W. Dennis Tucker, «Psalm 95: Text, Context, and Intertext», Vol. 81 (2000) 533-541
In a previous issue of Biblica (76 [1995] 540-550)
W.H. Schniedewind argued that Ps 100 had a major influence on the psalmist who
wrote Ps 95. In this study, I argue for a diachronic approach to
intertextuality, which examines both the literary and the social environment. I
contend that the two together actually create an intertextual hermeneutic which
allows the psalmist to incorporate previous traditions and texts in such a way
as to address changing social and religious demands.
Based on citation, allusion and
reversal, I contend that the
psalmist of Ps 95 did in fact incorporate element of Ps 100, but in addition,
the psalmist added the Massah-Meribah tradition, while adding a deuteronomic slant
to the psalms. The use of the Massah-Meribah tradition along the
deuteronomic influences, created a psalm that would have been particularly
appropriate for a community still reeling from the devastation of exile.
In considering the relationship between the two psalms, Schniedewind limits his comments, stating that ‘in both psalms then we have a recognition of Yahweh as the true God and Israel as his people’15. While this is not incorrect, such a statement fails to indicate the degree of interplay that exists between the two texts. There are three concepts that dominate these verses, and together they reinforce the notion that Ps 95 and Ps 100 stand in dialogue.
God is proclaimed as Maker — in 100,3 the root h#( appears in verbal form, while in 95,6, it appears in the nominative form. With the reference to ‘his pasture’ (wty(rm) in both psalms, God is depicted as a shepherd. And in both psalms the people are referred to as sheep (N)c). There are several texts that mention God as both the creator and shepherd (Isa 43,1, 15; Deut 32,6). In addition, Ps 79,13 and Ezek 34,31 use the same vocabulary to speak about pastures and sheep16. But Ps 95 and 100 are the only places in the Hebrew Bible where these three concepts converge, using terminology that explicitly refers to God as Maker and Shepherd, and to his people as sheep17.
In addition to these verses, there are other similarities between the two psalms that should be considered. The examples listed below alone could not justify calling the relationship between Ps 95 and Ps 100 an intertextual relationship, but taken together, especially with the evidence in 95,6b-7a and 100,3, they lend credence to the possibility. In one of his tests for intertextuality, Richard B. Hays contends that ‘volume’ must be considered. According to Hays, ‘volume’ ‘is determined primarily by the degree of explicit repetition of words or syntactical patterns’18. The texts mentioned above and below suggest that there is a relatively high degree of ‘explicit repetition of words or syntactical patterns’.
In 100,1, the psalmist commands, ‘Make a joyful noise’ ((wr) and in 95,1.2b, the psalmist echoes similar sentiments, but this time in cohortative fashion, ‘Let us make a joyful noise’ ((wr). In both psalms, )wb is used in the imperative (95,6; 100,2.4). In addition, both psalms contain forms of the word Nnr. In 95,1, it appears in a verbal form, while in 100,2, it appears in the nominative form. In 95,2 and 100,2, the psalmists mention ‘his presence’ (wynp). Further similarities are found in 95,2 and 100,4, where the term hdwt appears. Again, none of these examples alone make the case that Ps 95 stands in an intertextual relationship with Ps 100, but taken together, and in consideration
FOLLOW US