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.
of their volume, they suggest that Ps 100 may have had a definite influence on the psalmist who wrote Ps 95.
Thus far, we have considered the relationship between the texts, i.e., what exists that is similar between the texts. And as seen above, there are words and phrases from the first four verses of Ps 100 that appear in Ps 95. But perhaps equally important is what is not found in Ps 95. Other than yk and hwhy, there are no words from the last verse of Ps 100 that appear in Ps 95. In 100,5, the psalmist proclaims
For the Lord is good,
his steadfast love endures forever,
and his faithfulness to all generations.
Throughout Ps 95, the word ‘good’ (bw+) does not appear, and there is no mention of the steadfast love (dsx) of YHWH, or of his faithfulness (hnwm)). And certainly there is no mention that these qualities will carry on ‘forever’ or from ‘generation to generation’. When Ps 95 and Ps 100 are placed side by side, one cannot help but notice a conspicuous absence of any reference to 100,5. I would contend that the psalmist intentionally omitted any reference to 100,5 due to the two influences that impinge on the intertextual process: namely the social context and the community hermeneutic. Because of the exile and the theological conundrum which it produced, the psalmist felt he could no longer make such absolute statements as the psalmist in Ps 100 once did. The community could no longer see itself as immune to the threats of foreign powers and domination simply because ‘the Lord is good’. The social context of the community, and the threats present in the homeland, along with the new community hermeneutic necessitated that the psalmist move from a general call to worship to the more pressing message found in the second half of the psalm.
Psalm 95 and Deuteronomic Influences
Whereas the first portion of the psalm seems to have been constructed with a single text in mind, Ps 100, the second half of the psalm is less text specific19. The Meribah-Massah tradition dominates the latter section of Ps 95. But as will be noted below, the appropriation of this tradition is done so explicitly within the Deuteronomic tradition.
The distinction between the first portion of the psalm and the second has generated considerable discussion20. Beginning in the second half of verse 7, the psalm abruptly changes both thematically and grammatically. The thematic changes will be addressed below. The grammatical changes, though, are clearly evident. In vv. 1, 2, 6 and 7 almost all of the verbs appear in the first person and the first person pronominal suffix appears repeatedly (vv. 1, 6 and 7). Yet, beginning in v. 7b, there is a noticeable shift to the second person, including an imperative in the first line of v. 8. These features in the psalm led