ְבּ ַפ ְר‬
ֹ ֽ ‫א ֙ת ֹת וּ‬
ֹ ‫וַ ִתּ ֵתּן‬
...‫ל־ע ָב ָד ֙יו‬
ֲ ‫וּב ָכ‬
ְ ”, and Deut 6:22, “ ‫יתוֹ‬
֖ ‫ל־בּ‬
ֵ ‫וּב ָכ‬
ְ ‫תת וּ֠ מ ְֹפ ִתים ְגּד ִ ֹ֙לים וְ ָר ִ ֧עים׀ ְבּ ִמ ְצ ַ ֛ריִ ם ְבּ ַפ ְר ֥עֹה‬
ֹ ֣ ‫הוה אוֹ‬
֡ ָ ְ‫וַ יִּ ֵ ֣תּן י‬
‫” ְל ֵעי ֵנֽינוּ׃‬, also present themselves as viable possibilities, even though they both adopt the root
‫ נתן‬to portray the sending of the plagues. Notwithstanding these possibilities, Deut 34:11,
“‫ל־א ְר ֽצוֹ׃‬
ַ ‫ל־ע ָב ָ ֖דיו ְוּל ָכ‬
ֲ ‫הוה ַל ֲע ֖שׂוֹת ְבּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם ְל ַפ ְר ֥עֹה ְוּל ָכ‬
֔ ָ ְ‫חוֹ י‬
֙ ‫מּוֹפ ִ֗תים ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר ְשׁ ָל‬
ְ ‫ל־ה ֙א ֹ ֜תוֹת וְ ַה‬
ָ ‫”ל ָכ‬
ְ stands
as the best association for v.9, because it includes the root ‫ שלח‬to depict “sending”77 in
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.
Another difference is that Moses forms the object of the root in Deuteronomy. For more details on this
association, see the following section.
77
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.
Psalm 135:2 contains specific lexical similarities with Ps 134:1 via the phrase ‫עבדי‬
‫ ;יהוה עמדים בבית יהוה‬additionally, Psalm 135:21, “‫ ”ברוך יהוה מציון‬bears a recognizable
similarity to Ps 134:3, “‫”יברכך יהוה מציון‬. Together, these links create an undeniable
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
because of the change in phrase “‫( ”העמדים‬Ps 134:1), to “‫( ”שעמדים‬Ps 135:2), which
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.
Psalm 136, the earlier composition, employs the earlier wayiqtol form ‫ וַ יַּ ֲהר ֹג‬in v.18 to
represent a past completed act, whereas the later equivalent weqatal form, ‫וְ ָה ַרג‬, appears in
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
are a chosen (‫בחר‬, 7:6) people and a special possession (‫סגלה‬, 7:6) to YHWH. For the same
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
YHWH81 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
of the phrase “‫”מאדם ועד בהמה‬. The addition of this phrase contributes to the psalmist’s
abundant deployment of phrases emphasizing totality,82 e.g., ‫( כל‬v.5, 6, 9, 11, 18), and the
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 himself83 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
intimate relationship between God and his people: v.2 (‫)לסגלתו‬, v.5 (‫)אדנינו‬, vv.12, and 14 (‫)עמו‬.
82
83
As an expression of totality, “‫ ”מאדם ועד בהמה‬also appears in Jer 50:3.
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,
“ ‫הוה ַל ֲע ֖שׂוֹת ְבּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם ְל ַפ ְר ֥עֹה‬
֔ ָ ְ‫חוֹ י‬
֙ ‫מּוֹפ ִ֗תים ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר ְשׁ ָל‬
ְ ‫ל־הא ֹ֜תוֹת וְ ַה‬
ָ֙ ‫ל ָכ‬...‫ה‬
ְ
‫א־קם נָ ִ ֥ביא ֛עוֹד ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֖אל ְכּמ ֶ ֹ֑שׁ‬
֙ ָ ֹ ‫וְ ֽל‬
‫ל־א ְר ֽצוֹ׃‬
ַ ‫וּל ָכ‬
ְ ‫ל־ע ָב ָ ֖דיו‬
ֲ ‫”וּל ָכ‬
ְ (34:10-11). When we compare the source’s wording and Psalm 135:9,
one of the first noticeable divergences appears in the object of the verb ‫שלח‬. Within Psalm
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
replaces “‫ ”מלכים גדולים‬in the source (Ps 136:17), with “‫”גוים רבים‬, an alteration producing
two decisive effects. First, it creates a link within Psalm 135 between the nations whom
YHWH struck and those who fashion idols with their own hands and serve them, “ ‫ֲע ַצ ֵ ֣בּי ַ ֭הגּוֹיִ ם‬
‫”כּ ֶ֣סף וְ זָ ָ ֑הב ַ֜מ ֲע ֵ֗שׂה יְ ֵ ֣די ָא ָ ֽדם׃‬
ֶ (v.15). From this association, one can infer that the nations’ idols
lacked any capability to deliver them from YHWH’s hand, thus emphasizing his supremacy.
Second, the word ‫ רבים‬decidedly suggests a multitude of nations struck, as opposed to only
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
addition of the phrase “‫”ולכל ממלכות כנען‬, which reflects the psalmist’s changing perspective
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
Psalm 134 opens with an exhortation to bless YHWH, “...‫ת־י֭הוָ ה‬
ְ ‫ ָבּ ֲר ֣כוּ ֶא‬...”, that is directed
towards an unspecified group standing in the Temple praising him, “ ‫הו֑ה ָהע ְֹמ ִ ֥דים‬
ָ ְ‫ ַע ְב ֵ ֣די י‬...
...‫הוה‬
֗ ָ ‫ית־י‬
ְ֜ ‫( ” ְבּ ֵב‬v.1). The second verse continues with this theme supplying them with more
details on how they should praise: with arms extended. Finally, it invites a blessing from God
upon those worshipping, “...‫”יְ ָב ֶר ְכָך֣ ְי֭הוָ ה ִמ ִצּיּ֑ וֹן‬, and remembers YHWH as maker of heaven and
earth, “‫ ֜עֹ ֵ֗שׂה ָשׁ ַ ֥מיִ ם וָ ָ ֽא ֶרץ׃‬...”.
Opening in a similar fashion, Psalm 135 addresses a group identified as YHWH’s
servants who stand in his house, “...‫יְהו֑ה‬
ָ ‫הוה׃ ֶ֭שׁ ֽעֹ ְמ ִדים ְבּ ֵב֣ית‬
ֽ ָ ְ‫ ַע ְב ֵ ֥די י‬...” (vv.1-2). After recalling
84
The semantic differences between ‫( עצומים‬135:10) and ‫( אדירים‬136:18) in the source are indeed small. The
selection of ‫עצומים‬, however, in this instance may reflect the psalmist’s desire to remain true to the biblical
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
heaven and earth, “...‫וּב ָ ֑א ֶרץ‬
ָ ‫ ֫ ָע ָ ֥שׂה ַבּ ָשּׁ ַ ֥מיִ ם‬...” (v.6). A demonstration of these abilities is
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
a call for God to be blessed in87 Zion, “...‫הוה׀ ִמ ִצּיּ֗ וֹן‬
ָ ֙ ְ‫( ” ָ֨בּ ֤רוְּך י‬v.21).
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
from the opening and close of his source. With the exception of the phrase “‫”ברכו את יהוה‬, the
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
enemies (v.12). Also complementing Ps 134 is Ps 135’s deployment of the root ‫ ברך‬in its last
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.
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.
88
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
detailed portrayal of Creation. The psalm’s most outstanding feature is its refrain, “ ‫כי לעולם‬
‫”חסדו‬,1 which recalls the nature of God’s mercy. This refrain was, in all likelihood,
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
theme2 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.
II.
III.
Introductory praise lauding YHWH’s supremacy (1-3)
Praise for YHWH’s work in Creation (4-9)
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 undoubtedly4 identify themselves as the introductory stanza by their
repetition of the phrase “...‫”הודו ל‬, and parallelism5. Within this section, the psalm’s primary
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
emerging as the stanza’s subject. Additionally, the absence of ‫ הודו‬at the start of the verses
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.167 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
bestowal of it to Israel as an inheritance.8 The repetition of ‫ ישראל‬creates a degree 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
of the stanza, and psalm, recalls the opening section via the phrase “...‫”הודו ל‬, which appears
at the beginning of the first three verses.
CLOSE READING
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫י־טוֹב ִ ֖כּי ְל‬
֑ ‫יהו֣ה ִכּ‬
ָ ‫הוֹדוּ ַל‬
֣ 1
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
a participle, or by means of an epithet. YHWH’s grace, ‫חסד‬, his undeserved love manifesting
itself in acts of benevolence,12 constitutes the psalm’s primary theme. Not only does the psalm
constantly repeat this motif in the refrain “‫”כי לעולם חסדו‬, but it also articulates the motif in its
main section (vv.4-25) since each act mentioned expresses his grace. Within the context of
v.1, one can read the refrain as an explanation of “‫”כי טוב‬: YHWH is good primarily because
9
See Allen (2002:299).
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.
12
The concept of ‫ חסד‬usually implies a benevolent action as opposed to just a feeling. In Ps 13:6, trusting in
God’s grace equates to rejoicing in his salvation—physical act of deliverance—, similar associations are present
in Psalm 77:8-12.
10
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 literature14 (s. 1Chr 16:34, Ps 106:1, and a condensed
form in 2Chr 5:13, 7:3, and Ezra 3:11).
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ְ‫ֹלהים ִ ֖כּי ל‬
֑ ִ ‫אֹלהי ָה ֱא‬
֣ ֵ ‫ ֭הוֹדוּ ֵ ֽל‬2
Proclaim thanks to the God of gods, for his mercy is eternal
Repetition of “...‫”הודו ל‬, and parallelism with v.2, further reiterates the call to declare God’s
eternal grace. In this instance, however, the psalm employs “‫”אלהי האלהים‬15—a superlative
form similar to the title Song of Songs—to identify YHWH, instead of the divine name. The
appearance of “‫ ”אלהי האלהים‬here represents a degree of progression because it ascribes
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.
‫ ֭הוֹדוּ ַל ֲאד ֵֹנ֣י ָה ֲאד ִֹנ֑ים ִ ֖כּי ְלע ָֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬3
Proclaim thanks to the Lord of lords, for his mercy is eternal
Following on from v.2, v.3 continues the repetition of the imperative phrase “...‫ ”הודו ל‬and
the reason for praise (“‫)”כי לעלם חסדו‬, and like v.2 refers to YHWH with a superlative. The
only difference between the verses concerns the superlative used, instead of “God of gods”,
we see “‫”אדני האדנים‬. It is possible to view this term as a merismus with the previous verse:
“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
the psalm (s. vv.15, 17, and 18). Together, vv.2-3 recall Deut 10:17,16 “ ‫יכם ֚הוּא‬
ֶ֔ ‫הו֣ה ֱא ֹֽל ֵה‬
ָ ְ‫ִ ֚כּי י‬
13
The second ‫ כי‬can also be read as a particle of emphasis, reading: “surely his love endures forever”, as in Is
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
...‫ֹלהים וַ ֲאד ֵֹנ֖י ָה ֲאד ִֹנ֑ים‬
ִ֔ ‫ֹלהי ָ ֽה ֱא‬
֣ ֵ ‫”א‬,
ֱ which resides in a context recounting God’s grace to Israel
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).
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫ ְל ֨עֹ ֵ ֤שׂה נִ ְפ ָל ֣אוֹת ְגּד ֹ֣לוֹת ְל ַב ֑דּוֹ ִ ֖כּי ְל‬4
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
psalm continues more details are added. Though the initial ‫ הודו‬is absent from the present
verses, it is implicitly understood from the “lamed+participle” construction. Thus, in v.4 we
may read, “give thanks to the one who performs…”.17 The two words ‫ נפלאות‬and ‫גדולות‬
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
refer to God’s acts of deliverance during the Exodus. Psalm 78:12 records, “ ‫בוֹתם ָ ֣ע ָשׂה‬
ָ ‫ֶנ ֶ֣ גד ֭ ֲא‬
‫”פ ֶלא ְבּ ֶ ֖א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַ ֣ריִ ם ְשׂ ֵדה־ ֽצֹ ַען‬,
֑ ֶ and similarly Ps 106:22 states “‫ם־סוּף׃‬
ֽ ַ‫”נ ְ֭פ ָלאוֹת ְבּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ָ ֑חם נ֜ ָוֹר ֗אוֹת ַעל־י‬
ִ
(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
“God of gods” and “Lord of lords”—the psalm qualifies here that YHWH alone, ‫לבדו‬,
accomplishes great deeds. This adverbial qualifier extends to every exploit delineated within
the psalm: YHWH alone accomplishes them.
17
18
This view is also supported by Allen (2002:296) and Hacham (1981:510).
See close reading for Psalm 78:4 for more detail.
Page <287>
Chapter 5 - Psalm 136
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ְ‫בוּנ֑ה ִ ֖כּי ל‬
ָ ‫ ְלע ֵ ֹ֣שׂה ַ ֭ה ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם ִבּ ְת‬5
To the one who makes heaven with understanding, for his mercy is eternal
Verses 5 and 6 expound on v.4 by describing God’s ‫ נפלאות‬and ‫ גדלות‬in the creation of
heaven and earth. Repetition of the verb ‫ עשה‬from the previous verse associates the great
deeds YHWH performs with the creation of heaven. The Bible frequently remembers God’s
work in creating heaven: Ex 20:11 states “...‫ת־ה ָ֗א ֶרץ‬
ָ ‫ת־ה ָשּׁ ַ ֣מיִ ם וְ ֶא‬
ַ ‫הוה ֶא‬
֜ ָ ְ‫ים ָע ָ ֙שׂה י‬
֩ ‫ת־יָמ‬
ִ ‫ ” ִ ֣כּי ֵ ֽשׁ ֶשׁ‬and
Ps 33:6 similarly echoes this sentiment, “‫ל־צ ָב ָ ֽאם׃‬
ְ ‫וּב ֥ר ַוּח ֜ ִפּיו ָכּ‬
ְ ‫” ִבּ ְד ַ ֣בר ְי֭הוָ ה ָשׁ ַ ֣מיִ ם נַ ֲע ֑שׂוּ‬. The
addition of ‫בתבונה‬, however finds no witnesses in the Torah, but is reflected in wisdom
literature and the Prophets. Proverbs 3:19 suggests God established the earth with wisdom,
“‫בוּנֽה׃‬
ָ ‫כּוֹנ֥ ן ָ֜שׁ ַ֗מיִ ם ִבּ ְת‬
ֵ ‫ד־א ֶרץ‬
֑ ָ ‫ֽהוה ְבּ ָח ְכ ָ ֥מה ָי ַֽס‬
֗ ָ ‫” ְי‬, and Jer 10:12 paints a similar picture. The addition
of ‫בתבונה‬19 adds another dimension to God’s creative works complementing unequalled
power with wisdom.
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫ל־ה ָ ֑מּיִ ם ִ ֖כּי ְל‬
ַ ‫ ְלר ַ ֹ֣קע ָ ֭ה ָא ֶרץ ַע‬6
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 land20 over the earth. Though this description
hints towards the Creation narrative in Genesis 1, especially the root ‫ רקע‬that appears in both,
in Genesis the noun ‫ רקיע‬represents the firmament used to separate upper and lower waters,
“‫יהי ַמ ְב ִ ֔דּיל ֵ ֥בּין ַ ֖מיִ ם ָל ָ ֽמיִ ם׃‬
֣ ִ ִ‫ֹלהים יְ ִ ֥הי ָר ִ ֖ ק ַיע ְבּ ֣תוְֹך ַה ָ ֑מּיִ ם ו‬
ִ֔ ‫אמר ֱא‬
ֶ ֹ ‫( ”וַ ֣יּ‬Gen 1:6), whereas here it verbally
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).
20
Concerning the phrase “‫”רקע ארץ‬, Ludwig (1993:350-55) astutely observes that this particular Creation
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
portrays God spreading the earth over the water.21 The verb ‫ רקע‬usually has the meaning of
spreading something out over another object (s. Ex 39:3 and Num 17:4), and though Job
recalls God spreading out the sky with this verb, “‫מוּצק׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫”תּ ְר ִ ֣ ק ַיע ִ ֭עמּוֹ ִל ְשׁ ָח ִ ֑ קים ֲ֜חזָ ִ֗קים ִכּ ְר ִ ֥אי‬
ַ (Job
37:18), only Isaiah sees God stretching out the earth, “ ‫מ ֙ם ְל ַב ִ ֔דּי ר ַ ֹ֥קע‬
ִ֙‫ ָאנ ִ ֹ֤כי יְ הוָ ֙ה ֣עֹ ֶשׂה ֔כֹּל נ ֶ ֹ֤טה ָשׁ ַ י‬...
...‫( ” ָה ָ ֖א ֶרץ‬44:24), as an expression denoting power and ability. Together, vv.6 and 7 create a
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.
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫אוֹרים ְגּד ִ ֹ֑לים ִ ֖כּי ְל‬
֣ ִ ‫ ְ ֭לע ֵֹשׂה‬7
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
heavens. The general allusion to Genesis is once again clear (s. for example Gen 1:15, “ ‫וְ ָהי֤ וּ‬
‫י־כן׃‬
ֽ ֵ ‫ל־ה ָ ֑א ֶרץ ַוֽ יְ ִה‬
ָ ‫)”ל ְמאוֹר ֹ֙ת ִבּ ְר ִ ֣ ק ַיע ַה ָשּׁ ַ֔מיִ ם ְל ָה ִ ֖איר ַע‬,
ִ
however, a difference in spelling suggests the
wording originated from another source. Genesis fails to recall the specific phrase “ ‫אורים‬
‫ ”גדלים‬and uses “‫א ֖ר ֹת ַה ְגּד ִ ֹ֑לים‬
ֹ ‫”ה ְמּ‬
ַ (Gen 1:16) to refer to the creation of the sun.
Notwithstanding this difference, ‫ גדלים‬does recall the great deeds mentioned in v.4, “ ‫ְל ֨עֹ ֵ ֤שׂה‬
...‫”נִ ְפ ָל ֣אוֹת ְגּד ֹ֣לוֹת ְל ַב ֑דּוֹ‬, thus directly associating YHWH’s magnificent deeds with the earth’s
creation, and more specifically the creation of light. Further augmenting this association is the
repetition of ‫עשה‬, which also occurs in v.4. At this point, with respect to the light God created
during Creation, it is not clear to which light the psalmist is alluding. The light of Gen 1:3,
“‫י־אוֹר׃‬
ֽ ‫ֹלהים יְ ִ ֣הי ֑אוֹר ַ ֽו יְ ִה‬
֖ ִ ‫אמר ֱא‬
ֶ ֹ ‫”וַ ֥יּ‬, or the greater and lesser lights recorded in Gen 1:14-18 on the
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
‫שׁ ֶלת ַבּיּ֑ וֹם ִ ֖כּי לְ עוֹ ָל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
֣ ֶ ‫ת־ה ֶשּׁ ֶמשׁ ְל ֶמ ְמ‬
֭ ַ ‫ ֶא‬8
The sun to rule in the day, for his mercy is eternal
Continuing the depiction of heavenly lights, v.8 details the sun’s creation. The particle ‫את‬,
which identifies the verse as an accusative clause for the verb ‫עשה‬, links this verse with the
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
depicts a greater light created to rule the day, “ ‫ת־ה ָמּ ֤אוֹר‬
ַ ‫א ֖ר ֹת ַה ְגּד ִ ֹ֑לים ֶא‬
ֹ ‫ת־שׁ ֵנ֥י ַה ְמּ‬
ְ ‫ֹלהים ֶא‬
ִ֔ ‫וַ יַּ ַ֣עשׂ ֱא‬
...‫שׁ ֶלת ַהיּ֔ וֹם‬
֣ ֶ ‫”ה ָגּד ֹל֙ ְל ֶמ ְמ‬.
ַ Strangely, however, the Genesis account does not explicitly mention
the sun, only a reference to the “great light”. By specifically mentioning the sun, the psalmist
excludes any possibility of a reference to the first light created by God in Gen 1:3, “ ‫אמר‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֥יּ‬
‫י־אוֹר׃‬
ֽ ‫ֽ יְה‬
ִ ‫יְהי ֑אוֹר ַו‬
֣ ִ ‫ֹלהים‬
֖ ִ ‫”א‬.
ֱ 22
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ְ‫֑יְלה ִ ֖כּי ל‬
ָ ‫ ַבּ ָלּ‬23‫֭כוֹכ ִבים ְל ֶמ ְמ ְשׁ ֣לוֹת‬
ָ ‫ת־היָּ ֵ ֣ר ַח ְו‬
ַ ‫ ֶא‬9
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
present verse represents a continuation of v.7 linked via the particle ‫את‬. Here a similar
process of explication occurs whereby the psalm recalls the lesser light mentioned in Gen
1:16, “‫כּוֹכ ִ ֽבים׃‬
ָ ‫שׁ ֶלת ַה ֔ ַלּיְ ָלה וְ ֵ ֖את ַה‬
֣ ֶ ‫טֹן ְל ֶמ ְמ‬
֙ ‫ת־ה ָמּ ֤אוֹר ַה ָקּ‬
ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬...”, which relates the light to the moon and
stars even though the word “moon” (‫ )ירח‬does not appear in Genesis. Evidently, the three
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 Creation25
because these properly reflect the constancy of YHWH’s grace towards Creation “ ‫”כי לעולם‬
‫חסדו‬. Additionally, we must note that other psalmists associate Creation with God’s grace.
Psalm 33:5-6 states, “‫ל־צ ָב ָ ֽאם׃‬
ְ ‫וּב ֥ר ַוּח ֜ ִפּיו ָכּ‬
ְ ‫הוה ָמ ְל ָ ֥אה ָה ָ ֽא ֶרץ׃ ִבּ ְד ַ ֣בר ְי֭הוָ ה ָשׁ ַ ֣מיִ ם נַ ֲע ֑שׂוּ‬
֗ ָ ‫ ֶ ֥ח ֶסד ְ֜י‬...”,
clearly linking his grace with the creation of the heavens by his word, and their hosts, by the
breath of his mouth.26
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫יהם ִ ֖כּי ְל‬
֑ ֶ ‫כוֹר‬
ֵ ‫ ְל ַמ ֵכּ֣ה ִ ֭מ ְצ ַריִ ם ִבּ ְב‬10
To the one who struck27 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
of the Egyptians’ firstborn occurs in the middle of the night, “ ‫כוֹר‬
֘ ‫ל־בּ‬
ְ ‫ַבּ ֲח ִ ֣צי ַה ֗ ַלּיְ ָלה ַ ֽויהוָ ֘ה ִה ָ ֣כּה ָכ‬
‫ם וַ יְ ִ ֣הי׀‬
֒ ִ‫”בּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַרי‬
ְ (Ex 12:29). Biblical literature often depicts the plague on the firstborn in
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
words similar to v.10, as exemplified by Ex 12:12, “...‫כוֹר ְבּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַ ֔ריִ ם‬
֙ ‫ל־בּ‬
ְ ‫יתי ָכ‬
֤ ִ ‫וְ ִה ֵכּ‬...”, and the
Psalms, Ps 78:51, “...‫ל־בּ ֣כוֹר ְבּ ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם‬
ְ ‫”וַ יַּ ֣ ְך ָכּ‬, (s. also Num 8:17, 33:4, Ps 105:36, and 135:8).
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.
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫תּוֹכם ִ ֖כּי ְל‬
֑ ָ ‫יּוֹצ֣א יִ ְ֭שׂ ָר ֵאל ִמ‬
ֵ ַ‫ ו‬11
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
added emphasis of ‫ מתוכם‬highlights the Egyptians’ helplessness as Israel departed, though
Israel was among them, the Egyptians were powerless to prevent Israel from leaving in light
of YHWH’s power.29 Additionally, ‫ מתוכם‬recalls the sentiment of Deut 4:34, portraying
YHWH extracting one nation, Israel, out from the midst of another “ ‫ֹלהים ֠ ָלבוֹא‬
ִ֗ ‫אוֹ׀ ֲהנִ ָ ֣סּה ֱא‬
...‫מוֹפ ִ֜תים‬
ְ ‫א ֙ת ֹת וּ ְב‬
ֹ ‫” ָל ַ֙ק ַחת ל֣ וֹ גוֹי֘ ִמ ֶ ֣קּ ֶרב גּוֹי֒ ְבּ ַמסּ ֹ֩ת ְבּ‬.
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫טוּי֑ה ִ ֖כּי ְל‬
ָ ְ‫וּבזְ ֣ר ַוֹע נ‬
ִ ‫ ְבּיָ ֣ד ֲ֭חזָ ָקה‬12
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
arm. The parallel phrase “‫ ”ביד חזקה ובזרוע נטויה‬constitutes an anthropomorphism well
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).
29
This sentiment is also echoed by Ibn Ezra with regards to the following verse; s. Cohen (2003:210), “ ‫לא‬...
‫”כעבדים הבורחים מפני אדוניהם‬, which implies that Israel departed in the strength and boldness that the Lord
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
‫זרוע נטוי‬, echoed in the Song of the Sea, Ex 15:12 “‫ית יְ ִ ֣מינְ ָ֔ך ִתּ ְב ָל ֵ ֖עמוֹ ָ ֽא ֶרץ׃‬
ָ֙ ‫( ”נָ ִ֙ט‬s. also Ex 7:5).
Throughout this stanza, none of Israel’s leaders are recalled—even though Moses and Aaron,
in the Exodus rendition of events, stretch (‫ )נטה‬out their arms to help bring about the
deliverance from Egypt (s. 7:19, 8:1, 9:22, 10:12)—it is God alone who acts according to his
grace.
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫ ְלגֵֹז֣ר יַ ם־ ֭סוּף ִל ְגזָ ִ ֑רים ִ ֖כּי ְל‬13
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
the phrase “‫גזרים‬...‫ ”גזר‬with respect to the Reed Sea; at this point, one would expect to see the
word ‫ בקע‬as in Ex 14:16, “...‫וּב ָק ֵ ֑עהוּ‬
ְ ‫ל־ה ָיּ֖ם‬
ַ ‫ת־מ ְטּ ָ֗ך וּנְ ֵ ֧טה ֶאת־יָ ְדָך֛ ַע‬
ַ ‫”וְ ַא ָ֞תּה ָה ֵ ֣רם ֶ ֽא‬.30 The plural noun
‫גזרים‬,31 employed by the psalmist here reflects a covert representation of the Exodus in Gen
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
30
Though the word ‫ גזרים‬is absent from biblical Creation traditions, its association to mythological tradition has
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
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ְ‫תוֹכוֹ ִ ֖כּי ל‬
֑ ‫ וְ ֶה ֱע ִ ֣ביר יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֣אל ְבּ‬14
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
out from the midst of the Sea, “...‫תוֹכוֹ‬
֑ ‫( ”וְ ֶה ֱע ִ ֣ביר יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֣אל ְבּ‬v.14), corresponds with v.11, Israel
going out from the midst of Egypt,33 where the repetition of ‫ תוך‬and ‫ ישראל‬reinforce the
association. God first brought the Israelites from the midst of the Egyptians, “ ‫יּוֹצא ִ ֭י ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬
֣ ֵ ַ‫ו‬
‫תּוֹכם‬
֑ ָ ‫” ִמ‬, and now he brings them out from the midst of the sea. A similar account appears in
Psalm 78:13 “‫מוֹ־נֽד׃‬
ֵ ‫ב־מיִ ם ְכּ‬
֥ ַ ‫ירם ַ ֽו יַּ ֶצּ‬
֑ ֵ ‫” ָ ֣בּ ַקע ָי֭ם וַ יַּ ֲֽע ִב‬.
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫ם־סוּף ִ ֖כּי ְל‬
֑ ַ‫ וְ ִ֨נ ֵע֤ר ַפּ ְר ֣עֹה וְ ֵח ֣ילוֹ ְבי‬15
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
present verse specifically relates to events recorded in Ex 14:27, “ ‫ת־מ ְצ ַ ֖ריִ ם ְבּ ֥תוְֹך‬
ִ ‫הו֛ה ֶא‬
ָ ְ‫וַ יְ נַ ֵ ֧ער י‬...
‫”ה ָיּֽם׃‬,
ַ the only other location in biblical literature where ‫ נער‬appears as a piel in relation to the
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
should be viewed in light of its expression towards Israel. The second mention of “‫”ים סוף‬
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,
where the word ‫ מצרים‬also demarks events occurring within Egypt.34 With the end of this
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.
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫מוֹליְך ַ ֭עמּוֹ ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֑בּר ִ ֖כּי ְל‬
֣ ִ ‫ ְל‬16
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
֙ ִ ‫”ה‬,
ַ and even
desert, as recorded here, best reflects Deut 8:15 “...‫נּוֹרא‬
֗ ָ ‫מּוֹל ֲיכ ָ֜ך ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֣בּר׀ ַה ָגּ ֣ד ֹל וְ ַה‬
though the phrase “‫מדבר‬...‫ ”ויוליכם‬appears in Ps 106:9, the context differs because the present
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
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫ ְ ֭ל ַמ ֵכּה ְמ ָל ִ ֣כים ְגּד ִ ֹ֑לים ִ ֖כּי ְל‬17
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
attention to v.10, “...‫יהם‬
֑ ֶ ‫” ְל ַמ ֵכּ֣ה ִ ֭מ ְצ ַריִ ם ִבּ ְבכוֹ ֵר‬, the smiting of the Egyptians. Just as God struck
the Egyptians and Pharaoh, so he now strikes other great kings. From this verse we are also
reminded of YHWH’s ‫ גדלות‬mentioned in the opening stanza, and can relate the striking of
35
See the discussion on the structure.
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.
36
Page <295>
Chapter 5 - Psalm 136
mighty kings to one of the great deeds God performed as an expression of his grace, “ ‫ְל ֨עֹ ֵ ֤שׂה‬
...‫( ”נִ ְפ ָל ֣אוֹת ְגּד ֹ֣לוֹת ְל ַב ֑דּוֹ‬v.4).
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ְ‫ירים ִ ֖כּי ל‬
֑ ִ ‫ ַ ֭ויַּ ֲהר ֹג ְמ ָל ִ ֣כים ַא ִדּ‬18
And killed mighty kings, for his mercy is eternal
Through the repetition and parallelism between vv.17-18, the psalmist emphasizes God’s
superiority over kings and his ability to destroy them. The parallel word pair38 ‫ הרג‬and ‫נכה‬
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
glorifies the kings’ status through the modifiers ‫ גדולים‬and ‫אדירים‬, terms absent from the
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.
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫ ְ ֭ל ִסיחוֹן ֶ ֣מ ֶלְך ָה ֱאמ ִ ֹ֑רי ִ ֖כּי ְל‬19
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
here functions as a direct-object indicator, in a similar fashion to 2Sam 3:30, “ ‫ישׁי‬
֣ ַ ‫יוֹא ֙ב וַ ֲא ִב‬
ָ ְ‫ו‬
38
See close reading for Ps 135:10.
Page <296>
Chapter 5 - Psalm 136
...‫( ” ָא ִ֔חיו ָה ְרג֖ וּ ְל ַא ְב ֵנ֑ר‬s. also Job 5:2), although it may be interpreted otherwise.39 Here, the
psalm recalls events recounted in Numbers, when the Israelites defeated Sihon and took his
land, Num 21:23-24, “...‫י־ח ֶרב‬
֑ ָ ‫ל־ע ֗מּוֹ וַ יֵּ ֵ֞צא ִל ְק ַ ֤ראת יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל֙ …וַ יַּ ֵ ֥כּהוּ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֖אל ְל ִפ‬
ַ ‫ת־כּ‬
ָ ‫וַ יֶּ ֱא ֙ס ֹף ִסי ֜חֹן ֶא‬...” (also
Deut 2:24-37).
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫ וּ ְ֭לעוֹג ֶ ֣מ ֶלְך ַה ָבּ ָ ֑שׁן ִ ֖כּי ְל‬20
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
of Bashan in the same way. The psalmist in vv.19-20 recalls events in Num 21:33-35, “ ‫וַ יֵּ ֵ ֣צא‬...
...‫ל־ע ֔מּוֹ‬
ַ ‫ת־כּ‬
ָ ‫ת־בּ ָנ ֙יו וְ ֶא‬
ָ ‫וַ יַּ ֙כּוּ א ֹ֤תוֹ וְ ֶא‬...‫ל־ע ֛מּוֹ ַל ִמּ ְל ָח ָ ֖מה ֶא ְד ֶ ֽר ִעי׃‬
ַ ‫אתם ֧הוּא וְ ָכ‬
ָ֜ ‫ְך־ה ָבּ ָ֙שׁן ִל ְק ָר‬
ַ ‫עוֹג ֶ ֽמ ֶל‬
֩ ” (s. also
Deut 3:1-7). The fourfold repetition of ‫מלך‬, appearing twice in the plural and twice in the
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
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫ וְ נָ ַ ֣תן ַא ְר ָצ֣ם ְלנַ ֲח ָ ֑לה ִ ֖כּי ְל‬21
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
inheritance. Repetition of ‫ ארץ‬from v.6, “...‫ל־ה ָ ֑מּיִ ם‬
ַ ‫” ְלר ַ ֹ֣קע ָ ֭ה ָא ֶרץ ַע‬, links God’s function as
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
noticeable “‫ת־א ְר ָ ֛צם נַ ֲח ָ ֖לה ַכּיּ֥ וֹם ַה ֶזּֽה׃‬
ַ ‫ת־לָך֧ ֶא‬
ְ ‫יא ָ֗ך ָ ֽל ֶת‬
ֲ ‫גּוֹי֛ם ְגּד ִ ֹ֧לים וַ ֲע ֻצ ִ ֛מים ִמ ְמָּך֖ ִמ ָפּ ֶנ֑יָך ַל ֲה ִ ֽב‬
ִ ‫הוֹרישׁ‬
֗ ִ ‫” ְל‬
(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
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫ ַ ֭נ ֲח ָלה ְליִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֣אל ַע ְב ֑דּוֹ ִ ֖כּי ְל‬22
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
emphatic repetition of ‫ נחלה‬creates a terrace pattern with the previous verse and reinforces the
idea that God gave the land of the aforementioned kings to Israel as an inheritance,43 a notion
the psalmist may have sought to emphasize to his community. The word ‫ ישראל‬recalls v.11,
“...‫תּוֹכם‬
֑ ָ ‫יּוֹצ֣א ִי ְ֭שׂ ָר ֵאל ִמ‬
ֵ ַ‫”ו‬, and creates an inclusion surrounding events from God bringing his
people out of one land to settling them into another. Additionally, the two intimate terms ‫עמו‬
(v.16) and ‫עבדו‬, together with the third-person suffixes, form an inclusion around the present
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 regular45 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.
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.
42
Page <298>
Chapter 5 - Psalm 136
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫ ֶ֭שׁ ְבּ ִשׁ ְפ ֵלנוּ ָז ַ֣כר ָל֑נוּ ִ ֖כּי ְל‬23
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
‫ שבשפלנו‬first in v.23, creates an instance of casus pendens47 emphasizing the peoples
suffering. The relative particle ‫ ש‬has YHWH as its antecedent, since he is the primary subject
in the psalm;48 it is he who remembered Israel in their low esteem. YHWH’s ability to
remember those in a low estate is reflected in Ps 138:6, “ ‫כּי־רם ְי֭הוָ ה וְ ָשׁ ָ ֣פל יִ ְר ֶ ֑אה ְ ֜וגָ ֗בֹ ַהּ ִמ ֶמּ ְר ָ ֥חק‬
ָ֣
‫”יְ יֵ ָ ֽדע׃‬.49 As with the other selected psalms, God’s remembrance, ‫זכר‬, represents here a
positive action, and an expression of his faithfulness, as witnessed in Psalm 105:8 concerning
the maintenance of his promise to Abraham, “‫יתוֹ ָדּ ָ ֥בר ִ֜צ ָ ֗וּה ְל ֶ ֣א ֶלף ֽדּוֹר׃‬
֑ ‫עוֹל֣ם ְבּ ִר‬
ָ ‫( ”זָ ַכ֣ר ְל‬s. also
78:38-39, and 106:45).
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫ וַ יִּ ְפ ְר ֵ ֥ קנוּ ִמ ָצּ ֵ ֑רינוּ ִ ֖כּי ְל‬24
And set us free from our oppressors, for his mercy is eternal
Explicating50 the previous verse, v.24 enumerates exactly how God remembered Israel in their
lowly position: he freed them, ‫ויפרקנו‬, from their oppressors. Though the basic meaning of the
root ‫ פרק‬is “to remove” or “to take away” as in Gen 27:40, it also bears the meaning of “to
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
Psalm stehende Gemeinde von eigenen Erfahrungen mit JHWH’s ‫ ;”חסד‬Keil and Delitzsch (1982:330) are also
of a similar opinion. Radak (s. Cohen [2003:211]) similarly relates “‫ ”זכר לנו‬to the Babylonian exile (as does
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.
49
See also Ecc 10:6, the only other instance in the Bible, where it opposes ‫ ;מרומים‬and BDB 1050, along with
KB (vol. 4, 1632) that both define a similar meaning.
50
This constitutes a legitimate function of the waw consecutive; s. JM §118j.
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
specific deliverance. In the immediate context ‫ מצרינו‬probably represents a general reference
to the enemies of the psalmist’s generation, and of Israel’s enemies on the whole. The
similarity of ‫ מצרינו‬to ‫( מצרים‬v.10), however, also creates a wordplay52 recalling YHWH
acting on behalf of his people to deliver them from Egypt.
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ‫ל־בּ ָ ֑שׂר ִ ֖כּי ְל‬
ָ ‫ נ ֵ ֹ֣תן ֶ֭ל ֶחם ְל ָכ‬25
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
participle, ‫נתן‬, it lacks the lamed preposition that accompanied this form in earlier verses (e.g.,
vv.4, 5, 6, 7, and 13). The verb itself, ‫נתן‬, recalls v.21, which records YHWH bestowing land
to Israel, “...‫”וְ נָ ַ ֣תן ַא ְר ָצ֣ם ְלנַ ֲח ָל֑ה‬. YHWH is remembered in the present verse for his grace and
provision to all flesh (“‫)”כל בשר‬, which can be interpreted either as all men (Is 49:26, 66:23,
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
52
A similar play on these forms appears in Psalm 105:24, “‫אד ַ֜ו ַיּ ֲֽע ִצ ֵמהוּ ִמ ָצּ ָ ֽריו׃‬
ֹ ֑ ‫ת־ע ֣מּוֹ ְמ‬
ַ ‫”וַ ֶיּ֣ ֶפר ֶא‬, see close reading for
this verse in Chapter Two.
53
Andrews’ assumption (1991) that “‫ ”אל השמים‬is a phrase generally found in texts describing God caring for
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
according to their actions. This is apparent from passages such as Deut 10:18, “ ‫ע ֶ ֹ֛שׂה ִמ ְשׁ ַ ֥פּט יָ ֖תוֹם וְ ַא ְל ָמ ָ ֑נה וְ א ֵ ֹ֣הב ֔ ֵגּר‬
‫” ָ ֥ל ֶתת ֖לוֹ ֶ ֥ל ֶחם וְ ִשׂ ְמ ָ ֽלה׃‬, that directly associate the provision of food with judgement, and Psalm 146:7, “ ‫עשׂה ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ֙ט׀‬
ֶ֤
‫סוּרים׃‬
ֽ ִ ‫הוה ַמ ִ ֥תּיר ֲא‬
ָ֗ ‫שׁוּקים נ ֵ ֹ֣תן ֶ֭ל ֶחם ָל ְר ֵע ִ ֑בים ְ֜י‬
ִ֗ ‫”לָ ֲע‬, which similarly associates the two ideas. Taking this into
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
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
ָ ְ‫ ֭הוֹדוּ ְל ֵ ֣אל ַה ָשּׁ ָ ֑מיִ ם ִ ֖כּי ל‬26
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
phrase56 “...‫”הודו ל‬, which appeared in the opening stanza’s first three verses. Repetition of
this formula creates an inclusion with the opening, re-emphasizing the psalm’s primary
purpose: giving thanks to YHWH for his eternal grace. The psalmist recalling YHWH as “‫אל‬
‫”השמים‬57 constitutes an apt description of the second stanza because it primarily recalls his
activity in creating the heavenly bodies. The phrase “‫ ”אל השמים‬echoes other texts where God
is remembered as the creator of heaven, such as Is 42:5, “...‫בּוֹרא ַה ָשּׁ ֙ ַמיִ ֙ם‬
֤ ֵ ‫הוה‬
֗ ָ ְ‫ה־א ַ֞מר ָה ֵ ֣אל׀ י‬
ָ ֹ‫” ֽכּ‬,
which in turn hints towards deeds wrought during Creation like those mentioned in vv.5-9.
MEANING
The perpetual repetition of “‫ ”כי לעולם חסדו‬inculcates the principal purpose of Psalm 136, a
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).
57
Andrews (1991) reveals three important facts about the term “‫”אל השמים‬: first, it was originally employed by
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 (1720). 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
“‫ ”אל השמים‬as an epithet for God, and ‫ ש‬as a relative particle. The close reading of v.26 has
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 SBH60 attest
to isolated instances of the particle ‫ש‬, it only appears within early texts influenced by the
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
psalm’s use of the preposition ‫ ל‬as a direct object marker for the verb ‫הרג‬, and the use of the
weqatal form ‫ וְ נָ ַתן‬to indicate a past completed act in v. 21.62
Secondary evidence concerning Psalm 136’s lateness stems from various scholars.
Hoffman (1983:111-12) argues for the late use of the verb ‫רקע‬, even though it also appears in
earlier texts such as Ex 39:3. Notwithstanding the later appearances, however, concerning this
word, plausible evidence for lateness arises when it is coupled with ‫ ארץ‬as the verb’s object—
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
interpretation of ‫“( פרק‬redeem” or “rescue”) as an example of Aramaic usage,63 and
consequently assume direct influence from exilic or postexilic circumstances. Additionally,
Keil asserts that ‫ שפל‬constitutes late vocabulary, though the distribution of the noun form—
only in Ecc 10:6—casts some doubt on this assumption.64 Additionally, the fact that Ps 136
reflects a liturgical65 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.
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
one other late text, “‫( ” ֲע ָב ִד ֙ים ָ ֣מ ְשׁלוּ ָ֔בנוּ פּ ֵ ֹ֖רק ֵ ֥אין ִמיָּ ָ ֽדם׃‬Lam 5:8). The Aramaic usage of this word as “redeem” is
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
also emerges from the Dead Sea Scrolls that reinforces the late understanding of ‫ פרק‬with a meaning of
62
“deliver”: “‫(”וילך בשבי וישלח לבן ויפרקהו‬4Q215 1-3,2); s. Martinez and Tigchelaar (1997:454). Among biblical
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
distribution. Evidence that should also be considered is the phrase ‫ כי לעולם חסדו‬whose distribution raises
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 agree68 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
Deuteronomy. The Phrase “‫( ”ביד חזקה ובזרוע נטויה‬Ps 136:12) frequently appears in
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
Ps 136:21-22
Deut 4:38
D
his might. The words describing God leading his
people through the desert, “‫( ”למוליך עמו במדבר‬Ps
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
Deuteronomists. 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
land, the phrase “‫ ”לתת ארץ נחלה‬completes the Deuteronomic picture; it widely appears in
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
“‫”ביד חזקה ובזרוע נטויה‬, which also occurs in Deut 4:34, “ ֘‫ֹלהים ֠ ָלבוֹא ָל ַק ַ֙חת ל֣ וֹ גוֹי‬
ִ֗ ‫֣אוֹ׀ ֲהנִ ָ ֣סּה ֱא‬
...‫טוּיה‬
ָ֔ ְ‫וּבזְ ֣ר ַוֹע נ‬
ִ ‫וּב ָי֤ד ֲחזָ ָק ֙ה‬
ְ ‫וּב ִמ ְל ָח ָ֗מה‬
ְ ‫מוֹפ ִ֜תים‬
ְ ‫וּב‬
ְ ‫א ֙ת ֹת‬
ֹ ‫” ִמ ֶ ֣קּ ֶרב גּוֹי֒ ְבּ ַמסּ ֹ֩ת ְבּ‬. The verse in Deuteronomy
additionally contains the idea of God taking one nation out of another, “ ‫ ָל ַק ַ֙חת ל֣ וֹ גוֹי֘ ִמ ֶ ֣קּ ֶרב‬...
...֒‫( ”גּוֹי‬4:34), the same notion is expressed in Psalm 136:11, “...‫תּוֹכם‬
֑ ָ ‫יּוֹצ֣א ִי ְ֭שׂ ָר ֵאל ִמ‬
ֵ ַ‫”ו‬. Moreover,
the idea of giving land to Israel as an inheritance is recorded in similar words, “ ‫גּוֹי֛ם‬
ִ ‫הוֹרישׁ‬
֗ ִ ‫ְל‬
‫ת־א ְר ָצ֛ם נַ ֲח ָ ֖לה ַכּיּ֥ וֹם ַה ֶזּֽה׃‬
ַ ‫ת־לָך֧ ֶא‬
ְ ‫( ” ְגּד ִ ֹ֧לים וַ ֲע ֻצ ִ ֛מים ִמ ְמָּך֖ ִמ ָפּ ֶנ֑יָך ַל ֲה ִ ֽב ֲיא ָ֗ך ָ ֽל ֶת‬Deut 4:38). Solidifying the
above associations are two ideas that appear in both texts. First is the recollection of YHWH’s
uniqueness with respect to his power and works. In Deuteronomy it is expressed in 4:35, “ ‫ ִ ֥כּי‬...
‫ֹלהים ֵ ֥אין ֖עוֹד ִמ ְל ַב ֽדּוֹ׃‬
֑ ִ ‫הו֖ה ֣הוּא ָה ֱא‬
ָ ְ‫”י‬, and in the psalm, the same idea is reflected in v.4, “ ‫ְל ֨עֹ ֵ ֤שׂה‬
...‫”נִ ְפ ָל ֣אוֹת ְגּד ֹל֣ וֹת ְל ַב ֑דּוֹ‬. Second is the apparent importance of heaven. In Deuteronomy, heaven
is the location from which God spoke to the people when he gave them the law, “ ‫ן־ה ָשּׁ ַ ֛מיִ ם‬
ַ ‫ִמ‬
...‫יעָך֥ ֶאת־ק ֹ֖לוֹ‬
ֲ ‫( ” ִה ְשׁ ִ ֽמ‬4:36), and Psalm 136 primarily recalls YHWH’s creation of the heavens
(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.
71
Concerning Deuteronomic ideology, Israel’s description as the “servant of God” in v.22, (‫ )עבדו‬is particularly
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
“shaking out” (‫ )נער‬the Egyptians into the sea, “‫ת־מ ְצ ַ ֖ריִ ם ְבּ ֥תוְֹך ַה ָיּֽם׃‬
ִ ‫יְהו֛ה ֶא‬
ָ ‫וַ יְ נַ ֵ ֧ער‬...”. The piel ‫נער‬
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 (27a) and JE (27b) traditions; however,
the sentence containing the verb ‫ נער‬appears in the second half of the verse, which is ascribed
to JE. This fact alone does not necessarily suggest that the psalmist bore no knowledge of Ex
14:27a. 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 associations75 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.
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.).
74
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 reuse76 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 Edom 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 (1991:17378) 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
flee from the water; however, God then intervenes by hurling (‫וינער‬, Ex 14:27) them into the
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
for them in Egypt (‫מצרים‬, v.34), taking for himself one nation out of another (“‫”גוי מקרב גוי‬,
v.34) with trials and wonders and a mighty hand and outstretched arm (“ ‫ביד חזקה ובזרוע‬
‫”נטויה‬, v.34). Moses explains that all this was done so that they might know YHWH alone is
God. Deuteronomy further states that because YHWH loved Israel’s forefathers, he brought
them out (‫ויוצאך‬, v.37) of Egypt to dispossess great nations (‫גוים גדולים‬, v.38) and gave the
Israelites their land as an inheritance (“‫”לתת לך את ארצם נחלה‬, v.38).
In recounting the Exodus from Egypt, Psalm 136 first recalls the plagues (v.10) and
then describes YHWH extracting his people from amongst the Egyptians (“ ‫ויוצא ישראל‬
‫”מתוכם‬, v.11), which was done with a mighty hand and outstretched arm (“ ‫ביד חזקה ובזרוע‬
‫”נטויה‬, v.12). The psalm proceeds to recall briefly the defeat of Pharaoh at the sea, and
YHWH’s guidance of Israel through the wilderness. God’s work in the conquest is
remembered as being against great (‫גדלים‬, v.17) kings, as opposed to great nations, a change
in line with depicting God’s omnipotence over earthly leaders. After striking them, he
bestows their land to his people for an inheritance (“‫לישראל עבדו‬...‫”ונתן ארצם לנחלה‬, vv.2122). 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
possession, and that he is greater than all other gods (‫אלהים‬, v.5). The following verses then
boast of his ability to do (‫עשה‬, v.6), anything he desires in any place: in heaven (‫שמים‬, v.6) on
earth (‫ובארץ‬, v.6), in the seas (‫בימים‬, v.6) or the depths. Verses 7-12 then cite examples of
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
interjection of praise that lauds YHWH’s eternal name and memory (‫זכרך‬, v.13) because he
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
has done for his people. Psalm 136 manifests this through the overt repetition of ‫ הודו‬in vv.13, 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
from their enemies (8-11). Contrasting this view, the remainder of mankind (‫ )גוים‬are either
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
Ps 136:2-3. Psalm 135:5 recalls the phrase “...‫ֹלהים׃‬
ֽ ִ ‫ל־א‬
ֱ ‫הו֑ה ַ֜ו ֲאד ֵֹ֗נינוּ ִמ ָכּ‬
ָ ְ‫י־ג ֣דוֹל י‬
ָ ‫” ִכּ‬, but later on, the
psalm details this expression by clarifying that these are not ‫ אלהים‬at all, but idols, “ ‫עצבי‬
‫( ”הגוים‬v.15). Consequently, when one reads “...‫ֹלהים‬
֑ ִ ‫אֹלהי ָה ֱא‬
֣ ֵ ‫( ”הוֹדוּ ֵ ֽל‬136:2-3), there is no
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.
The words ‫ארץ‬, ‫שמים‬, and ‫ עשה‬reveal two different aspects of Creation in the two
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
136:5-6 indicates. Repetition of the above words in Psalm 135:7, “ ‫ַ ֽמ ֲע ֶל֣ה ְנ ִשׂ ִאים֘ ִמ ְק ֵ ֪צה ָ֫ה ָ ֥א ֶרץ‬
‫רוֹתיו׃‬
ֽ ָ ‫וֹצ‬
ְ ‫א־ר ַוּח ֵמ ֽא‬
֜ ‫וֹצ‬
ֵ ‫”בּ ָר ִ ֣ קים ַל ָמּ ָ ֣טר ָע ָ ֑שׂה ֽמ‬,
ְ however, reveals that Creation is also an ongoing
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
act as he pleases undergoes an expansion with respect to the word ‫ים‬. Psalm 135:6 mentions
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
84
In simple terms, what we are witnessing here is the proverbial “exception that proves the rule”.
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
2
See close reading for Psalm 105:15, along with the section on sources for this composition.
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 Book of Deuteronomy,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 land of Israel 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 (78:44-516); 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).
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 78:6061), and wisdom’s role in Creation (Ps 136:5).
4
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
author adopts the term “‫ ”עמד בפרץ‬from Ezekiel 22:30, where God seeks an intercessor to
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
intercession, appears with Ps 106’s use of the phrase “‫ ”ותעצר המגפה‬in v.30. As seen from the
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.).
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.
12
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.
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.
14
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
adopts16 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,
the waters simply stand in a heap ‫( נִ ְצּ ֥בוּ‬qal) before the Israelites, whereas the psalm
specifically reports that YHWH caused them to do so, ‫( ַ ֽו יַּ ֶצּב‬hifil). A similar scenario exists in
Psalm 105’s portrayal of Israel’s rapid growth whilst in Egypt. The source, Ex 1:7, recalls a
simple multiplication that occurs naturally, without YHWH’s direct intervention, “ ‫פּ ֧רוּ‬...
ָ
...‫”ו יִּ ְשׁ ְר ֛צוּ וַ יִּ ְר ֥בּוּ וַ יַּ ַֽע ְצ ֖מוּ‬.
ֽ ַ Psalm 105:24, however, specifies that God actively multiplied them
(‫ )וַ ֶיּ ֶ֣פר‬and strengthened their numbers (‫) ַ֜ו ַיּ ֲֽע ִצ ֵמהוּ‬. In performing this change, the psalmist
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
narrative to these examples. The psalmist employs a passive form (‫ )נמכר‬in Psalm 105:17’s recollection of
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.
Psalm 105:26 refers to Aaron as being the chosen one of God (‫)בחר‬, a title he never explicitly receives in the
Torah sources. Psalm 106:16 similarly portrays Aaron as the holy one of YHWH (“‫)”קדוש יהוה‬. In the same
psalm, Phinehas’ act of intercession (vv.28-31) is attributed to him as righteousness, where the specific
designation of an act to an individual as righteousness (“‫ )”ותחשב לו לצדקה‬was previously reserved for Abraham
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
places in the Bible containing the phrase “‫”ארץ חם‬. Psalm 106 further links with Psalm 107
via the word ‫ישימון‬, which occurs four times in the Psalter, and is only found in juxtaposed
psalms here (Psalms 106:14 and 107:4). Also linking these psalms is the phrase “‫”מרה עצה‬,
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.
The words ‫יהוה‬, ‫שמח‬, ‫שיח‬, ‫זמר‬, and ‫שיר‬, appear together at the end of Psalm 104 and the
beginning of Psalm 105, creating a smooth transition between the works. Additionally Psalm
135 links to Psalm 134 via the phrases “‫”ברך את יהוה‬, “‫”עבדי יהוה עמדים בבית יהוה‬, “ ‫ברך יהוה‬
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 Ark of the Covenant. 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.
19
See, for example, Rofé (2004:21) who quotes the example of “‫ ”מלאך יהוה‬as a deciding factor in the
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
‫”מציון‬, and “‫”עשה שמים וארץ‬, and also connects with Psalm 136 through vv.10-12, which
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
reading Psalm 136, which acknowledges the existence other gods. The very phrase “ ‫לאלהי‬
‫( ”האלהים‬v.2) suggests at least two tiers of gods, lesser deities and YHWH himself who
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
them (“...‫ן־ה ֫גּ ִוֹי֥ם‬
ַ ‫וְ ַק ְבּ ֵצנוּ֘ ִ ֽמ‬...”, v.47). The implicit question arising from this composition is
“how did God respond to the plea?” Following this psalm, Psalm 107, a song of thanksgiving,
distinctly states that God has gathered people from foreign lands (“ ‫ֽוּ ֵמ ֲא ָר ֗צוֹת ִ֫ק ְבּ ָ ֥צם ִמ ִמּזְ ָ ֥רח‬
‫וּמָיּֽם׃‬
ִ ‫”וּמ ַמּ ֲע ָ ֑רב ִמ ָצּ ֥פוֹן‬,
ִֽ
v.3). By placing them in this particular order, the editor uses the latter
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).
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.
29
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,
“‫בוֹתינוּ ֶה ֱעִ ֥וינוּ ִה ְר ָ ֽשׁ ְענוּ׃‬
ֵ֗ ‫ם־א‬
ֲ ‫”ח ָ ֥טאנוּ ִע‬.
ָ
Here, the first-person common plural verbs closely
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.
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.
31
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
associating it to wisdom literature, ‫( אשרי‬v.3), however, like Psalm 78, it calls on the Exodus
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.
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 Creation myth. The description found in Ps 77, before the amendment in the last verse, relates
34
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 snakes 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
psalms37 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
38
In fact, none of the Exodus psalms recalls the incident.
The text alludes to God’s presence when it depicts Moses ascending a hill with the staff of God (“ ‫מטה‬
‫”האלהים‬, 17:9) in his hand. Additionally, at the end of the incident, God declares future vengeance on the
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 4Q42240 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 innerbiblical 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
‫‪Ex 14:16‬‬
‫‪Ex 15:8‬‬
‫מוֹ־נֽד׃‬
‫ב־מיִ ם ְכּ ֵ‬
‫ירם ַ ֽו יַּ ֶצּ ַ ֥‬
‫ָ ֣בּ ַקע ָי֭ם וַ ַיּ ֲֽע ִב ֵ ֑‬
‫‪16‬‬
‫‪8‬‬
‫‪Ps 78:14‬‬
‫‪Ex 13:21‬‬
‫מת ְבּ ֶלב־ ָיֽם׃‬
‫מוֹ־נ֖ד נֹזְ ִ ֑לים ָ ֽק ְפ ֥אוּ ְתהֹ ֖ ֹ‬
‫וּב ֤ר ַוּח ַא ֶ ֙פּי ָ֙ך ֶנ ֶ֣ע ְרמוּ ַ֔מיִ ם נִ ְצּ ֥בוּ ְכ ֵ‬
‫ְ‬
‫יוֹמם וְ ָכל־ ַ֜ה ֗ ַלּיְ ָלה ְבּ ֣אוֹר ֵ ֽאשׁ׃‬
‫וַ יַּ נְ ֵ ֣חם ֶבּ ָע ָנ֣ ן ָ ֑‬
‫‪21‬‬
‫‪Ps 78:15‬‬
‫‪Num 20:8‬‬
‫וּב ָק ֵ ֑עהוּ וְ יָ ֧בֹאוּ ְב ֵנֽי־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֛אל ְבּ ֥תוְֹך ַהָ ֖יּם ַבּיַּ ָבּ ָ ֽשׁה׃‬
‫ל־הָיּ֖ם ְ‬
‫ת־מ ְטּ ָ֗ך וּנְ ֵ ֧טה ֶאת־יָ ְדָך֛ ַע ַ‬
‫וְ ַא ָ֞תּה ָה ֵ ֣רם ֶ ֽא ַ‬
‫יוֹמם וָ ָ ֽליְ ָלה׃‬
‫יוֹמם ְבּ ַע ֤מּוּד ָענָ ֙ ן ַלנְ ח ָ ֹ֣תם ַה ֶ ֔דּ ֶרְך וְ ַל֛יְ ָלה ְבּ ַע ֥מּוּד ֵ ֖אשׁ ְל ָה ִ ֣איר ָל ֶ ֑הם ָל ֶל ֶ֖כת ָ ֥‬
‫יה ֙ם ָ֜‬
‫יהוה ה ֵֹלְך֩ ִל ְפנֵ ֶ‬
‫ַ ֽו ָ֡‬
‫יְ ַב ַ ֣קּע ֻ֭צ ִרים ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֑בּר ַ֜ו ַ֗יּ ְשׁ ְק ִכּ ְתה ֹ֥מוֹת ַר ָ ֽבּה׃‬
‫‪8‬‬
‫את ָל ֶ ֥הם‬
‫הוֹצ ָ֙‬
‫ימיו וְ ֵ‬
‫יהם וְ נָ ַ ֣תן ֵמ ָ ֑‬
‫ל־ה ֶ ֛סּ ַלע ְל ֵעינֵ ֶ ֖‬
‫ת־ה ֵע ָד ֙ה ַא ָתּ ֙ה וְ ַא ֲה ֣ר ֹן ָא ִ֔חיָך וְ ִד ַבּ ְר ֶ ֧תּם ֶא ַ‬
‫ת־ה ַמּ ֶ֗טּה וְ ַה ְק ֵ ֤הל ֶא ָ‬
‫ַ ֣קח ֶא ַ‬
‫ן־ה ֶ֔סּ ַלע וְ ִה ְשׁ ִק ָ ֥‬
‫מ ֙ם ִמ ַ‬
‫ַ יִ֙‬
‫ירם׃‬
‫ת־בּ ִע ָ ֽ‬
‫ת־ה ֵע ָ ֖דה וְ ֶא ְ‬
‫ית ֶא ָ‬
‫‪Ps 78:19‬‬
‫‪19‬‬
‫‪Num 21:5‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫וּכל ֵ ֑אל ַל ֲע ֥ר ְֹך ֻ֜שׁ ְל ָ֗חן ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֽבּר׃‬
‫אֹל ִ ֥הים ָ ֭א ְמרוּ ֲהי֣ ַ‬
‫ַוֽ יְ ַד ְבּ ֗רוּ ֵ ֽבּ ֫‬
‫מוּת ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֑בּר ִ ֣כּי ֵ ֥אין ֶל ֶ֙ח ֙ם וְ ֵ ֣אין ַ֔מיִ ם וְ נַ ְפ ֵ ֣שׁנוּ ָ ֔ק ָצה‬
‫ית ֙ ֙נוּ ִמ ִמּ ְצ ַ ֔ריִ ם ָל ֙‬
‫ה ָל ָ ֤מה ֶ ֽה ֱע ִל ֻ‬
‫וּבמ ֶֹשׁ ֒‬
‫אֹלהים֘ ְ‬
‫וַ יְ ַד ֵ ֣בּר ָה ֗ ָעם ֵ ֽבּ ִ‬
‫ַבּ ֶלּ ֶ֖חם ַה ְקֹּל ֵ ֽ קל׃‬
‫‪Ps 78:21‬‬
‫‪Num 11:1-3‬‬
‫‪21‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ם־אף ָע ָ ֥לה ְב ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֽאל׃‬
‫הוה ַוֽ יִּ ְת ַע ָ ֥בּר ְו ֵ֭אשׁ ִנ ְשּׂ ָ ֣ קה ְביַ ֲע ֑קֹב וְ גַ ַ֗‬
‫ָל ֵכ֤ן׀ ָשׁ ַ ֥מע יְ ָ ֗‬
‫אכל ִבּ ְק ֵ ֥צה ַ ֽה ַמּ ֲח ֶנֽה׃‬
‫הוה וַ ֖תּ ֹ ַ‬
‫ר־בּ ֙ם ֵ ֣אשׁ יְ ָ֔‬
‫הו֑ה וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַ ֤מע יְ הוָ ֙ה וַ ִיּ ַ֣חר ַא ֔פּוֹ וַ ִתּ ְב ַע ָ‬
‫אנְ ִ֔נים ַ ֖רע ְבּ ָאזְ ֵנ֣י יְ ָ‬
‫וַ יְ ִ ֤הי ָה ָע ֙ם ְכּ ִמ ְת ֣ ֹ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫י־ב ֲע ָ ֥רה ָ ֖בם‬
‫ם־ה ָמּ ֥קוֹם ַה ֖הוּא ַתּ ְב ֵע ָ ֑רה ִ ֽכּ ָ‬
‫הוה וַ ִתּ ְשׁ ַ ֖ קע ָה ֵ ֽאשׁ׃‪ 3‬וַ יִּ ְק ָ ֛רא ֵ ֽשׁ ַ‬
‫ֹשׁה וַ יִּ ְת ַפּ ֵלּ֤ל מ ֶֹשׁ ֙ה ֶאל־יְ ָ֔‬
‫וַ יִּ ְצ ַ ֥עק ָה ָ ֖עם ֶאל־מ ֶ ֑‬
‫הוה׃‬
‫ֵ ֥אשׁ יְ ָ ֽ‬
‫‪Ps 78:24‬‬
‫‪Ex 16:4‬‬
‫‪24‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ן־שׁ ַ֗מיִ ם ָנ ַ֣תן ָ ֽלמוֹ׃‬
‫יהם ָ ֣מן ֶל ֱא ֑כֹל ְוּד ַג ָ֜‬
‫וַ יַּ ְמ ֵ֬טר ֲע ֵל ֶ ֣‬
‫יוֹמוֹ ְל ַ ֧מ ַען ֲאנַ ֶ ֛סּנּוּ ֲהיֵ ֵ ֥לְך‬
‫טוּ ְדּ ַבר־י֣ וֹם ְבּ ֔‬
‫ן־ה ָשּׁ ָ ֑מיִ ם וְ יָ ָצ ֙א ָה ָ ֤עם וְ ָ ֽל ְק ֙‬
‫אמר יְ הוָ ֙ה ֶאל־מ ֶֹ֔שׁה ִהנְ נִ ֙י ַמ ְמ ִ ֥טיר ָל ֶ ֛כם ֶל ֶ֖חם ִמ ַ‬
‫וַ ֤יּ ֹ ֶ‬
‫ם־ל ֹא׃‬
‫תוֹר ִ ֖תי ִא ֽ‬
‫ְבּ ָ‬
‫‪Ps 78:26‬‬
‫‪26‬‬
‫‪Num 11:31‬‬
‫‪31‬‬
‫ימן׃‬
‫יַ ַ ֣סּע ָ ֭ק ִדים ַבּ ָשּׁ ָ ֑מיִ ם וַ יְ נַ ֵ ֖הג ְבּ ֻעזּ֣ וֹ ֵת ָ ֽ‬
‫יבוֹת ַ ֽה ַמּ ֲח ֶנ֑ה‬
‫יוֹם ֔כֹּה ְס ִב ֖‬
‫וּכ ֶ ֤ד ֶרְך ֙‬
‫ל־ה ַמּ ֲח ֶ֜נה ְכּ ֶ ֧ד ֶרְך י֣ וֹם ֗כֹּה ְ‬
‫ם וַ יִּ ֙טּ ֹשׁ ַע ַ ֽ‬
‫ן־היָּ ֒‬
‫הוה וַ ָיּ֣ ָ גז ַשׂ ְלוִ ים֘ ִמ ַ‬
‫וְ ֜ר ַוּח ָנ ַ ֣סע׀ ֵמ ֵ ֣את יְ ָ֗‬
‫ל־פּ ֵ ֥ני ָה ָ ֽא ֶרץ׃‬
‫וּכ ַא ָמּ ַ ֖תיִ ם ַע ְ‬
‫ְ‬
‫‪Ps 78:28‬‬
‫‪28‬‬
‫‪Num 11:31‬‬
‫‪31‬‬
‫ַ ֭ויַּ ֵפּל ְבּ ֶ ֣ ק ֶרב ַמ ֲח ֵנ֑הוּ ָ֜ס ִ֗ביב ְל ִמ ְשׁ ְכּנ ָ ֹֽתיו׃‬
‫יבוֹת ַ ֽה ַמּ ֲח ֶנ֑ה‬
‫יוֹם ֔כֹּה ְס ִב ֖‬
‫וּכ ֶ ֤ד ֶרְך ֙‬
‫ל־ה ַמּ ֲח ֶ֜נה ְכּ ֶ ֧ד ֶרְך י֣ וֹם ֗כֹּה ְ‬
‫ם וַ יִּ ֙טּ ֹשׁ ַע ַ ֽ‬
‫ן־היָּ ֒‬
‫הוה וַ ָיּ֣ ָ גז ַשׂ ְלוִ ים֘ ִמ ַ‬
‫וְ ֜ר ַוּח ָנ ַ ֣סע׀ ֵמ ֵ ֣את יְ ָ֗‬
‫>‪Page <338‬‬
‫‪Appendices‬‬
‫ל־פּ ֵנ֥י ָה ָ ֽא ֶרץ׃‬
‫וּכ ַא ָמּ ַ ֖תיִ ם ַע ְ‬
‫ְ‬
‫‪Ps 78:29‬‬
‫‪29‬‬
‫‪Num 11:4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪Ps 78:30‬‬
‫‪30‬‬
‫‪Num 11:20‬‬
‫‪20‬‬
‫וַ יּ ֹ ְ‬
‫אד ְ ֜ו ַ ֽת ֲאוָ ָ֗תם יָ ִ ֥בא ָל ֶ ֽהם׃‬
‫אכ ֣לוּ וַ יִּ ְשׂ ְבּ ֣עוּ ְמ ֑ ֹ‬
‫אמ ֔רוּ ִ ֥מי יַ ֲא ִכ ֵ ֖לנוּ ָבּ ָ ֽשׂר׃‬
‫שׁבוּ וַ יִּ ְב ֗כּוּ ַ ֚גּם ְבּ ֵנ֣י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֔אל וַ ֣יּ ֹ ְ‬
‫אס ְפ ֻס ֙ף ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ְבּ ִק ְר ֔בּוֹ ִה ְת ַאוּ֖ וּ ַתּ ֲאָו֑ה וַ יָּ ֻ ֣‬
‫וְ ָ ֽה ַ‬
‫יהם׃‬
‫לֹא־ זָ ֥רוּ ִמ ַתּ ֲאוָ ָ ֑תם ֜ ֗עוֹד ָא ְכ ָ ֥לם ְבּ ִפ ֶ ֽ‬
‫י־מ ַא ְס ֶ ֤תּם ֶאת־יְ הוָ ֙ה ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ְבּ ִק ְר ְבּ ֶ֔כם וַ ִתּ ְב ֤כּוּ‬
‫ַ ֣עד׀ ֣חֹ ֶדשׁ יָ ִ֗מים ַ ֤עד ֲא ֶשׁר־יֵ ֵצ ֙א ֵ ֽמ ַא ְפּ ֶ֔כם וְ ָהָי֥ה ָל ֶ ֖כם ְלזָ ָ ֑רא ַ֗י ַען ִ ֽכּ ְ‬
‫מר ָ ֥ל ָמּה ֶזּ֖ה יָ ָ ֥צאנוּ ִמ ִמּ ְצ ָ ֽריִ ם׃‬
‫ְל ָפנָ ֙יו ֵלא ֔ ֹ‬
‫‪Ps 78:31‬‬
‫‪31‬‬
‫‪Num 11:33‬‬
‫‪33‬‬
‫‪Ps 78:44‬‬
‫‪44‬‬
‫‪Ex 7:20-21‬‬
‫‪20‬‬
‫חוּרי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֣אל ִה ְכ ִ ֽר ַיע׃‬
‫וּב ֵ ֖‬
‫יהם ַ‬
‫ֹלהים׀ ֨ ָע ָל֤ה ָב ֶ֗הם וַ ֽ֭ יַּ ֲהר ֹג ְבּ ִמ ְשׁ ַמנֵּ ֶ ֑‬
‫וְ ַ ֤אף ֱא ִ ֙‬
‫אד׃‬
‫עוֹד ֙נּ֙וּ ֵ ֣בּין ִשׁנֵּ י ֶ֔הם ֶ ֖ט ֶרם יִ ָכּ ֵ ֑רת וְ ַ ֤אף יְ הוָ ֙ה ָח ָ ֣רה ָב ֔ ָעם וַ ַיּ֤ ְך יְ הוָ ֙ה ָבּ ֔ ָעם ַמ ָ ֖כּה ַר ָ ֥בּה ְמ ֽ ֹ‬
‫ַה ָבּ ָ֗שׂר ֶ‬
‫יהם ַבּל־יִ ְשׁ ָתּיֽ וּן׃‬
‫יהם ְ ֜ונֹזְ ֵל ֶ֗‬
‫וַ יַּ ֲה ֹ֣פְך ְ ֭ל ָדם יְ א ֵֹר ֶ ֑‬
‫וּל ֵע ֵינ֖י ֲע ָב ָ ֑דיו‬
‫אר ְל ֵע ֵינ֣י ַפ ְר ֔עֹה ְ‬
‫מּ ֙ם ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ַבּיְ ֔ ֹ‬
‫ת־ה ַ יִ֙‬
‫הוה וַ ָיּ ֶ֤ רם ַבּ ַמּ ֶטּ ֙ה וַ ַיּ֤ ְך ֶא ַ‬
‫שׂוּ־כן֩ מ ֶֹשׁ ֙ה וְ ַא ֲה ֜ר ֹן ַכּ ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר׀ ִ ָצוּ֣ה יְ ָ֗‬
‫ֵ‬
‫וַ ַיּ ֲֽע‬
‫אר וְ לֹא־יָ ְכ ֣לוּ ִמ ְצ ַ ֔ריִ ם ִל ְשׁ ֥תּוֹת ַ ֖מיִ ם‬
‫אר ֵמ ָ֙ת ֙ה וַ יִּ ְב ַ ֣אשׁ ַהיְ ֔ ֹ‬
‫אר ְל ָ ֽדם׃ ‪ 21‬וְ ַה ָדּגָ ֙ה ֲא ֶשׁר־ ַבּיְ ֥ ֹ‬
‫ל־ה ַ ֥מּיִ ם ֲא ֶשׁר־ ַבּיְ ֖ ֹ‬
‫וַ יֵּ ָ ֽה ְפ ֛כוּ ָכּ ַ‬
‫ל־א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָ ֽר יִ ם׃‬
‫אר וַ יְ ִ ֥הי ַה ָ ֖דּם ְבּ ָכ ֶ ֥‬
‫ִמן־ ַהיְ ֑ ֹ‬
‫‪Ps 78:45‬‬
‫‪45‬‬
‫‪Ex 8:17‬‬
‫‪17‬‬
‫יתם׃‬
‫אכ ֵל֑ם וּ֜ ְצ ַפ ְר ֵ ֗דּ ַע וַ ַתּ ְשׁ ִח ֵ ֽ‬
‫יְ ַשׁ ֬ ַלּח ָבּ ֶ ֣הם ָ ֭ערֹב וַ יּ ֹ ְ‬
‫ִ ֣כּי ִא ֵ‬
‫וּמ ְ ֙ל ֜אוּ ָבּ ֵ ֤תּי ִמ ְצ ַר יִ֙ ֙ם‬
‫ת־ה ָע ֑רֹב ָ‬
‫וּב ָב ֶ ֖תּיָך ֶא ֶ‬
‫וּב ֲע ָב ֶ ֧דיָך וּֽ ְב ַע ְמָּך֛ ְ‬
‫ת־ע ִמּי֒ ִהנְ נִ י֩ ַמ ְשׁ ִ ֙לי ַח ְבּ ָ֜ך ַ‬
‫ם־אינְ ָ֘ך ְמ ַשׁ ֵלּ ַ֣ח ֶא ַ‬
‫יה׃‬
‫ר־הם ָע ֶ ֽל ָ‬
‫ת־ה ָע ֔רֹב וְ ַ ֥גם ָה ֲא ָד ָ ֖מה ֲא ֶשׁ ֵ ֥‬
‫ֶא ֶ ֣‬
‫‪Ps 78:46‬‬
‫‪Ex 10:4‬‬
‫‪46‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫יעם ָל ַא ְר ֶ ֽבּה׃‬
‫בוּל֑ם ִ ֽ֜ו ִיג ֗ ָ‬
‫וַ יִּ ֵ ֣תּן ֶל ָח ִ ֣סיל יְ ָ‬
‫ת־ע ִ ֑מּי ִהנְ נִ ֙י ֵמ ִ ֥ביא ָמ ָ ֛חר ַא ְר ֶ ֖בּה ִבּגְ ֻב ֶ ֽלָך׃‬
‫ם־מ ֵ ֥אן ַא ָ ֖תּה ְל ַשׁ ֵלּ ַ֣ח ֶא ַ‬
‫ִ ֛כּי ִא ָ‬
‫‪Ps 78:47‬‬
‫‪47‬‬
‫מוֹתם ַ ֽבּ ֲחנָ ַ ֽמל׃‬
‫יַ ֲה ֣ר ֹג ַבּ ָבּ ָ ֣רד גַּ ְפ ָנ֑ם ְ ֜ו ִשׁ ְק ָ֗‬
‫‪Ex 9:25‬‬
‫‪25‬‬
‫ל־ע ֶשׂב ַה ָשּׂ ֶד ֙ה ִה ָ ֣כּה ַה ָבּ ָ ֔רד‬
‫ד־בּ ֵה ָ ֑מה וְ ֵא ֙ת ָכּ ֵ ֤‬
‫ל־א ֶ ֣שׁר ַבּ ָשּׂ ֶ ֔דה ֵמ ָא ָ ֖דם וְ ַע ְ‬
‫ל־א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַ ֗ריִ ם ֵ ֚את ָכּ ֲ‬
‫וַ יַּ ְ֙ך ַה ָבּ ָ ֜רד ְבּ ָכ ֶ ֣‬
‫ל־עץ ַה ָשּׂ ֶ ֖דה ִשׁ ֵ ֽבּר׃‬
‫ת־כּ ֵ ֥‬
‫וְ ֶא ָ‬
‫‪Ps 78:48‬‬
‫‪48‬‬
‫‪Ex 9:23‬‬
‫‪23‬‬
‫יהם ָל ְר ָשׁ ִ ֽפים׃‬
‫ירם וּ֜ ִמ ְק ֵנ ֶ֗‬
‫וַ יַּ ְס ֵגּ֣ר ַל ָבּ ָ ֣רד ְבּ ִע ָ ֑‬
‫ל־א ֶרץ‬
‫הו֛ה ָבּ ָ ֖רד ַע ֶ ֥‬
‫וּב ָ ֔רד וַ ִ ֥תּ ֲה ַלְך ֵ ֖אשׁ ָ ֑א ְר ָצה וַ יַּ ְמ ֵ ֧טר יְ ָ‬
‫ֹֹלת ָ‬
‫יהוה נָ ַ ֤תן ק ֙‬
‫ם ַ ֽו ָ֗‬
‫ל־ה ָשּׁ ַמיִ ֒‬
‫ת־מ ֵטּהוּ֘ ַע ַ‬
‫ֹשׁה ֶא ַ‬
‫וַ יֵּ ֙ט מ ֶ ֣‬
‫ִמ ְצ ָ ֽריִ ם׃‬
‫‪Ps 78:51‬‬
‫‪51‬‬
‫‪Ex 12:29‬‬
‫‪29‬‬
‫י־חם׃‬
‫אשׁית ֜א ִ֗וֹנים ְבּ ָא ֳה ֵל ָ ֽ‬
‫ל־בּ ֣כוֹר ְבּ ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם ֵר ִ ֥‬
‫וַ יַּ ֣ ְך ָכּ ְ‬
‫ל־כּ ְס ֔אוֹ ַ ֚עד ְבּ ֣כוֹר ַה ְשּׁ ִ֔בי ֲא ֶ ֖שׁר‬
‫ם ִמ ְבּ ֤כֹר ַפּ ְרע ֹ֙ה ַהיּ ֵ ֹ֣שׁב ַע ִ‬
‫כוֹר ְבּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ֒‬
‫ל־בּ ֘‬
‫וַ יְ ִ ֣הי׀ ַבּ ֲח ִ ֣צי ַה ֗ ַלּיְ ָלה ַ ֽויהוָ ֘ה ִה ָ ֣כּה ָכ ְ‬
‫ְבּ ֵ ֣בית ַה ֑בּוֹר וְ ֖ ֹכל ְבּ ֥כוֹר ְבּ ֵה ָ ֽמה׃‬
‫>‪Page <339‬‬
‫‪Appendices‬‬
‫‪Ps 78:54‬‬
‫‪Ex 15:6‬‬
‫‪Ex 15:16‬‬
‫‪54‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪16‬‬
‫יאם ֶאל־גְּ ֣בוּל ָק ְד ֑שׁוֹ ַהר־ ֗ ֶז֜ה ָקנְ ָ ֥תה יְ ִמינֽ וֹ׃‬
‫ַ ֭ויְ ִב ֵ‬
‫אוֹיֽב׃‬
‫הו֖ה ִתּ ְר ַ ֥עץ ֵ‬
‫הוה נֶ ְא ָדּ ִ ֖רי ַבּ ֑כֹּ ַח יְ ִ ֽמינְ ָך֥ יְ ָ‬
‫יְ ִ ֽמינְ ָך֣ יְ ָ֔‬
‫הוה ַ ֽעד־יַ ֲע ֖בֹר ַעם־ז֥ וּ ָק ִ ֽנ ָית׃‬
‫רוֹעָך֖ יִ ְדּ ֣מוּ ָכּ ָ ֑א ֶבן ַעד־יַ ֲע ֤בֹר ַע ְמּ ָ֙ך יְ ָ֔‬
‫ימ ָ֙ת ֙ה וָ ֔ ַפ ַחד ִבּ ְג ֥ד ֹל זְ ֲ‬
‫יהם ֵא ָ‬
‫ִתּ ֙פּ ֹל ֲע ֵל ֶ ֤‬
‫>‪Page <340‬‬
‫‪Appendices‬‬
‫‪APPENDIX B—PSALM 105‬‬
‫‪Ps 105:23‬‬
‫‪Ex 1:1‬‬
‫‪Ps 105:24‬‬
‫‪Ex 1:7‬‬
‫‪Ps 105:25‬‬
‫‪Ex 14:51‬‬
‫‪23‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫יתוֹ ָ ֽבּאוּ׃‬
‫וּב ֖‬
‫מוֹת ְבּ ֵנ֣י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֔אל ַה ָבּ ִ ֖אים ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריְ ָמה ֵ ֣את יַ ֲע ֔קֹב ִ ֥אישׁ ֵ‬
‫וְ ֵ֗א ֶלּה ְשׁ ֙‬
‫‪24‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫ץ־חם׃‬
‫וַ יָּ ֣ב ֹא יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֣אל ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם ְ֜ויַ ֲע ֗קֹב ָגּ֣ר ְבּ ֶ ֽא ֶר ָ ֽ‬
‫אד ַ ֜ויַּ ֲֽע ִצ ֵמהוּ ִמ ָצּ ָ ֽריו׃‬
‫ת־ע ֣מּוֹ ְמ ֑ ֹ‬
‫וַ ֶיּ ֶ֣פר ֶא ַ‬
‫אד וַ ִתּ ָמּ ֵ ֥לא ָה ָ ֖א ֶרץ א ָ ֹֽתם׃ פ‬
‫אד ְמ ֑ ֹ‬
‫וּב ֵנ֣י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֗אל ָפּ ֧רוּ ַ ֽו יִּ ְשׁ ְר ֛צוּ וַ יִּ ְר ֥בּוּ וַ ַיּ ַֽע ְצ ֖מוּ ִבּ ְמ ֣ ֹ‬
‫ְ‬
‫‪25‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ָה ַ ֣פְך ִ ֭ל ָבּם ִל ְשׂ ֣נ ֹא ַע ֑מּוֹ ֜ ְל ִה ְתנַ ֵ֗כּל ַבּ ֲע ָב ָ ֽדיו׃‬
‫י־שׁ ַ ֥לּ ְחנוּ‬
‫ה־זּ ֹאת ָע ִ֔שׂינוּ ִ ֽכּ ִ‬
‫אמרוּ ַמ ֣‬
‫ל־ה ֔ ָעם וַ ֽיּ ֹ ֙‬
‫וַ יֻּ ַגּ ֙ד ְל ֶ ֣מ ֶלְך ִמ ְצ ַ ֔ריִ ם ִ ֥כּי ָב ַ ֖רח ָה ָ ֑עם ַו֠יֵּ ָה ֵפְך ְל ַב ֙ב ַפּ ְר ֤עֹה וַ ֲע ָב ָד ֙יו ֶא ָ‬
‫ֶאת־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֖אל ֵמ ָע ְב ֵ ֽדנוּ׃‬
‫‪Ps 105:27‬‬
‫‪Ex 7:3‬‬
‫‪27‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ֹתוֹתיו וּ֜ מ ְֹפ ִ֗תים ְבּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ָ ֽחם׃‬
‫מוּ־בם ִדּ ְב ֵ ֣רי א ָ ֑‬
‫ָ ֽשׂ ָ֭‬
‫ת־מוֹפ ַ ֖תי ְבּ ֶ ֥א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָ ֽריִ ם׃‬
‫ְ‬
‫את ַ ֹ֛תי וְ ֶא‬
‫יתי ֶאת־ ֹ‬
‫ת־ל֣ב ַפּ ְר ֑עֹה וְ ִה ְר ֵבּ ִ ֧‬
‫וַ ֲא ִ ֥ני ַא ְק ֶ ֖שׁה ֶא ֵ‬
‫‪Ps 105:28‬‬
‫‪28‬‬
‫‪Ex 10:21‬‬
‫‪21‬‬
‫‪Ps 105:29‬‬
‫‪29‬‬
‫‪Ex 7:20-21‬‬
‫‪20‬‬
‫א־מ ֗רוּ ֶאת־) ְדּ ָב ָרוו( ] ְדּ ָב ֽרוֹ[׃‬
‫ָ ֣שׁ ַ ֽלח ֭חֹ ֶשְׁך וַ יַּ ְח ִ ֑שְׁך וְ ֽל ֹ ָ֜‬
‫ל־ה ָשּׁ ַ֔מיִ ם ִ ֥ו ִ‬
‫הוה ֶאל־מ ֶֹ֗שׁה נְ ֵ ֤טה ָי ְֽ ד ָ֙ך ַע ַ‬
‫אמר יְ ָ֜‬
‫וַ ֙יּ ֹ ֶ‬
‫ל־א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם וְ יָ ֵ ֖משׁ ֽחֹ ֶשְׁך׃‬
‫יהי ֖חֹ ֶשְׁך ַע ֶ ֣‬
‫ת־דּגָ ָ ֽתם׃‬
‫יהם ְל ָ ֑דם ַ ֜ו ָ֗יּ ֶמת ֶא ְ‬
‫ימ ֶ ֣‬
‫ת־מ ֵ‬
‫ָה ַ ֣פְך ֶא ֵ‬
‫וּל ֵע ֵינ֖י ֲע ָב ָ ֑דיו‬
‫אר ְל ֵע ֵינ֣י ַפ ְר ֔עֹה ְ‬
‫מּ ֙ם ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ַבּיְ ֔ ֹ‬
‫ת־ה ַ יִ֙‬
‫הוה וַ ָיּ ֶ֤ רם ַבּ ַמּ ֶטּ ֙ה וַ ַיּ֤ ְך ֶא ַ‬
‫שׂוּ־כן֩ מ ֶֹשׁ ֙ה וְ ַא ֲה ֜ר ֹן ַכּ ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר׀ ִ ָצוּ֣ה יְ ָ֗‬
‫ֵ‬
‫וַ ַיּ ֲֽע‬
‫ר־בּיְ ֥ ֹאר ֵמ ָ֙ת ֙ה‪...‬‬
‫אר ְל ָ ֽדם׃ ‪ 21‬וְ ַה ָדּגָ ֙ה ֲא ֶשׁ ַ‬
‫ר־בּיְ ֖ ֹ‬
‫־ה ַ ֥מּיִ ם ֲא ֶשׁ ַ‬
‫וַ יֵּ ָ ֽה ְפ ֛כוּ ָכּל ַ‬
‫‪Ps 105:30‬‬
‫‪30‬‬
‫‪Ex 7:28‬‬
‫‪28‬‬
‫יהם׃‬
‫ָשׁ ַ ֣רץ ַא ְר ָצ֣ם ְצ ַפ ְר ְדּ ִ ֑עים ְ֜בּ ַח ְד ֵ ֗רי ַמ ְל ֵכ ֶ ֽ‬
‫נּוּריָך‬
‫וּב ַת ֶ ֖‬
‫וּב ַע ֶ֔מָּך ְ‬
‫וּב ֵ ֤בית ֲע ָב ֶד֙י ָ֙ך ְ‬
‫ל־מ ָטּ ֶ ֑תָך ְ‬
‫וּב ֲח ַ ֥דר ִמ ְשׁ ָכּ ְבָך֖ וְ ַע ִ‬
‫וּבאוּ ְבּ ֵב ֶ֔יתָך ַ‬
‫ם וְ ָע ֙לוּ ָ ֣‬
‫וְ ָשׁ ַ ֣רץ ַהיְ א ֹ֘ר ְצ ַפ ְר ְדּ ִעי ֒‬
‫רוֹתיָך‬
‫וּב ִמ ְשׁ ֲא ֶ ֽ‬
‫ְ‬
‫‪Ps 105:31‬‬
‫‪31‬‬
‫‪Ex 8:20‬‬
‫‪20‬‬
‫־א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַ ֛ריִ ם ִתּ ָשּׁ ֵ ֥חת ָה ָ ֖א ֶרץ ִמ ְפּ ֵנ֥י ֶה ָע ֽרֹב׃‬
‫וּב ָכל ֶ ֧‬
‫וּבית ֲע ָב ָ ֑דיו ְ‬
‫וַ ַיּ ַ֤עשׂ יְ הוָ ֙ה ֵ֔כּן וַ יָּ ב ֹ ֙א ָע ֣רֹב ָכּ ֵ֔בד ֵ ֥בּ ָיתה ַפ ְר ֖עֹה ֵ ֣‬
‫‪Ex 8:13‬‬
‫‪13‬‬
‫ל־ע ַ ֥פר ָה ָ ֛א ֶרץ ָהָי֥ה‬
‫וּב ְבּ ֵה ָ ֑מה ָכּ ֲ‬
‫הי ַה ִכּ ָ֔נּם ָבּ ָא ָ ֖דם ַ‬
‫ת־ע ַ ֣פר ָה ָ֔א ֶרץ וַ ְתּ ִ ֙‬
‫שׂוּ־כן וַ יֵּ ֩ט ַא ֲה ֙ר ֹן ֶאת־יָ ֤דוֹ ְב ַמ ֵטּ ֙ה֙וּ וַ יַּ ְ֙ך ֶא ֲ‬
‫ֵ֗‬
‫וַ ַיּ ֲֽע‬
‫בוּלם׃‬
‫ָ ֭א ַמר וַ יָּ ֣ב ֹא ָע ֑רֹב ִ֜כּ ִ֗נּים ְבּ ָכל־גְּ ָ ֽ‬
‫ל־א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָ ֽריִ ם׃‬
‫ִכ ִ ֖נּים ְבּ ָכ ֶ ֥‬
‫‪Ps 105:32-33‬‬
‫‪32‬‬
‫בוּלם׃‬
‫וּת ֵאנָ ָ ֑תם ַ ֜ויְ ַשׁ ֵ֗בּר ֵע֣ץ גְּ ָ ֽ‬
‫יהם ָבּ ָ ֑רד ֵ ֖אשׁ ֶל ָה ֣בוֹת ְבּ ַא ְר ָ ֽצם׃ ‪ 33‬וַ יַּ ֣ ְך ַ ֭גּ ְפנָ ם ְ‬
‫נָ ַ ֣תן ִגּ ְשׁ ֵמ ֶ ֣‬
‫‪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
‫ל־ע ֶשׂב ַה ָשּׂ ֶד ֙ה ִה ָ ֣כּה ַה ָבּ ָ ֔רד‬
‫ד־בּ ֵה ָ ֑מה וְ ֵא ֙ת ָכּ ֵ ֤‬
‫ל־א ֶ ֣שׁר ַבּ ָשּׂ ֶ ֔דה ֵמ ָא ָ ֖דם וְ ַע ְ‬
‫ל־א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַ ֗ריִ ם ֵ ֚את ָכּ ֲ‬
‫וַ יַּ ְ֙ך ַה ָבּ ָ ֜רד ְבּ ָכ ֶ ֣‬
‫ת־כּל־ ֵ ֥עץ ַה ָשּׂ ֶ ֖דה ִשׁ ֵ ֽבּר׃‬
‫וְ ֶא ָ‬
‫‪Ps 105:34‬‬
‫‪34‬‬
‫‪Ex 10:14‬‬
‫‪14‬‬
‫ָ ֭א ַמר וַ יָּ ֣ב ֹא ַא ְר ֶ ֑בּה ְ ֜ו ֶ֗י ֶלק וְ ֵ ֣אין ִמ ְס ָ ֽפּר׃‬
‫מהוּ וְ ַא ֲח ָ ֖ר יו‬
‫א־ה ה ֵ ֤כן ַא ְר ֶבּ ֙ה ָכּ ֔ ֹ‬
‫אד ֠ ְל ָפנָ יו ל ֹ ָ יָ֙‬
‫ל־א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַ ֔ריִ ם וַ ָ֕יּנַ ח ְבּ ֖כֹל גְּ ֣בוּל ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם ָכּ ֵ ֣בד ְמ ֔ ֹ‬
‫וַ ַיּ ַ֣על ָ ֽה ַא ְר ֶ֗בּה ַ ֚על ָכּ ֶ ֣‬
‫ה־כּן׃‬
‫֥ל ֹא ִ ֽי ְהיֶ ֵ ֽ‬
‫‪Ps 105:35‬‬
‫‪35‬‬
‫‪Ex 10:15‬‬
‫‪15‬‬
‫וַ ֣יּ ֹ ַ‬
‫אכל ְפּ ִ ֣רי ַא ְד ָמ ָ ֽתם׃‬
‫ל־ע ֶ֣שׂב ְבּ ַא ְר ָ ֑צם ַ ֜ו ֗יּ ֹ ַ‬
‫אכל ָכּ ֵ‬
‫הוֹתיר ַה ָבּ ָ ֑רד‬
‫ל־ע ֶשׂב ָה ָ֗א ֶרץ וְ ֵא ֙ת ָכּל־ ְפּ ִ ֣רי ָה ֔ ֵעץ ֲא ֶ ֥שׁר ִ ֖‬
‫אכל ֶאת־ ָכּ ֵ ֣‬
‫ל־ה ָא ֶר ֘ץ וַ ֶתּ ְח ַ ֣שְׁך ָה ָא ֶר ֒ץ וַ ֜יּ ֹ ַ‬
‫ת־עין ָכּ ָ‬
‫וַ יְ ַ֞כס ֶא ֵ ֣‬
‫ל־א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָ ֽר יִ ם׃‬
‫וּב ֵ ֥ע ֶשׂב ַה ָשּׂ ֶ ֖דה ְבּ ָכ ֶ ֥‬
‫ל־י ֶ֧ רק ָבּ ֵ ֛עץ ְ‬
‫א־נוֹת ֙ר ָכּ ֶ‬
‫ַ‬
‫וְ ל ֹ‬
‫‪Ps 105:38‬‬
‫‪38‬‬
‫‪Ex 15:16‬‬
‫‪16‬‬
‫‪Ps 105:40‬‬
‫‪40‬‬
‫‪Ex 16:4‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ָשׂ ַ ֣מח ִמ ְצ ַ ֣ר יִ ם ְבּ ֵצ ָ ֑‬
‫יהם׃‬
‫אתם ִ ֽכּי־נָ ַ ֖פל ַפּ ְח ָ ֣דּם ֲע ֵל ֶ ֽ‬
‫הוה ַ ֽעד־יַ ֲע ֖בֹר ַעם־ז֥ וּ ָק ִ ֽנ ָית׃‬
‫רוֹעָך֖ יִ ְדּ ֣מוּ ָכּ ָ ֑א ֶבן ַעד־יַ ֲע ֤בֹר ַע ְמּ ָ֙ך יְ ָ֔‬
‫ימ ָ֙ת ֙ה וָ ֔ ַפ ַחד ִבּ ְג ֥ד ֹל זְ ֲ‬
‫יהם ֵא ָ‬
‫ִתּ ֙פּ ֹל ֲע ֵל ֶ ֤‬
‫יעם׃‬
‫ָשׁ ַ ֣אל וַ יָּ ֵב֣א ְשׂ ָל֑ו וְ ֶ ֥ל ֶחם ָ֜שׁ ַ֗מיִ ם יַ ְשׂ ִבּ ֵ ֽ‬
‫יוֹמוֹ ְל ַ ֧מ ַען ֲא ַנ ֶ ֛סּנּוּ‬
‫טוּ ְדּ ַבר־י֣ וֹם ְבּ ֔‬
‫אמר יְ הוָ ֙ה ֶאל־מ ֶֹ֔שׁה ִהנְ נִ ֙י ַמ ְמ ִ ֥טיר ָל ֶ ֛כם ֶל ֶ֖חם ִמן־ ַה ָשּׁ ָ ֑מיִ ם וְ יָ ָצ ֙א ָה ָ ֤עם וְ ָ ֽל ְק ֙‬
‫וַ ֤יּ ֹ ֶ‬
‫ם־ל ֹא׃‬
‫תוֹר ִ ֖תי ִא ֽ‬
‫ֲהיֵ ֵ ֥לְך ְבּ ָ‬
‫‪Ps 105:41‬‬
‫‪41‬‬
‫‪Is 48:21‬‬
‫‪21‬‬
‫‪Ps 105:43‬‬
‫‪43‬‬
‫‪Is 51:11‬‬
‫‪11‬‬
‫ָ ֣פּ ַתח צ֭ וּר וַ יָּ ז֣ וּבוּ ָ ֑מיִ ם ָ֜ה ְל ֗כוּ ַבּ ִצּיּ֥ וֹת נָ ָ ֽהר׃‬
‫וֹל ָ֔יכם ַ ֥מיִ ם ִמ ֖צּוּר ִה ִזּ֣יל ָל֑מוֹ וַ יִּ ְ֙ב ַקע־ ֔צוּר וַ יָּ ֻז֖בוּ ָ ֽמיִ ם׃‬
‫בוֹת ֽה ִ‬
‫וְ ֣ל ֹא ָצ ְמ ֗אוּ ָבּ ֳח ָר ֙‬
‫יריו׃‬
‫ת־בּ ִח ָ ֽ‬
‫יּוֹצא ַע ֣מּוֹ ְב ָשׂ ֑שׂוֹן ְ֜בּ ִר ָ֗נּה ֶא ְ‬
‫וַ ִ ֣‬
‫אשׁ ם ָשׂ ֤שׂוֹן וְ ִשׂ ְמ ָח ֙ה יַ ִשּׂ ֔יגוּן ָ ֖נסוּ יָ ג֥ וֹן וַ ֲאנָ ָ ֽחה׃ ס‬
‫עוֹלם ַעל־ר ֹ ָ ֑‬
‫וּבאוּ ִצ ֙יּוֹן ְבּ ִר ָ֔נּה וְ ִשׂ ְמ ַ ֥חת ָ ֖‬
‫שׁוּבוּן ָ ֤‬
‫הוה יְ ֗‬
‫וּפדוּיֵ ֙י יְ ָ֜‬
‫ְ‬
‫>‪Page <342‬‬
‫‪Appendices‬‬
‫‪APPENDIX C—PSALM 106‬‬
‫‪Ps 106:9‬‬
‫‪9‬‬
‫יכם ַ֜בּ ְתּה ֹ֗מוֹת ַכּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֽבּר׃‬
‫יּוֹל ֵ ֥‬
‫ם־סוּף ַוֽ יֶּ ֱח ָ ֑רב וַ ִ‬
‫וַ יִּ ְג ַע֣ר ְבּיַ ֭‬
‫‪Is 63:13‬‬
‫‪13‬‬
‫יכם ַבּ ְתּה ֹ֑מוֹת ַכּ ֥סּוּס ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֖בּר ֥ל ֹא יִ ָכּ ֵ ֽשׁלוּ׃‬
‫מוֹל ָ ֖‬
‫ִ‬
‫‪Ps 106:10‬‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫‪Is 63:9‬‬
‫‪9‬‬
‫אוֹיֽב׃‬
‫שׂוֹנ֑א ַ ֜ויִּ גְ ָא ֗ ֵלם ִמ ַיּ֥ד ֵ‬
‫יעם ִמ ַיּ֣ד ֵ‬
‫יּוֹשׁ ֵ‬
‫וַ ֽ֭ ִ‬
‫וּב ֶח ְמ ָל ֖תוֹ ֣הוּא גְ ָא ָל֑ם ַ ֽו יְ נַ ְטּ ֵ ֥לם ַ ֽו יְ נַ ְשּׂ ֵ ֖אם ָכּל־יְ ֵ ֥מי‬
‫יעם ְבּ ַא ֲה ָב ֥תוֹ ְ‬
‫וֹשׁ ֔ ָ‬
‫וּמ ְל ַ ֤אְך ָפּנָ ֙יו ֽה ִ‬
‫ל־צ ָר ָ ֣תם׀) ל ֹא( ] ֣לוֹ[ ָ֗צר ַ‬
‫ְ ֽבּ ָכ ָ‬
‫עוֹלם׃‬
‫ָֽ‬
‫‪Ps 106:11‬‬
‫‪11‬‬
‫‪Ex 14:28‬‬
‫‪28‬‬
‫נוֹתר׃‬
‫יהם ֶא ָ ֥חד ֵ֜מ ֶ֗הם ֣ל ֹא ָ ֽ‬
‫סּוּ־מיִ ם ָצ ֵר ֶ ֑‬
‫וַ יְ ַכ ַ ֥‬
‫יהם ַבָּיּ֑ם ֽל ֹא־נִ ְשׁ ַ ֥אר ָבּ ֶ ֖הם‬
‫ת־ה ָ ֣פּ ָר ִ֔שׁים ְלכֹל֙ ֵ ֣חיל ַפּ ְר ֔עֹה ַה ָבּ ִ ֥אים ַא ֲח ֵר ֶ ֖‬
‫ת־ה ֶר ֶ֙כ ֙ב וְ ֶא ַ‬
‫וַ יָּ ֻ ֣שׁבוּ ַה ַ֗מּיִ ם וַ יְ ַכ ֤סּוּ ֶא ָ‬
‫ַעד־ ֶא ָ ֽחד׃‬
‫‪Ps 106:12‬‬
‫‪12‬‬
‫‪Ex 14:31, 15:1‬‬
‫‪31‬‬
‫וַ יַּ ֲא ִ ֥מינוּ ִב ְד ָב ָ ֑ריו ָ֜י ִ֗שׁירוּ ְתּ ִה ָלּ ֽתוֹ׃‬
‫וּבמ ֶ ֹ֖שׁה‬
‫יהוה ְ‬
‫מי ֙נוּ ַ ֽבּ ָ֔‬
‫הו֑ה וַ ַיּ ֲֽא ִ ֙‬
‫ת־ה ָיּ֣ד ַה ְגּד ֗ ָֹלה ֲא ֶשׁ ֙ר ָע ָ ֤שׂה יְ הוָ ֙ה ְבּ ִמ ְצ ַ ֔ריִ ם וַ ִ ֽיּ ְיר ֥אוּ ָה ָ ֖עם ֶאת־יְ ָ‬
‫וַ יַּ ְ ֙רא יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֜אל ֶא ַ‬
‫אה גָּ ָ֔אה ֥סוּס‬
‫מר ָא ִ ֤שׁ ָירה ַ ֽליהוָ ֙ה ִ ֽכּי־גָ ֣ ֹ‬
‫אמ ֖רוּ ֵלא ֑ ֹ‬
‫יהוה וַ יּ ֹ ְ‬
‫את ַ ֽל ָ֔‬
‫ירה ַהזּ ֹ ֙‬
‫וּבנֵ ֙י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֜אל ֶאת־ ַה ִשּׁ ָ ֤‬
‫ַע ְב ֽדּוֹ׃ פ ‪֣ ָ 1‬אז יָ ִ ֽשׁיר־מ ֶֹשׁ ֩ה ְ‬
‫וְ ר ְֹכ ֖בוֹ ָר ָ ֥מה ַבָיּֽם׃‬
‫‪Ps 106:14‬‬
‫‪Num 11:4‬‬
‫‪Ps 106:16‬‬
‫‪Num 16:3‬‬
‫‪14‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ימוֹן׃‬
‫ישׁ ֽ‬
‫סּוּ־אל ִ ֽבּ ִ‬
‫ֵ֗ ֜‬
‫וַ יִּ ְת ַאוּ֣ וּ ַ ֭ת ֲאוָ ה ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֑בּר וַ יְ נַ‬
‫אמ ֔רוּ ִ ֥מי יַ ֲא ִכ ֵ ֖לנוּ ָבּ ָ ֽשׂר׃‬
‫שׁבוּ וַ יִּ ְב ֗כּוּ ַ ֚גּם ְבּ ֵנ֣י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֔אל וַ ֣יּ ֹ ְ‬
‫אס ְפ ֻס ֙ף ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ְבּ ִק ְר ֔בּוֹ ִה ְת ַאוּ֖ וּ ַתּ ֲאָו֑ה וַ יָּ ֻ ֣‬
‫וְ ָ ֽה ַ‬
‫הוֽה׃‬
‫וַ יְ ַקנְ ֣אוּ ְ ֭למ ֶֹשׁה ַ ֽבּ ַמּ ֲח ֶנ֑ה ֜ ְל ַא ֲה ֗ר ֹן ְק ֣דוֹשׁ יְ ָ‬
‫וּמ ֥דּ ַוּע ִ ֽתּ ְת ַנ ְשּׂ ֖אוּ‬
‫הו֑ה ַ‬
‫תוֹכם יְ ָ‬
‫וּב ָ ֖‬
‫ל־ה ֵע ָד ֙ה ֻכּ ָלּ֣ם ְקד ִֹ֔שׁים ְ‬
‫ם ִ ֤כּי ָכ ָ ֽ‬
‫ב־ל ֶכ ֒‬
‫אמ ֣רוּ ֲא ֵל ֶהם֘ ַר ָ‬
‫ֹשׁה וְ ַ ֽעל־ ַא ֲה ֗ר ֹן וַ יּ ֹ ְ‬
‫וַ ִ ֽיּ ָ קּ ֲה ֞לוּ ַעל־מ ֶ ֣‬
‫הוה׃‬
‫ל־ק ַ ֥הל יְ ָ ֽ‬
‫ַע ְ‬
‫‪Ps 106:17‬‬
‫‪17‬‬
‫‪Num 16:32-33‬‬
‫‪32‬‬
‫ירם׃‬
‫ל־ע ַ ֥דת ֲא ִב ָ ֽ‬
‫ח־א ֶרץ וַ ִתּ ְב ַל֣ע ָדּ ָ ֑תן ַ֜ו ְתּ ַ֗כס ַע ֲ‬
‫ִתּ ְפ ַתּ ֶ֭‬
‫ל־ה ֲר ֽכוּשׁ׃ ‪ 33‬וַ יֵּ ְ ֙ר ֜דוּ ֵ ֣הם‬
‫ל־ה ָא ָד ֙ם ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ְל ֔קֹ ַרח וְ ֵ ֖את ָכּ ָ‬
‫יהם וְ ֵ ֤את ָכּ ָ‬
‫ת־בּ ֵתּ ֶ ֑‬
‫יה וַ ִתּ ְב ַ ֥לע א ָ ֹ֖תם וְ ֶא ָ‬
‫ת־פּ ָ‬
‫וַ ִתּ ְפ ַ ֤תּח ָה ָא ֶ ֙ר ֙ץ ֶא ֔ ִ‬
‫אב ֖דוּ ִמ ֥תּוְֹך ַה ָקּ ָ ֽהל׃‬
‫יה ֙ם ָה ָ֔א ֶרץ וַ יּ ֹ ְ‬
‫א ָלה וַ ְתּ ַ ֤כס ֲע ֵל ֶ‬
‫ל־א ֶ ֥שׁר ָל ֶ ֛הם ַח ִיּ֖ים ְשׁ ֑ ֹ‬
‫וְ ָכ ֲ‬
‫‪Ps 106:18‬‬
‫‪18‬‬
‫‪Num 16:35‬‬
‫‪35‬‬
‫‪Num 11:1‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫וַ ִתּ ְב ַער־ ֵ ֥אשׁ ַבּ ֲע ָד ָ ֑תם ֜ ֶל ָה ָ֗בה ְתּ ַל ֵ ֥הט ְר ָשׁ ִ ֽעים׃‬
‫יבי ַה ְקּ ֽטֹ ֶרת׃ פ‬
‫את ֙ם ִ֔אישׁ ַמ ְק ִר ֵ ֖‬
‫וּמ ַ יִ֙‬
‫אכל ֵ ֣את ַה ֲח ִמ ִ ֤שּׁים ָ‬
‫הו֑ה וַ ֗תּ ֹ ַ‬
‫וְ ֵ ֥אשׁ יָ ְצ ָ ֖אה ֵמ ֵ ֣את יְ ָ‬
‫אכל ִבּ ְק ֵ ֥צה ַ ֽה ַמּ ֲח ֶנֽה׃‬
‫הוה וַ ֖תּ ֹ ַ‬
‫־בּ ֙ם ֵ ֣אשׁ יְ ָ֔‬
‫הו֑ה וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַ ֤מע יְ הוָ ֙ה וַ ִיּ ַ֣חר ַא ֔פּוֹ וַ ִתּ ְב ַער ָ‬
‫אנְ ִ֔נים ַ ֖רע ְבּ ָאזְ ֵנ֣י יְ ָ‬
‫וַ יְ ִ ֤הי ָה ָע ֙ם ְכּ ִמ ְת ֣ ֹ‬
‫‪Ps 106:19‬‬
‫‪19‬‬
‫‪Deut 9:16‬‬
‫‪16‬‬
‫שׂוּ־ע ֶגל ְבּח ֵ ֹ֑רב ַ ֜ויִּ ְשׁ ַתּ ֲחו֗ וּ ְל ַמ ֵסּ ָ ֽכה׃‬
‫יַ ֲע ֵ ֥‬
‫הו֖ה ֶא ְת ֶ ֽכם׃‬
‫ר־צ ֥וּה יְ ָ‬
‫ן־ה ֶ ֕דּ ֶרְך ֲא ֶשׁ ִ ָ‬
‫יתם ָל ֶ֔כם ֵ ֖ע ֶגל ַמ ֵסּ ָ ֑כה ַס ְר ֶ ֣תּם ַמ ֵ֔הר ִמ ַ‬
‫יהו֣ה ֱא ֹֽל ֵה ֶ֔יכם ֲע ִשׂ ֶ ֣‬
‫את ֙ם ַל ָ‬
‫וָ ֵ֗א ֶרא וְ ִה ֵנּ֤ה ֲח ָט ֶ‬
‫>‪Page <343‬‬
‫‪Appendices‬‬
‫‪Ps 106:23‬‬
‫‪23‬‬
‫‪Deut 9:25‬‬
‫‪25‬‬
‫הו֖ה ְל ַה ְשׁ ִ ֥מיד ֶא ְת ֶ ֽכם׃‬
‫ת־א ְר ָבּ ִ ֥עים ַה ַ ֖לּיְ ָלה ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ִה ְתנַ ָ ֑פּ ְל ִתּי ִ ֽכּי־ ָא ַ ֥מר יְ ָ‬
‫הוה ֵ ֣את ַא ְר ָבּ ִ ֥עים ַהיּ֛ וֹם וְ ֶא ַ‬
‫ָ ֽו ֶא ְתנַ ַ֞פּל ִל ְפ ֵנ֣י יְ ָ֗‬
‫‪Ezek 22:30‬‬
‫‪30‬‬
‫אתי׃‬
‫ר־גּ ֵדר֩ וְ ע ֵֹמ ֙ד ַבּ ֶ ֧פּ ֶרץ ְל ָפ ַנ֛י ְבּ ַ ֥עד ָה ָ ֖א ֶרץ ְל ִב ְל ִ ֣תּי ַשׁ ֲח ָ ֑תהּ וְ ֖ל ֹא ָמ ָ ֽצ ִ‬
‫וָ ֲא ַב ֵ ֣קּשׁ ֵמ ֶ֡הם ִ ֣אישׁ ֹֽגּ ֵד ָ‬
‫‪Ps 106:24‬‬
‫‪24‬‬
‫‪Deut 1:32‬‬
‫‪32‬‬
‫‪Ps 106:25‬‬
‫‪25‬‬
‫‪Deut 1:27‬‬
‫‪27‬‬
‫‪Ps 106:26‬‬
‫‪26‬‬
‫‪Num 14:29-30‬‬
‫‪29‬‬
‫ירוֹ ָע ַ ֣מד ַבּ ֶפּ ֶ֣רץ ְל ָפ ָנ֑יו ְל ָה ִ ֥שׁיב ֲ֜ח ָמ ֗תוֹ ֵ ֽמ ַה ְשׁ ִ ֽחית׃‬
‫מ ֶ ֤שׁה ְב ִח ֗‬
‫לוּלי ֨ ֹ‬
‫ידם ֡ ֵ‬
‫אמר ְ ֽל ַה ְשׁ ִ֫מ ָ ֥‬
‫וַ ֗יּ ֹ ֶ‬
‫וַ ֽ֭ יִּ ְמ ֲאסוּ ְבּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ֶח ְמ ָ ֑דּה ֽל ֹא־ ֶ֜ה ֱא ִ֗מינוּ ִל ְד ָב ֽרוֹ׃‬
‫יכם׃‬
‫ֹלה ֶ ֽ‬
‫יהו֖ה ֱא ֵ‬
‫וּב ָדּ ָ ֖בר ַה ֶזּ֑ה ֵ ֽאינְ ֶכ ֙ם ַמ ֲא ִמ ִ֔ינם ַבּ ָ‬
‫ַ‬
‫הוֽה׃‬
‫יהם ֥ל ֹא ָ֜שׁ ְמ ֗עוּ ְבּ ֣קוֹל יְ ָ‬
‫וַ יֵּ ָרגְ נ֥ וּ ְב ָא ֳה ֵל ֶ ֑‬
‫ידנוּ‬
‫יאנוּ ֵמ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם ָל ֵ ֥תת א ָ ֹ֛תנוּ ְבַּי֥ד ָה ֱאמ ִ ֹ֖רי ְל ַה ְשׁ ִמ ֵ ֽ‬
‫הוֹצ ָ ֖‬
‫אמ ֔רוּ ְבּ ִשׂנְ ַ ֤את יְ הוָ ֙ה א ָֹ֔תנוּ ִ‬
‫וַ ֵתּ ָרגְ נ֤ וּ ְב ָא ֳה ֵל ֶיכ ֙ם וַ ֣תּ ֹ ְ‬
‫וֹתם ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֽבּר׃‬
‫וַ ִיּ ָ ֣שּׂא יָ ֣דוֹ ָל ֶ ֑הם ְל ַה ִ ֥פּיל ֜א ָ֗‬
‫ל־מ ְס ַפּ ְר ֶ֔כם ִמ ֶ ֛בּן ֶע ְשׂ ִ ֥רים ָשׁ ָנ֖ה וָ ָ ֑מ ְע ָלה ֲא ֶ ֥שׁר ֲה ִ ֽלינ ֶ ֹ֖תם ָע ָ ֽלי׃‬
‫ל־פּ ֻק ֵד ֶיכ ֙ם ְל ָכ ִ‬
‫ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֣בּר ֠ ַהזֶּ ה יִ ְפּ ֙לוּ ִפגְ ֵר ֶ֜יכם וְ ָכ ְ‬
‫‪30‬‬
‫יהוֹשׁ ַע ִבּן־נֽ וּן׃‬
‫ֻ֖‬
‫ם־כּ ֵל֣ב ֶבּן־יְ ֻפ ֶ֔נּה וִ‬
‫תי ֶאת־יָ ִ ֔די ְל ַשׁ ֵ ֥כּן ֶא ְת ֶ ֖כם ָ ֑בּהּ ִ ֚כּי ִא ָ‬
‫ל־ה ָ֔א ֶרץ ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר נָ ָשׂ ֙א ִ ֙‬
‫ם־א ֶתּ ֙ם ָתּ ֣בֹאוּ ֶא ָ‬
‫ִא ַ‬
‫‪Ezek 20:23‬‬
‫‪23‬‬
‫‪Ps 106:27‬‬
‫‪27‬‬
‫‪Ezek 20:23‬‬
‫‪23‬‬
‫‪Ps 106:28‬‬
‫‪28‬‬
‫‪Num 25:3‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ם־א ִ֗ני נָ ָ ֧שׂ ִ‬
‫גַּ ֲ‬
‫אוֹתם ָבּ ֲא ָר ֽצוֹת׃‬
‫וּלזָ ֥רוֹת ָ ֖‬
‫גּוֹים ְ‬
‫אתי ֶאת־יָ ִ ֛די ָל ֶ ֖הם ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֑בּר ְל ָה ִ ֤פיץ א ָֹת ֙ם ַבּ ִ֔‬
‫רוֹתם ָבּ ֲא ָר ֽצוֹת׃‬
‫גּוֹי֑ם וּ֜ ְלזָ ָ֗‬
‫וּ ְל ַה ִ ֣פּיל ַ ֭ז ְר ָעם ַבּ ִ‬
‫אתי ֶאת־יָ ִ ֛ד י ָל ֶ ֖הם ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָ ֑בּר ְל ָה ִ ֤פיץ א ָֹת ֙ם ַבּ ִ֔‬
‫ם־א ִ֗ני נָ ָ ֧שׂ ִ‬
‫גַּ ֲ‬
‫אוֹתם ָבּ ֲא ָר ֽצוֹת׃‬
‫וּלזָ ֥רוֹת ָ ֖‬
‫גּוֹים ְ‬
‫אכ ֗לוּ זִ ְב ֵ ֥חי ֵמ ִ ֽתים׃‬
‫ַ ֭ויִּ ָצּ ְ֣מדוּ ְל ַ ֣ב ַעל ְפּ ֑עוֹר ַ ֜ויּ ֹ ְ‬
‫הו֖ה ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֽאל׃‬
‫ר־אף יְ ָ‬
‫וַ יִּ ָ ֥צּ ֶמד יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֖אל ְל ַ ֣ב ַעל ְפּ ֑עוֹר וַ ִ ֽיּ ַח ַ ֥‬
‫‪Ps 106:29‬‬
‫‪29‬‬
‫‪Num 25:8-9‬‬
‫‪8‬‬
‫ץ־בּם ַמגֵּ ָ ֽפה׃‬
‫יהם וַ ִתּ ְפ ָר ָ֗ ֜‬
‫ַ ֭ויַּ ְכ ִעיסוּ ְבּ ַ ֽמ ַע ְל ֵל ֶ ֑‬
‫ל־ק ָב ָ ֑תהּ וַ ֵ ֽתּ ָע ַצ ֙ר‬
‫ת־ה ִא ָ ֖שּׁה ֶא ֳ‬
‫יהם ֵ ֚את ִ ֣אישׁ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֔אל וְ ֶא ָ‬
‫ת־שׁנֵ ֶ֔‬
‫ל־ה ֻקּ ָ֗בּה וַ יִּ ְדק ֹ֙ר ֶא ְ‬
‫ַו֠יָּ בֹא ַא ַח ֙ר ִ ֽאישׁ־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ֜אל ֶא ַ‬
‫ַה ַמּגֵּ ָ֔פה ֵמ ַ ֖על ְבּ ֵנ֥י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֽאל׃ ‪ 9‬וַ יִּ ְהי֕ וּ ַה ֵמּ ִ ֖תים ַבּ ַמּגֵּ ָ ֑פה ַא ְר ָבּ ָ ֥עה וְ ֶע ְשׂ ִ ֖רים ָ ֽא ֶלף׃ פ‬
‫‪Ps 106:30‬‬
‫‪Num 17:15‬‬
‫‪Num 25:7‬‬
‫‪Ps 106:31‬‬
‫‪Gen 15:6‬‬
‫‪30‬‬
‫מד ִ ֽ֭פּינְ ָחס וַ יְ ַפ ֵלּ֑ל ַ ֜ו ֵתּ ָע ַ֗צר ַה ַמּגֵּ ָ ֽפה׃‬
‫וַ יַּ ֲע ֣ ֹ‬
‫מוֹעד וְ ַה ַמּגֵּ ָ ֖פה נֶ ֱע ָ ֽצ ָרה׃‬
‫א ֶהל ֵ ֑‬
‫ל־פּ ַתח ֣ ֹ‬
‫וַ יָּ ָ֤שׁב ַא ֲה ֙ר ֹן ֶאל־מ ֶֹ֔שׁה ֶא ֶ ֖‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫ן־א ֲה ֖רֹן ַהכּ ֵ ֹ֑הן וַ יָּ ָ ֙ק ֙ם ִמ ֣תּוְֹך ָ ֽה ֵע ָ ֔דה וַ יִּ ַ ֥קּח ֖רֹ ַמח ְבּיָ ֽדוֹ׃‬
‫ן־א ְל ָע ָ֔זר ֶ ֽבּ ַ‬
‫וַ ַ֗יּ ְרא ִ ֽפּינְ ָח ֙ס ֶבּ ֶ‬
‫‪31‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫ד־עוֹלם׃‬
‫ָֽ‬
‫וַ ֵתּ ָ ֣ח ֶשׁב ל֭ וֹ ִל ְצ ָד ָ ֑ קה ְל ֥ד ֹר ָ֜ו ֗ד ֹר ַע‬
‫יהו֑ה וַ יַּ ְח ְשׁ ֶ ֥ב ָה ֖לּוֹ ְצ ָד ָ ֽ קה׃‬
‫וְ ֶה ֱא ִ ֖מן ַ ֽבּ ָ‬
‫‪Ps 106:38‬‬
‫‪38‬‬
‫‪Num 35:33‬‬
‫‪33‬‬
‫שׁר זִ ְ֭בּחוּ ַל ֲע ַצ ֵבּ֣י ְכ ָנ ַ֑ען וַ ֶתּ ֱח ַנ֥ ף ָ֜ה ָ֗א ֶרץ ַבּ ָדּ ִ ֽמים׃‬
‫יהם ֲא ֶ ֣‬
‫נוֹת ֶ֗‬
‫יהם ֽוּ ְב ֵ‬
‫ם־בּ ֵ֨נ ֶ ֤‬
‫כוּ ָ ֪דם ָנ ִ֡קי ַדּ ְ‬
‫וַ יִּ ְֽשׁ ְפּ ֙‬
‫־בּהּ‬
‫וְ לֹא־ ַת ֲח ִנ֣יפוּ ֶאת־ ָה ָ֗א ֶרץ ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר ַא ֶתּ ֙ם ָ֔בּהּ ִ ֣כּי ַה ָ ֔דּם ֥הוּא יַ ֲח ִ ֖ניף ֶאת־ ָה ָ ֑א ֶרץ וְ ָל ָ ֣א ֶרץ ֽל ֹא־יְ ֻכ ֗ ַפּר ַל ָדּ ֙ם ֲא ֶ ֣שׁר ֻשׁ ַפְּך ָ֔‬
‫י־אם ְבּ ַ ֥דם שׁ ְֹפ ֽכוֹ׃‬
‫ִכּ ִ ֖‬
‫>‪Page <344‬‬
‫‪Appendices‬‬
‫‪APPENDIX D—PSALM 135‬‬
‫‪Ps 135:4‬‬
‫‪Deut 7:6‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ִ ֽכּי־יַ ֲע ֗קֹב ָבּ ַ ֣חר ֣לוֹ ָי֑הּ ִ֜י ְשׂ ָר ֵ֗אל ִל ְס ֻג ָלּ ֽתוֹ׃‬
‫ל־פּ ֵנ֥י‬
‫ֹלהיָך ִל ְהי֥ וֹת ֙לוֹ ְל ַ ֣עם ְס ֻג ֔ ָלּה ִמכֹּל֙ ָ ֽה ַע ִ֔מּים ֲא ֶ ֖שׁר ַע ְ‬
‫הו֣ה ֱא ֶ֗‬
‫ֹלהיָך ְבּ ָ֞ך ָבּ ַ ֣חר׀ יְ ָ‬
‫יהו֖ה ֱא ֶ ֑‬
‫דוֹשׁ ַא ָ֔תּה ַל ָ‬
‫ִ ֣כּי ַ ֤עם ָק ֙‬
‫ָה ֲא ָד ָ ֽמה׃‬
‫‪Deut 14:2‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ל־פּ ֵנ֥י ָה ֲא ָד ָ ֽמה׃ ס‬
‫הוה ִ ֽל ְהי֥ וֹת ֙לוֹ ְל ַ ֣עם ְס ֻג ֔ ָלּה ִמכֹּל֙ ָ ֽה ַע ִ֔מּים ֲא ֶ ֖שׁר ַע ְ‬
‫וּב ָ֞ך ָבּ ַ ֣חר יְ ָ֗‬
‫ֹלהיָך ְ‬
‫יהו֖ה ֱא ֶ ֑‬
‫דוֹשׁ ַא ָ֔תּה ַל ָ‬
‫ִ ֣כּי ַ ֤עם ָק ֙‬
‫‪Ps 135:8‬‬
‫‪8‬‬
‫ד־בּ ֵה ָ ֽמה׃‬
‫כוֹרי ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם ֵ֜מ ָא ָ ֗דם ַע ְ‬
‫ֶ ֽ֭שׁ ִה ָכּה ְבּ ֵ ֣‬
‫‪12‬‬
‫ֹלהי ִמ ְצ ַ ֛ריִ ם‬
‫ל־א ֵ ֥‬
‫וּב ָכ ֱ‬
‫ד־בּ ֵה ָ ֑מה ְ‬
‫כוֹר ְבּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַ ֔ריִ ם ֵמ ָא ָ ֖דם וְ ַע ְ‬
‫יתי ָכל־ ְבּ ֙‬
‫ה וְ ִה ֵכּ ִ ֤‬
‫וְ ָע ַב ְר ִ ֣תּי ְב ֶ ֽא ֶרץ־ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם֘ ַבּ ַלּ֣יְ ָלה ַהזֶּ ֒‬
‫‪Ex 12:12‬‬
‫הוה׃‬
‫ֶ ֽא ֱע ֶ ֥שׂה ְשׁ ָפ ִ ֖טים ֲא ִ ֥ני יְ ָ ֽ‬
‫‪Ps 135:9‬‬
‫‪9‬‬
‫ל־ע ָב ָ ֽדיו׃‬
‫וּב ָכ ֲ‬
‫תוֹכ ִ֣כי ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם ְ֜בּ ַפ ְר ֗עֹה ְ‬
‫ָשׁ ַל֤ח׀ א ֹ֣תוֹת ֭וּמ ְֹפ ִתים ְבּ ֵ‬
‫‪Deut 34:11‬‬
‫‪11‬‬
‫ל־א ְר ֽצוֹ׃‬
‫וּל ָכ ַ‬
‫ל־ע ָב ָ ֖דיו ְ‬
‫הוה ַל ֲע ֖שׂוֹת ְבּ ֶ ֣א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָ ֑ריִ ם ְל ַפ ְר ֥עֹה ְוּל ָכ ֲ‬
‫חוֹ יְ ָ֔‬
‫מּוֹפ ִ֗תים ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר ְשׁ ָל ֙‬
‫ְל ָכל־ ָה ֙א ֹ ֜תוֹת וְ ַה ְ‬
‫‪Ps 135:10‬‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫‪Ps 136:17‬‬
‫‪17‬‬
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
‫ְ ֭ל ַמ ֵכּה ְמ ָל ִ ֣כים ְגּד ִ ֹ֑לים ִ ֖כּי ְל ָ‬
‫‪Ps 136:18‬‬
‫‪18‬‬
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
‫וַ ֽ֭ יַּ ֲהר ֹג ְמ ָל ִ ֣כים ַא ִדּ ִ ֑ירים ִ ֖כּי ְל ָ‬
‫‪Ps 135:11‬‬
‫‪11‬‬
‫‪Ps 136:19‬‬
‫‪19‬‬
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
‫ְ ֭ל ִסיחוֹן ֶ ֣מ ֶלְך ָה ֱאמ ִ ֹ֑רי ִ ֖כּי ְל ָ‬
‫‪Ps 136:20‬‬
‫‪20‬‬
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
‫וּ ְ֭לעוֹג ֶ ֣מ ֶלְך ַה ָבּ ָ ֑שׁן ִ ֖כּי ְל ָ‬
‫‪Ps 135:12‬‬
‫‪12‬‬
‫‪Ps 136:21‬‬
‫‪21‬‬
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
‫וְ נָ ַ ֣תן ַא ְר ָ ֣צם ְלנַ ֲח ָל֑ה ִ ֖כּי ְל ָ‬
‫‪Ps 136:22‬‬
‫‪22‬‬
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
‫ַ֭נ ֲח ָלה ְליִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֣אל ַע ְב ֑דּוֹ ִ ֖כּי ְל ָ‬
‫צוּמים׃‬
‫גּוֹי֣ם ַר ִ ֑בּים ְ ֜ו ָה ַ ֗רג ְמ ָל ִ ֥כים ֲע ִ ֽ‬
‫ֶ ֽ֭שׁ ִה ָכּה ִ‬
‫ְל ִס ֤‬
‫יחוֹן׀ ֶ ֤מ ֶלְך ָה ֱאמ ִ ֹ֗רי וּ ְ֭לעוֹג ֶ ֣מ ֶלְך ַה ָבּ ָ ֑שׁן וּ֜ ְל ֗כֹל ַמ ְמ ְל ֥כוֹת ְכּ ָ ֽנ ַען׃‬
‫וְ נָ ַ ֣תן ַא ְר ָצ֣ם נַ ֲח ָל֑ה ַ֜נ ֲח ֗ ָלה ְליִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֥אל ַע ֽמּוֹ׃‬
‫>‪Page <345‬‬
‫‪Appendices‬‬
‫‪APPENDIX E—PSALM 136‬‬
‫‪136:11‬‬
‫‪11‬‬
‫‪Deut 4:342‬‬
‫‪34‬‬
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
‫תּוֹכ֑ם ִ ֖כּי לְ ָ‬
‫יּוֹצ֣א ִי ְ֭שׂ ָר ֵאל ִמ ָ‬
‫וַ ֵ‬
‫וּבזְ ֣ר ַוֹע‬
‫וּבָי֤ד ֲחזָ ָק ֙ה ִ‬
‫וּב ִמ ְל ָח ָ֗מה ְ‬
‫מוֹפ ִ֜תים ְ‬
‫וּב ְ‬
‫א ֙ת ֹת ְ‬
‫ֹלהים ֠ ָלבוֹא ָל ַק ַ֙חת ֣לוֹ גוֹי֘ ִמ ֶ ֣קּ ֶרב גּוֹי֒ ְבּ ַמסּ ֹ֩ת ְבּ ֹ‬
‫֣אוֹ׀ ֲהנִ ָ ֣סּה ֱא ִ֗‬
‫יכם ְבּ ִמ ְצ ַ ֖ריִ ם ְל ֵע ֶינֽיָך׃‬
‫ֹלה ֶ ֛‬
‫הו֧ה ֱא ֵ‬
‫ר־ע ָשׂ ֙ה ָל ֶ֜כם יְ ָ‬
‫מוֹר ִ ֖אים ְגּד ִ ֹ֑לים ֠ ְכּכֹל ֲא ֶשׁ ָ‬
‫וּב ָ‬
‫טוּיה ְ‬
‫נְ ָ֔‬
‫‪136:12‬‬
‫‪12‬‬
‫‪Deut 4:34‬‬
‫‪34‬‬
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
‫טוּי֑ה ִ ֖כּי ְל ָ‬
‫וּבזְ ֣ר ַוֹע נְ ָ‬
‫ְבּ ָי֣ד ֭ ֲחזָ ָקה ִ‬
‫וּבזְ ֣ר ַוֹע‬
‫וּבָי֤ד ֲחזָ ָק ֙ה ִ‬
‫וּב ִמ ְל ָח ָ֗מה ְ‬
‫מוֹפ ִ֜תים ְ‬
‫וּב ְ‬
‫א ֙ת ֹת ְ‬
‫ֹלהים ֠ ָלבוֹא ָל ַק ַ֙חת ֣לוֹ גוֹי֘ ִמ ֶ ֣קּ ֶרב גּוֹ ֒י ְבּ ַמסּ ֹ֩ת ְבּ ֹ‬
‫֣אוֹ׀ ֲהנִ ָ ֣סּה ֱא ִ֗‬
‫יכם ְבּ ִמ ְצ ַ ֖ריִ ם ְל ֵע ֶינֽיָך׃‬
‫ֹלה ֶ ֛‬
‫הו֧ה ֱא ֵ‬
‫ר־ע ָשׂ ֙ה ָל ֶ֜כם יְ ָ‬
‫מוֹר ִ ֖אים ְגּד ִ ֹ֑לים ֠ ְכּכֹל ֲא ֶשׁ ָ‬
‫וּב ָ‬
‫טוּיה ְ‬
‫נְ ָ֔‬
‫‪136:15‬‬
‫‪15‬‬
‫‪Ex 14:27‬‬
‫‪27‬‬
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
‫־סוּף ִ ֖כּי ְל ָ‬
‫עה וְ ֵחיל֣ וֹ ְביַ ם ֑‬
‫וְ ִ֨נ ֵ ֤ער ַפּ ְר ֣ ֹ‬
‫ת־מ ְצ ַ ֖ריִ ם‬
‫הו֛ה ֶא ִ‬
‫אתוֹ וַ יְ נַ ֵ ֧ער יְ ָ‬
‫וּמ ְצ ַ ֖ריִ ם ָנ ִ ֣סים ִל ְק ָר ֑‬
‫יתנ֔ וֹ ִ‬
‫ל־ה ָ֗יּם וַ יָּ֙ ָשׁב ַה ָ֜יּם ִל ְפנ֥ וֹת ֙בּ ֹ ֶק ֙ר ְל ֵ ֣א ָ‬
‫וַ יֵּ ֩ט מ ֶֹשׁ ֙ה ֶאת־יָ ֜דוֹ ַע ַ‬
‫ְבּ ֥תוְֹך ַהָיּֽם׃‬
‫‪136:19‬‬
‫‪19‬‬
‫‪Deut 2:24‬‬
‫‪24‬‬
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
‫ְ ֭ל ִסיחוֹן ֶ ֣מ ֶלְך ָה ֱאמ ִ ֹ֑רי ִ ֖כּי ְל ָ‬
‫ת־א ְר ֖צוֹ ָה ֵ ֣חל ָ ֑רשׁ וְ ִה ְת ָ ֥גּר‬
‫־ח ְשׁ ֧בּוֹן ָ ֽה ֱאמ ִ ֹ֛רי וְ ֶא ַ‬
‫ת־נ ַ֣חל ַא ְר ֹנן֒ ְר ֵ ֣אה נָ ַ ֣ת ִתּי ְ֠ביָ ְדָך ֶאת־ ִסי ֙ח ֹן ֶ ֽמ ֶלְך ֶ‬
‫֣קוּמוּ ְסּ ֗עוּ וְ ִע ְברוּ֘ ֶא ַ‬
‫֖בּוֹ ִמ ְל ָח ָ ֽמה׃‬
‫‪136:20‬‬
‫‪20‬‬
‫‪Deut 3:3‬‬
‫‪ 3‬וַ יִּ ֵתּן֩ יְ הוָ ֙ה ֱא ֵ֜‬
‫יר־לוֹ‬
‫ד־בּ ְל ִ ֥תּי ִה ְשׁ ִ ֽא ֖‬
‫ל־ע ֑מּוֹ וַ נַּ ֵ֕כּהוּ ַע ִ‬
‫ת־כּ ַ‬
‫ְך־ה ָבּ ָ ֖שׁן וְ ֶא ָ‬
‫ֹלהינוּ ְבּיָ ֵ ֗דנוּ ַגּ֛ם ֶאת־ ֥עוֹג ֶ ֽמ ֶל ַ‬
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
‫֭וּ ְלעוֹג ֶ ֣מ ֶלְך ַה ָבּ ָ ֑שׁן ִ ֖כּי ְל ָ‬
‫ָשׂ ִ ֽריד׃‬
‫‪136:21-22‬‬
‫‪21‬‬
‫‪Deut 4:38‬‬
‫‪38‬‬
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
‫וְ נָ ַ ֣תן ַא ְר ָצ֣ם ְלנַ ֲח ָל֑ה ִ ֖כּי ְל ָ‬
‫‪22‬‬
‫עוֹל֣ם ַח ְס ֽדּוֹ׃‬
‫ַ ֭נ ֲח ָלה ְליִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֣אל ַע ְב ֑דּוֹ ִ ֖כּי ְל ָ‬
‫ת־לָך֧ ֶאת־ ַא ְר ָ ֛צם נַ ֲח ָ ֖לה ַכּיּ֥ וֹם ַה ֶזּֽה׃‬
‫יא ָ֗ך ָ ֽל ֶת ְ‬
‫גּוֹי֛ם ְגּד ִ ֹ֧לים וַ ֲע ֻצ ִ ֛מים ִמ ְמָּך֖ ִמ ָפּ ֶנ֑יָך ַל ֲה ִ ֽב ֲ‬
‫הוֹרישׁ ִ‬
‫ְל ִ ֗‬
‫`‬
‫‪See the section on sources concerning this semantic marker.‬‬
‫>‪Page <346‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
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 Biblical Poetry. New York: Basic Books,
1985.
Amit (2005)
‫ עקיפים ובעיקר‬,‫ פולמוסים גלויים‬:‫ גלוי ונסתר במקרא‬.‫ יאירה‬,‫אמית‬
.2005 ,‫ ידיעות אחרונות וספרי חמד‬:‫ תל אביב‬.‫סמויים‬
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.
Avishur (1989)
:‫ ירושלים‬.‫ עיונים בשירת המזמורים העברית והאוגריתית‬.‫ יצחק‬,‫אבישור‬
1989 ,‫מאגנס‬
Barton (1998)
BARTON, JOHN. “Intertextuality and 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. “Inverted 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.
Brin (1999)
,‫עתי‬-‫ דודזון‬:‫ תל אביב‬.‫ תהלים ב‬:‫ עולם התנ“ך‬,“‫ ”פרק עח‬.‫ גרשון‬,‫ברין‬
.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.
Buber (1997)
.1997 ,‫ מוסד ביאליק‬:‫ ירושלים‬.‫ דרכו של מקרא‬.'‫ מרדכי מ‬,‫בובר‬
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 (1979)
CAMPBELL, ANTONY F. “Psalm 78: A Contribution to the
Theology of Tenth Century Israel.” CBQ 41 (1979): 5179.
Campbell and O’Brien (1993)
CAMPBELL, ANTONY F., and MARK A. O’BRIEN. 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.
Cohen (2003)
‫ מקראות גדולות‬,‫ קג‬- ‫ מזמורים עג‬:‘‫ ספר תהלים חלק ב‬.‫ מנחם‬,‫כהן‬
‫פי כתבי יד‬-‫ מהדורת יסוד חדשה ההדרה מדעית על‬:‫הכתר‬
.2003 ,‫אילן‬-‫ אוניברסיטת בר‬:‫ רמת גן‬.‫עתיקים‬
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 Notes. 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 Historical Books of
the Old Testament, 87-94. Leiden: Brill, 1979.
Day (1986)
———. “Pre-Deuteronomic Allusions to the Covenant 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, 23873. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
Eaton (1999)
———. “Psalms.” In DBI: K-Z, edited by JOHN H. HAYES, 32429. 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.
Fabry (1990)
FABRY, HEINZ-JOSEPH. “‫פלל‬.” In TDOT: Vol. 11, edited by G.
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: PostExilic 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. “Sea.” 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 Book of Genesis. 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., 83761. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Garsiel (1999a)
:‫ תל אביב‬.240-43 ,‫ תהלים ב‬:‫“ עולם התנ“ך‬,‫ ”פרק קלה‬.‫ משה‬,‫גרסיאל‬
.1999 ,‫עתי‬-‫דודזון‬
Garsiel (1999b)
-‫ דודזון‬:‫ תל אביב‬.243-47 ,‫ תהלים ב‬:‫“ עולם התנ“ך‬,‫ ”פרק קלו‬.———
.1999 ,‫עתי‬
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 segultā: 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.
Hacham (1981)
‫ תורה נביאים כתובים עם פירוש‬:‫ה‬-‫ ספרים ג‬:‫ ספר תהלים‬.‫ עמוס‬,‫חכם‬
.1981 ,‫ מוסד הרב קוק‬:‫ ירושלים‬,‫ י"ד‬,‫דעת מקרא‬
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 Concordance 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.
Hoffman (1983)
‫ אוניברסיטה תל‬:‫ תל אביב‬.‫ יציאת מצרים באמונת המקרא‬.‫יאיר הופמן‬
‫ בית הספר למדעי היהדות ע“ש חיים רוזנברג מפעלים‬- ‫אביב‬
.1983 ,‫אוניברסיטאיים להוצאה לאור בע“מ‬
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.
Hoffman (1999a)
-‫ דודזון‬:‫ תל אביב‬.129-32 ,‫ תהלים ב‬:‫“ עולם התנ“ך‬,‫ ”פרק קה‬.———
.1999 ,‫עתי‬
Hoffman (1999b)
-‫ דודזון‬:‫ תל אביב‬.132-35 ,‫ תהלים ב‬:‫“ עולם התנ“ך‬,‫ ”פרק קו‬.———
.1999 ,‫עתי‬
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.
Hurvitz (1972)
:‫ ירושלים‬.‫ לתולדות לשון המקרא בימי בית שני‬:‫ בין לשון ללשון‬.———
.1972 ,‫מוסד ביאליק‬
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
Priestly Source 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.
Jacobs (2006)
,‫ תבונות‬:‫ אלון שבות‬.‫ מידה כנגד מידה בסיפור המקראי‬.‫ יהונתן‬,‫יעקבס‬
.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.
Jenni (1997)
JENNI, ERNST. “‫עת‬.” In TLOT: Vol. 2, edited by ERNST JENNI and
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 Modern
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 Jeremiah 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.
Katzenelenbogen (1993)
‫ מוסד‬:‫ ירושלים‬.‫ תורת חיים‬,‫יתרו‬-‫ שמות‬:‫ספר שמות‬, ‫ מרדכי‬,‫קצנלנבוגן‬
.1993 ,‫קוק‬-‫רב‬
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 Apocrypha. 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 Palestine. 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 Guide 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.
Kutscher (1974)
.1974 ,‫הספר בע“מ‬-‫ קרית‬:‫ ירושלים‬.‫ מילים ותולדותיהן‬.‫ יחזקאל‬,‫קוטשר‬
Kutscher (1982)
———. A History of the Hebrew Language. 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: AbingdonCokesbury 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.
Licht (1973)
,‫ מאגנס‬:‫ ירושלים‬.‫ הניסיון במקרא וביהדות של הבית השני‬.‫ יעקב‬,‫ליכט‬
.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.
Loewenstamm (1976)
‫ מוסד‬:‫ ירושלים‬.437-41 ,‫ ז‬,‫ אנציקלופדיה מקראית‬,“‫ ”רשף‬.———
.1976 ,‫ביאליק‬
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 (1969)
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. Philadelphia: 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. Targum Neofiti 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
the Particle ‫ כי‬in the Old Testament.” HUCA 32 (1961):
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,
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.
Oesterley (1962)
OESTERLEY, WILLIAM O. E. The Psalms: Translated with TextCritical and Exegetical Notes. London: SPCK, 1962.
Palmoni (1976)
:‫ ירושלים‬.520-26 ,‫ א‬,‫“ אנציקלופדיה מקראית‬,‫ ”ארבה‬.‫ יעקב‬,‫פלמוני‬
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.
.1976 ,‫מוסד ביאליק‬
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,
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.
SHALOM. “Hosea 7:16: Gibberish Jabber.” 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 N. FREEDMAN and AVI HURVITZ, 707-12. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995.
Polzin (1976)
POLZIN, ROBERT. Late Biblical Hebrew: Towards an Historical
Typology 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.
Reiterer (2003)
REITERER, F. “‫פרק‬.” In TDOT: Vol. 12, edited by G. JOHANNES
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.
Ringgren (1990)
RINGGREN, HELMER. “‫ים‬.” In TDOT: Vol. 6, edited by G.
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.
Rofé (2004)
:‫ ירושלים‬.‫ מבוא לשירה המזמורית ולספרות החכמה שבמקרא‬.———
.2004 ,‫כרמל‬
Rom-Shiloni (2000)
‫ אמונות ודעות‬:‫ ”אלהים בעידן של חורבן וגלויות‬.‫ דלית‬,‫שילוני‬-‫רום‬
‫בספרות הנבואה ובשירה מן המחצית הראשונה של המאה‬
.2000 ,‫ האוניברסיטה העברית‬,‫“ עבודת דוקטור‬.‫השישית לפה”ס‬
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.
Saidel (1956)
:(1956) 19 ‫“ סיני‬.‫ ”מקבילות בין ספר ישעיה לספר תהלים‬.‫ משה‬,‫זיידל‬
.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.
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. “(Mis)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.
Seeligman (1996)
Collegeville,
.1996 ,‫ מאגנס‬:‫ ירושלים‬.‫ מחקרים בספרות המקרא‬.‫ יצחק א‬,‫זליגמן‬
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.
Shinan and Zakovitch (2004)
‫ ידיעות‬:‫ תל אביב‬.‫ לא כך כתוב בתנ“ך‬.‫ ויאיר זקוביץ‬,‫ אביגדור‬,‫שנאן‬
.2004 ,‫אחרונות וספרי חמד‬
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.
Spencer (1981)
SPENCER, AÍDA BESANÇON. “‫ שרירות‬as Self Reliance.” JBL 100,
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 Reargued.” 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. “Hallel.” 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 Masoretic
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
Book of Jonah, 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
God as Redeemer ‫ גואל‬of Israel.” 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 N.
FREEDMAN and AVI HURVITZ, 399-405. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1995.
van Leeuwen (1997)
VAN LEEUWEN, C. “‫עד‬.” In TLOT: Vol. 2, edited by ERNST JENNI
and
CLAUS
WESTERMANN,
838-46.
Peabody,
Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.
Vermes (1975)
VERMES, GEZA. Post-Biblical Jewish Studies. Edited by JACOB
NEUSNER. Vol. 8, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity.
Leiden: Brill, 1975.
Wagner (1960)
WAGNER, NORMAN E. “‫ רנה‬in the Psalter.” VT 10 (1960): 435-41.
Wagner (1975)
WAGNER, S. “‫בקש‬.” In TDOT: Vol. 2, edited by G. JOHANNES
BOTTERWECK, HELMER RINGGREN and HEINZ-JOSEPH
FABRY, 229-41. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1975.
Waltke (1990)
WALTKE, BRUCE K., and M. O’CONNOR. 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. Deuteronomy 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.
Weiss (1987)
:‫ ירושלים‬.‫ שיטת האינטרפרטאציה הכוליית‬:‫ המקרא כדמותו‬.———
.31987 ,‫מוסד ביאליק‬
Weiss (2001)
.2001 ,‫ מוסד ביאליק‬:‫ ירושלים‬.‫ אמונות ודעות במזמורי תהילים‬.———
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 Psalter.”
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.
Yaron (1997)
,‫“ עבודת דוקטור‬.‫ ”הנסים במקרא ובספרויות המזרח הקדום‬.‫ שלומית‬,‫ירון‬
.1997 ,‫אוניברסיטת חיפה‬
Young (1993)
YOUNG, IAN. Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew. Vol. 5,
Forschungen zum Alten Testament. Tübingen: J.C.B.
Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993.
Zakovitch (1977)
,‫“ עבודת דוקטור‬.‫ארבעה במקרא‬-‫ ”הדגם הספרותי שלושה‬.‫ יאיר‬,‫זקוביץ‬
.1977 ,‫האוניברסיטה העברית‬
Zakovitch (1987)
.1987 ,‫ משרד הביטחון‬:‫ תל אביב‬,‫ על תפיסת הנס במקרא‬.———
Zakovitch (1991)
———. And You Shall Tell Your Son: The Concept of the Exodus
in the Bible. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991.
Zakovitch (1992)
‫ רכס הוצאה לאור פרויקטים‬.‫מקראית‬-‫ מבוא לפרשנות פנים‬.———
.1992 ,‫חינוכיים בע“מ‬
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.
Zakovitch (1995b)
.1995 ,‫ הקיבוץ המאוחד‬:‫אביב‬-‫ תל‬.‫ מקראות בארץ המראות‬.———
Zakovitch (1997)
- ‫ תהלים עח‬:‫ויבחר בדוד עבדו‬...‫ ”ויבחר את שבט יהודה‬.———
,?‫ דוד מלך ישראל חי וקיים‬.“‫ משמעות ומגמה‬,‫ מבנה‬,‫מקורות‬
.1997 ,‫ סימור‬:‫ ירושלים‬.201-117
Zakovitch (1999)
‫משמעים‬-‫ על מבעים דו‬:‘‫ ”’אחת דבר אלהים שתיים זו שמעתי‬.———
.68-21 ,‫לזכרו של פרופ‘ מאיר וייס‬. “‫בסיפורת המקראית‬
.1999 ,‫ המכון למדעי היהדות‬:‫ירושלים‬
Zakovitch (2001)
.“‫ זכרון בצל הטראומה‬- ‫ תהילים קל“ז‬:‘‫ ”’על נהרות בבל‬.———
:‫ ירושלים‬.204-184, ‫ מחקרים בעולם המקרא‬:‫תשורה לשמואל‬
.2001 ,‫מוסד ביאליק‬
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.
Zobel (1990)
ZOBEL, HANS-JÜRGEN. “‫יעקב‬.” In TDOT Vol. 6, edited by G.
JOHANNES BOTTERWECK and HELMER RINGGREN, 185208. 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
‫מבוא‪1.................................................................................................‬‬
‫סקירת המחקר הקיי‪3.......................................................................................................‬‬
‫המחקר הספרותי‪3............................................................................................................‬‬
‫פרשנות פני‪#‬מקראית‪6....................................................................................................‬‬
‫המחקר הקאנוני‪8.............................................................................................................‬‬
‫מתודולוגיה‪10....................................................................................................................‬‬
‫ההיק ומבנה העבודה‪17......................................................................................................‬‬
‫ההיק&‪17.........................................................................................................................‬‬
‫מבנה העבודה‪18...............................................................................................................‬‬
‫פרק ‪ :1‬מזמור עח‪21................................................................................‬‬
‫מבנה המזמור‪21.................................................................................................................‬‬
‫קריאה צמודה‪24.................................................................................................................‬‬
‫מסר המזמור‪94..................................................................................................................‬‬
‫תיארו" המזמור‪96..............................................................................................................‬‬
‫מקורות המזמור‪98..............................................................................................................‬‬
‫תהלי( הבחירה‪100............................................................................................................‬‬
‫רמיזות‪101.........................................................................................................................‬‬
‫ההספקה במדבר‪101..........................................................................................................‬‬
‫שירת הי‪105...................................................................................................................‬‬
‫המכות‪107........................................................................................................................‬‬
‫סמיכות פרשיות‪110.............................................................................................................‬‬
‫מזמור עז—עח‪110............................................................................................................‬‬
‫מזמור עח—עט‪112...........................................................................................................‬‬
‫מזמור עז—עט‪113............................................................................................................‬‬
‫פרק ‪ :2‬מזמור קה‪115..............................................................................‬‬
‫מבנה המזמור‪115................................................................................................................‬‬
‫קריאה צמודה‪118...............................................................................................................‬‬
‫מסר המזמור‪156.................................................................................................................‬‬
‫תיארו" המזמור‪157.............................................................................................................‬‬
‫מקורות המזמור‪159.............................................................................................................‬‬
‫תהלי( הבחירה‪161............................................................................................................‬‬
‫רמיזות‪162.........................................................................................................................‬‬
‫ישראל במצרי‪162............................................................................................................‬‬
‫המכות‪163........................................................................................................................‬‬
‫הנדידה במדבר‪167............................................................................................................‬‬
‫סמיכות פרשיות‪170.............................................................................................................‬‬
‫מזמור קד—קה‪170...........................................................................................................‬‬
‫פרק ‪ :3‬מזמור קו‪173...............................................................................‬‬
‫מבנה המזמור‪173...............................................................................................................‬‬
‫קריאה צמודה‪177...............................................................................................................‬‬
‫מסר המזמור‪220.................................................................................................................‬‬
‫תיארו" המזמור‪221.............................................................................................................‬‬
‫מקורות המזמור‪223.............................................................................................................‬‬
‫תהלי( הבחירה‪225............................................................................................................‬‬
‫רמיזות‪226........................................................................................................................‬‬
‫השחרור ממצרי‪226.........................................................................................................‬‬
‫תאוות במדבר‪227..............................................................................................................‬‬
‫המרי של דת*‪229...............................................................................................................‬‬
‫דחיית האר המובטחת‪230.................................................................................................‬‬
‫עגל הזהב‪232....................................................................................................................‬‬
‫בעל פעור‪234.....................................................................................................................‬‬
‫מי מריבה‪236....................................................................................................................‬‬
‫סדר המקורות‪237.............................................................................................................‬‬
‫סמיכות פרשיות‪240.............................................................................................................‬‬
‫מזמור קה—קו‪240...........................................................................................................‬‬
‫מזמור קו—קז‪244............................................................................................................‬‬
‫מזמור קה—קז‪246...........................................................................................................‬‬
‫נספח ב'‪ :‬ספר משה‪248........................................................................................................‬‬
‫פרק ‪ :4‬מזמור קלה‪250............................................................................‬‬
‫מבנה המזמור‪250...............................................................................................................‬‬
‫קריאה צמודה‪252...............................................................................................................‬‬
‫מסר המזמור‪273.................................................................................................................‬‬
‫תיארו" המזמור‪274.............................................................................................................‬‬
‫מקורות המזמור‪276.............................................................................................................‬‬
‫תהלי( הבחירה‪277............................................................................................................‬‬
‫רמיזות‪278........................................................................................................................‬‬
‫בחירת ישראל‪278..............................................................................................................‬‬
‫המכות‪279........................................................................................................................‬‬
‫המלחמות בעוג וסיחו*‪280..................................................................................................‬‬
‫סמיכות פרשיות‪281............................................................................................................‬‬
‫מזמור קלד—קלה‪281.......................................................................................................‬‬
‫פרק ‪ :5‬מזמור קלו‪283.............................................................................‬‬
‫מבנה המזמור‪283...............................................................................................................‬‬
‫קריאה צמודה‪285...............................................................................................................‬‬
‫מסר המזמור‪301.................................................................................................................‬‬
‫תיארו" המזמור‪302.............................................................................................................‬‬
‫מקורות המזמור‪304.............................................................................................................‬‬
‫תהלי( הבחירה‪306............................................................................................................‬‬
‫רמיזות‪307........................................................................................................................‬‬
‫המלחמות בעוג וסיחו*‪307..................................................................................................‬‬
‫בקיעת י סו&‪308..............................................................................................................‬‬
‫יציאת מצרי‪309..............................................................................................................‬‬
‫סמיכות פרשיות‪310............................................................................................................‬‬
‫מזמור קלה—קלו‪310........................................................................................................‬‬
‫מזמור קלו—קלז‪311.........................................................................................................‬‬
‫מסקנות‪313..........................................................................................‬‬
‫מקורות המשוררי‪314........................................................................................................‬‬
‫מקורות מקראיי‪314........................................................................................................‬‬
‫הנחת המקורות‪315...........................................................................................................‬‬
‫עריכת המקורות‪316..........................................................................................................‬‬
‫היבטי פרשנות‪317..............................................................................................................‬‬
‫השמטת מידע שלילי‪318....................................................................................................‬‬
‫פיאור פעולות האל‪320.......................................................................................................‬‬
‫התייחסות לבעיות ספרותיות‪321........................................................................................‬‬
‫הוכחה לפעולות עורכי ספר תהילי‪322...............................................................................‬‬
‫המניעי לעריכת המזמורי‪323.........................................................................................‬‬
‫המשוררי ומסורת יציאת מצרי‪326.....................................................................................‬‬
‫הבנות משותפות של מסורת יציאת מצרי‪326.....................................................................‬‬
‫היחס בי* המשוררי לבי* אירועי יציאת מצרי‪326..............................................................‬‬
‫שימושי שוני למסורת יציאת מצרי‪327.........................................................................‬‬
‫יציאת מצרי כמוטיב דידקטי‪328......................................................................................‬‬
‫הקשרי שבה מסורת יציאת מצרי אינה מופיעה‪330........................................................‬‬
‫בי* יציאת מצרי לבריאת העול‪330..................................................................................‬‬
‫מסורות דחויות‪332...........................................................................................................‬‬
‫תרומות החיבור לחקר ספר תהילי‪335...................................................................................‬‬
‫נספח ‪—A‬מזמור עח‪338...........................................................................‬‬
‫נספח ‪—B‬מזמור קה‪341...........................................................................‬‬
‫נספח ‪—C‬מזמור קו‪345............................................................................‬‬
‫נספח ‪—D‬מזמור קלה‪345.........................................................................‬‬
‫נספח ‪—E‬מזמור קלו‪346..........................................................................‬‬
‫ביבליוגרפיה‪347.....................................................................................‬‬
‫תקציר‬
‫מבוא‬
‫מבט חטו& בספר תהילי מגלה שיש בו מזמורי רבי המספרי ומעצבי מחדש אירועי רבי חשיבות‬
‫שמקור בהיסטוריוגרפיה המקראית כגו*‪ :‬בריאת העול‪ ,‬הבטחה למלכות 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 שבי* ספר תהילי לבי* אירועי המופיעי במקרא‪,‬‬
‫א( רק מעטי בדקו באופ* מפורט את היחס שבי* המסורות המופיעות בספר תהילי לבי* המסורות‬
‫המצויות בספרי מקרא אחרי‪ .‬שאלות רבות בנוגע למזמורי י"מ נותרו ללא מענה‪ .‬כ( למשל נותרו בעינ*‬
‫השאלות‪ :‬באילו מקורות השתמשו המשוררי‪ ,‬הא ניתנה לה יד חופשית לעבד את מקורותיה ומה ה‬
‫הגורמי לעיבודי הללו? כמו כ*‪ ,‬מה היו הגורמי שהשפיעו על העורכי להציב את המזמורי זה לצד‬
‫זה? כדי לענות על השאלות האלה יתמודד המחקר הנוכחי ע השאלה הבסיסית 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 לענות 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 Criticism‬ופרשנות 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 תהילי היא של הרמ* גונקל )‪ .(Form Criticism‬גונקל שינה בתחילת‬
‫המאה העשרי את כיוו* המחקר בספר תהילי‪ .‬לאחר שייסד גונקל את גישתו‪ ,‬חוקרי 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 יותר לשיטת של מאיר וייס )האינטרפרטציה‬
‫הכוליית ‪ (Total Interpretation #‬וג'יימס מאילנבורג )‪ .(Rhetorical Criticism‬הגישות הללו מעניקות‬
‫כבוד למשמעותו ומטרתו של המזמור כולו‪ .‬בנוס& לכ( ה* מנסות לקבוע 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.‬‬
‫שתי גישות מקובלות כיו ביחס למחקר הקאנוני בספר תהילי‪ .‬הגישה הראשונה מאמצת מבט רחב על‬
‫עיצוב ספר תהילי‪ .‬מבט זה משתק& בגילוי המסר של ספר תהילי כולו‪ ,‬ובשאלת העריכה של קבצי‬
‫המזמורי לש עיצוב מסר תיאולוגי לספר‪ .‬גישה זו מצויה אצל ג'ראלד ווילסו*‪ ,‬אשר הגיע למסקנה שספר‬
‫תהילי נער( כתגובה לגלות כדי להתמודד ע ִקצה 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 השנייה ומנסה באמצעות ניתוח חמישה מזמורי נבחרי‬
‫א‬
‫תקציר‬
‫לעמוד על הסיבות והגורמי שהובילו להצבת של המזמורי דווקא במיקומ הנוכחי‪ .‬בשאלה זו ייבח*‬
‫בייחוד העיקרו* האסוציאטיבי בסידור של מזמורי תהילי ‪ #‬עיקרו* המצוי במחקר של פרנ דליטש‬
‫ומשה 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
‫הנבחרי‪.‬‬
‫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 בכוונה את משמעות‬
‫מקורותיה כדי להתאי את מסורת העבר למשמעות של המזמורי‪ .‬המחקר הנוכחי יצביע אפוא על כ(‬
‫שבמזמורי הנידוני ישנה פרשנות פני‪#‬מקראית ושמשוררי המזמורי ועורכי ספר תהילי ה מ*‬
‫הפרשני הישראלי הקדומי ביותר‪.‬‬
‫המחקר הנוכחי בנוי מכמה שלבי‪ .‬השלב הראשו* הוא קריאה צמודה של כל אחד מ* המזמורי שנבחרו‪.‬‬
‫בתחילה ייקבע מבנה המזמור‪ .‬לאחר 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 הוא לפני גלות בבל‪ ,‬במש( הגלות או לאחר הגלות‪ .‬האמצעי‬
‫העיקריי שבאמצעות 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 שבה 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, D‬וזאת על פי ההנחה של תורת התעודות )‪ .(Documentary Hypothesis‬בשלב‬
‫זה יתייחס המחקר אל עניי* הסלקציה‪ ,‬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 לגלות את הדרכי השונות שבה* התאימו משוררי המזמורי את‬
‫המשמעויות 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 המשותפי 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 לשבט אפרי המסמל את מלכות