As a set of commentaries, how would you rate the Anchor Yale Bible set to the Hermeneia / Continental collection? If you could only afford one, which would you choose?
Michael,
As a set, the AYB is better... hands down. Hermeneia is often SO technical that it misses the forest for the trees (in addition, many of its conclusions are suspect). The AYB has many exceptional volumes, such as: Leviticus, 1 & 2 Samuel, Proverbs, Jeremiah, Jonah, Luke, John, James, Hebrews, & the revised Revelation. Though I come from a Reformed tradition, I REALLY like anything by Fitzmyer & Koester- their exegetical insights are often top notch! The setup of the AYB is very user friendly- a brief introduction to the pericope, the author's translation, detailed notes (word studies/ background info./ textual issues/ etc.), and a comment section that explains the significance. I've prioritized it in this way: NICOT/NT, AYB, ICC, BECNT, PNTC, WBC, NIGTC. So, basically... I think you'll enjoy it!
Yes Hermeneia is technical but I often find anchor next to useless and in Hermeneia you do need to be a strong swimmer to get the most out of it but there is so much there i know my one former pastor called Hermeneia indispensable giving her enough to start a dozen sermons on. We are all very different. I know that Psalms are for example lauded by some in Anchor i find them lacking for me... I give you psalm 60 in all three (since continental has volumes too. Please note in Hermeneia I did not attempt to include the for plates of illustration.
PSALM 60
(60:1–14) 1 For the director; according to “Lilies.” A solemn commandment. 2 A miktam of David, to be taught; when he strove with Aram-Naharaim and with Aram-Zobah, and Joab returned and smote of Edom in the Valley of Salt twelve thousand. 3 O God, you were angry with us, and you ran from us; You were wrathful, you turned away from us. 4 You shook the land,[2]* and it went to pieces; Weak from its fractures, much did it totter. 5 You made your people drain the cup,[3] you made us drink a wine that dazed us. 6 To those who fear you, give a banner[4] to which to rally against the bowmen.Selah 7 That your beloved may be delivered,[5] give us victory with your right hand, and grant us triumph! 8 God spoke from his sanctuary:[6] “Exultant, I will make Shechem my portion, and measure off the Valley of Succoth. 9 Gilead is mine, and Manasseh is mine;[7] Ephraim is my helmet, Judah my commander’s staff. 10 Moab is my washbasin,[8] upon Edom will I plant my sandal, over Philistia will be my cry of conquest.” 11 Who will bring me the Rock City?[9] Who will offer me Edom’s throne? 12 But you, O God—will you be angry with us,[10] and go forth no more, O God, with our armies? 13 Grant us liberation from the adversary,[11] since the aid of man is futile. 14 With God we’ll achieve victory,[12] he himself will trample on our adversaries.
NOTES
60. Like Ps 44, this is a national lament in which the community, probably in the person of the king (cf. vss. 7, 9), prays for deliverance from its adversaries. To place the psalm historically with any degree of certainty is beyond the reach of present scholarship, but the superscription, language, and contents permit a tentative dating in the Davidic period. If, however, vs. 7 yedīdekā, “your beloved,” alludes to King Solomon, who was also named yedīdyāh (2 Sam 12:25), the psalm would belong to the Solomonic period.The lament presents a rather curious structure. Verses 3–5 describe a shattering national defeat that is likened to a cosmic catastrophe. A prayer for liberation is the burden of vss. 6–7, while vss. 8–10, consisting of 3+3+3 tricola—all other verses are 3+3 bicola—transmit the oracle that answers the prayer of the preceding two verses. The final verses (11–14) are a prayer for victory.Verses 7–14 recur, with minor variations, in Ps 108:7–14.1. Lilies. A musical term of uncertain meaning recurring in Pss 45:1, and 69:1.A solemn commandment … to be taught. With ʿēdūt … lelammēd might be compared royal Ps 132:12, berītī weʿēdōtī zō ʾalammedēm, “My covenant and my solemn commandment which I shall teach them.” For this definition of ʿēdūt, see R. de Vaux in Mélanges Eugène Tisserant, I (Vatican City, 1964), p. 127.2. miktam. Consult NOTE on Ps 56:1.when he strove.… Cf. 2 Sam 8:2, 3, 13; 1 Chron 18:2, 3, 12, which narrate that David (with Joab commanding the army) slew eighteen thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt, near the Dead Sea. But the connection between the superscription and the contents of the psalm is obscure on a number of points, such as the mention of Aram-Naharaim, an area of northern Mesopotamia important as the home of the Hebrew patriarchs, in the superscription but not in text of the psalm.3. you were angry with us. The writer’s hesitation in accepting the definition of zānaḥ, “to be angry,” in Ps 44:10 (Psalms I, p. 266) stemmed from insufficiently clear parallelism, but here the balance with ʾānaptā, “You were wrathful,” permits no indecisiveness. However, I would dissent from R. Yaron in VT 13 (1963), 238, who terms the present usage “transitive”; the suffix of zānaḥtānī is not accusative, but dative (Psalms I, p. 326). Yaron arrived at his definition of zānaḥ, usually rendered “to reject,” through Akk. zenû, “to be angry,” but it may be of historical interest to cite the nineteenth-century observation of E. F. C. Rosenmüller, Scholia in Vetus Testamentum in compendium redacta (Lipsiae, 1831), III, p. 377: “Verbum znḥ proprie rancidum esse, hinc, ad animum translatum, significat iram, indignationem, odium, praesertim grave, diuturnum, et inveteratum” [“The verb znḥ, properly to be rancid, whence transferred to the mind, signifies wrath, indignation, hatred, that is especially serious, lasting, and deep-seated”].and you ran from us. If strict parallelism marks the members of this verse, consonantal prṣtnw should express something akin to “You turned away from us.” Hence I would break down prṣtnw into the conjunction pe, “and” (Psalms I, pp. 307 f.), raṣtā from rwṣ, “to run,” predicated of God in Ps 40:14, and the dative suffix -nū (see preceding NOTE). Compare Jer 10:20, bānay yeṣāʾūnī, “My sons have issued from me,” and Ps 73:27, reḥēqekā, “those who go far from you.” Hence when God is angry, he is pictured as going far from his people. This gives rise to the prayer šūbēnū, “Return to us!,” recited to appease the wrathful deity; cf. Ps 85:5–6.You were wrathful. Being a denominative verb from ʾap, “nostril, wrath,” ʾānaptā belongs to that growing list of Northwest Semitic verbs derived from names of the parts of the body; cf. the NOTE on Ps 73:6 and Psalms I, pp. 84, 118, 164.you turned away from us. The construction tešōbēb lānū finds an apt illustration in UT, 2 Aqht:VI:42, ṯb ly, “Turn away from me,” as correctly translated by W. F. Albright in BASOR 94 (1944), 34, n. 22, who compares ṯb ly with Heb. šūb mimmennī. For other instances of le, “from,” cf. Psalms I, p. 321; UHP, p. 29. and Biblica 47 (1966), 406, while the intransitive use of polel šōbēb can be seen in Jer 8:5, “Why does this people turn away (šōbebāh)?”4. the land. Palestine is intended, since the next verse mentions “your people.”and it went to pieces. MT peṣamtāh is a hapax legomenon of uncertain meaning. The consonants pṣmth are capable of another analysis: conjunction pe, “and” (see second NOTE on vs. 3), followed by ṣūmetāh, third person feminine singular, qal passive, of ṣāmat, “to destroy, annihilate,” Ugar. ṣmt//mḫṣ. One may also vocalize ṣāmattāh, “you destroyed her.”Weak. Traditionally explained as an alternate spelling of imperative repāʾ, “Heal!,” consonantal rph becomes syntactically viable when vocalized as the feminine adjective rāpāh (MT repāh), modified by the accusative of instrumentality šebārehā; see the next NOTE.from its fractures. Parsing šebārehā as instrumental accusative, and for the thought comparing UT, ʿnt:III:30, bʿdn ksl tṯbr, “Behind, her loins do break.” The vocable šebārehā, collocated with rāpāh, is significantly telltale: the motif delineated in vs. 4 is that of a person—here Palestine personified—collapsing or going to pieces on receiving bad news. By abandoning his people during a battle, God was considered responsible for Palestine’s debilitation when the nation learned of the military rout. This motif has been touched upon in Psalms I, p. 281. To the bibliography given there may be added D. R. Hillers, “A Convention in Hebrew Literature: The Reaction to Bad News,” in ZAW 77 (1965), 86–90, where the four essential elements are examined. Of the key words that figure in this motif, four appear in our verse: hirʿaštāh, “you shook,” rāpāh, “weak,” šebārehā, “her fractures,” and māṭāh, “did it totter.”much did it totter. Explaining kī as emphatic with the resulting postposition of the verb; Psalms I, p. 301, and below on Pss 89:2–3, 90:4.5. You made your people drain. Vocalizing hōrēʾtāh (MT hirʾītāh) and deriving the verb from yrʾ II, “to drink deeply,” studied in Psalms I, p. 206.the cup. Namely, the cup of divine wrath; cf. Ps 75:9, where māṣāh, “to drain,” is used of the chalice prepared by God, and Isa 51:17–18, which describes Jerusalem’s condition as the result of imbibing divine indignation.MT qāšāh is parsed as the accusative of qāš, “cup,” found in UT, ʿnt:V:41–42, klnyy qšh nbln klnyy nbl ksh, “All of us carry his cup, all of us carry his chalice.” The apparent synonymy here with ks, “chalice,” and the parallelism with yayin, “wine,” in the psalm adequately indicate the sense of biblical qāšāh. It is evidently related to Heb. qaśwāh, “jar,” Ar. qašwatu, “basket.” This uncommon poetic word forms a wordplay with immediately following hišqītānū, “You made us drink.” In laments such play on words is, paradoxically, quite common; e.g., Pss 5:10, 7:16, 44:19, 56:9, 69:30, 74:19, 80:10, 86:1, 88:10, 16, 18, 137:5; Lam 1:16. In this practice the biblical poets are maintaining a Canaanite tradition of the Late Bronze Age (1500–1200 B.C.); see NOTE on “my lament,” Ps 56:9, and W. L. Holladay, VT 20 (1970), 156.that dazed us. In view of the Hebrew personal name reʿēlāyāh, it seems probable that the root of tarʿēlāh, “reeling, dazed condition,” is represented in the incomplete Ugaritic personal name rʿl [ ], whose missing element is a divine name such as il or bʿl.6. give. Parsing nātattāh as precative perfect, with full writing of the final syllable, commented upon in Psalms I, p. 26. Cf. Ps 4:8, nātattāh, “Put!”a banner. MT nēs is preferable to the reading nūs, “refuge,” adopted by some scholars. The several striking verbal similarities between our psalm and Ps 20 permit one to argue that MT nēs, “banner,” supports the rendition of Ps 20:6, nedaggēl, “We hold high the banners” (Psalms I, p. 128).bowmen. Explaining qōšeṭ as an abstract form, “archery,” here understood concretely, whose final ṭ resulted from the partial assimilation to emphatic qoph. No longer is it necessary to resort to Aramaic influence for an explanation of the form, since partial assimilation is already witnessed in UT, 1005:4; 1010:14, ṣṭq (=ṣdq) šlm; UT, § 5.24.7. your beloved. Probably the king; cf. the introductory NOTE. The plural form yedīdekā would be a plural of majesty, similar to plural ʿabādekā, “your servant,” a reference to the king in Ps 89:51.give us victory. For this nuance of hōšīʿāh, whose object suffix is forthcoming from parallel and synonymous ʿanēnū (cf. Psalms I, pp. 17 f.), see Psalms I, p. 128.with your right hand. As in Pss 18:36, 138:7, yemīnekā is an accusative of means.grant us triumph. Consult Psalms I, pp. 116, 128, on ʿnw, “to triumph.” The Ketib reads ʿanēnū, but the Qere has ʿanēnī, “grant me triumph,” whose singular suffix could well accord with “your beloved” understood of the king.8. God spoke. These words introduce the oracle given in reply to the community’s supplication. A priest or prophet has received divine assurance that God is still the master of nations and will intervene on Israel’s behalf; cf. Psalms I, p. 128, on Ps 20:7.from his sanctuary. As in Pss 20:3 (cf. first NOTE on Ps 53:7), 63:3, 68:25, 134:2, 150:1, qōdeš refers to the heavenly sanctuary, while the phrase dibber beqodšō is syntactically similar to Ps 99:7, beʿammūd ʿānān yedabbēr, “He spoke from the pillar of the cloud.” Other examples of be, “from,” are given in Psalms I, p. 319. RSV renders our phrase, “God has spoken in his sanctuary,” with the appended note, “Or by his holiness:” Neither alternative seems correct. The Grail Psalms, A New Translation (see Psalms I, p. 16), has grasped the true force of the preposition, rendering: “From his holy place God has made this promise.” In UT, ʿnt:III:27, qdš doubtless refers to Baal’s heavenly sanctuary.Exultant, I will make Shechem my portion. A case of hendiadys, the text literally reading, “I will exult and I will make Shechem my portion.”Shechem. A city in central Palestine, belonging to the tribe of Ephraim.Valley of Succoth. In central Transjordan, in the territory of the tribe of Gad. Nelson Glueck (Explorations in Eastern Palestine [New Haven, 1951], IV, p. 308 and Fig. 101) proposed to identify biblical Succoth with Deir ʿAlla in the Jordan Valley, but recent excavations at this site have led the excavator, H. J. Franken, to query this identification, without, however, wishing to deny categorically such an equation.9. Gilead … Manasseh … Ephraim … Judah. All Hebrew territories or parts of the Hebrew empire under the United Monarchy.10. Moab. A kingdom east of the Dead Sea, in what is now Jordan. Moab, Edom, and Philistia were also attached to the United Monarchy, either as provinces or as vassal states. The whole list thus gives a fairly good impression of the United Monarchy, though no rapport can now plausibly be established between the objects listed and the various nations.my washbasin. Fine specimens of footbaths were discovered during the excavations of Samaria in central Palestine and have been published by J. W. Crowfoot, The Objects from Samaria. Samaria-Sebaste (London, 1957), Pl. xvii 16, Fig. 29, and p. 187, for discussion.Edom. A traditional enemy of Israel, occupying the region between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba.will I plant. Deriving ʾašlīk from šlk II, “to nourish, support, rest,” discussed in the first NOTE on Ps 55:23. The oracle pictures God, the conquering warrior, resting his foot on the neck of Edom’s king as a sign of vanquishment. Psalms I, p. 116, discusses this motif in connection with Ps 18:41. Though it related ʾašlīk to šlk I, “to cast,” the Targ. took the phrase as referring to the custom of placing the foot on the neck of the vanquished. Hence the widely held interpretation of the phrase in a juridical sense (with the usual citation of Ruth 4:7—most recently by G. M. Tucker in CBQ 28 [1966], 44) may have to go by the board.my sandal. Among the products of the artisan-god Kothar’s skill that are listed in UT, 51:I:26–44, figure nʿl il (line 37), “El’s sandals,” and during the twenty-third archaeological campaign at Ras Shamra (1960) was found a bronze statue of El, whose open sandals were overlaid with gold. Cf. Schaeffer in AfO 20 (1963), 206–7, Fig. 21.over. Reading ʿalē (MT ʿālay), as in geminate phrase of Ps 108:10.my cry of conquest. Parsing hitrōʿāʿī as hithpoel infinitive construct, followed by the first person singular suffix. The doublet in Ps 108:10 reads the finite verb ʾetrōʿāʿ, “I give a cry of conquest.”11. Who will bring me. That is, as tribute. The speaker here is probably the king. M. Bogaert in Biblica 45 (1964), 236 f., has explained the suffix of yōbīlēnī as datival, precisely as in UT, 51:V:93–94, tblk ǵrm mid ksp, “The mountains will bring you much silver.”Rock City. Another name for Petra (“rock”), the famous capital of the Nabataeans. Whether ṣōr is identical with biblical Sela because of the identical meaning of the names is still disputed. With Hummel in JBL 76 (1957), 97; P. J. Calderone in Biblica 42 (1961), 431, and Bogaert in Biblica 45 (1964), 237, I read ʿīr-m (mem enclitic) ṣor for MT ʿīr māṣōr. Cf. J. Starcky, Pétra et la Nabatène, in Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible, ed. by H. Cazelles and A. Feuillet, Fasc. 39 (Paris, 1964), cols. 886–1017.will offer me. There is no need to read imperfect yanḥēnī as suggested by BH3 and BHS because given the frequent yqtl // qtl sequence, perfect nāḥanī makes an unexceptionable sequent to imperfect yōbīlēnī, “will bring me.” See the second NOTE on Ps 108:11. Should yanḥēnī prove to be the preferred reading, it would still be unnecessary to assume the haplography of a yod. There is ample evidence that when the same consonant ended one word and began the next, it was written but once; it was a consonant shared by two words. Cf. Wilfred Watson, “Shared Consonants in Northwest Semitic,” Biblica 50 (1969), 525–33.Edom’s throne. Identifying ʿad (pointing uncertain) with Ugar. ʿd in UT, 127:22–24, yṯb krt lʿdh yṯb lksi mlk lnḫt lkḥṯ drkt, “Kirta sits upon his seat, he sits upon his royal throne, upon the peaceful bench of his authority.” Other biblical texts with ʿd, “seat, chair,” number Pss 89:30, 38, 93:5 (see J. D. Shenkel in Biblica 46 [1965], 404–9), 94:15, 110:1; Isa 47:7, 57:15; Jer 22:30; Zeph 3:8. Consult M. Dahood in Sacra Pagina, eds. J. Coppens et al. (Paris-Gembloux, 1959), I, pp. 276–78; Biblica 44 (1963), 300, n. 3; UHP, p. 67; Georg Sauer, Die Sprüche Agurs (Stuttgart, 1963), p. 36, n. 3.12. But you. Parsing halōʾ as the interjection “Behold!” discussed in the second NOTE on Ps 54:2, not as the interrogative particle.be angry with us. Understanding the suffix of zānaḥtānū as the dative of disadvantage; cf. first NOTE on vs. 3.13. liberation from the adversary. See the NOTE on Ps 108:13 for the explanation of ʿezrat miṣṣār, rendered “help against the adversary” in earlier printings.14. will trample on our adversaries. Cf. Pss 44:6 and 110:5, “The Lord at your right hand will smite kings on the day of his wrath.”
Mitchell Dahood S.J., Psalms II: 51-100: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, vol. 17, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 75–82.
__________________________________________________________________
Psalm 60
The Word of Yahweh as Help in Severe Oppression
LiteratureS. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien III: Kultprophetie und Kultprophetische Psalmen (1923). C. R. North, אעלזה אחלקה שׁכם, VT 17 (1967) 242–243. F. C. Fensham, “Ugaritic and the Translator of the Old Testament,” The Bible Translator 18 (1967) 71–74. Z. Weisman, “ ‘אעלזה’ לפישרה של,” Bet Miqra‘ 13, 3 (1968) 49–52. J. Jeremias, Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkündigung in der späten Königszeit Israels, WMANT 35 (1970) 149.
Text To the choirmaster. According to “Lily” (?). A testimony. A miktam. Of David. For Instruction. When he foughta with Aram-naharaim and Aram-zobah; when Joab turned back and defeated Edom in the Valley of Salt—twelve thousand men. 60:1 ‘O Yahweh,’b you have rejected, broken us, you have been angry with us—oh, restore us! 2 You have shaken and rent the earth;c heal its clefts, for it is staggering! 3 You let your people sufferd cruel things, you gave us intoxicating wine to drink. 4 ‘Set up’e a signf for those who fear you that they may be able to flee from the bow. Selah. 5 So that your loved ones may be saved, help with your right hand! Hear us! 6 ‘Yahweh’g has spoken in his sanctuary: “I will triumph,h will divide up Shechem, will partition the Valley of Succoth! 7 Gilead belongs to me, so does Manasseh! Ephraim is the protection of my head, Judah my scepter! 8 Moab’s ‘sea’i is my washbasin! On Edom I throw my shoe! ‘Over’j the land of the Philistines ‘I will shout in exultation’!” 9 Who will bring me to the fortified city, who will ‘escort me’k to Edom? 10 ‘O Yahweh,’l did you not reject us, and did you not fail to take the field ‘ ’m with our armies? 11 Grant us a rescue from our enemy,n for vain is human help! 12 With God we will accomplish deeds of valor; it is he who treads down our oppressors.
FormThe metrical relationships in Psalm 60 provide valuable information about the form and arrangement of the song. The double triple meter is to be found in vv. 1–5* and 9–12*, while the middle section (vv. 6–8*) presents a meter of three parts (3+3+3). This observation immediately leads over to the declaration of the type. In vv. 1–5* the dominant element of the whole psalm clearly becomes conspicuous: the prayer song of the community. Cf. Psalms 1–59, pp. 50f. This prayer song of the community is continued in vv. 9–12*—where we must notice that in v. 9* an individual’s voice takes the floor. Clearly spoken by God, vv. 6–8* form a contrast to the framework of the prayer song. These verses cannot be understood without the assumption of a cultic-prophetic act (S. Mowinckel, J. Jeremias). In the sequence “lament—oracle—lament” H. Gunkel sees the progression of a liturgy. But a more careful way would be to speak of a combination of individual pieces of a cultic sequence which in its details and its progression is no longer discernible. But these considerations already lead over to the questions about determining the place and situation of the present psalm.
SettingPrayer songs of the community are generally presented at a large cultic ceremonial of lamentation (H. Gunkel and J. Begrich, EinlPs §4). S. Mowinckel thinks of a “day of repentance after a defeat” (PsStud III 68). The lamenting and praying congregation expects an “oracle as an answer to prayer.” It pleads: עֲנֵנוּ (v. 5b*). Such an “oracle as an answer to prayer” is expressed in vv. 6–8*. But the question is whether in Psalm 60 the quoted word of God reports an actual message or whether this is a reference to an older oracle of God in the sanctuary tradition. The form of the introduction in v. 6aα* and thoughts about the historical setting of the psalm (see below) make it seem possible that vv. 6–8* contain an older oracle with which the people in their present oppression are being comforted and encouraged. When this hypothesis is suggested, however, immediately there is the question about a more detailed description of this “present situation” on the basis of which the prayer of the community is to be understood. For a long time it was thought that events at the time of the Maccabees were reflected in Psalm 60 (Hitzig, Olshausen, Wellhausen, Duhm, Buhl, Staerk). But this historic assessment has its origin in a prejudice concerning the genesis of the psalms generally. In the more recent commentaries various possible assessments are considered that most often point to preexilic times.In the first place we should ask who that individual is who in v. 9* separates himself from the lamenting congregation. Is he a king or a general who wants to undertake a military campaign against Edom? In that case we could take as a basis, e.g., the events of the war described in 2 Kings 8:21ff*. But the campaign of Joram against Edom has no relation at all to the catastrophe described in vv. 1–3*. Also, vv. 6–8* presuppose that the territories of Northern Israel are in foreign hands (see below, “Commentary”). Thus the terminus a quo in any case is to be retained as the year of the fall of the Northern Kingdom (722 B.C.E.).It would be best to begin with the description of vv. 1–3*, which perhaps alludes to the fall of Judah (587 B.C.E.). In this connection we could possibly understand the flight of one group (4b*) and the question of an individual about safe conduct into the territory of Edom (v. 9*). After the collapse of the Southern Kingdom, the inhabitants of Judah fled not only to Egypt but also, among other places, to Edom (Obad. 14*; Jer. 40:11*; M. Noth, History of Israel [1958] 293). If we place Psalm 60 into the situation of this flight (v. 4b* would especially support this idea), then of course v. 12* would become questionable. This verse announces the accomplishment of victorious exploits. So we could ask: is v. 12* only a traditional formulation, or do vv. 9–12* provide a view that looks back to prophetic predictions that announced the defeat of Edom (cf., e.g., Amos 9:12*; but especially Ps. 60:8*)? But all explanations and considerations of a historical situation on which the psalm might be based must be handled with great restraint, for the cultic relations of a psalm can be transposed to the history of Israel only with considerable difficulty and with daring hypotheses. A prayer song and a cultic-prophetic transmission of the word of God permit us to consider a cultic “Sitz im Leben.” J. Jeremias understands Psalm 60 to be a “liturgy of lament” in which “cultic-prophetic words of peoples” were spoken (149). Psalm 83 is compared with Psalm 60. The mention of many peoples could explain the series of speeches of the nations in the canonical prophets (J. Jeremias). But also the cultic explanation can only be an attempt to get at the very difficult problems of the psalm.
Commentary[Title] On לִמנצח, cf. Psalms 1–59, pp. 29–30 (no. 17). On שׁוּשַׁן, cf. ibid., the comments on Ps. 45, title*. On עֵדוּת, cf. ibid., p. 30 (no. 21). On מִכְתָּם, cf. ibid., pp. 24f. (no. 4). On לדוד, cf. ibid., pp. 22–23 (no. 2). The (secondary) reference to the setting, which connects Psalm 60 with the events from the time of David, appeals to 2 Samuel 8; 10:13*, 18*; but it is inaccurate in its representation (2 Sam. 8:13* speaks of 18,000 men). On the localization of the “Valley of Salt,” cf. M. Noth, “Der alttestamentliche Name der Siedlung auf chirbet ḳumran,” Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde I (1971) 343.
[60:1–5*] The lamenting community is sure that it has been rejected and forsaken by Yahweh (cf. Pss. 44:9ff.*; 74:1*). In wrath God has made a ruinous breach (for the meaning of פרץ, cf. Judg. 21:15*; 2 Sam. 5:20*). From the depths of lamentation the community pleads for restoration. In v. 2* the catastrophe is projected into cosmic proportions. The misfortune is like an earthquake by which the world is shaken and torn open. The picture is taken from Syria and Palestine, which are again and again visited by serious earthquakes. The earth shakes. With the annihilation of the people of God the world’s foundations have been touched. The congregation now prays that Yahweh may heal the earth’s wounds by restoring his people. The lament in v. 3* holds up before the eyes of Yahweh the awful experience of a historical catastrophe: a cruel hardship (קשׁה) the community suffered, “intoxicating wine” it had to drink (cf. Ps. 75:8*)—the fate of destruction was predicted for it. Now the survivors are waiting for a signal to flee (v. 4*; cf. Jer. 4:6*); they plead for Yahweh’s powerful and saving intervention (v. 5*). The lamenting and petitioning people call themselves יראיך and ידידיך; they think of themselves as people for whom Yahweh is a living reality; they know that even in judgment he loves them. With the plea that they be heard (עננו) the lament and prayer suddenly come to a halt. In vv. 6–8* the divine answer follows.
[60:6–8*] The introductory formula יהוה דבר בקדשׁו introduces the “oracle of salvation” conveyed by a priest or a cultic prophet (cf. J. Begrich, “Das priesterliche Heilsorakel,” ZAW 52 [1934] 81–92). In the sanctuary the divine answer is taken up by the mediating spokespersons (on vv. 6–8*, cf. the parallel transmission in Ps. 108:6–13*). But what does the passage say? Yahweh triumphs like a victor who has won huge territories and now distributes them as booty (v. 6*) or proclaims his right of possession (vv. 7–8*). Shechem, that old center (Tell Balāta) of Northern Israel, is assigned anew “as a share”—and that to God’s people Israel. The presupposition is that the areas of Northern Israel named in vv. 6–7* (in the year 722 B.C.E.) fell into foreign hands (cf. 2 Kings 17:24*; Jer. 49:1*). Newly assigned (for distribution) is also the “Valley of Succoth”—the area that stretches from ed-Dāmje to Tell Deir Alla (Succoth). “Shechem” and the “Valley of Succoth” are hardly mentioned for the given reason but as parts for the whole. In v. 8* Yahweh’s overarching right of ownership is proclaimed. “Gilead” and “Manasseh” east of the Jordan belong to Yahweh—and not to the foreign powers that have settled there. “Ephraim”—here probably the general term for Northern Israel—is Yahweh’s helmet; Judah his scepter (cf. Gen. 49:10*). In vv. 6–7* it is therefore stated that the old order of ownership and dignity, as it continues from of old, has not been abolished. Canaan is Yahweh’s country; the area of the settlement of Northern Israel, which is in foreign hands, is Yahweh’s property. Ephraim has not been rejected—it belongs to Yahweh, who is here represented as a warrior, as his helmet. And the prerogative of Judah remains (corresponding to Gen. 49:10*).But not only the old order of the people of God is renewed through the utterance of God (vv. 6–7*); also the fallen vassal states Edom, Moab, and Philistia belong to the jurisdiction of Yahweh (cf. Isa. 11:13ff.*; Amos 9:12*; Zeph. 2:4ff.*; Zech. 9:7*). In an exaggerated picture “Moab’s Sea,” the Dead Sea, is called Yahweh’s washbasin (for the form of the washbasin, cf. K. Galling, BRL 81). “Throwing the shoe” is a symbolic expression for taking possession (cf. J. Pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten [1914] 53 A. 1; H. Gunkel, Reden und Aufsätze [1913] 81, on Judg. 4:7*). For the geography: M. Noth, “Das Land Gilead in der Vorstellungswelt der Israeliten,” Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde (1971) 389. On the parallelism of v. 8* to Joel 3:4*, cf. A. S. Kapelrud, Joel-Studien (1918) 152.
We must be careful to note that the assertions of the divine oracle of salvation belong to a characteristic complex of tradition. The old orders of salvation of the people of God—the ownership of land, the Northern Kingdom’s belonging to greater Israel, the prerogatives of Judah—all these are considered inviolable. Even in moments of great revolutionary catastrophes this old order of salvation is proclaimed anew. Even though Northern Israel is full of foreign powers, the land belongs to Yahweh. And the old vassal states Edom, Moab, and Philistia also are included in this order of salvation. There can be no doubt even for a moment that the salvation theology of the Davidic sanctuary is here involved (cf. v. 6*). Ancient Israelite conceptions that have to do with land distribution (v. 6*) and bestowal of salvation in holy war (vv. 6f.*) have been combined with this theology of the royal sanctuary in Jerusalem. The divine oracle therefore unquestionably comes from the circle of the שׁלום-prophetic tradition of Jerusalem, which had cultic roots; through all catastrophes and disturbances it recalled the old order of salvation and in doing so appealed to the “word of Yahweh.” We probably must assume that the oracle in vv. 6–8*, a transmitted word of God, was actualized in the situation perceivable—but hardly interpretable with certainty—in vv. 1–5* and 9–12*. The possibility that this actualization took place at the time of Josiah is not out of the question (cf. M. Noth, History of Israel [1958] 273f.).
[60:9–12*] In v. 9* an individual speaker asks who is escorting him to Edom. If in v. 9a* we follow the parallel transmission of the divine oracle in Ps. 108:6–13*, the עיר מכצר (Ps. 108:10*) could be an allusion to the Edomite city of Bozrah. Does the speaker want to flee to Edom (thus v. 4b*), or does he, with a bold step into the future, announce the subjugation of that former vassal state? The text that now follows would speak for the latter conception. For in v. 10* a counter-question, as it were, is expressed. Would the conquest of Edom by Yahweh expressed in v. 8* really be possible in the catastrophe of the present (described in detail in vv. 1–3*)? Is it not rather the case that the people of God have been “rejected”? Has not Yahweh in most recent times left the armies of his people in the lurch? Therefore, how—so v. 9* would have to be interpreted—could a victorious military campaign be undertaken against Edom now, just now? There is therefore some doubt about the actualizing of the word of God transmitted in vv. 6–8*. But instead of doubt we immediately have a petition for Yahweh’s helpful intervention—and a solemn affirmation that all human help is worthless. Here thoughts of the basic order of holy war awaken (cf. G. von Rad, Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel, ATANT 20 [1951] 82). Also in v. 12*, in the avowal of Yahweh’s support in battle, thoughts of the old institution of holy war are expressed (cf. Ps. 44:5*). On עשׂה חיל, cf. Ps. 118:15f.*; Num. 24:18*.
Purpose and ThrustIn its essential assertions, the psalm reveals three peculiar views: (1) The fact that the people of God broke down in a catastrophe of war is not only deplored as a “rejection” in vv. 1ff.*, but this misfortune is seen as tantamount to a cosmic catastrophe; the very foundations of the earth have been moved. No doubt an incomparable certainty of election is here expressed. (2) In such an hour of most profound temptation, the old inviolable orders of salvation are recalled (vv. 6–8*) for the lamenting and praying community. We could ask what the relation is between these assurances of salvation and the prophecies of judgment of the OT. Does this not favor an incalculable hardening? But in the consideration of this question, restraint is certainly in order, for concerning the historical connections we can scarcely say anything that is sure. The important fact that remains is that Yahweh’s word of salvation, based on old foundations, is presented anew to the troubled congregation as valid and inviolable. (3) Worth noting in vv. 9–12* is the revelation of the relation of the congregation to the word of Yahweh transmitted to it. Although the present situation provides every reason for mistrust and doubt, the congregation manages to rise to prayer (v. 11*) and confession (v. 12*). It trusts the sole efficacy of its God. In these kerygmatic intentions the ecclesiological meaning of the song fades away.
Hans-Joachim Kraus, A Continental Commentary: Psalms 60–150 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), 1–6.
Hem will follow as it seems too large a message.
Hope this was helpful both a good... but i find Hem/Con better myself over all.
-dan
Bibliography
Emmendörffer, Ferne Gott, 162–73.Ulrich Kellermann, “Erwägungen zum historischen Ort von Psalm LX,” VT 28 (1978) 56–65.Ernst Axel Knauf, “Psalm LX und Psalm CVIII,” VT 50 (2000) 55–65.Graham S. Ogden, “Psalm 60: Its Rhetoric, Form and Function,” JSOT 31 (1985) 83–94.
Translation
1 For the music master. According to the method/melody“Lotus Blossom.” A Testimony. A miktam. Of David. For instruction.2 When he went to war with Aram–naharaim and Aram–zobah, and when Joab on his return crushed Edom, killing twelve thousand men in the Valley of Salt.
3 O God, you have rejected us, you have broken us,you have been angry—turn again to us.a4 You have shaken the land, you have split it open—healb the cracks in it, for it is tottering.5 You have made your people see hardship,you have made us drink the wine of staggering.6 Givec a sign to those who fear you,that they may find refuge from the bow. Selah7 So that your beloved may be rescued/freed,save us with your right handd and answer us.e8 God has spoken in his sanctuary:f“I will exult, I will divide Shechem,and I will apportion the Valley of Succoth.9 Gilead is mine and Manasseh is mine,Ephraim is the protection for my head,Judah is my scepter.10 Moab is my washbowl,on Edom I will hurl my shoe,Philistia, exult over me.”g
11 Who will/can bring me to the fortified city?Who will/can lead/guide me to Edom?h12 Is it not you, O God, who has rejected us,and you who do not go out, O God, with our armies?i13 O grant us your help against the attacker,jfor human help/rescue is vain.14 With God we will do mighty deed(s),and he will tread down our attackers.
Analysis
Psalm 60 is a “political” psalm. As such it presents numerous problems to the interpreter, both from a historical and from a theological point of view. These can be given only a brief discussion here.
GenreThis psalm has the most extensive superscription in the book of Psalms (vv. 1–2*). The psalm “proper” that follows (vv. 3–14*) appears at first glance to be a community lament, shaped strongly both in its complaint and in its petitionary elements by the situation and imagery of war, or more especially of defeat in war. It is true that the reproachful questions typical of such national psalms of lament (“why” and “how long”) are missing, and there is no developed description of the crisis. Instead, at least at the beginning of the psalm the description of the situation remains rather general. This seems to change from v. 11* onward, to the extent that here the Edomites appear as the enemy, but here too the concrete circumstances are not immediately evident. In particular, the quotation of direct divine discourse in vv. 8–10* deviates from the usual schema of a community psalm of lament.1 This divine speech, on the one hand, integrates the imagery of the divine warrior who takes the land he has captured as his kingdom and intends to divide it and deliver it to his “people” well within the overall scope of the psalm. On the other hand, it makes no direct reference to the laments and petitions that surround it. Not even the community reciting the national lament or their authoritative speaker appear in the divine oracle; it is also distinguished by its three–colon structure from the sections in vv. 3–7* and 11–14*, which are bicola.
Specific ProfileThe divine oracle at the center gives the psalm its specific profile. The two sections of lament and petition (vv. 3–7*, 11–14*) hang on this central section, which depicts YHWH as a gigantic king victorious over the territory of the “Davidic” kingdom, as if it were a central column. The poetic charm and theological brilliance of this psalm exist in the contrastive tension between the appearance of YHWH as the victorious conqueror presented in vv. 8–10* and the appearance of YHWH lamented in vv. 3–7* and 11–14*, as a warrior fighting against his own people, laying waste his land, and not standing at the side of his people when they defend themselves against their enemies. It is these elements that give the psalm its enduring significance beyond the historical situation in which it originated.
Historical BackgroundThe psalm reflects the drama through which Israel, in the midst of the nations surrounding it, learned that YHWH had chosen it as “his people” (cf. v. 5*) and promised it his special protection, even, and especially, against the neighboring peoples. The military and political conflicts in which Israel was involved therefore always had for this people a theological dimension. This was also, or especially, true of conflicts with its “brother nation,” the Edomites. “Edom” in the exilic and postexilic periods was increasingly regarded as the prototype of the hostile neighbor and ultimately (especially in the rabbinic period) even as the prototype of hostile power as such, against which one called down God’s “righteous” judgment. This “negative cliché” of Edom fed on a variety of conflicts with the Edomites since the time of David; it was intensified by the negative experiences of the Judeans in the period when Nebuchadnezzar attacked them and finally, in cooperation with the Edomites, conquered Jerusalem in 586. This “fraternal conflict” extending over centuries not only shaped the Jacob–Esau narratives in Genesis (Esau appears there as the “tribal ancestor” of the Edomites), but was also recorded in intensely anti–Edomite texts in the prophets.2 The origins of Psalm 60 belong in this same context. Most interpreters of the psalm accept that the “fraternal conflict” between Judah/Israel and Edom was the occasion or background for Psalm 60.
DateOpinions differ, however, concerning the concrete anchoring of the psalm in particular historical circumstances. The views of scholars, quite different though they are in detail, can be summarized under two categories. Some tend to link Psalm 60 with as great a degree of precision as possible to a particular constellation of historical circumstances; others attempt to take a more general approach and locate the psalm more in terms of its epoch.Earlier positions located the psalm in the time of David, in that of King Joram, or as late as the time of the Maccabees.3 More recent datings of Psalm 60, however, for the most part center on the period between 600 and 586 B.C.E. Their starting point is the conflict visible in vv. 11–14* between Judah and Edom, which Judah could not bring to a favorable conclusion. It interpreted this defeat as “rejection” by its God (cf. v. 12*) and at the same time set this situation in a broader context of misfortune (cf. esp. vv. 3–5*). The conflict presupposed in vv. 11–14* is, of course, treated differently by different interpreters:Origin between 600 and 598? Ernst A. Knauf connects the origin of the psalm with King Jehoiakim (609–598 B.C.E.), who after the defeat suffered by the Neo–Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar in 601 on the Egyptian frontier thought that he could renounce his loyalty to Babylon (cf. 2 Kgs 24:1–2*). He set out to extend the territory of his kingdom to correspond to that of the “old” promises of the land, and for this purpose he asked for a divine oracle in the Temple (cf. Ps 60:8–10*). Thus “between 600 and 598 a Judahite campaign was launched into the Edomite heartland that, as v. 12* suggests, was shattered at the very outset.”4The psalm as a whole locates this disaster within the shifting story of the state of Judah after 609, which can be very briefly summarized as follows: 609, defeat and death of Josiah at the hands of Pharaoh Neco, and the end of the dreams of Judah’s playing a role in power politics, but also disappointment at the failure of this “reforming king” (cf. the elements of his reform program oriented to the “great commandment” recognizable in Deuteronomy); the result was a period of rapidly changing domination by various powers over Judah, with corresponding political upheavals (609–605: Egyptian dominance; 604–601: Neo–Babylonian dominance). In 600 King Jehoiakim renounced his vassalage to Babylon; the neighboring “minor states” of Edom and Moab did not take the same step and remained allied with Babylon, which sharpened the conflict between Judah and Edom. Psalm 60, according to Knauf’s reading, reflects the history of those turbulent times: the psalm can be read “as an integral text composed in Jerusalem between 600 and 598 (vv. 11–14*) and looking back to the events of the years 609–601 (vv. 3–7*) and the decision [by King Jehoiakim—E.Z.] in 601/600 to resume Josiah’s policies of expansion (vv. 8–10*). In the superscription in v. 1*, Psalm LX is described as a poem ‘for instruction’; but what does it teach? Trust in God when human means and ways fail? Or more subtly: that anyone who enters on a task because of a divine oracle nevertheless does so at his own accounting and risk? The Greeks told a similar tale of their Pythians.”5Origins around 587/586? Ulrich Kellermann connects the origins of Psalm 60 immediately with the siege and conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, with the cooperation of Edom, or Edomite troops, in 587/586 B.C.E. He interprets the psalm as the formula for a liturgy of lament in light of this threatening situation. From his point of view vv. 3–7* reflect the advance of the Babylonian army against Jerusalem, with Jerusalem being presented in vv. 6–7* as a place of refuge for the inhabitants of the villages and countryside. While vv. 8–10*, which have the form of a victory song, are intended to awaken hope that YHWH—despite all appearances—will come as a royal warrior not only to rescue the city of Zion but, starting from there, to reconquer the lost land for his people, vv. 11–14* plead that YHWH will at the same time impose on Edom the just military punishment for their ruptured loyalty, since they at first stood on the side of Judah, as Zedekiah’s allies, and then went over to the side of the Babylonians. According to Kellermann, Psalm 60 gives a very precise picture of “the historical situation shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. We get an insight into a community lament like that presumed also in Jer XXXVI 9*. In Ps LX this betrays an outspoken anti–Edomite sentiment based on Edom’s previous betrayal.”6Did the different parts of the psalm originate in different situations? Seybold insists (rightly) that these interpretations are incorrect, pointing to the differences in the situations of crisis and conflict that are evident in vv. 3–6* and vv. 11–13*. While vv. 11–13* are clearly shaped by the conflict between Judah and Edom, the critical situation lamented in vv. 3–6* is much broader and more fundamental. The two sections, according to Seybold, therefore come from different time periods. The conflict with Edom complained of in vv. 11–12* reflects the military clashes around 600 B.C.E., when the Edomites attacked and destroyed the garrisons Judah had established on its southeastern frontier with Edom (archaeological basis: the destruction of the fortress Horvat ʿUza) in order to expand its own territory. Psalm 60:11–13*, 7–10*, 14* (in that order) was the prayer spoken by the king of Judah before setting out on a campaign against the Edomites to recover the lost territory. In vv. 11–13* he interprets the defeats already suffered at the hands of the Edomites as YHWH’s turning away while at the same time confessing his trust in YHWH’s power, recapitulates the divine oracle stemming from the time of Josiah (vv. 8–10*), and concludes with v. 14* as a kind of war slogan. This late preexilic royal prayer imploring YHWH’s help in the face of enemy threats then received the generalizing lament and petition in vv. 3–6*, during the exilic period, as its prelude. At the same time the sequence of the “royal prayer” was changed into the form we now have. In this way the exilic lament composition in vv. 3–14* was produced as a “document of unfulfilled expectations, but also of unsurrendered hopes.”7Postexilic origins? Besides these interpretations, which associate the origins of the psalm with a particular and specific conflict between Judah and Edom, there is another line of interpretation that attempts to understand the psalm more directly from the general “enemy threat” expressed in vv. 3–7*, interpreting the tension between Judah and Edom as a paradigmatic and parabolic concretization. “Edom” is here, then, rather the prototype of the foreign powers that threaten and oppress the people of God, and the psalm calls down punishment on “Edom” both as the beginning of the punishment of the enemies of Israel that will lead to Israel’s rescue and as the beginning of the accomplishment of YHWH’s universal reign. The most prominent representative of this tendency in interpretation is Alfons Deissler. According to him the psalm belongs “to the time when people looked back in sorrow to the catastrophe of 586 and saw Edom, which had taken control of the southern realm of Judah, as a ‘thorn in the flesh’ and as representative of the foreign powers. The oracle, with its apocalyptic coloring, is not to be dated earlier than the psalm; it most probably imitates the promise in Isa 11:13–14*, with the direction that it be used as a prophetic promise at the place of worship. Behind Psalm 60 stands the postexilic expectation of the reconstitution of the Davidic kingdom and the conquest of all enemies.”8
Structure
The following observations suggest that the psalm “proper” is divided into three sections (vv. 3–7*, 8–10*, 11–14*):1. Verses 3–7* are a continuing series of interwoven laments and petitions with which a “we” appeals to “you,” God, who is called upon in the vocative at the beginning of the section. This section concludes with the imperative petition to God for an answer. From a compositional point of view the following section, with its direct divine discourse, constitutes the requested answer.2. The section beginning with v. 8*, whose new beginning is marked by the shift in the direction of address and the subject “God” (אלהים), pointedly placed first in the verse, is from several perspectives clearly set apart both from vv. 3–7* and from vv. 11–14*. The divine speech has no immediately obvious semantic reference to vv. 3–7*, nor does it have any addressees. To the extent that it announces a future action of God it can, of course, be regarded as an answer to the laments and petitions in vv. 3–7*, but the dimensions of restoration of the people, healing of the land/earth, and rescue of God’s beloved, clearly envisaged in vv. 3–7*, are not addressed in vv. 8–10* in such a way that vv. 8–10* can be seen as having originally continued vv. 3–7*. Some authors assign v. 11* to vv. 8–10*, because of the “I” discourse that v. 11* has in common with vv. 8–10*, and interpret v. 11* also as divine speech.9 Against this delimitation is first of all the poetic structure: while vv. 8–10* reveal a tricolon structure throughout, v. 11* has a bicolon structure. However, content arguments also suggest the idea that v. 11* begins a new section, separate from vv. 8–10*. It would not fit well with the activity of YHWH so emphatically described in vv. 8–10* if YHWH then in v. 11* were to ask for guidance (from whom?). Likewise, the close connection between vv. 11* and 12* as question and answer (v. 12*: rhetorical question as answer) supports the definition advocated by most interpreters, of vv. 11–14* as the third part of the psalm. It does take up in v. 11* the view of Edom introduced in the divine speech in v. 10*, but with such a different perspective on the events that vv. 11–14* do not appear to have been originally a continuation of vv. 8–10*.3. The section in vv. 11–14* is most clearly shaped by the perspective of a military conflict. It begins as an individual lament or individual petition and then, from v. 12* onward, shifts to a “we” perspective that is maintained to the conclusion in v. 14*. For the most part this speaking “I” is connected to the role of the king as leader of the army going to war (cf. v. 12*). This section, which on the one hand reveals, like vv. 3–7*, an interweaving of lament and petition and on the other hand ends in v. 14* with a confession of confidence oriented to the future, at the same time is distinguished from vv. 3–7* in that here—besides the action of God that is implored—Israel’s aggressive initiative enters the picture.Imitation of a liturgical pattern. The three sections of the psalm (vv. 3–7*, 8–10*, 11–14*) can certainly be understood as the staging or imitation of the pattern of a liturgy. The laments and petitions presented before God in vv. 3–7* are followed in vv. 8–10* by a response in direct divine speech (oracle). This in turn is followed not by praise of God or thanksgiving for the oracle given, but by another petition to God, strengthened by questions (vv. 11–12*), begging that God will act according to his oracle. Only at v. 14*, which by its “with God” (i.e., “with this God”) explicitly points back to the oracle in vv. 8–10*, does the decisive shift in perspective occur, giving this “psalm liturgy” a hopeful conclusion. Of course we should not overlook the fact that even v. 14* does not encompass the comprehensive dimensions of God’s saving action that are envisaged in vv. 3–7*.
Our Hypothesis of OriginsThe different profiles of the three sections in vv. 3–7*, 8–10*, and 11–14* that we have sketched make it rather improbable that the psalm originated as a unit. Since none of the three sections can be imagined as an originally independent psalm, the following hypothesis of an origin of the psalm in two phases (cf., similarly, Seybold) suggests itself:Primary psalm (vv. 8–14*). The primary form of the psalm is to be found in vv. 8–14*. This is a prayer of petition, probably composed for liturgical recitation, with which the king of Jerusalem prays for divine help in connection with a campaign against the Edomites. The authors of this royal prayer in vv. 8–10* had recourse to an existing oracle.10 It was probably well known because of its use in the Jerusalem liturgy.11 They then added the petition related to the immediate situation, with a concluding confession of confidence, in vv. 11–14*. It is really not possible to give a precise date for this royal prayer. Since the oracle in vv. 8–10* most likely comes from the time of King Josiah,12 the psalm most probably originated in the late preexilic period between Josiah and the conquest of Jerusalem in 587/586. Incidentally, Psalm 110 shows that a psalm can begin with the quotation of a divine oracle.Final version. The late preexilic royal prayer was expanded into a community liturgy of lament by the addition, at the beginning, of vv. 3–7*; this liturgy is much more comprehensive both in its lament and in its petition than was the royal prayer (see above). Since vv. 3–7* lack the reproachful questions (“why?” “for what purpose?” “how long?”) that are characteristic of the (early) exilic psalms of lament, and since no specific reference to the destruction of the Temple or Jerusalem is discernible, this expansion of the psalm, and with it the present “final form,” may come from an (early) postexilic period. This new lament composition not only endows the structural elements of the royal prayer with a new theological horizon, but is now, in its three–part sequence, a petitionary prayer suited to a variety of crisis situations:1. The oracle in vv. 8–10* is given a much clearer future dimension. While its realization is still to come, v. 7* makes it a divine answer to the lament–petitions that are presented in each case. This removes from the oracle the odium that YHWH has not fulfilled his promises (e.g., under Josiah, or in the conflict with the Edomites in the late preexilic period).2. This futurizing of vv. 8–10* also eschatologizes vv. 11–14*. The petition once applied to an individual historical conflict can, indeed must, now be understood within the wider context of the eschatological anti–Edom texts, which for their own part correspond to the perspective of restitutio in integrum that is projected in vv. 3–7* of this psalm.
Exposition
■ 1–2* The superscription, vv. 1–2*, is unusually complex. It
refers in the first instance to the victorious wars of David recounted in 2 Sam 8:1–14*/1 Chr 18:1–13*. In particular two common features may have led to the literary collation of Psalm 60 with 2 Sam 8:1–14*. The three non–Israelite lands/regions named in the psalm (Moab, Edom, and Philistia: Ps 60:10*, with Edom again in v. 11*) are never mentioned together elsewhere in the Psalter except in the parallel 108:7–14*, and all three nations are found as well in the 2 Sam 8:1–14* passage: Moab in 2 Sam 8:2* bis, 12; Edom in 2 Sam 8:14* ter, the Philistines (instead of Philistia) in 2 Sam 8:1* bis, 12. Moreover, there is a key–word correspondence in the verb מדד Piel, “measure” (Ps 60:8*; 2 Sam 8:2* bis; only in these places and in Ps 108:8* as well as Job 7:4* in the Piel). … The narratives in whose context Psalm 60 is to be read, according to its superscription, report David’s, or Israel’s victories. But in the body of the psalm a lament over abandonment by God and a resulting defeat dominates; that defeat is so horrendous that it takes on positively cosmic dimensions (cf. Ps 60:4*). Only the divine oracle of salvation in Ps 60:8–11* speaks of future victories, described exclusively as victories of God. Thus on the whole the situation described in the psalm’s superscription does not appear to fit the corpus.13
There is a solution to this apparent contradiction if one considers the notice ללמד, “for teaching,” which stands in the superscription between לדוד and the statement of the situation. “If one takes לדוד as a reference to the author, the passage reads ‘. . . of David, for teaching (as instruction) when he made war on … and Joab returned and struck Edom. . . .’ In that case David, during a time of war and especially in the moment of victory, gave instruction with and through Psalm 60. At the moment of victory David recited Psalm 60 to his fellow Israelites, since the instruction was first of all for them. In it he first recalled (Ps 60:3–7*) an earlier lament and the petitions belonging to it (in the imperative and in the PC) and thus recalled the time of an earlier defeat. … Then he quoted a divine oracle of salvation that was received as an oracle at that time (Ps 60:8–11*), which speaks, among other things, of God’s sovereignty over Moab, Edom, and Philistia.”14 He then turned to the present and in v. 11* implored God’s support in the battle against Edom. Since the superscription expressly emphasizes that he has defeated Edom, it is clear that the divine oracle in vv. 9–10* and the petition referring to it in v. 11* were fulfilled in David’s own time—which gives instruction to the “post–Davidic” people who pray the psalm: Psalm 60 is thus a piece of teaching authorized by David and a prayer “with which the people and the petitioners can reactualize the old divine promise in time of need and assure themselves of divine help. Here teaching and prayer are intermingled.”15■ 3–7* The first section, vv. 3–7*, is consequently shaped as a “you” address with which the lamenting or petitioning “we” (or also an individual speaking as representative of the “we”) makes God alone responsible for the crisis situation that is complained of, and at the same time calls on God for rescue from this crisis.■ 3* With three verbs arranged asyndetically one after another, all reproaching YHWH for a past action whose results endure even in the present, v. 3* first summarizes the crisis from which the petitioners are suffering, and then implores YHWH to overcome it. The three verbs constitute a cohesive chain of actions, which the psalm lists in reverse order. Thus in the course of events the psalm reproaches God for having burst forth in wrath, destroyed the people in that wrath as one tears down a wall (cf. 80:13*; 89:41*), and then in disgust left, or “rejected, repudiated” (the verb זנח, “repudiate” is the counter to בחר, “choose”) the field of destruction that he himself has wrought. The following initial petition in the psalm: “turn again to us,” has as its aim that YHWH should, so to speak, reverse the destructive sequence of actions that has been lamented by corresponding “positive” actions. At the same time the sequence “you have been angry—turn again to us” makes it clear that this is the deepest dimension of the crisis, when YHWH turns his regard from his people, because in doing so he literally deprives it of its identity as “people of God” (cf. v. 5*).■ 4–5* Verses 4–6* concretize the consequence of YHWH’s “destroying wrath” in terms of the two fundamental dimensions of salvation and life, “land” and “people.” These are the metaphors for YHWH that are applied especially in contexts of war and judgment as he strides like a divine warrior over the land he has conquered and literally splits it as an earthquake would (v. 4*), and violently forces the “enemies” to drink the cup of staggering, filled with a poisonous potion (cf. 75:9*), so that they wander about, disoriented and stumbling—indeed, they collapse and lie about as if dead (v. 5*). The metaphors describe the situation: YHWH has made a wilderness of the land he had given as his “good” land, and he has pressed his own people as hard as once Pharaoh had done (cf. Exod 1:14*; 6:9*; Deut 26:6*), and almost destroyed them. Inasmuch as it is quaking (מוט), the land no longer affords the basis for life, because its proper created identity (cf. especially Pss 93:1*; 104:5*) is destroyed. Therefore YHWH himself must intervene, must heal it again of the “wound” that he himself has inflicted (v. 4b*). Thus it is not simply a matter of putting an end to the crisis; this concerns deep–seated restoration, an act that one can properly call revivifying and “re–creating.”■ 6–7* What the lamenting people, who in vv. 6–7* explicitly emphasize their special relationship to their God,16 ask for themselves from their God is formulated in v. 6*, once again in military imagery: because they wander about, drunk on the contents of the cup of staggering, and flee in all directions from the arrows (of the divine warrior), they plead that God will set up a standard (“banner”) for them, where they can gather and find rescue. The petition in v. 7*, which summarizes the section, appeals to YHWH to seize his people with his right hand, drawing them mightily out of the misery in which they are held fast—and to speak to them again by giving them an answer to their laments and petitions. This very petition subtly reveals the contradictoriness of the situation the psalm sets before YHWH: Israel must be rescued from YHWH by YHWH! YHWH himself must eliminate the contradiction for which he alone is responsible.■ 8–10* The divine oracle, vv. 8–10*, which in the final form of the psalm (see above) serves as God’s answer to the laments and petitions in vv. 3–7*, has a twofold function: on the one hand it again illustrates the contradictoriness and incomprehensibility of the divine action that was complained of in vv. 3–7*, and on the other hand it opens for Israel a perspective of hope that YHWH, for the sake of his own identity, will cease to war against his own land and people and will restore the basis for the people’s life that he himself bestowed “in the beginning.” This oracle, too, is shaped by the imagery of the divine warrior. But now it is a counterimage to vv. 3–7*. It evokes the victorious warrior who, after the end of the battle, divides the conquered territory and assigns particular functions to different regions of his kingdom through the exercise of his royal power.■ 8* The space delimited by the geographical names in vv. 8–9* is the dwelling place that Israel received from YHWH, according to the biblical tradition, through its occupation of the so–called “promised land.” With “Shechem” and “Valley of Succoth” the oracle in v. 8* may be playing on the tradition attested in Gen 33:17–18* that Jacob, the (later) ancestor of the twelve tribes, after his return from afar settled first in Succoth, then in Shechem. In any case the mention of these two places had strong “emotional” connotations after the loss of this region through the fall of the Northern Kingdom. These places, which at the time of the origin and of the re–use of the oracle were still under foreign domination (together with the regions surrounding them) will be reconquered by YHWH—and he will give them back to his people as a dwelling place. It is certainly possible that the two places are mentioned because they were centers of (Assyrian or Persian) foreign power.■ 9* Verse 9* then lays claim to what was, from the time of David, the “classic” land of Israel: it begins in the north with “Gilead” (the hill country east of the Jordan) and “Manasseh” (the west Jordan region from the plain of Jezreel to Shechem), and continues with the emphatic naming of the two “core regions” of Israel, the land of YHWH, namely “Ephraim” (the core of the Northern Kingdom of Israel until 722/721) and “Judah” (the core of the Southern Kingdom, whose territory at the time the oracle was formulated was also reduced from that of the Davidic tradition). The oracle assigns a particular task and dignity in relationship to YHWH’s royal rule to the two regions of “Ephraim” and “Judah.” In a bold metaphor they are made elements of the weaponry and royal insignia of the war–god YHWH. “Protection for my head” plays on the round shield that a warrior in battle held in his left hand, to protect himself (and especially his head) from enemy arrows and lances; there was also a battle technique in which another warrior stood as shield–bearer beside a bowman and held the round shield over his head, or else supported the great standing shield, which also offered protection for the head (cf. pl(s).s1 and 2 here). The “scepter” (for Judah as “scepter” cf. Gen 40:10*), which is held in the right hand, would probably be not the royal scepter as insignia of “kingship in general,” but rather the war club with which enemies were struck down in battle.17■ 10* Verse 10* intensifies the metaphors of the conquering god YHWH still further and apparently depicts the victorious warrior who washes himself after the battle has been won (or is “washbowl” a euphemism for the place where he “relieves himself”?), and takes off his heavy battle shoes (real symbol of the warrior’s power; cf. Isa 9:4*). For these two actions the war god YHWH seeks out “Moab” and “Edom” (the two traditional “enemy countries” in the southeast). On the one hand this lays claim to these regions by and for YHWH; on the other hand they are assigned only menial, servile functions. This corresponds entirely to the point of view of a particular strand of tradition (cf., e.g., Ps 72:8–11*; Isa 60:10*; 61:5*), and from a historical perspective must be relativized as a typical projection in times of political powerlessness. In the context of our psalm the oracle is evidently a counterimage to the real situation (for the problem of such violent imagery, see below). The conclusion of the divine oracle also holds to this imagery: the victorious warrior YHWH is celebrated—by the Philistines, who since Saul and David have been the traditional “enemies” in the west, on the Mediterranean coast.
Psalm 60, Plate 1:Limestone relief from Luxor, from the period of Ramses III (11th century B.C.E.): Soldiers protect themselves while laying siege to a city with (round) shields, which they hold over their heads with the left hand, against missiles coming from above. Source: Drawing by Hildi Keel–Leu.
Psalm 60, Plate 2:Relief from the central palace in Nimrud, from the period of Tiglath–pileser (8th century B.C.E.): An Assyrian general is protected by two shield–bearers while he is aiming his bow. One shield–bearer holds the round shield high, while the other has set up the standing shield, more than a man’s height, before the general. It is bent back at the top, thus also giving protection for the head. Source: Drawing by Hildi Keel–Leu.
■ 11–14* The third section, vv. 11–14*, confronts and contrasts the present with the “victor theology” of the divine oracle in vv. 8–10*. As explained above, this section, whose origins reflect the late preexilic threat to the state of Judah by the Edomites on its southeastern border, and which was conceived as a prayer of petition for the success of military defense against that threat, as part of the final form of the psalm achieves a somewhat different perspective: now this campaign against Edom, with YHWH at the head of the army, will bring the decisive (“eschatological”) turning for Israel as “people of God.” Because the section in vv. 13–14* presupposes a massive enemy threat, the leading “to the fortified city” petitioned in v. 11* in a rhetorical double question strengthened by the reproach in v. 12*18 and “to Edom” cannot refer to a war of conquest for the expansion of territory. It is a question of “help” and “rescue” (v. 13*) by the breaking of the military power of the enemies. The presupposition for this is that YHWH will at last turn again to his people. According to v. 12* the fact that his people came to this crisis is connected with his having “rejected” them and not gone with them to “holy war,” as the great narratives of war and rescue from the time of Israel’s “beginnings” would cause one to expect. The petition in v. 13* sets before God the unmistakable conclusion that follows from history: no amount of pact–making and tactical maneuvering with neighboring states rescued the Northern Kingdom, and such things led the Southern Kingdom, too, only from one disaster to another; all reliance on one’s own strength (alone) is ultimately “vain.” Only when YHWH intervenes and breaks the power of the enemies is there “rescue” for his people. Thus the psalm closes in v. 14* with a confession of confidence that once again works with metaphors of violence: with and through God they will “do mighty deeds,” that is, break the power of the enemies (a play on the oracle of Balaam from Num 24:18*), because it is their God who will “tread down” the foes like a fighting bull (cf. Ps 44:6*).
Psalm 60, Plate 3:Bronze statuette from the temple at Megiddo (ca. 1000 B.C.E.): The god Resheph, with a weapon in the uplifted right hand (cf. the biblical topos of YHWH’s uplifted right hand in, e.g., Exod 15:12*; Ps 98:1*) and with a shield in the left. Source: Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, 117, pl. 139.
Psalm 60, Plate 4:Votive stele from Deir el–Medina, from the period of Ramses II (ca. 1200 B.C.E.): Ramses II striking down his enemies with club/scepter. In the lower field a priest with uplifted hands begs the gods for the king’s victory. Source: Othmar Keel, Wirkmächtige Siegeszeichen im Alten Testament: Ikonographische Studien zu Jos 8, 18–26; Ex 17, 8–13; 2 Kön 13, 14–19 und 1 Kön 22, 11 (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974) 187, pl. 52.
Context, Reception, and Significance
Relationship to the Neighboring PsalmsThe redactors who created the Davidic Psalter, Psalms 51–72, used the formula “A miktam. Of David” to tie Psalm 60 to the preceding Psalms 56–59, which have the same element in their superscriptions, to form a single psalm group. Psalm 60 is the final psalm in this group and endows it with an additional horizon of meaning, especially with a view to the Asaph collection, Psalms 73–83, in which the perspective of “Israel and the neighboring peoples” is equally pervasive. The powerful intervention of God to defeat the enemies that is implored in Psalms 56–59 now, at the high point of this miktam composition, is proclaimed by YHWH himself in a solemn divine oracle—and indeed, from the Temple, introducing the Temple theme that will play a central role in Psalms 73–83. Thus the redactors used the community lament Psalm 60 to tie the Davidic collection to the community laments in the Asaph collection, Psalms 73–83. Psalm 60 is in some sense a prolepsis of the Asaph composition.
Reception in Psalm 108Psalm 60:7–14* is adopted word for word in 108:7–14*, and combined with 57:8–12* (which is part of the subcomposition Psalms 56–60) to form a new psalm. This psalm opens the messianic subcomposition Psalms 108–110 (for which see the interpretation of Psalm 108 in our commentary on Psalms 101–150).
SeptuagintThe LXX updates Psalm 60 in terms of the Hasmonean Judas Aristobulus, who adopted the royal title in 104 (103) and became for quite a few of his contemporaries the symbol of a great hope for political restoration. To underscore this, the translators made three deliberate changes in the psalm (v. 3b*: “you have again had mercy”; v. 9c*: “Judas is my king”; v. 10a*: Moab is a “basin of my hope”).19
SignificanceThe warlike divine image in this psalm stands within ancient Near Eastern tradition: the gods reveal their divinity above all in battle and in the destruction of enemies. Our psalm makes clear that this theologoumenon has its Sitz im Leben in situations of serious enemy threat. However, it must be emphasized that such texts should not be misused as a theology of war; they are to be correlated with texts that attest to the biblical God as a God of peace, a God who puts an end to wars. This theological horizon is also clearly present in the superscription of the psalm (vv. 1–2; see above).—ERICH ZENGER
Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100, ed. Klaus Baltzer, trans. Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005), 93–103.
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
