We are blessed to have Dr. Robert Cole (Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible and Semitic languages at SEBTS) as a guest contributor today at Considering the Canon. He has recently completed his sabbatical and has submitted a report on the Psalter to the faculty. We are very fortunate to have an abbreviated portion of his report. Thank you, Dr. Cole!  –Jonathan Catanzaro

An Abbreviated Form of the Sabbatical Report for the year 2008-2009 Used with permission of Bob Cole

Introducing the Introduction of the Psalter

… I spent the sabbatical working on an analysis of Pss 1-2, including a history of their interpretation, a detailed rhetorical-critical analysis of each psalm individually, and their relationship with each other.  This resulted in a clearer picture of the role the first two psalms play as an introduction to the entire Psalter.

A preliminary sounding of the immediately following Ps 3 was undertaken in order to understand the effect of the previous introduction on its meaning as well as all subsequent psalms.  In sum, the first two psalms have been thoroughly integrated so as to portray an eschatological, militant, and impeccably pious divine messiah.  Entirely separate in his conduct from the wicked he also becomes the victim of their plot to kill him.  In response to their plans he is installed as king in the heavenly sanctuary with authority to destroy his enemies, while at the same time those who trust in him become partakers of the blessings and privileges granted to him.  The subsequent Ps 3 can be shown to be a more detailed discussion of the murderous plot against him in Ps 2:2, and surprisingly, his triumph out of the death which he suffers.  But that death and resurrection described in Ps 3 has already been referenced in the previous Ps 2.

A detailed examination of the Hebrew text of Psalms 1-3 that considers seriously not only the textual warp and woof of individual poems, but also its canonical sequence, uncovers a meaning that surprisingly enough, is close to that of the NT writers. The latter were apparently more careful and accurate readers of the OT than the bulk of modern commentators.  The “Christology,” (in spite of the anachronism inherent in that characterization) of Pss 1-2 is as high as that of any NT text.

Samples of the abundant evidence within and between these two psalms will illustrate the genius of the writer(s).  The term “blessings” of Ps 1:1 is a Hebrew form that is reversed in the term “wicked” of the same verse so that the semantic contrast is supported at the level of phonology.  A repeated principle found in these two psalms is that consonance often highlights a semantic contrast.

A sharp contrast is also drawn between the “council” of the wicked in v. 1 and the “congregation” of the righteous in v.5, again through consonance.  The four consonant sequence in each phrase is identical except for the third consonant (sadhe versus daleth), including the initial beth preposition.  So again phonology highlights a semantic contrast.  The same could be said for the two prepositional phrases “in the seat of…” of v. 1 and “in the judgment” of v. 5.

In Ps 2:3 is found the rebellious declaration of the nations using the terms “their bonds” and “let us cast off,” that resonate phonetically with the warning in v. 10 to “be wise” and “be disciplined.”  Thus the poet has signalled that the divine warning is a direct and pointed response to their quoted recalcitrance.

In Ps 2:12 the use of the Aramaic term bar instead of the usual Hebrew ben can also be explained on phonological grounds, as can the initial verb of Ps 2:1 commonly rendered “rage” or “rebel.”  The command to “kiss the bar (son)” is accompanied by the threat of being smashed by the rod of barzel, (iron) in v. 9.  Again, consonance gives more bite to the threat.  In addition, the sequence beth, resh seen in this aramaism repeats the same in the prepositional phrases “with fear” and “with trembling” of v. 11.  The latter are found in the first two imperatival clauses of v. 11, to which “kiss the son” is the final in the series (v. 12a).  The commanded fear and trembling are required of these rulers in order to avoid the anger (v.12bff) and weapon (rod of iron-v. 9) wielded by the son of God.  In a further example of consonance supporting and giving force to the message, the “burning” of his anger in v. 12 also repeats the sequence beth resh seen previously.  So the same consonantal sequence is repeated from v. 9 through 12 and each time it reinforces the threat to those insubordinate rulers and kings. Such linguistic and compositional evidence has been completely ignored by most modern commentators who regularly emend this Aramaic form for “son” in v. 12a.

Supporting the deliberate use of an Aramaism in v. 12 is another, being the initial verb of Ps 2 mentioned above, to “rage,” “rebel,” or preferably “conspire.”  Its use as a verbal form appears again only in the Aramaic portions of the book of Daniel (6:7, 12, 16). Thus to find such a form in Ps 2:12 should not be surprising.   Many believe as well that the opening verb of Ps 2:9 is from the Aramaic root r‘‘, and indeed the masoretic vocalization supports such a reading.   So bar in v. 12 would be one of three Aramaisms in Ps 2, undercutting any argument for its secondary nature.

The Aramaic verb rgš of v. 1 also functions phonologically, not only within the bicolon of Ps 2:1, but also in a linking function to the final clause of Ps 1:6.   Psalm ends promising the eternal destruction of the wicked-rš‘(ym), a root that repeats two out of the three from the Aramaic verbal root rgš.  In addition, the third consonants gimel and ‘ayin of each root are presumably velar and pharyngeal respectively, whose pronunciation was similar enough for the Greek translators to render עזה as Γαζα. The effect of this consonance at the border of the two psalms is to confirm what is evident otherwise, that the wicked of Ps 1 are the recalcitrant nations and their rulers of Ps 2.  These way of these wicked in Ps 1:6 will be eternal destruction (cf. Ps 92:8-10), precisely the fate of the rulers warned in 2:12.  Thus both psalms conclude with identical phraseology (אבד דרך) revealing that the wicked are more specifically defined as rebellious rulers and nations.  Their shortcoming in Ps 2 is defined as failure to serve YHWH and trust in and submit to his designated divine anointed king.

The divine nature of this king can be shown from Ps 2 itself and from the juxtaposition of Pss 1 and 2. Within Ps 2 itself the divine anger of v. 5 is identical in form to that of the son in v. 12.  Clearly the wrath of the one sitting on the heavenly throne is the same wrath attributed to the son in v. 12.

But this can be shown as well by the overt ties between Ps 1:1 and 2:4.  The intended linking of these two texts is demonstrable at multiple levels; lexical, semantic, phonological and thematic.  Use of the Hebrew root yšb (“to sit”), twice in 1:1 and once again in 2:4, is another of various lexical links between the two psalms that represent signposts to their reading and purpose.  As with the root hgh in 1:2 and 2:1, this repetition points to information supplied in the second regarding either the wicked or the blessed man which is lacking in the first.  So we read in 1:1 where the blessed man does not sit and 1:2 supplies the object of his meditation.  Psalm 2:1 will inform the reader of the meditation of the blessed man’s opposites, the wicked, and 2:4 the place of this man’s session.

It is this final link that is often ignored by scholars, perhaps due to its interpretive implications, but the tie is so obvious when listing lexical parallels that it cannot be overlooked.  The repetition of the root yšb (ישב) is accompanied by phonological resonance between the prepositional phrases in both 1:1-“in the seat of,” (במושב) and 2:4-“in the heavens” (בשמים).  The consonants are identical but in different sequence.  The idea of laughter and derision is present in both texts.  Clearly 2:4 is laughter directed at the immediately previous rebellion of vv. 1-3, but now becomes a reaction to the scorn in 1:2 as well.  However, the scorners are part of the sinner and wicked group of 1:1 which as shown above are specified as the unruly kings of Ps 2.  There is further consonantal resonance between the terms “…scorners… not” of 1:1 (לצים לא) and “he derides them” (ילעג למו) of 2:4, confirming the intended correspondence between them.  The man of Ps 1’s session is now identified as heavenly and in response to their scorn he laughs and derides them.  Indeed, he who laughs last,laughs best!  Furthermore, the intertextual connection between Ps 2:4 and 110:1 confirms the heavenly session of a very human figure, identified as Adonay in the former.

Respectfully submitted,

R. Cole