Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY THE ONE WHO CROSSES THE PATHS OF THE SEAS: THE DOMINION OF HUMANITY IN PSALM 8 SUBMITTED TO DR. JONATHAN HUDDLESTON IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF BHEB 682 INTERMEDIATE HEBREW II BY MATT FREDRICKSON APRIL 12, 2012 1 INTRODUCTION The working relationship between Ps 8 and the creation account in Gen 1 is relatively clear.1 Robert Alter explains that while Gen 1 is the step-by-step account of the creation, “Psalm 8 assumes as a background this narrative process, but takes it up after its completion.”2 The psalm, without a doubt, is connected to the Genesis passage in some way.3 Because of this relationship, understanding the mythic background of Ps 8, rooted in Gen 1,4 is pertinent to the translator’s understanding of the poem’s syntax and meaning. As such, Ps 8’s mythic paradigm should be considered when making translation choices.5 Commentators of the Psalms are sometimes so consumed by the task of making sense of the poetic structure that they forget to consider the mythic context of the psalmist. Analyzing the form of Israelite religious poetry outside of this context is problematic. “The exegete should always be aware of the fact that these texts integrate the customary (i.e. the everyday) into the 1 Ps 8:4 echoes Gen 1:14-18 in the creation of the moon and stars. Ps 8:9 refers to the fish of the sea and the birds of the air as the works of YHWH’s hands, a resonance from the creation in Gen 1:20-22; Ps 8:8 does the same with the land animals created in Gen 1:24-25. Perhaps the strongest parallel is between Ps 8:6-7 and Gen 1:26 when humans are made to rule over the aforementioned animals; there may also be a connection between Gen 1:26a, אדמ בצלמנו כדמותנו (humanity in our image, according to our likeness), and Ps 8:6a, ( ותחסרהו מעט מאלהימyou made him lack little of God). 2 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (rev. and upd. ed.; Park Avenue, Ny.: Basic Books, 2011), 147. 3 I assume that the psalmist barrowed material from Genesis; however it is also possible that the author of Gen 1 was using Ps 8. For the purposes of this assessment, the arguments over dating are less important than the connection itself, which seems undisputable. There is not room here to discuss which came first. 4 Bernard Batto, Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition: Slaying the Dragon (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1992), 72. 5 Flip Schutte, “Myth as Paradigm to Read a Text,” Pages 1-8 in Psalms and Mythology (New York: T & T Clark International, 2007), 1-8. Here, I accept Schutte’s definition of myth and conclusion that spiritual texts cannot be read outside of their mythic context, or as he calls it, their myth paradigm. I do not, however, wish to say that the meaning of text is predetermined by the context. The implications of the conclusions of this assessment will require further examination. 2 mythical.”6 In the case of Ps 8, the mythic nature surrounding the primeval history of Gen 1 should inform both the poem’s thematic and technical analysis. G. T. M. Prinsloo argues that “extra-textual information,” such as mythology, has distracted interpreters from the key to Ps 8’s interpretation, its “intratextuality.”7 While I agree that the intratextuality is valuable, a narrow focus such as this could potentially misconstrue the Psalm altogether, especially when obscure imagery is involved. The interpretation of Ps. 8 and others like it “can never be reduced to an intellectual grasp of an objectifiable and isolated content.”8 In the case of Psalm 8, the uncertainty surrounding its historical usage, authorship, and dating (like many of the psalms) makes the mythic paradigm even more significant.9 KEY TEXTUAL PROBLEMS Ps 8 has relatively few textual discrepancies or corruptions, but the places of debate are disputed extensively. The most problematic verse in the MT is v. 2b ()אשר תנה. Thematically difficult, is v. 3, “Out of the mouths of babes and infants, you have founded a bulwark because of your foes, to silence the enemy and the avenger” (Ps 8:2 NRSV). Additional questions surround the four verbs in vv. 6-7 and their relationship to complete and uncompleted time. Reading the text of Ps 8 in light of its mythic context of the primordial history of Gen 1 helps resolve the thematic problems of “babes and infants” and lends some clarity to the other textual issues at Alphonso Groenewald, “From Myth to Theological Language,” Pages 9-25 in Psalms and Mythology (New York: T & T Clark International, 2007), 24. 21-25 are especially helpful for understanding the function of myth in the Psalms. 7 G. T. M. Prinsloo, “Polarity as dominant textual strategy in Psalm 8,” Old Testament Essays 8 (1995): 370-387. Prinsloo does admit that that his intratextual analysis “does not render other extra-textual analysis redundant” (383); however, if they are to be ignored from the beginning, only to be brought in later, the influence of the mythic tradition may well be lost. 8 Schutte, Psalms, 7. 9 Alastair G. Hunter, Psalms (London: Routledge, 1999), 121. Commentators are obligated to speculate about such dating. Here, Hunter’s uncertainty about the dating of the text suggests that the speculative historical background is not as helpful as the cultural mythic context. 6 3 hand, which in turn, actually inform a coherent theological structure. The poetic arrangement of Ps 8 is better understood, and the makeup of its integrated narrative more natural, in light of this paradigm. Below is my translation of Ps 8, as well as a visual aid that helps explain my thesis. 1. To the supervisor concerning the Gittites, a psalm of David. 2. YHWH our Lord How majestic is your name in all the earth May I serve your victory in the heavens! 3. You founded a stronghold (to guard) from the mouths of Sucking Babes, on account of your harassers, to put an end to the Avenging Enemy. 4. For I see your heavens, the works of your fingers, moon and stars which you affixed. 5. What is mankind that you remember him? or the son of man humanity that you get involved with him? 6. Yet you made him little less than a divine being, and you will crown him with glory and majesty. 7. You will make him rule over the works of your hands. All of them, you put under his feet. 8. Sheep and cattle, all of them. And even the beasts of the field. 9. Birds of the sky and the fish of the sea The one who crosses the paths of the seas. 10. YHWH our lord how majestic is your name in all the earth. COSMIC HUMAN COSMIC The MT of verse 2b begins with the relative pronoun אשר, followed by the infinitive construct of נתנ.10 Some attempt to preserve the awkward MT based on other occasions where the next line of a prayer is introduced by the particle ( אשרi.e. Ps 71:10);11 however, the ensuing form of the verb creates a word pair that is incomprehensible without emending the text. Mark Smith, “Psalm 8:2b-3: New Proposals for Old Problems,” CBQ 59 (1997), 683. Janet Dyk, ed., Give Ear to My Words: Psalms and Other Poetry in and around the Hebrew Bible (Amsterdam: Societas Hebraica Amstelodamensis, 1996), 13n. 10 11 4 “‘Which give’ is possible neither syntactically nor according to sense.”12 The only solution that preserves all of the consonants in the MT, proposed by Mitchell Dahood, is to move אשר תנה together, forming the piel imperfect (cohortative with the energic ending13) of שרת, to make אשרתנה, (may I serve).14 Verse 3 is the most interesting in the poem. The strange imagery of nursing infants is continually problematic for translators. Some relate the metaphors to God’s strength in weakness.15 Others have suggested that YHWH’s putting an end to the enemy allows the babes to be heard.16 The infant imagery, however, is misleading. Mark Smith wrote an article suggesting that the babes/sucking ones (ynqm) refer to the “goodly gods” of CTA 23.17 In the Ugaritic myth, they are regarded as “cosmic foes, known also to be children of the God El.”18 Smith says that while there is certainly some connection between the two, the relationship need not be to this particular myth.19 The purpose, therefore, of the עולליםand ינקיםis to introduce the struggle between YHWH and the foes of chaos that must be put to rest in order for creation to 12 Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1-59: A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 178. Others suggest the Ugaritic root tny (to reiterate). Syr and Targ read נתתה. 13 For an explanation of the energic נand the cohortative, see: Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 347. 14 Mitchell Dahood, Psalms 1: 1-50 (AB 16; New York: Doubleday, 1966), 49. Also, Peter Craigie, Word Biblical commentary: Psalms 1-50 (WBC 19; Waco: Word books, 1983), 105. Craigie translates “I will worship.” My translation, “May I serve” may seem less intelligible at first glance, but will be explained later; for my explanation see note 32. Another likely solution uses the same method, only with the root “( שירI will sing…”); however this does not account for all the consonants of the MT. The rational for my choice will become clear later in the assessment. 15 Arthur Weiser, The Psalms (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 142. 16 Dyk, 13-14. 17 Smith, 639. Also see his commentary on this Ugaritic text: The Rituals and Myths of the Goodly Gods of KTU/CAT 1.23: Royal Constructions of opposition, Intersection, Integration, and Domination (Atlanta: SBL, 2006). 18 Ibid, 639. 19 Ibid. Smith suggests that the tradition of the “goodly gods” stretches beyond the extant Ugaritic records. 5 flourish. If this proposal is true, then the עזthat YHWH establishes ( )יסדcould represent the created order (i.e. contra chaos), established as a result of YHWH defeating his enemies, a common theme in the Psalms.20 If Dahood’s suggesting for v.2b is correct, and the עולליםand ינקיםare understood as mythic foes of YHWH who challenge the created order, then a more intuitive sequential layering of the poetry is required. Kraut argues that this change creates too unnatural of a construction.21 However, even if the shift does create more tension in the line, it seems the interpreter must decide between strained grammar and a peculiar reference to infants praising YHWH - of which there is no record in the Hebrew Bible whatsoever.22 Kraus says, “The content of this verse is in the OT without even the remotest parallel passage,”23 and in his treatment of the verse continues, Did children sing along in this song of praise? Or does the singer have something like a parable, or even an episodic conception, in the mind? These possibilities can only be suggested, for every attempt to delineate them ends in a tortuous interpretation.24 YHWH never establishes creation (or )עזfrom the mouths of nursing infants; However, YHWH does establish the stronghold of the created order on account of his victory over the cosmic foes 20 For example, see Richard Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1994), 151-162. 21 Judah Kraut, “The Birds and the Babes: The Structure and Meaning of Psalm 8,” CBC 100 (2010): 13. 22 John Goldingay, Psalms Volume 1: Psalms 1-41 (Grand Rapid, Mich: Baker Academic, 2006), 156. On this page, Goldingay cites Oystein Lund, “From the Mouths of Babes and Infants You Have Established Strength,” SJOT 11 (1997): 85. “The OT mentions ‘babies’ twenty times, usually as victims of oppression, war, and death. ‘Sucklings’ appear eleven times, often alongside ‘babies’ and again usually as victims.” 23 Kraus, 181. 24 Ibid., 181. 6 of chaos. It seems more likely that the poet would use seemingly awkward syntax to evoke mythic imagery, than to invent a new tradition all together.25 The four verbs in the MT’s vv. 6-7 have confused commentators. The sequence is wawconsecutive-imperfect, imperfect (v.6), and imperfect, perfect (v.7). The tendency has been for translations to render each of these verbs in completed time. Some scholars, such as Dahood, use methods of linguistic dating and Ugaritic evidence in order to attribute a sense of completed time to ( תעטרהוv.6) and ( תמשילהוv.7).26 Others point to the citation of the text in Hebrews 2 as a reason for rendering the verbs this way.27 Craigie points out a chiastic structure of the four verbs (past, future, future, past), in order to support the idea that the human “role is not static, but requires continuous human response and action.”28 I support the verbal chiasm suggested by Craigie. However, given the overall structure and mythic nature of the Psalm, this verbal chiasm points, perhaps, not only to a daily anthropocentric response to YHWH’s appointment but a predestined eschatological cosmic authority. While humanity has already received a portion of God likeness, they have yet to receive the fullness of their eschatological divine agency. This tension between having received honor but not yet fully crowned is depicted in vv. 8-9. With these issues in order, the rest of the poetry can be assessed with more clarity. Verse 2 begins with YHWH’s sovereignty over all creation and humankind’s desire to participate in YHWH’s activity in the cosmos. Then, verse-by-verse, the poet leads the reader down the comic However, Hunter (120-121) does point out that every paring of עוללימand ינקימin the Hebrew Bible refers to humans and never enemies or supernatural beings. This may be equally problematic for the thesis of this assessment; however, the possible ANE support of the infant imagery (see 120) is much more contrived than the comparisons made to the “goodly gods.” And, although the term עוללימis not found in CTA 23, (see 121), the association with the chaos myth, via Gen 1 and the Psalms, is highly suggestive. 26 For an overview of this discussion, see Craigie, 110-113. 27 Dyk, 16-19. 28 Craigie, 105, 108. 25 7 stair ladder to humanity and YHWH’s appointment of them. Each step is sequentially intensified, describing the process of creation, while sharpening YHWH’s actions. Each action is depicted in relationship to YHWH’s activity: his majesty over all the earth, his subduing of cosmic foes in order to establish the stronghold, the setting of the moon and stars, and, finally, his relationship to humanity. Then, the psalmist continues to describe the rule of humanity (present and future), starting with the humanly subduable creations and moving back up the steps to the realms of the cosmos, where (currently) only YHWH has full authority - where his majesty rests upon all the earth. With the critical issues in place and the general scope in mind, I will address the intricacies of the poetry. VERSE 1 The translation of Gittites here appears in just two other psalms (81, 84). It may refer to a musical instrument or perhaps the wine press during the feast of booths.29 It is likely that the psalm served a liturgical purpose given the inclusio (vv. 2ab, 10); however, because of the ambiguity, it is better left transliterated. VERSE 2 While the main character here is YHWH, his primary activity surrounds the mythic temporal tension of divine agency shared with humans. Because of this shared sense of dominion, it seems plausible that the psalmist would introduce the human perspective from the onset of the psalm, with a desire to join in YHWH’s cosmic action – or at least share in the victory characterized by human flourishing (Isa 27). In this way, 2c compliments 2ab, declaring the greatness of YHWH in all the earth and humanity’s desire to serve in his now-but-not-yet 29 See: F. Brown, S. R. Driver, C. A. Briggs, “ ”גתיתBDB 388. 8 cosmic victory. Gerstenberger shows that ( אדירv.2b; MT 2a) communicates cosmological power (also Pss 76:5, 93:4).30 It is YHWH’s powerful vigor in victory ( – )הודand/or the results of that victory)31 – that the psalmist, representing humanity, desires to participate in.32 VERSE 3 Now that the Psalmist has introduced the force of the poem, the author begins to detail (through sequentiality and intensification) YHWH’s acts in the cosmos, from the consuming mouths of the “goodly gods,” YHWH founded a stronghold by putting an end to these harassing foes. As a result, the enemy and the avenger have been put to rest.33 30 Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Psalms Part 1: with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry (FOTL 14; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983), 68. 31 N. Wyatt, in Myths of Power: a Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Traditions (Munster: Ugaritisch-Bibliche Literatur, 1996), 241. Here, Wyatt argues that “ הודmeans ‘victory’ rather than ‘glory’, according to the usage of 1 Chron 29:11, Job 40:9-10, Isa 30:30 and frequently in the psalms (21:6, 45:4, 96:6 [ = 1Chron 16:26], 104:1, 145:5 and 148:13.” Another workable translation of ( הודfor my present thesis) may “vigor.” Note the usage of הודin Dan 10:8b, ( והודי נהפך עלי למשחיה ולא עצרתי כחAnd my vigor was overturned upon me for ruin, and I did not retain strength). Here, the speaker’s הודhas been overturned “עלי.” The deactivation of the speaker’s הודleads to demise and loss of strength. In the case of Ps 8, the psalmist wishes to serve YHWH’s הוד, which is על שמים. (It is likely that the forces of Chaos wish to see YHWH’s הודrendered נהפךupon him.). Sequentially, in Ps 8:3, (perhaps) it is YHWH’s ( הודvigor) upon the heavens that establishes the strong hold and puts an end to the cosmic enemies. This is the vigor, or force, that humanity wishes to serve, a desire they are both given and promised in vv. 5-9. Also, see Zech 10:3b, ( ושם אותם כסוס הודו במלחמהAnd [YHWH] will set them as the horse of his vigor in the battle.) Here, הודis used in the context of combat. 32 Brown, “ ”הודBDB 217. Note the usage of הודin Dan 10:8b, עלי למשחיה ולא עצרתי כח ( והודי נהפךAnd my vigor was overturned upon me for ruin, and I did not retain strength). Here, the speaker’s הודhas been overturned “עלי.” The deactivation of the speaker’s הודleads to demise and loss of strength. In the case of Ps 8, the psalmist wishes to serve YHWH’s הוד, which is שמים על. (It is likely that the forces of Chaos wish to see YHWH’s הודrendered נהפךupon him.). Sequentially, in Ps 8:3, (perhaps) it is YHWH’s ( הודvigor) upon the heavens that establishes the strong hold and puts an end to the cosmic enemies. This is the vigor, or force, that humanity wishes to serve, a desire they are both given a promised in vv. 5-9. Also, see Zech 10:3b, במלחמה ( ושם אותם וסכס הודוAnd [YHWH] will set them as the horse of his vigor in the battle.) Here, הודis used in the context of combat. 33 In Smith’s article, he suggests further emendations to support the presence of the ינקימ by means of Ugaritic syntactical parallels that I find intriguing, but unnecessary. 9 VERSE 4 Verse 4 follows this arrangement more sequentially than what the MT proposes and continues the movement present in the first half of the psalm. The sequentially and the intensification continue from the first three verses by describing the further development of the stronghold, with YHWH fixing the stars in the sky. The verbs ( יסדv.3) and ( כונv.4) help to emphasize YHWH stabilizing his created order.34 VERSE 5 I owe my analysis of v. 5 to Alter’s The Art of Biblical Poetry. Here the Psalmist (again) takes the reader another step down on the celestial chain and ends the “downward vertical movement in the picture of cosmic hierarchy.”35 Altar continues to explain that while all the lines up to this point feature sequential movement, focusing, and or heightening, v. 5 - at the center of the poem - brings the momentum to a screeching halt. Here ends the flow from cosmic to anthropocentric. Here, by contrast, at the exact thematic center and in the fifth of the poem’s 10 lines, semantic movement is slowed to allow for the strong, stately emphasis of virtual synonymity, noun for noun and verb for verb in the same syntactical order.36 VERSE 6 Here, the sequentiality and specification are picked up again in the opposite direction, with the “now but not yet” quality described above by means of the verbal chiasm. If vv. 1-5 are a downward movement from the cosmos to humanity, then vv. 5-10 are an upward ascent from the anthropocentric, back to the cosmic. This movement is initiated by the promotion of humanity in the cosmos and the future promise to crown all of humanity with הדר, a possible synonym of הוד 34 Alter, 148. Alter, 150. 36 Ibid., 150. 35 10 and a similar characteristic of YHWH that the Psalmist wishes to serve in v. 2.37 VERSE 7 Verse 7 completes the verbal chiasm, sequentially intensifying the nature of humanity’s appointment. The position of humanity described in v. 6 is articulated in v. 7. At some point in the future, YHWH will cause humanity to rule over the works of his hands; however, in the present, all of them have been subjugated to אנושin some way. The explanation of this seemingly paradoxical verb structure follows in the intensifying movement from anthropocentric to cosmic (vv. 8-9). Richard Whitekettle suggests that animals in vv. 8-9 are listed in order of descending subordination to humans.38 Consider the following in light of this idea; the progression of decreased subordination that follows is somewhat selfexplanatory: sheep, cattle, wild beasts, birds, fish, and the One who crosses the paths of the seas. VERSE 8 In verse 8a, צנה39 and אלפימ40 refer to small and large cattle-like animals respectively. The intensification in 8b follows with בהמות שדי,41 referring to the wild beasts of the field. Flocks and cattle are animals frequently domesticated by humans. The wild beasts, although able to be controlled by humans, are more formidable and typically more difficult for humanity to rule over. VERSES 9 AND 10 In v. 9a, birds and fish are certainly more elusive to the clutches of man than slower 37 In Ez 27:10, הדרattributes majesty on account of warlike equipment. See Brown, “”הדר BDB. Richard Whitekettle, “Taming the Shrew, Shrike, and Shrimp: The Form and Function of Zoological Classification in Psalm 8,” JBL 125 (2006): 764. 39 Brown, “ ”צנהBDB 856. 40 Brown, “ ”אלפימBDB 48. 41 Brown, “ ”בהמהBDB. Also, Whitekettle, 764. In this verse, וגםworks to set this animal group apart, in addition to the beasts being of the שדי. 38 11 moving - or at least less illusive and more visible - land animals (i.e. sheep and cattle). The Intensification of 9b completes the movement from anthropocentric, back to cosmic in vv. 5-10. Similar to the intensification of v.8 (wild beasts of the field), 9b should be understood as the wild beast of the sea. However, the One who crosses the paths of the seas should not be understood as just any ordinary sea beast. Alter rightly draws attention to the active participle עברin 9a. “Interestingly, it is the only active verb in the poem attached to a created thing.”42 Alter suggests that the poet uses עברto express “a teeming vitality, surging through the most inaccessible reaches of the created world, over which man has been appoint to rule,”43 as a kind of artistic conclusion. I agree that עבר ארחות ימיםrepresents a power surging through the most inaccessible reaches of the created world – but not a “nice intimation”44 of flourishing life – rather, the embodiment Chaos itself. This translation of v. 9b highlights the singular active participle in the poetry and mirrors the theme of chaos in v.3, aiding in the poem’s overall chiastic structure. God has given humankind authority to rule over the animals of the natural world. Chaos, however, remains a force to be reckoned with, a force that YHWH slew in creation to establish the stronghold, and a force that even אנוש, alongside YHWH, will crush under their feet in the eschaton.45 Because v. 10 stands alone, it seems that the identical refrain that forms the inclusio (2ab) ought to be separated from 2c. However, when אשר תנהis read ( אשרתנהthe best appropriation of the otherwise unintelligible MT of v. 2b), the third line of v. 2 is not as “unnatural” as Kraut 42 Alter, 151. Ibid., 151. 44 Ibid., 151. 45 For a thorough discussion of this theme, see Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 1-182, esp. 27-50. 43 12 claims. 46 Read this way, the sequential structure of v. 2, 4, and 10 comes into new light. While the reader may expect one more proclamation from the psalmist in v. 9 or 10, having spoken up in vv. 2 and 4, the voice of the psalmist is silenced before the presently uncontrollable. Verse 10 intuitively returns the reader to the cosmic scope of YHWH’s reign, praising him for the now but not yet defeat of chaos and his partnership with the human race. IMPLICATIONS If this poetic analysis is accurate and Ps 8 indeed echoes Gen 1 within the mythic structure I have proposed, then we must explore the implications concerning the “the dyarchy of God and humanity”.47 What does it mean for humanity to serve God’s vigor/victory48 in the cosmos, and of what consequence is it for humans to a little less than a divine being? If humanity is being granted power over Chaos, what might God expect humanity to do with that power? The dominant theme of the previous study suggests a connection between creation and the defeat of enemies, past, present, and future. George M. Landes argues in his essay, “Creation and Liberation,”49 that “for Israel, Yahweh’s creation power in history was at the same time his 46 Kraut, 13. John Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), 111. This is the subheading of a chapter entitled “Rest and Re-Creation.” See: 111-117 for an especially helpful understanding of this concept in relation to Ps 8, even though my translation choices differ from his. 48 N. Wyatt, in Myths of Power: a Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Traditions (Munster: Ugaritisch-Bibliche Literatur, 1996), 241. Not choosing the possible translation of “victory” for הודin my first paper, The One Who Crosses the Paths of the Seas: Mythic Structure and the Dominion of Humanity in Psalm 8, was an oversight on my part. Here, Wyatt argues that “ ודהmeans ‘victory’ rather than ‘glory’, according to the usage of 1 Chron 29:11, Job 40:9-10, Isa 30:30 and frequently in the psalms (21:6, 45:4, 96:6 [ = 1Chron 16:26], 104:1, 145:5 and 148:13.” 49 Bernard W. Anderson, ed., Creation in the Old Testament (Issues in Religion and Theology: 6; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 135-151. 47 13 liberation power, and they must be held together.”50 This is certainly true of Pss 74 and 89, in which YHWH’s defeat of mythical chaos monsters is accompanied by the pronouncement of YHWH’s creative power. Jon D. Levenson says, “that throughout the ancient Near Eastern world, including Israel, the point of creation is not the production of matter out of nothing, but rather the emergence of a stable community in a benevolent and life sustaining order.”51 This is liberation by means of creation. In Ps 8, humanity is drawn into this cosmic drama. The royal psalms, 2 and 110, help illustrate this transition. Both psalms, by use of the combat myth, attribute power to the divinely appointed king. “They portray YHWH together with the Davidic king (as divine father and earthly son) ruling from Zion and subduing Israel's enemies in a joint-conquest motif.”52 Themes of creation are not explicit in Pss. 2 and 110; however, Ps 89 brings creation, chaos and kingship all together, and in vv. 25-26, promises YHWH’s liberating power to a human being. I will set his hand on the sea and his right hand on the rivers. He shall cry to me, “You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation!” (Ps. 89:25-26 NRSV) This is also what appears to be going on in Ps 8. YHWH has made humanity with lesser power than his own but has put the works of his hands under their feet. However, in the future, YHWH will crown humans with greater glory, making them to rule over all the works of his hands. Here, “…all the works of your hands” (Ps 8:7) may even echo the placing the appointed human’s hand 50 Ibid., 137. Levenson, 12. 52 J. Richard Middleton, “Created in the image of a violent God? The Ethical Problem of the Conquest of Chaos in Biblical Creation texts,” Interpretation 58 (2004): 348. 51 14 “on the sea and his right hand on the rivers,” (Ps 89:25) as the acts of YHWH’s hands are transferred to the human king. This helps illustrate how Pss 8 and 89 advocate “the dyarchy of God and humanity,” as a means to liberation. In Ps 89, it seems clear that this authority is given specifically to the appointed king and not to humanity as a whole; however, Ps 8 and Gen 1 aid in what Levenson calls the “democratization” of kingship.53 He argues that in Ps 8 humans are made to be agents of YHWH’s mastery in the world, “ruling with the authority of the king”54 and acting as his representatives. Levenson points out that the same transfer of power occurs in Gen 1:26. He shows that the “image” language used in Gen 1:26 is reminiscent of twenty-second century B.C.E Egyptian kingship myths, in which all of humanity is imprinted with the divine “image.”55 This democratization gives the authority of liberation described above, not just to YHWH’s kingly representatives but also to all of humankind. As a result, all of God’s people become agents of liberation. Richard Middleton is very cautious about using this democratization as a means to liberate. He fears that allowing individuals to reach for this kind of power will cause oppressed groups of people to begin lashing out in unhealthy ways. He compares Levenson’s comment that “Some things exist that ought not to, and these deserve to be blasted from the world,”56 to alQaeda terrorist philosophy.57 While this may be true at face value, the theme of YHWH blasting chaos out of the cosmos is not rooted in religious hate mongering, but in the one true God, who 53 For the complete discussion, see: Levenson, 114-120. Ibid., 115. 55 Ibid., 115. 56 Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988; rev. ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), xxiv. 57 Middleton, 354. 54 15 ultimately desires, in some way or another,58 to bless all nations and to allow all of creation to flourish. Levenson compares the notion of democratization with the call for Israel to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Ex 19:6).59 This is a very helpful for thinking about the way the divine image functioned and, what appears to be, the force of Ps 8. Just as all of Israel was called to be priestly and holy, they were also called to be royal representatives of YHWH and co-agents of creation and liberation. I suggest that Ps 8 describes humanity’s desire to live into their liberative and heavenly appointed protagonist roles. It helps humans to assume “their destiny in history, forgoing and fulfilling themselves by continuing the work of creation though working to transform the work and build a just society by struggling against every form of human misery and exploitation.”60 The discussions above, although not formally directed by scholars, to Ps 8, works to illuminate the poems function. Ps 8’s connection to the image of God is not merely about rule and authority over creation; it is about receiving YHWH’s creative and liberating power to join the fight against chaos, in order that life may flourish. 58 Here, I would refer to the ambiguity concerning Gen 12:3b as a missional text for the chosen people of God. The possible reflexive reading of the niphal verb ברךposes problems for those who desire to read it as such. If the reflexive meaning is preferred (“through you all the families of the earth will bless themselves”), it would appear to weaken the ability of this text to validate the call of God upon God’s people to act missionally, or in the present context, to be liberationists. Read this way, it seems that the families of the earth will bless themselves with (perhaps) God’s help and in light of Abram’s example, rather than his or his descendents’ actions. This reading would not necessarily, however, detract completely from the notion of a missional/liberative God. For a thorough examination of Gen 12:3, see: Keith Gruneberg, Abraham, Blessing and the Nations: A Philological and Exegetical Study of Genesis 12:3 in Its Narrative Context (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003). 59 Ibid., 115. 60 Anderson, 145. 16 Bibliography Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Poetry. rev. and upd. ed.; Park Avenue, Ny.: Basic Books, 2011. Brown, Francis., et al. eds. The Brown-Driver-Brigs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 2008. Clifford, Richard. Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1994. Craigie, Peter. Word Biblical commentary: Psalms 1-50. WBC 19; Waco: Word books, 1983. Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms 1: 1-50. AB 16; New York: Doubleday, 1966. Dyk, Janet, ed., Give Ear to My Words: Psalms and Other Poetry in and around the Hebrew Bible. Amsterdam: Societas Hebraica Amstelodamensis, 1996. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Psalms Part 1: with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry. FOTL 14; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983. Goldingay, John. Psalms Volume 1: Psalms 1-41. Grand Rapid, Mich: Baker Academic, 2006. Human, Dirk J., ed., Psalms and Mythology (New York: T & T Clark International, 2007) Hunter, Alastair G., Psalms. London: Routledge, 1999. Kraus, Hans-Joachim, Psalms 1-59: A Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Kraut, Judah. “The Birds and the Babes: The Structure and Meaning of Psalm 8,” CBC 100 (2010): 10-24. Levenson, Jon D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Lund, Oystein.“From the Mouths of Babes and Infants You Have Established Strength.” SJOT 11 (1997): 78-99. Prinsloo, G. T. M. “Polarity as dominant textual strategy in Psalm 8,” Old Testament Essays 8 (1995): 370-387. Smith, Mark. “Psalm 8:2b-3: New Proposals for Old Problems,” CBQ 59 (1997): 637-641. Smith, Mark. The Rituals and Myths of the Goodly Gods of KTU/CAT 1.23: Royal Constructions of opposition, Intersection, Integration, and Domination. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. 17 Waltke, Bruce K. and O’Connor, M. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Weiser, Arthur. The Psalms. OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962. Whitekettle, Richard. “Taming the Shrew, Shrike, and Shrimp: The Form and Function of Zoological Classification in Psalm 8.” JBL 125 (2006): 749-765.