Philip Sumpter, «The Coherence of Psalms 15–24», Vol. 94 (2013) 186-209
This article develops recent arguments that Psalms 15–24 constitute a relatively self-contained sub-collection that is chiastically arranged. It seeks to uncover the logic underlying the arrangement by attending to three points: 1) the manner in which the content of each psalm is 'expanded' and 'brought forward' in its chiastic parallel; 2) the nature of the relation between the framing psalms (15; 19; 24) and those that intervene; 3) the significance of David and Zion. In short, it argues that the editors were concerned to situate David within his true theological context.
190 PHILIP SUMPTER
ner that I can more or less endorse what has been achieved and take
this achievement as a starting point for my own refinements. Some
of the points I take issue with may be briefly summarized as fol-
lows. A number of Auffret’s verbal and thematic patterns are too
tendentious. For example, his thesis that the theme of Ps 19,1-7 is
mirrored in Psalms 20–24 whereas the legal motif of Ps 19,8-12 is
found in Psalms 15–18 (creating an A.b.a’.B pattern) does not work
for Psalms 18 and 23, which are in the wrong place. Auffret is forced
to speak of a “tendency†only. Furthermore, his thesis that Psalms
24,1-2 / 3-6 recapitulates the themes of Psalm 19 (creation/Torah)
whereas vv. 7-10 recapitulate scattered references to YHWH’s inter-
vention throughout the rest of the psalms is awkward, for his pattern
mixes different “levels†of the text (prosodic units; scattered verses).
Hossfeld and Zenger’s interpretation is inhibited by their commit-
ment to a particular theory of identity construction as the primary
force at work in all religious movements and thus, by extension,
amongst the group responsible for Psalms 15–24. This leads to a
one-sided interpretation of the framing questions posed in Pss 15,1
and 24,3. Taken in their plain sense, these verses do not function to
delineate an Israelite sub-group 14; they function to delineate the iden-
tity of those who may enter YHWH’s presence. The thrust is theocen-
tric and not anthropocentric; the concern is with the shape of God’s
ways and will. Their redactional hypothesis suffers the weaknesses
inherent in all analyses of this kind 15. Miller’s so-called “structure
of prayer†is not as clean as one would wish, for its first half (Psalms
16–18) is not strictly mirrored in its parallel (Psalms 20–23). Fur-
thermore, his emphasis on law and kingship does not pick up on the
themes of creation and temple and the more eschatological perspec-
tive these themes might imply. Finally, for Miller as well as for Hoss-
feld and Zenger, their over-democratization of the king does not do
justice to his redemptive function vis-à -vis Israel (cf. Psalms 20–21
and indeed Psalm 2, pace Miller). I feel that Brown exercises too
much freedom in reshaping the plain sense imagery of the psalms.
As I will argue below, it is unlikely that this corresponds to the ap-
proach of the editors. Furthermore, it is unjustified to ascribe so much
Cf. “Psalmengruppe 15–24â€, 168
14
See M. MILLARD, “Von der Psalmenexegese zur Psalterexegese: An-
15
merkungen zum Neuansatz von Frank-Lothar Hossfeld und Erich Zengerâ€,
Biblical Interpretation 4 (1996) 311-327.
© Gregorian Biblical Press 2013 - Tutti i diritti riservati